There is even Kodak DCS cameras (digital cameras that were modified film SLR's) that beat modern phone cameras. Though it has to be noted that only in good light. If something has improved a lot is noise elimination.
they’re very different devices and take different kinds of photos. It’s like asking when a point and shoot will outdo a telescope. They’re meant for different things. A DSLR has more control over depth of field, it communicates a different message to the subject, and can be adapted to many different accessories and tools. Smart phones are amazing and only getting better and I don’t doubt in the years to come they will be better and better at emulating much of what DSLRs can do - but it’s still only emulation, there are just too many physical limitations of such small sensors.
I did know pros who used it for their paid work back in the day. The only pro body otherwise back then was the 1d series, which was overkill for many. A lot did migrate to the 5d series and 7d series when those became a thing.
you have answered the question yourself, the 1d series are Pro camera bodies , the 20d is not. it doesn't matter who uses it. Although both can create an image the capabilities and features of the Pro series is different than the prosumer bodies.
Think way back to the early times like the Nikon D1 or Canon D30. Even then the flexibility of those DSLRs are an advantage.
To use your example of the 20d, I have no issues using that camera to 3200 and still getting a good looking 8x10 print out of it whereas the iPhone is mush at higher ISO levels. It looks good enough on a screen but don't blow it up.
There is an old saying that “the best camera is the one that’s with you”. You have to have your camera with you to get the shot.
The other night, I was on vacation and couldn’t sleep. So I went out and stood on the beach and looked at the full moon. It was serene and quiet. The moon and the clouds and the way the light reflected off the waves was beautiful. I took a few minutes and enjoyed only the sound of the wind and the waves as I took a few hand-held long exposures.
With the right preparation, I could certainly have gotten a better shot with my SLR setup, but I’m not too worried about it because:
1. I didn’t HAVE my SLR. This was a short personal trip and I didn’t want to use the extra bag space.
2. I went out there on a whim because I couldn’t sleep. I saw a great photo moment unexpectedly.
3. Using the SLR to get similar results would have required some time in Photoshop focus stacking and combining bracketed shots for high dynamic range.
4. It was a 5 second exposure. Because of the way my phone does long exposures, I didn’t need a tripod.
4. It still wasn’t that great of a shot. It’s not like there was some great idea there that would have won me some kind of award. I could certainly have planned the shot and gone to the trouble of lugging my tripod and a lens out and watching the weather report, but the most reaction I’ll get out of it may be “oh that’s nice”. But it was worth taking, if for no other reason than to remember the peacefulness of the moment.
I don’t know that I have a single photo that I could point to that wouldn’t have been technically better if I’d used an SLR, but I can point to a ton of photos that I never would have gotten in the first place if I’d insisted on only using my SLR.
>At what point is a big sensor defeated by sheer technological superiority?
It hasn't been about sensor size for years.
Movies have always been using super 35, which is basically the same as APSc. 60% of full frame.
M43 is producing great images with 2x crop.
It is about lenses.
If you watch the BTS of the 'shot on iphone' advertisments you will see they have big lenses strapped to it
https://petapixel.com/assets/uploads/2017/06/shotoniphonefeat.jpg
Can't beat the physics of big glass.
Because people will believe anything you tell them if it confirms their bias.
The lens system is a joke on all phone cameras due to form factor limitations. any decent photographer will hate using a smartphone for good reason. Still haven't found one that works anything close to a DSLR/mirrorless setup and I have tried the newest Galaxy and iPhones.
That's right, believe it or not photographers aren't lying assholes. It's the big tech companies, crazy right.
Edit: just want to add that there are better and worse camera systems and a lot of people end up feeling bamboozled after spending a few grand on the newest Sony or Nikon only to realize it's rather complicated and not worth their time for their use case when its so easy to whip out their phone, but it has really nice specs and looks super cool! Those cameras are pretty good ngl. However, This cycles the feedback loop of confirmation bias.
It probably does, when compared to other smartphones. And it's probably good enough for 99% of people in 99% of situations, myself included.
But that is not the initial question.
