Camera vs iPhone 4S for shows, parades, and rides?

[rufio]

I've been twice and used different iPhones.

Here are pics with 3gs: http://imgur.com/a/3epbh

Here are pics with 4: http://imgur.com/a/VCGEP

This year, I'm trying to decide whether to get a camera. I wouldn't get an expensive one.

I have an iPhone 4s this year. My question is, what would be the best option? Get one of these two cameras or stay with the 4s? I'm particularly concerned about getting good pictures in the shows which tend to be low light. Thanks!

 

[NowInc]

Low light photography is something that a phone, or an inexpensive point and shoot, isn't meant for. To get good "low light" shots, takes better (and thus more expensive) equipment.

I know this will sound vague and unhelpful (it really isn't meant to be), but you need to evaluate cost versus everything you want the camera to do. You can EASILY get passable (and far better than a cell phone in quality) pictures from a point and shoot, but don't expect miracles either. Now if you plan on doing MORE with the camera than just take "dark shots" of shows , etc...spending the money on the camera would be even more justified, but if all you want is just an upgrade to take that one type of shot, it may not warrant spending the money.

 

[CP_alum08]

Like mentioned above, even an inexpensive (<$100) P&S will do substantially better than your phone. P&S's have come a long way in the past few years, especially now when most people (like yourself) are comparing photos from a phone.

My opinion would be to get a decent P&S, which will probably be smaller than your iphone anyway, and leave the phone behind in the room. It's liberating to walk around the parks totally cut off from the outside world!

 

[fractal]

Just got the 4S and finally caving to the Apple craze. I kept hearing how great the camera is. I'm disappointed. It's a good camera for a phone, I guess, but if you want to take any real pictures - say that you may actually put in a frame - go with a p&s.

On the other hand - I am very happy with my Sony NEX-3 mirrorless camera.

 

[wdwmagic]

Just got the 4S and finally caving to the Apple craze. I kept hearing how great the camera is. I'm disappointed. It's a good camera for a phone, I guess, but if you want to take any real pictures - say that you may actually put in a frame - go with a p&s.

On the other hand - I am very happy with my Sony NEX-3 mirrorless camera.

In good light, and for a relatively small print size, I find that the iPhone 4 or 4S can deliver photos very close to that of a point and shoot, in some cases better. When the light goes anything out of good, things go south.

 

[fractal]

In good light, and for a relatively small print size, I find that the iPhone 4 or 4S can deliver photos very close to that of a point and shoot, in some cases better. When the light goes anything out of good, things go south.

I won't argue with that. I do like the fact that I have it where ever I go - but I don't like that's there is no zoom and no ability to adjust.

As far as taking pics at WDW - I can't see myself leaving my other camera behind because of the 4s.

 

[ddbowdoin]

1.) you can't edit an image coming from a camera phone sized sensor. So that renders it useless outside of "perfect" shooting conditions.
2.) have fun printing those
3.) they are basically facebook tools... throw it in instagram and have fun, but no real photography is accomplished with a phone.
4.) megapixels are a selling point, more pixels on the same size sensor limit the sensitivity to light of each pixel

 

[Mrs.Skellington]

I won't argue with that. I do like the fact that I have it where ever I go - but I don't like that's there is no zoom and no ability to adjust.

As far as taking pics at WDW - I can't see myself leaving my other camera behind because of the 4s.

You can zoom. It may not be the same as a slr but if you put your fingers on the phone and open them, a little bow comes up and that is the zoom.

Just my two cents.

Get a real camera to take real pictures. while I have an Iphone, I will not use it for real pictures. Vacation pictures are taken by my in house photographer, my 18 year old daughter with her DSLR. She is in college for photography. LOL

 

[fractal]

You can zoom. It may not be the same as a slr but if you put your fingers on the phone and open them, a little bow comes up and that is the zoom.

Just my two cents.

Get a real camera to take real pictures. while I have an Iphone, I will not use it for real pictures. Vacation pictures are taken by my in house photographer, my 18 year old daughter with her DSLR. She is in college for photography. LOL

Thanks, didn't know that ( or more like, my kids haven't taught me that yet ).

Can't beat having a future pro photographer around. I'm not really a vain person, but I do wish somebody would take more pictures of me. Sometimes when you take all the pictures - there's not much evidence that you were on the trip.

 

[gloriashern]

Thanks for sharing , nice clarity of the camera

 

[donnajbr]

I understand this can seem vague and unhelpful (it truly is not intended to be), but you have to evaluate cost versus all you want your camera to complete. It is simple to get passable (and much better than a mobile phone in quality) pictures from the compact digital, try not to expect miracles either. If you intend on doing MORE using the camera than simply take "dark shots" of shows , etc...investing the cash around the camera could be much more justified, but when all that's necessary is simply upgrading to consider that certain kind of shot, it might not warrant investing the cash.

