Is the iPhone 'Years' Ahead of Android In Photography? (9to5mac.com)

Former Google senior vice president of Social, Vic Gundotra, said that Android phones are years behind the iPhone when it comes to photography. In a Facebook post, Gundotra said: "The end of the DSLR for most people has already arrived. I left my professional camera at home and took these shots at dinner with my iPhone 7 using computational photography (portrait mode as Apple calls it). Hard not to call these results (in a restaurant, taken on a mobile phone with no flash) stunning. Great job Apple." 9to5Mac reports: In response to a comment suggesting that the Samsung S8 camera was even better, Business Insider spotted that Gundotra disagreed. He said that not only was Apple way ahead of Samsung, but Android was to blame. From Gundotra's Facebook post: "I would never use an Android phone for photos! Here is the problem: It's Android. Android is an open source (mostly) operating system that has to be neutral to all parties. This sounds good until you get into the details. Ever wonder why a Samsung phone has a confused and bewildering array of photo options? Should I use the Samsung Camera? Or the Android Camera? Samsung gallery or Google Photos? It's because when Samsung innovates with the underlying hardware (like a better camera) they have to convince Google to allow that innovation to be surfaced to other applications via the appropriate API. That can take YEARS. Also the greatest innovation isn't even happening at the hardware level -- it's happening at the computational photography level. (Google was crushing this 5 years ago -- they had had 'auto awesome' that used AI techniques to automatically remove wrinkles, whiten teeth, add vignetting, etc... but recently Google has fallen back). Apple doesn't have all these constraints. They innovate in the underlying hardware, and just simply update the software with their latest innovations (like portrait mode) and ship it. Bottom line: If you truly care about great photography, you own an iPhone. If you don't mind being a few years behind, buy an Android."

Comments

Flame Bait

[johnsie]

Ah, the good old Apple vs Android argument. Always good for click/flame bait on tech "news" sites.

Re:Flame Bait

[K. S. Kyosuke]

It's ridiculous to begin with. Comparing a specific phone to a platform? Has there ever been a requirement for Android hardware vendors to only manufacture phones with good cameras?

Re:Flame Bait

[Applehu Akbar]

It's not even about good cameras. It's about a software feature to emulate a defect in large aperture lenses even though the phone has a tiny lens that isn't susceptable to that defect. Nevermind that Google was emulating this same defect with a single lens since 2014 (the feature is only available on iPhones with dual lens cameras).

The iPhone 7 camera is not synthesizing bokeh in software. Portrait mode combines the sharp image of a face taken with the long lens with the blurred background taken by the short lens.

Not really why you'd use a DSLR

[mwvdlee]

If you use a DSLR to make family photos in restaurants, then yes, your phone has replaced your DSLR.

Re:Not really why you'd use a DSLR

[arglebargle_xiv]

The end of the DSLR for most people has already arrived. I left my professional camera at home and took these shots at dinner with my iPhone 7

Translation: Hipsters who used to use a $1,000 DSLR as a $70 point-and-shoot are now using a $1,000 iPhone as a $70 point-and-shoot. The DSLR isn't going away any time soon for anyone who cares about proper photography.

Re:Not really why you'd use a DSLR

[msauve]

Nothing replaces big glass and its ability to collect light. And, Gundrota's "computational photography" doesn't need a phone - it's just post-processing.

Sounds like the guy responsible for the huge success of Google+ isn't happy about the small size of his golden parachute.

Re:Not really why you'd use a DSLR

[BlazeMiskulin]

No.

That's people taking snapshots. That's not serious (pro or hobby) photography.

I've taken some great shots with my phone. I'm not saying it can't be done. But a phone that takes a good snapshot in very good conditions (direction of light, intensity of light, level of light, contrast, etc.) will never replace a DSLR which can take advantage of *actual* optics which are designed to deal with various shooting scenarios.

If you're using your "professional DSLR" to take snapshots at a family dinner, then yes: your phone can do the job. But that's like saying "My Toyota works just as well for getting my kids to school in morning traffic as my Lamborghini does."

Re:Not really why you'd use a DSLR

[unimacs]

Whilst it's 100% true that having a better camera wont make you a better photographer, the reverse isn't true. No amount of talent in the world can get good shots out of bad cameras. As the old saying goes, a poor craftsman blames his tools but the corollary is a good craftsman buys better tools. Things have gone back to the way they were, DSLR's are the domain of professionals, P&S are the domain of amateurs, phones are good for non photographers or when you dont have a camera handy.

Photography is a hobby of mine. I have a DSLR, two SLRs with some great lenses, a Rangefinder, and a Yashica medium format camera. What I consider to be my best photograph ever was taken with a VGA resolution digital camera from 90's.

I frequent a photography forum that has a portion of it dedicated to photos taken with phones. Photographers of all sorts post photos there and it contains some fantastic pictures. A DSLR has some specific advantages that very often aren't required.

Further, too many people have this mistaken notion that SLRs and now DLSRs represent the ultimate in professional quality cameras. They do not. They are themselves a compromise for the sake of affordability and convenience just as phone cameras are. Just like phone cameras, as technology has improved you give up a lot less by choosing a DSLR over a medium or large format camera than you used to.

If you truly care about great photography

[stealth_finger]

Buy a camera. If your iphone camera is so great let's see it zoom without losing resolution, or focus some place else. Thought so. Those photos look just like photos from anything. You can tweek them with software all you like but it's essentially a filter. Your iPhone camera is just as limited as any other smart phone camera and showing off glowy pics of your kids isn't going to change that.

But...

[xlsior]

... There is no reason why 'Samsung camera' on a Samsung phone couldn't be equal or better than the iPhone camera - just because it may take them time to convince Google to add it to an official api doesn't preclude Samsung from implementing it themselves. Sounds more like iPhone fanboy rambling than a genuine issue.