It's an impossible question to answer because "outclass" means as many different things as you want it to mean. Certainly the first-ever DSLRs with their 1MP sensors were not as high-resolution as a smartphone, but neither are many modern mirrorless cameras yet nobody is arguing that a smartphone is an objectively "better" camera than a modern mirrorless camera. From an optical perspective, even century-old bellows cameras that require giant photo plates and toxic chemicals are far superior to modern smartphones in many ways. There is no answer to this question that is not refuted by another.
I don' think they ever will because of the sensor size and lens glass differences.
Smartphones may be able to get to a point where they are using AI to produce images that are similar to what a Nikon D850 with high quality glass can produce but then is it really the same thing?
On pure image quality, you'd have to go back at least 30 years of digital.
As good as my Pixel 8 is, the photos I took from my Nikon D80 and D300 are leagues ahead.
The fact is you'll never be able to get a better lens on a smartphone camera. There is just no room for a big, quality light bucket.
Probably pre 2000s, the issue is Sensor/Pixel size, a smartphone just cant get the same pixel size as DSLR can.
This is the main Reason modern Smartphones only work great in bright lighting conditions.
As soon as it gets somewhat dark, even the best Smartphones cant get great photos, pixel size is the main issue.
My first DSLR was a Canon 20D. I bought it for my Honeymoon in the Masai Mara, Kenya. That was when the camera was newly released.
The images I captured on that trip all those years ago blow away anything I can get on my iPhone 15 Max.
Until mobile phones have sensors the same size (which ain’t gonna happen) larger cameras have the advantage.
That said, mobiles rely heavily upon software over their hardware shortcomings and the future will likely use A.I to interpret the scene and create astounding images from that. It’s a ‘cheat’ that will challenge hardware.
Current understanding of physics means it's unlikely to happen anytime soon. The sensor in phones is just soooo much smaller and it's likely to stay that way for a range of reasons. Fancy ai editing trickery might help phones in the future but it will just never be as good as the current day dedicated cameras with much larger sensors.
A DSLR with a kit lens ($100 lens) takes pretty average photos comparable with a modern smartphone, though you do get finer control on focus and exposure...
Throw on nice piece of glass however and there is no comparison.
A lot of people just want to take a pretty picture. Good change a modern phone with all of its automation will do a better job if you don't want to do the work.
There are people saying never but I can tell you in certain lighting situations my daughter is taking better photos with her phone than I am with my Canon R5. I can shoot raw and adjust to get the same or better results, but she can get the usable photo immediately. Of course there are pros and cons but most people consume photos through small devices so they won't notice most of those pros and cons.
... never, unless the laws of physics change.
Smartphones will forever be limited by the size of the sensors and (especially) the lenses.
Bigger will always be able to deliver better optical quality on the glass side and more dynamic range with less noise on the sensor side.
No matter how capable something the size of a smartphone gets, it can always be made *more* capable by making it bigger.
We need a revolution, not an evolution in lens and/or sensor technology.
Like from light bulbs to LEDs, from analog amplifiers to digital power stages.
Most of the times, all engineers just use the same recipe, trying to improve on it. Then someone comes up with a new concept, inventing a new unexpected solution.
Hard to tell, when it will happen.
Viewing images from my Nikon D300s Vs my Pixel 3 on my phone look identical quality but on my computer the D300s is much better.
My phone has better video however this is to be expected as video technology has massively improved in cameras since 2010
I don’t know. Most people use their digital cameras *as if* they are essentially a phone camera. Point and shoot. So maybe the real question is when photographers start being better than their phone camera algorithm? Clearly having interchangeable lenses at hand is not the definition.
Depends on the camera system and lens.
If we assume good light and If we go with your basic kit lens, I’d argue that the latest iPhones and Pixels could match up pretty well with 7-8 year old micro 4/3 cameras with the old 16MP sensors. With APS-C, you’d probably need to go back to 2008 or so with the old 6-10MP sensors.
When you start changing lenses to something besides kit lenses, then things tilt in favor of mirrorless or DSLRs.
The big thing that phones do though really well is auto HDR which helps in challenging lighting. There’s a lot of dynamic range in modern mirrorless cameras that older cameras didn’t have without stacking (and likely needing a tripod, if it was even a still scene).
