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 The idea that only smartphones rely on processing is outdated.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.
I don't hate Smartphone cameras. I promise not to insult anyone who uses one for photography. But isn't it okay to comment on their limitations, and the reason I shoot with a DSLR instead of an iPhone, without being labeled a snob? Granted, smartphones are getting smarter. Whatever I say as a limitation today may be proven wrong by tomorrow, or it already has and I don't know it. 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.
I would not advise anyone starting photography seriously to go buy an iPhone, or rely on one they already have. 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. Make no mistake... aperture and shutter speed are important design tools.
And, importantly for me... I've not seen a print at a reasonable size (something like 16 x 24), made by a smartphone, that has the same smoothness of gradation of tone that is produced by a high-quality DSLR or mirrorless camera. If that's of no importance to you, fine, shoot with whatever camera works for you. However, it's the subtle gradation of tones and colors that elevate photography as an art form. If that's not something that you can "feel" when looking at a print, no amount of arguing will convince anyone otherwise. To many people, a picture is nothing more than capturing a subject. I believe photography is a lot more than that.
There are several decisions that went into this photo. Could I have made them with a smartphone?
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.