I'm not convinced by his reasoning

[jareth-0205]

I mean he should know better than me but... Samsung are in control of the hardware and software, there no reason why they can't write drivers all the way down to the camera itself and then expose that to their app only. Infact that's how things like the fingerprint sensor worked pre-official Android support - they had Samsung-specific API. That API happened to be open for all to use but it doesn't have to be, if they were to write their own private API that would be fine. I believe to be certified they would have to expose the camera to Android standard interface too for other apps to use, but there is nothing stopping them doing extra shiny things with their own software that Android doesn't natively support.

Apples and Oranges

[sciengin]

Iphone is Hardware, Android is Software. How could a serious comparison be made?
Yes, I am aware that the writer probably meant "Iphone is years ahead of smartphones running android" but that just shows the faults in his argument.

Imagine I make a movie-grade camera which runs android (not too far off, considering the wealth of functions those cameras tend to have): Boom, now "Android" is at least 30 years ahead of any Iphone.

So the article is about

[Anonymous Coward]

How apple users are bewildered by to many options when taking photos.

Re:It's not a minor accomplishment...

[TuringTest]

You say you are a photographer though, would you consider replacing your camera with an iphone for any kind of significant work? Thought not.

So what? The point in GP's post is that this technique has been made point-and-click, and therefore now available to people without the knowledge or equipment to do it the professional way.

Re:It's not a minor accomplishment...

[Lt.Hawkins]

OP literally dedicated a paragraph to point out that a DSLR is better overall, so I don't get your snark. He'd clearly not do what you propose.

But the best camera is the one you have with you, and 99% of the time, for 99% of people, that's the camera on the phone. Most photographers had long ago figured "decent depth of field needs a real lens and a wide aperture. It's physics and optics." which is 100% still true, but Apple managed to approximate the effect on a phone in a good enough way that, while the technical quality (pixel count, optical sharpness, optical clarity, etc) isn't too different, the aesthetics of many pictures just got a notable kick.

Cool is cool, regardless of platform. I'm still sticking with my Nexus, but i'll give Apple a tip of the hat when appropriate.

Re:It's not a minor accomplishment...

[TuringTest]

So what? The suggestion in the article is that the era of dslr is on its way out to be replaced by (i)phones, this guy says the camera software is getting really good. I say that's great for snapping your kids or your dinner but it's not a replacement (not that op is suggesting it is). People aren't doing it the professional way though are they? They're just getting professionalish results in certain settings. Which again is great but limited.

Article says "the end of the DSLR for most people" (emphasis mine), and I'd say they're exactly right.

If this technique arrives to lower-end phones, the people who buys a DSLR for family photos and lacks the skills to use it properly will now be better served by a camera phone that provides results equivalent to a DSLR on automatic.

Re: Fuck off with the iPhone masturbation

[chispito]

What you are describing is an interchangeable lens camera (ILC). A DSLR must have a mirror by definition. Vibration is not the primary motivation for removing the mirror, it is overall system size and weight reduction, as this allows a much smaller lens and body. (moving the back of the lens closer to the focal plane allows more compact lens designs, especially on the side end). Also, to clear up a misconception, mechanical shutters are alive and well, though many cameras offer digital shutters as an optional shooting mode. And there are drawbacks to mirrorless cameras, as they focus more slowly and some people do not like looking into an eyepiece monitor instead of looking through the lens optically.

Re:Photographer Here

[Bob the Super Hamste]

I would take the DSLR that my 9 year old son got for his birthday (an 11 year old Cannon EOS 30D with the cheap kit lens) over any cell phone camera. That 8 megapixel APS-C sensor even with that cheap 17-80mm kit lens (approximately 28-135mm 35mm equivalent) produces better images than any cell phone camera I have seen.

The camera he got was one of my wife's cousins who is into digital photography and they had long since upgraded so that camera was just collecting dust on the shelf. My 9 year old has been really into photography and wanted a better camera than my wife's point and shoot that he had been using some times and I didn't want him to learn on my film SLR as now that would be an expensive exercise in failure. When he starts getting really good with what he has (when the equipment is the limiting factor) I will likely get him a better lens and maybe a telephoto converter or extension tube set for it next.

Re:It's not a minor accomplishment...

[DerekLyons]

(disclaimer: iPhone (4) owner and photographer)
 
 

To photographers, not all background blur is created equal.

True among that minority of photographers that use bokeh as an artistic tool. Very true among the much larger number of people owning a camera seeking to justify themselves and the amount of money they spent and equating the same as skill and talent. (Look! My photo has cool bokeh! That makes it good! And me cool!) The quality of the bokeh is also popular among reviewers as it's something that can be tested and easily displayed on a computer screen. All this lends an air of excessive importance to something that's but one tool in a photographer's toolbox and is really only useful in a narrow range of circumstances.
 
The term wasn't even invented until the late 90's. And even then, it's use was relatively limited until the rise of photo sharing sites and the need for mediocre photographers to differentiate themselves from other mediocre photographers. As a result, it's become something like the 0-60 ratings you see in car magazines... Something few people use in the real world, but which has become a mistaken proxy for quality because of [cool|wow|sexy] factor.
 

Apple shrank all that down to a button in a phone.

And they did all that because bokeh is fashionable. And because it's fashionable, the ability to create it lends a mistaken sense of overall capability to the camera and creates a mistaken sense of accomplishment in the wielder because it "looks professional".
 

No other phone to my knowledge has tried to do this.

No other phone relies so heavily on selling sizzle instead of steak than the iPhone. No other phone has to rely so heavily on marketing to retain it's market share.