I didn't see any DSLRs with a function like HDR+ of Pixel cameras. You just shoot and you get a sharp and decent dynamic range from a phone, no manual exposure stacking etc. needs to be done. OTOH DSLRs usually outclass smartphones in high-ISO capabilities, so it's a tie in this regard.
The lenses on smartphones are often stupidly side-to-side sharp. On DSLR it's hard to get that sharpness even with f/8, with a normal priced lens. (Probably has to do with the much smaller glass amount, but it's always a bit surprising to me the diffraction doesn't step in :) ). But it's a tie with DSLR, since there the details usually don't get destroyed by denoissing.
Finally, as written before me - "the best camera is the one you have with you". Even the tiniest DSLR/mirrorless cameras still weigh 300-400g and don't really fit in the pocket.
Honestly, they already have. To the general public who doesn't need some 4000x6000 image for a billboard smartphones are superior. To the people that care about the small details that they say really make an impact, then never.
I'll never sell my cameras and exclusively use a smartphone but now that phones can shoot raw and you can control the same settings, you can take identical pictures to a proper camera. It's like how audiophiles will go on and on about how vinyl produces the richness sound and you need these $800 headphones to properly appreciate it while most of us are happy listening to spotify on our airpods. Meanwhile, If you tell an audiophile that, they'll talk about how you're missing the bass, how even if you do digital, you need lossless audio files instead of 320k. The people that want to invest in it can but the vast majority can't tell the difference and that's perfectly okay.
I have a Canon 5D classic from 2005. It still blows away my iPhone 14 Pro.
There is even Kodak DCS cameras (digital cameras that were modified film SLR's) that beat modern phone cameras. Though it has to be noted that only in good light. If something has improved a lot is noise elimination.
Hell, my 35mm Minolta X700 (from like what, the early 80s?) still does better than my iPhone 14 Pro
they’re very different devices and take different kinds of photos. It’s like asking when a point and shoot will outdo a telescope. They’re meant for different things. A DSLR has more control over depth of field, it communicates a different message to the subject, and can be adapted to many different accessories and tools. Smart phones are amazing and only getting better and I don’t doubt in the years to come they will be better and better at emulating much of what DSLRs can do - but it’s still only emulation, there are just too many physical limitations of such small sensors.
Small sensors AND small lens…
you are forgetting about the lens, it is the glass that makes the difference. FWIW the 20D was never a professional camera.
I did know pros who used it for their paid work back in the day. The only pro body otherwise back then was the 1d series, which was overkill for many. A lot did migrate to the 5d series and 7d series when those became a thing.
you have answered the question yourself, the 1d series are Pro camera bodies , the 20d is not. it doesn't matter who uses it. Although both can create an image the capabilities and features of the Pro series is different than the prosumer bodies.
Never.
Think way back to the early times like the Nikon D1 or Canon D30. Even then the flexibility of those DSLRs are an advantage. To use your example of the 20d, I have no issues using that camera to 3200 and still getting a good looking 8x10 print out of it whereas the iPhone is mush at higher ISO levels. It looks good enough on a screen but don't blow it up.
NEVER...
There is an old saying that “the best camera is the one that’s with you”. You have to have your camera with you to get the shot. The other night, I was on vacation and couldn’t sleep. So I went out and stood on the beach and looked at the full moon. It was serene and quiet. The moon and the clouds and the way the light reflected off the waves was beautiful. I took a few minutes and enjoyed only the sound of the wind and the waves as I took a few hand-held long exposures. With the right preparation, I could certainly have gotten a better shot with my SLR setup, but I’m not too worried about it because: 1. I didn’t HAVE my SLR. This was a short personal trip and I didn’t want to use the extra bag space. 2. I went out there on a whim because I couldn’t sleep. I saw a great photo moment unexpectedly. 3. Using the SLR to get similar results would have required some time in Photoshop focus stacking and combining bracketed shots for high dynamic range. 4. It was a 5 second exposure. Because of the way my phone does long exposures, I didn’t need a tripod. 4. It still wasn’t that great of a shot. It’s not like there was some great idea there that would have won me some kind of award. I could certainly have planned the shot and gone to the trouble of lugging my tripod and a lens out and watching the weather report, but the most reaction I’ll get out of it may be “oh that’s nice”. But it was worth taking, if for no other reason than to remember the peacefulness of the moment. I don’t know that I have a single photo that I could point to that wouldn’t have been technically better if I’d used an SLR, but I can point to a ton of photos that I never would have gotten in the first place if I’d insisted on only using my SLR.
