EOS R6 Vs iPhone 13 Pro for Photography (PICS)

Started 7 months ago | Discussions thread
Thomas A Anderson Senior Member • Posts: 1,217
Re: Just because you can...

Eddie Rizk wrote:

Thomas A Anderson wrote:

Eddie Rizk wrote:

Thomas A Anderson wrote:

higheronymous wrote:

I don't understand people who are so vehemently pro iPhone. Perhaps they enjoy living in a fantasy world where the details are all filled in by a computer program. Now, don't get me wrong, the iPhone is a fine once in awhile camera but I would actually appreciate it more if it had less of the digital BS in it. I guess that is something we'll never get because of the opinions of all the "experts" on this god awful planet. Lets just pray to the lord Jesus that Canon does not head down this route too far and we continue to get real photographic equipment and not pseudo reality BS.

Humans operate on narratives that they tell themselves about the world and their place in it. We have an ongoing story in our head, and we are the star. Making compromises or acknowledging the truth about our standards can be very unpleasant because then it's almost like we're not living our best life or just making the best, most admirable decisions.

So when a device like a smartphone comes along that is with us always and is so incredibly useful and is also incredibly expensive, it's easy to tell ourselves a story about that device that is....not a lie necessarily, but an exaggeration. So rather than admitting to ourselves that we really don't care about flexibility, detail, carrying around a bulky item, learning about a complex process like photography, and all of the other inconveniences that a hobby like photography entails, we instead tell ourselves that this tool is perfectly in line with our desires.

Which so may are. That's why we buy them.

You purchase a phone specifically so you'll have a camera with you at all times? I suspect that, like myself, you find that to be a very nice added benefit of the smartphone, but its primary selling points are having a telephone with you where you go and also having access to the internet or data/apps or entertainment via its cellular data network access. I enjoy having a decent camera on my phone, but if it didn't have a camera I'd still own it. Others' mileage may vary.

Correct. The smart phone is the Swiss Army Knife of electronic tools. It does everything but is not the best at anything.

Different tools are best for different situations

Yes, and tools that are simply attached to something you would have purchased anyway have something going for them that a typical tool doesn't have: forced convenience. Convenient because it's with you everyone you go, and forced because it comes attached to your phone, that you would have purchased anyway, whether you need it or not, whether you like it or not.

True, but the better camera is half of the reason to upgrade.

So while some people truly are satisfied with phone photograph

, as I am now for those times that I don't carry a dedicated camera,

And if I had a good camera attached to my shoe I'd probably find uses for it when I didn't think to grab my G7XII or R before I left the house, but only because it is attached to a necessity and because all shoes in this example always have cameras installed whether I want to pay for them or not. Very, very often convenience can have a far outsized influence on what people use and when they use it.

No doubt.

y and freely admit they aren't terribly concerned with the technicalities of photography,

, particularly for small screen viewing, such as phones and smaller tablets,

And there's the real issue -- most photographs are consumed as a documentary method and not much else. The simple fact that an image exists is the point and not as a piece of art. Before Facebook and smartphones did people take very many pictures of their dinner? Selfies? Much of the new demand for photography is an entirely genre, a whole new reason, for taking pictures which means they only exist because of opportunity (a camera with you always) and a manufactured demand (sharing relatively trivial daily experiences on social media....which is still a totally valid form of communication).

others choose to lower their standards and come up with justifications for it.

Or take the same pictures with a dedicated camera as before AND add new photos that they simply missed before.

Missed or just weren't important enough to bother with and never would have taken?

They wouldn't have been taken, because I wouldn't have had a camera with me. Most are frivolous, but some are important memories. How often do you wish you had your camera with you but don't?

Still, if convenience motivates people to take more pictures then I'm all for it.

Pure documentation photos are well covered by the phone, even my 12 PM. The ultra wide angle and night mode allow me to document any room or exterior view of any real estate I tour. (That does actually replace some use of the real camera.)

Promotional shots for MLS or professional brochures? No. Not at all. Clients want quality and sometimes print photos of their better properties. Customers (as in potential buyers) will look at them on bigger screens and often zoom in to examine details.

Snap shots of people in interesting situations are now, for me, acceptable. I typically share such shots online or by text.

Portraits or photos of significant events? No. Not at all. Those might get printed or viewed on computer and evaluated as real photos.

This is where the line blurs. I've had plenty of people ask me for advice on camera buying. I tell them and they balk at the suggestion they might have to spend $800 for a good camera and lens. Years later when their baby is dancing in a recital or at some function where it's not blazing bright sunlight they ask "why is this all blurry or so noise or not in focus" to which I respond "because you spent $300 on a camera that is physically incapable of doing what you're asking of it." And occasionally "remember when I said you needed to spend a little more and you didn't want to? I told you that easy shots are one thing, but if you ever need to get a shot like X Y Z, then you'll wish you'd spent the money on a good camera."

I have the same experience. They all ask me to come take pictures for them. That's good. It gets me invited to many interesting events.

The phone can capture the beauty of a scene, a sunset, or a creative composition. The caller can then show others, who will be impressed as long as they are not blowing it up big.

I think "show others, who will be impressed" indicates the social media leaning of the tool. That's fine, but it's not a situation where photography or art is the point.

Where photography or art is the point, like you, I use a real camera.

Only phone photos taken in the bright light with Pro RAW and computer processing will look good in larger prints or screens. I'm not going to do all of that with a phone picture.

As you shouldn't. The trick is convincing others what phones can and can't do, what they are and are not good at. That's the point where it's very difficult to overcome the narrative of justification so many people refuse to acknowledge.

I think you and I are saying much the same thing. I am just a little more positive about it.

Absolutely agree. And I do admit, I have a fairly strong aversion to exaggeration and repetition. Those just happen to be two things that smartphone photography commenters tend to do, exaggerate and repeat.

I remember the day I first saw an iPhone in person for the first time. It was very cool to see a handheld device that displayed color images and also captured them. I was, quite frankly, jealous that my cousin had one and I didn't. A couple of years later my work started taking me away from home quite often, and thus I found the perfect excuse to purchase an iPhone 3GS. Around the same time the G1X came out and several years later the G7XII came out.

It was those two cameras that transformed the convenience I experienced when shooting photography while also having a level of quality that I wanted access to 100% of the time. Events that offered obvious opportunity for shooting warranted packing up the R, going out and about and feeling like I might just decide to find some pictures to shoot or stumble upon them were easy now with the G1X and later the G7XII, and going for a walk around the block I have my phone.

So long story short, yes there are times I really wish I had my R with me but only have my phone. They are exceedingly rare.....like literally a full length double rainbow randomly pops up while my wife and I are on our daily walk. And if I want to take a picture of my pizza or my cocktail or friends and family, then it certainly is great to always have the phone camera.

But what I find bothersome is people who overstate how useful phone cameras are in what appears to be an obvious effort to make themselves feel better about not carrying around a standalone camera. It also bothers me that people who have only ever shot with phones and have zero idea of what a proper camera can do wildly exaggerate what their phone can do....and especially what computational photography can do.

So while I'll never fault someone for choosing the tool that is best for them, I will point out when it appears they aren't accurately evaluating the reality of their situation. I have no desire to rain on any parades, but just like when I offer advice to people shopping for a camera, I always want to offer levelheaded and realistic evaluations of tools. Excitement, of course, is the name of the game when it comes to technology publications whether warranted or manufactured.

 Thomas A Anderson's gear list:Thomas A Anderson's gear list
Canon EOS R
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow