Smartphones have come a long way as imaging tools, yet some still argue they aren’t “real” cameras. Traditionalists insist that only dedicated cameras count. But the reality is, smartphones are fully capable imaging devices, and dismissing them is more about personal bias than technical limitations.
Coming to you from Jason Row Photography, this straightforward video breaks down why smartphones qualify as real cameras. One of the weakest arguments against them is that they don’t support the exposure triangle. While most smartphone cameras have fixed apertures, they still allow control over shutter speed and ISO, which means they do follow the triangle—just in a slightly different way. Another claim is that a lack of a viewfinder disqualifies smartphones. But many professional cinema cameras also rely on external monitors instead of built-in viewfinders, and no one questions their legitimacy. Mirrorless and DSLR cameras often include LCD screens for composing shots, just like smartphones.
This video also tackles the argument that smartphones lack “proper” manual control. Many camera apps provide extensive control over shutter speed, white balance, ISO, and even raw capture. Computational photography plays a role in modern smartphone imaging, but larger cameras also use software-driven processing, whether in JPEG compression or in-camera color science. The idea that only smartphones rely on processing is outdated.
Another key point is that camera choice should match the job. A commercial photographer shooting for a billboard won’t use a smartphone, just as a filmmaker won’t use a medium format camera for run-and-gun video. But when a smartphone is the right tool for the job, there’s no reason not to use it. The video references Danny Boyle’s upcoming film, 28 Years Later, which was shot using an iPhone. Boyle is an Oscar-winning director, not someone looking for a gimmick. If a smartphone can meet the standards of Hollywood, it can certainly be considered a real camera.
The video also touches on how photography technology evolves. Digital cameras once faced the same skepticism that smartphones do today. Many photographers swore film would never be replaced, yet digital dominates the industry. The same shift is happening with smartphone photography. Image quality continues to improve, noise reduction is getting better, and software advancements are making small sensors more capable. Dismissing smartphones now is shortsighted. Check out the video above for the full rundown from Row.
Preach! It's never been the exposure triangle or resolution or manual mode that makes a great picture... the most important factor has ALWAYS been the subject. Smartphones are waterproof, discreet, and basically un-stealable. They're the best camera for many, but not all, situations. Photographers should definitely understand how to get the most out of their smartphone and what situations they might even outperform a traditional camera (like shooting handheld in low light).
smartphones yes can do pretty well sure. But they are still limited by a few things. For one thing you only have the lens that comes with the phone. That 100x zoom that the S24 is heavily guided by AI, not by reality, like in those Moon photos that have swarmed the internet. You can't expect to take 'Wild-Life' shots with your smartphone and compare that with high-speed photography with prime or zoom lenses... Will they take a shot of your Dog or Cat and do decent? sure. The other factor to consider is most people today are only concerned with "instant gratification"... and posting on social media. So your smart phone is built for that. So those of us who believe that the 'phone' is not a real-camera, are not really producing square Instagram shots... we are thinking larger 'Monitor' shots... Or even here on Fstoppers your shots are a bit dumbed in quality. But personally I like higher quality bigger displayed features... the way they look on my HDTV. So no, I don't think a smart-phone often shoots well for larger mediums. Not sharp enough for a 50in flat screen.
Let's take another example. The other day, I was shooting over a fence. There's no way I would get good photos setting up my Samsung to shoot well over the fence. If I'm going to spend the time to do that, I might as well do it right with my "real camera". Sorry had to use that wording. haha.
Of course a smartphone is a camera. That's probably the reason major camera manufacturers like Canon and Nikon have lost virtually all sales of their low priced camera models. But you won't easily convince me that a smartphone (at this time) offers the features that an advanced photographer needs to create purposeful images.
If a smartphone has only a fixed aperture, as claimed in this video, that's a huge barrier to creative photography. As would be shutter speed for controlling sharpness in a number of different creative ways. Choosing a focus point and the desired depth-of-field is so important for nature, portraits, landscape, wildlife and about anything where the photographer needs to make decisions about the relationship between the subject and background. Can an iPhone make a long exposure of 30 seconds or so to smooth the flow of water in the ocean? Maybe all of that is changing faster than I can type, but those are the reasons to date that I would never consider an iPhone for creative photography. Aperture and shutter speed are important design tools.