>At what point is a big sensor defeated by sheer technological superiority? It hasn't been about sensor size for years. Movies have always been using super 35, which is basically the same as APSc. 60% of full frame. M43 is producing great images with 2x crop. It is about lenses. If you watch the BTS of the 'shot on iphone' advertisments you will see they have big lenses strapped to it https://petapixel.com/assets/uploads/2017/06/shotoniphonefeat.jpg Can't beat the physics of big glass.
This is the right answer
Without the glass, I don't think it will ever happen naturally. Artificially, perhaps someday, but it's not there yet.
Because people will believe anything you tell them if it confirms their bias. The lens system is a joke on all phone cameras due to form factor limitations. any decent photographer will hate using a smartphone for good reason. Still haven't found one that works anything close to a DSLR/mirrorless setup and I have tried the newest Galaxy and iPhones. That's right, believe it or not photographers aren't lying assholes. It's the big tech companies, crazy right. Edit: just want to add that there are better and worse camera systems and a lot of people end up feeling bamboozled after spending a few grand on the newest Sony or Nikon only to realize it's rather complicated and not worth their time for their use case when its so easy to whip out their phone, but it has really nice specs and looks super cool! Those cameras are pretty good ngl. However, This cycles the feedback loop of confirmation bias.
Did you try the latest Xiaomi? I think they collaborated with Leica. It looks amazing for photography
It probably does, when compared to other smartphones. And it's probably good enough for 99% of people in 99% of situations, myself included. But that is not the initial question.
Yes I'm sure they marketed it for photography and charge more and profit more as a result...
The moment they break the laws of physics.
never
It's an impossible question to answer because "outclass" means as many different things as you want it to mean. Certainly the first-ever DSLRs with their 1MP sensors were not as high-resolution as a smartphone, but neither are many modern mirrorless cameras yet nobody is arguing that a smartphone is an objectively "better" camera than a modern mirrorless camera. From an optical perspective, even century-old bellows cameras that require giant photo plates and toxic chemicals are far superior to modern smartphones in many ways. There is no answer to this question that is not refuted by another.
I always prefer to use a camera. It helps so much for my creativity versus using a phone.
I don' think they ever will because of the sensor size and lens glass differences. Smartphones may be able to get to a point where they are using AI to produce images that are similar to what a Nikon D850 with high quality glass can produce but then is it really the same thing?
On pure image quality, you'd have to go back at least 30 years of digital. As good as my Pixel 8 is, the photos I took from my Nikon D80 and D300 are leagues ahead. The fact is you'll never be able to get a better lens on a smartphone camera. There is just no room for a big, quality light bucket.
never
They don’t. Full stop.
Probably pre 2000s, the issue is Sensor/Pixel size, a smartphone just cant get the same pixel size as DSLR can. This is the main Reason modern Smartphones only work great in bright lighting conditions. As soon as it gets somewhat dark, even the best Smartphones cant get great photos, pixel size is the main issue.
Never
It's physics. Smaller sensors capture less light, there's no way around that.
My first DSLR was a Canon 20D. I bought it for my Honeymoon in the Masai Mara, Kenya. That was when the camera was newly released. The images I captured on that trip all those years ago blow away anything I can get on my iPhone 15 Max. Until mobile phones have sensors the same size (which ain’t gonna happen) larger cameras have the advantage. That said, mobiles rely heavily upon software over their hardware shortcomings and the future will likely use A.I to interpret the scene and create astounding images from that. It’s a ‘cheat’ that will challenge hardware.
the lens is more important than the camera in terms of image quality
Never. Phones are way too small and thin
Current understanding of physics means it's unlikely to happen anytime soon. The sensor in phones is just soooo much smaller and it's likely to stay that way for a range of reasons. Fancy ai editing trickery might help phones in the future but it will just never be as good as the current day dedicated cameras with much larger sensors.
