Do you have a dumb question that you're kind of embarrassed to ask in the main thread? Is there something you're just not sure about?
This is your opportunity to ask questions. No question too simple or too silly.
Culture war topics are accepted, and proposals for a better intro post are appreciated.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Image quality is largely a red herring. It's been plenty good enough for common uses for quite some time now.
The real difference is about the actual experience of taking photos and the range and types of photos you're able to take. A phone fundamentally has the same limitations as compact cameras do except with much worse user interface. It just isn't going to work for any small subjects that aren't right in front of you or anything distant.
I disagree. I'd call full page images in an A4 photo book and 14"-20" framed pictures a "standard use case" for high quality photos. If I take my DSLR in medium-challenging lighting conditions, a large number of shots won't have the image quality to be printed at those dimensions. Sharpness/blurriness, insufficient exposure, ISO-noise, ect. will be a problem in a percentage of shots - and often, in the most interesting shots, of course.
That may be standard for some segment of hardcore photography enthusiasts but the actual standard for almost all people who take photos is computer / tablet / phone screens, meaning 2 - 4 MP. For that extremely common scenario phone image quality is most of the time perfectly fine (as evidenced by how many people are happy with it) and any issues are more due to forced overcooking by the phone algorithms.
I know a fair few photographers as well as being a hobbyist myself but I don't know a single person who's printed a large size photo in years. It's all viewed on screen.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link