I have two phones, my moto g stylus actually has the 'RAW' processing software. I was surprised with Samsung when I switched to 'xfinity mobile' they gave me this A35 5G which doesn't have raw-shooting mode. The two phones basically have about the same shooting capabilities, but the moto may be slightly better, because of the 'RAW' processing, but at the same time the A35 is newer, so the AI tools may be better. It's a toss-up. Anyway, I digress.. What I figured out that I can do, when doing some Astro with my A35, is I can setup to do 4 to 8 seconds exposure... So the answer to one of your questions above is 'Yes'. Manual Exposure/ISO settings are in your phone. You just have to find them. In my A35, I just need to go in the 'Pro-Settings'. Does the resulting pictures compare in anyway to my Canon camera... not really. I have a shot of my 'Cat' that came out really well. I was impressed with that. I rarely do shoot with my phone, so I don't have a lot of practice.
You asked: Could you have made that shot with a smartphone? Nice Bokeh (depth of field) is not usually a thing with a smart-phone. As far as I am aware, you usually have to do that in ai-post-processing.
Yes... "The Times They Are A-Changin'".... reminds me of a time in 1965 when Bob Dylan was roundly criticized for playing an electric rather than acoustic guitar at the Newport Folk Festival. Maybe I should accept that there's a whole new world being opened by technology. Maybe I shouldn't advise a youngster about photography after all. Maybe I should shut up and let AI and computational photography software be the guide for younger minds. Maybe we'll arrive at a point when we can simply "think" a picture into existence. No need for feeling constrained by those pesky buttons. But it doesn't seem like photography to me any more. Anyway... I'm drifting away from the subject. Thanks for your comments.
Maybe this AI-Argument is getting old now. But there are two kinds of 'AI' that I speak of here. 'Generative-AI' that dreams up "new" stuff... or AI that simply assists, aids, or speeds the editing of photos. Even modern "Real" cameras from Sony, Canon, and Nikon... have some AI tools in them for 'face' finding and stuff for autofocus. That was actually the 'AI' I was referring to above. But I realize there are those that wish to shutdown the use of all modern technology and go back to the 'film' days or something. Do you ever take a photo and remove a person, or hotspots? Or is that against your religion? What phones offer you in the 'quick-edit' is to 'Blur-Background'. And that will give you a quick AI-Bokeh. If this edit tool bothers you...I've used it. Yes, of course I prefer to actually have real-in-camera depth of field.
I don't have any religious dogma which precludes cloning distractions from an image. Many of my photos are heavily edited, although my goal is to make it so that it's not detected, or become a distraction in and of itself. I had a Kodak Instamatic as a kid, but my first real camera was an Olympus digital DSLR in 2003. So I'm hardly the type who longs for the days of film. I would probably suck as a film photographer, besides being something I couldn't afford anyway.
The part of AI that concerns me is not the ease by which a hot spot can be removed in a picture, but how tempting it is to let AI replace the human creative process. Regarding the smartphone, I see a lot of dependence on playing around with computational features, rather than setting up a photograph from the beginning with purpose and intention. If you do, it's probably because you also have a real camera and are just passing skills from one device to another. I can't imagine that the average person with a cellphone in their pocket thinks all that critically about constructing a photo.
The point made above about photography being all about the subject might unfortunately be true, at least from the perspective of the buyer of a photo for their wall. Or even someone making a picture who never thinks beyond the subject. In that case, iPhone or Z-8 wouldn't make any difference. From my perspective, the details matter greatly so there's zero chance I would exchange my camera for a smartphone. And importantly, too, the tools in your hand need to feel right. I labored over that decision in 2003 for whether I would buy a Canon, Nikon or Olympus... until I went to a store and held them. At which time the answer became clear. A smartphone feels like a device to make a phone call. It feels no more like a device in my hand to make a photograph than a toaster oven.
I hate smart phones for photography because i just hate smart phones. It's just my personal opinion. Objectively iPhones and some Samsung and Google pixel phones take some pretty amazing photos but everything else that comes along with smart phones makes me hate them for photography and general use.
To try to answer this age-old question, several times I have done side-by-side photography with the smartphone and the "real camera", my Samsung S2x Ultra or my Pixel whatever-a and the Sony A7rIV. And I am a pixel peeper because that is what tells all. Anyway, they each have their strengths and weaknesses. The mobile phones have the advantage of computational photography for things like HDR and other sophisticated image pipeline processing, with some features determined by the processor SoC. The real camera takes advantage of its physical characteristics to produce a result, so characteristics of the lens and the large sensor contribute more than computational brains on a smartphone do. Within the limitations of my own abilities, I can never get the real camera to produce the outstanding results of the mobile phone in extremely high contrast situations, such as the desert photography that I do. On the other hand, the precise output of the sensor of the ceal camera, in combination with the unique output of each unique lens produces exquisite results not analogous to anything that the smartphone can produce.
Ive taken a lot of great portraitures with a smartphone and an art lamp.