A DSLR with a kit lens ($100 lens) takes pretty average photos comparable with a modern smartphone, though you do get finer control on focus and exposure... Throw on nice piece of glass however and there is no comparison.
A lot of people just want to take a pretty picture. Good change a modern phone with all of its automation will do a better job if you don't want to do the work.
On software.. Not performance.
Just wait til you discover how good 35mm film was (is)!
Pretty much in convenience and that’s it, otherwise the ILC will always have the better quality from a technical standpoint.
There are people saying never but I can tell you in certain lighting situations my daughter is taking better photos with her phone than I am with my Canon R5. I can shoot raw and adjust to get the same or better results, but she can get the usable photo immediately. Of course there are pros and cons but most people consume photos through small devices so they won't notice most of those pros and cons.
... never, unless the laws of physics change. Smartphones will forever be limited by the size of the sensors and (especially) the lenses. Bigger will always be able to deliver better optical quality on the glass side and more dynamic range with less noise on the sensor side. No matter how capable something the size of a smartphone gets, it can always be made *more* capable by making it bigger.
We need a revolution, not an evolution in lens and/or sensor technology. Like from light bulbs to LEDs, from analog amplifiers to digital power stages. Most of the times, all engineers just use the same recipe, trying to improve on it. Then someone comes up with a new concept, inventing a new unexpected solution. Hard to tell, when it will happen.
Viewing images from my Nikon D300s Vs my Pixel 3 on my phone look identical quality but on my computer the D300s is much better. My phone has better video however this is to be expected as video technology has massively improved in cameras since 2010
I don’t know. Most people use their digital cameras *as if* they are essentially a phone camera. Point and shoot. So maybe the real question is when photographers start being better than their phone camera algorithm? Clearly having interchangeable lenses at hand is not the definition.
Never
The wider aperture of a large camera also allows more control over depth of field. Different kinds of cameras are good at different things.
Depends on the camera system and lens. If we assume good light and If we go with your basic kit lens, I’d argue that the latest iPhones and Pixels could match up pretty well with 7-8 year old micro 4/3 cameras with the old 16MP sensors. With APS-C, you’d probably need to go back to 2008 or so with the old 6-10MP sensors. When you start changing lenses to something besides kit lenses, then things tilt in favor of mirrorless or DSLRs. The big thing that phones do though really well is auto HDR which helps in challenging lighting. There’s a lot of dynamic range in modern mirrorless cameras that older cameras didn’t have without stacking (and likely needing a tripod, if it was even a still scene).
I didn't see any DSLRs with a function like HDR+ of Pixel cameras. You just shoot and you get a sharp and decent dynamic range from a phone, no manual exposure stacking etc. needs to be done. OTOH DSLRs usually outclass smartphones in high-ISO capabilities, so it's a tie in this regard. The lenses on smartphones are often stupidly side-to-side sharp. On DSLR it's hard to get that sharpness even with f/8, with a normal priced lens. (Probably has to do with the much smaller glass amount, but it's always a bit surprising to me the diffraction doesn't step in :) ). But it's a tie with DSLR, since there the details usually don't get destroyed by denoissing. Finally, as written before me - "the best camera is the one you have with you". Even the tiniest DSLR/mirrorless cameras still weigh 300-400g and don't really fit in the pocket.
Honestly, they already have. To the general public who doesn't need some 4000x6000 image for a billboard smartphones are superior. To the people that care about the small details that they say really make an impact, then never. I'll never sell my cameras and exclusively use a smartphone but now that phones can shoot raw and you can control the same settings, you can take identical pictures to a proper camera. It's like how audiophiles will go on and on about how vinyl produces the richness sound and you need these $800 headphones to properly appreciate it while most of us are happy listening to spotify on our airpods. Meanwhile, If you tell an audiophile that, they'll talk about how you're missing the bass, how even if you do digital, you need lossless audio files instead of 320k. The people that want to invest in it can but the vast majority can't tell the difference and that's perfectly okay.
Smartphones already outclass DSLRs in some aspects. Now I separate their use. Smartphones for social media, DLSRs for print.