Smartphone cameras have made remarkable strides, becoming a tool you always have on hand. They’re convenient, portable, and capable of taking impressive shots. However, are they truly enough to replace traditional cameras for at least some serious photography?
Coming to you from Craig Roberts, this straightforward video explores the advantages and limitations of using a smartphone as your primary camera. While he praises its 4K video capability and convenience, Roberts emphasizes that his smartphone is mostly for internet browsing and messaging, rather than a full-fledged replacement for his dedicated cameras.
In the video, Roberts points out that smartphones are great for quick, on-the-go photography, capturing moments when you may not have your regular camera on hand. Yet, he notes that the experience of using a smartphone lacks the satisfaction and precision that come with using traditional cameras. According to Roberts, the tactile elements of photography—holding a well-designed camera, using a dedicated shutter button, or adjusting exposure—create a more immersive and enjoyable experience that a smartphone simply can’t replicate.
Roberts also highlights key limitations of smartphone cameras, particularly in genres like wildlife or sports photography. While phone manufacturers are improving zoom capabilities, they still can’t match the quality or range of a professional telephoto lens. For photographers who need more than basic functionality, a smartphone doesn’t yet compete with mirrorless or DSLR cameras in terms of versatility and reliability.
Despite these drawbacks, smartphones do excel in one major area: simplicity. Roberts acknowledges that for many, especially those who don’t want to bother with complex settings like aperture or ISO, a smartphone provides an easy way to take great pictures without any hassle. Composition becomes the most important factor, making smartphones perfect for those who just want to capture a moment without fussing with technical details. Check out the video above for the full rundown from Roberts.
To answer the question yes it could but I would choose not to. I think the question really needs to be. What type of photographer do you want to be? And do you enjoy the experience of working with a camera. For me Photography is a slow down process not an instant gratification and that might sound like that I'm criticising phone photographers far from it. In fact I teach Photography in my local community and many people rock up with smart phones and I'm more than happy to accommodate but after some basic teaching of composition and a few other things that they need to adjust they often say to me I should just get a camera. It would be easier. There is a bit of a theory that smart phones are easier. I would argue against this. I think they have their place for many people and I definitely encourage people to get a phone if that is all they want to do but in terms of replacing my GFX camera I don't think so or my FujiFilm XT5 again I don't think so. And if you go to print a very large mobile phone pic it won't look as good and we know that and the dynamic range is not as good either but they are very good for many aspects of Photography. What I noticed about smartphone uses is they often take a photo and they instantly want to share it and the moment and the joy they have just captured actually has been lost.
I use a few different focal length lenses and they all have unique and different characteristics. No smartphone can replace those. The fact I don't like the ergonomics of smartphones or having to use a screen without any tactile buttons are secondary issues next to the lens issue.
If I'm going to shoot in ideal bright light, slow moving situations, or do anything where noise and detail aren't concerns, then: Yes.
You could do abstract monochrome architectural look up photography, print big, and sell it to coffee shops without ever touching a camera. I mean you could do that with a pinhole cardboard box too, but 🤷♂️
If people want to buy that stuff yeah sure but you will find that once she start to print any decent size. Any imperfections in the image will come up. I've seen plenty of people who try and print smart phone images and they don't particularly look great. they're okay for A3 and A4 size but any bigger than that and they start to pixelate very quickly remember they are not 48 megapixels they are 12 megapixels that's just hype
With the latest generation of iPhones, Google pixels, and Samsung ultra phones. You absolutely can replace your point-and-shoot or entry-level camera with a phone. But solely for posting and sharing on social media and across other mobile devices.
I've been impressed with the ISO management, f-stop speeds, and natural bouquet you get with mobile telephone lenses lately. But in no way will this ever fully replace a professional camera when it comes to printing or displaying in large format.
You also lose the ability of fine-tuning and artistically setting up a shot. Sure, there are pro modes that let you tweak settings on a phone, but in no way are those comparable to even a entry-level professional camera. That's honestly more for fun.
With that said, I have been traveling lately with a Fuji film s20 and a small 28mm lens, and my Google Pixel 9 pro XL. I take more photos with my Google pixel, but the few photos I take on my Fuji film or always the ones to get displayed on my digital photo frames and TV screensavers.
for me. It's about disconnecting from social media disconnecting from people and just immersing myself in a scene with my camera. You just can't do that with a smart phone. You just don't get the same level of emotion. I mean who puts their camera into Aeroplane Mode anyway to turn off all your notifications I see people sitting on aeroplanes. You don't even put their phone into Aeroplane Mode..... But I agree that for some people pointing shoot is great and just take some photos as they're talking about phones are great for that and they do take good quality.... But I've had a good pixel peep at my phone photos versus my Fuji cameras and it's chalk and cheese
For me the premise of this is whether a phone could replace a fully featured camera full time - not when it's more convenient or you aren't carrying a camera. Of course having any camera is better than no camera when you need one. Of course there are times when a smartphone makes more sense or can capture as good a photo as you are likely to need. I use my smartphone to grab photos of ip addresses, mac addresses and other things when setting up network equipment. It does this job better because it is easy to use, lightweight and has technology that can compensate for fiddling around behind the back of cables and hardware.
But going back to the question "can it replace a camera?".. no, and they never will. Every advance in smartphone camera technology is matched by advances in camera technology. In 20 years we might see apsc sensors in smartphones. In 20 years we might also see medium format cameras and lenses that amateurs can afford. Technology marches on in both worlds. And that's a good thing.
It's funny people say that cameras are big and inconvenient to carry but I don't find that if you are organised and have a small sling bag that you can throw one even GFX body which I own with a kit lens in it fits into that little carry bag and I can carry a GFX camera around with me on my hip to take photos. It's just about being organised it's got nothing to do with portability at all.