 

[RonAnnArbor]

For the record, someone set you wrong...

You Can Not zoom with the iPhone... You can do Digital Zoom, which means you take the Same unzoomed photo and can make it larger, thereby also more grainy and in reality completely unusable. That is not true zoom, like with your compact camera when the lens actually can zoom in and still give you a clear photo.

I would never travel to WDW without a real compact camera in my pants pocket. The camera in the iPhone will not do. I rarely use it in life, let alone WDW.

 

[ddbowdoin]

1.) to each his own, certainly can criticize people all day for their approach to what they create but it doesn't affect your own process and outcome

2.) "iphonography" has its uses, primarily it can help with composition and framing if I am somewhere with friends or family and I don't have my rig with me. It acts as a visual reminder sometimes... but that is about it for me.

3.) I dont care if the iphone has optical or digital zoom, its a facebook camera. printing an iphone image is horrendous, but I guess most people just keep everything digital and lose stuff when their pc breaks because they dont backup info.

 

[fractal]

For the record, someone set you wrong...

You Can Not zoom with the iPhone... You can do Digital Zoom, which means you take the Same unzoomed photo and can make it larger, thereby also more grainy and in reality completely unusable. That is not true zoom, like with your compact camera when the lens actually can zoom in and still give you a clear photo.

I would never travel to WDW without a real compact camera in my pants pocket. The camera in the iPhone will not do. I rarely use it in life, let alone WDW.

thanks! I agree - the zoom pretty much sucks.

 

[Timekeeper]

I dont care if the iphone has optical or digital zoom, its a facebook camera. printing an iphone image is horrendous, but I guess most people just keep everything digital and lose stuff when their pc breaks because they dont backup info.

False. Anyone dissatisfied with the images originating from an iPhone best critique the photographer, not the device. See example images below, all of which were shot with the iPhone, in the hands of someone who knows how to use it.

you can't edit an image coming from a camera phone sized sensor. So that renders it useless outside of "perfect" shooting conditions.

False. A camera, any camera, is just a tool that may be placed in the hands of a capable artist. Years ago, we were editing images with resolutions smaller than the image files that an iPhone creates. It was possible then, and it's possible now. Again, see images below.

(keeping in mind these images have been greatly compressed for web display, just imagine how nice they would look at full resolution)

Any of these would provide for a lovely print.

 

[ddbowdoin]

False. Anyone dissatisfied with the images originating from an iPhone best critique the photographer, not the device. See example images below, all of which were shot with the iPhone, in the hands of someone who knows how to use it.



False. A camera, any camera, is just a tool that may be placed in the hands of a capable artist. Years ago, we were editing images with resolutions smaller than the image files that an iPhone creates. It was possible then, and it's possible now. Again, see images below.

(keeping in mind these images have been greatly compressed for web display, just imagine how nice they would look at full resolution)

Any of these would provide for a lovely print.

100% going to call your BS on this...

Again, looks great on web... have fun printing any image over 4X6.

1.) the sensor size of the iphone is almost smaller than the eraser of a pencil. So, I don't care how many megapixels they claim to have, any photographer worth their salt knows that the size of the pixel dictates their sensitivity to light, color, contract, dynamic range ETC ETC ETC ETC

So if you cram 8 million pixels on that sensor it means each pixel is smaller and smaller than say 7MP on a full 35mm frame sensor.

2.) years ago we shot and edited this beautiful creation called 35mm film, which when scanned equates to an effective 33mp image. 88MP for 120 film.

3.) thanks for noting early digital cameras, which were not used by any meaningful photographer.

4.) I understand your philosophical approach to the matter and on some levels I agree with you and the old "its the Indian not the arrow" argument but at some point it becomes negligible.

No offense, but posting instagram (or instagram style photos) is not an impressive or measurable argument

 

[Timekeeper]

100% going to call your BS on this...

Again, looks great on web... have fun printing any image over 4X6.

1.) the sensor size of the iphone is almost smaller than the eraser of a pencil. So, I don't care how many megapixels they claim to have, any photographer worth their salt knows that the size of the pixel dictates their sensitivity to light, color, contract, dynamic range ETC ETC ETC ETC

So if you cram 8 million pixels on that sensor it means each pixel is smaller and smaller than say 7MP on a full 35mm frame sensor.

2.) years ago we shot and edited this beautiful creation called 35mm film, which when scanned equates to an effective 33mp image. 88MP for 120 film.

3.) thanks for noting early digital cameras, which were not used by any meaningful photographer.

4.) I understand your philosophical approach to the matter and on some levels I agree with you and the old "its the Indian not the arrow" argument but at some point it becomes negligible.

No offense, but posting instagram (or instagram style photos) is not an impressive or measurable argument

My information is posted for the benefit of others that may be inexperienced in photography and reading these threads in search of guidance, and not for extremely biased die-hards whose opinions will never be changed.

Some skilled and experienced painters may profess their allegiance to specific types of brushes, canvases, or inks. At at the end of the day, yes, there is objective criteria that will suggest that some brushes deliver paint more evenly, that some canvases last longer, or that some paints mix better. But to suggest that anything different is "useless" or "not real" is misleading and outright disrespectful to both the art and the artist who participate in it.

To suggest that the use of a specific camera device is "not real photography" means that you've come up with your own definition of "photography" that's different from the universally accepted, published, definition. And that's just, well, not cool.

Individuals who are new to this medium of artistic expression deserve a more honest, sincere, and accurate approach to information. No one is suggesting any differing information as to the objective criteria (sensor size, pixel size, lens quality, etc.)

As an aside (and it may not necessarily be the case here), over the years I have found that many "professionals" who cling so tightly to the quality of their gear as indicative of the quality of their work are actually the the people who lack the creativity of other "non-professionals" who manage to capture more intriguing images with much cheaper equipment.

And yes, an iPhone image can be blown up to the size of a billboard. Will it be a good resolution? Nope. But it's a photo that can be printed at whatever size the photographer desires. And to suggest that the intended result is not real photography or that the artist is not a real photographer - simply because it lacks the features generally associated with image quality - tells us more about the critic than about the work being critiqued.

 

[ddbowdoin]

My information is posted for the benefit of others that may be inexperienced in photography and reading these threads in search of guidance, and not for extremely biased die-hards whose opinions will never be changed.

Some skilled and experienced painters may profess their allegiance to specific types of brushes, canvases, or inks. At at the end of the day, yes, there is objective criteria that will suggest that some brushes deliver paint more evenly, that some canvases last longer, or that some paints mix better. But to suggest that anything different is "useless" or "not real" is misleading and outright disrespectful to both the art and the artist who participate in it.

To suggest that the use of a specific camera device is "not real photography" means that you've come up with your own definition of "photography" that's different from the universally accepted, published, definition. And that's just, well, not cool.

Individuals who are new to this medium of artistic expression deserve a more honest, sincere, and accurate approach to information. No one is suggesting any differing information as to the objective criteria (sensor size, pixel size, lens quality, etc.)

As an aside (and it may not necessarily be the case here), over the years I have found that many "professionals" who cling so tightly to the quality of their gear as indicative of the quality of their work are actually the the people who lack the creativity of other "non-professionals" who manage to capture more intriguing images with much cheaper equipment.

And yes, an iPhone image can be blown up to the size of a billboard. Will it be a good resolution? Nope. But it's a photo that can be printed at whatever size the photographer desires. And to suggest that the intended result is not real photography or that the artist is not a real photographer - simply because it lacks the features generally associated with image quality - tells us more about the critic than about the work being critiqued.

You're wrong....

1.) yes, it is completely understandable to address those with limited education and experience, but at the end of the day you can't provide people with false advise... and that is what you are doing. If all you have is an iphone, great... work with what you have but understand the limitations the tool has and can provide.

2.) I didn't come up with this definition... there are standards by which professionals hold themselves and their craft too. To think that Pollock and DeKooning felt that an elder woman painting a paint-by-number was in essence the same as their work is an extremely optimistic perspective... there is a reason art criticism exists.

3.) Professional photographers, like race car drivers and any other professional, use the best tools available to create their work. That doesn't mean you need a D4 but to say that the iphone is on par with professional tools is a joke. Your outlook on photography is low brow and is detrimental to the art for future generations. We'll never see another Ansel Adams because we have people running around with the attitude that the iphone is "just as good" as other forms of photographic tools.

4.) just because something can be done by anyone, does not make their intention valuable. so yes, print an iphone file to any size you'd like and society will accept this as personal expression but it is not generally accepted to view instragram photos with poor exposure and missed focus as fine art photography.

I sound like a snob, but I am tired of seeing my craft destroyed with cell phone cameras and crap filters

 

[ddbowdoin]

and just to clarify... I am not saying MY work is better than anyone here or in the photography world

I just really take to people who have this attitude that inferior tools are adequate using personal expression as a cop out. Again, it's detrimental to the field.

 

[Figment1986]

In good light, and for a relatively small print size, I find that the iPhone 4 or 4S can deliver photos very close to that of a point and shoot, in some cases better. When the light goes anything out of good, things go south.

agreed... I've seen when I take photos with my Samsung galaxy S 4G during day, they could be comparable to my sister's Point and shoot, but at night it's lousy unless I turn on an app and play with stuff... even then it looks bad compared to even the Point and shoot (I think i need a new phone :lol Still can't touch my digital rebel, but that's just an entry DSLR :shrug:

Also, it's not always the camera but the photographer... if you can take a cell phone camera and control what it's doing... then you can do a lot better, but in low light situations it's still not as good unless it's got a tripod of it's own.