# It annoys me when camera phones try to take credit for professional level gear.



## jdramirez (May 15, 2013)

I see these photos on an iphone or windows phone and I KNOW that photo wasn't taken with a camera phone. The bokeh gives it away. It was probably a 35mm f/1.4 (or a 135mm f/2) with a 5dmkiii (or whatever the Nikon equivalent is) with wireless umbrella lighting being side lit from both the right and left. 

But no... that was a wide angle camera phone photo which simply looks like a 135mm f/2 was used. So your gear that costs $5000 is really just overkill, since the camera phone's is MORE than sufficient. Ughh...


----------



## jdramirez (May 15, 2013)

here are two offenders.


----------



## wickidwombat (May 15, 2013)

while i dont disagree with you at all.
my wife took a photo of our daugther the other day with her iphone 4s and ran it through an app that give it shallow dof look and I could not believe it wasn't taken with a 5D this is just viewing on the phone screen and not pixel peeping though. 
In good light the iphone can take good pics It does shit me blind when people compare camera phones to pro gear stating categorically that they are just as good.


----------



## sanj (May 15, 2013)

Most advertising is generally fake at some level or the other. True.


----------



## Hobby Shooter (May 15, 2013)

It's an impossible discussion so I just stay away and don't argue with people.


----------



## darshan4eos (May 15, 2013)

sanj said:


> Most advertising is generally fake at some level or the other. True.


+1
Here is one more example:

http://gizmodo.com/5940784/nokia-faked-its-pureview-demo-and-then-claimed-they-never-said-it-was-real

But I feel that everyone expect these images to be fake.
Besides I am not sure if there is any noticable IQ difference in all top of the line camera phones and if these images influence the buying decisions.


----------



## trojdor (May 15, 2013)

JD,
Slightly off topic...
As someone who shoots a lot of product images, I can also say that in addition to dropping in the screen image, the photoshopper got the reflection angle in the glass completely wrong on the second image (Sony). That's the kind of stuff that drives me crazy.

Set a product at the same angle on a reflective surface, and you'll find the reflection goes in the opposite direction they show. That's just lazy.

Back to on-topic...Though in all fairness, even Apple drops in screen images after the product is shot.
(So do Canon and Nikon.)
It's just so much easier.



jdramirez said:


> here are two offenders.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (May 15, 2013)

Amusingly all Canon DSLR product shots (photos of the camera unit) is usually taken on digital medium format.

It annoys me too when phones replicate "Vintage and faded" post prod techniques to pass off as pro shots...yeah right!

That said, Patrick Litchfield used to enjoy his Olympus trip as a social camera back in the 80's


----------



## Don Haines (May 15, 2013)

jdramirez said:


> here are two offenders.


The reflections are photoshopped in. On the top photo the reflection shows an element that is not on the phone, while the bottom picture has lines of perspective that indicate a focal point BEHIND the phone.


----------



## Don Haines (May 15, 2013)

wickidwombat said:


> It does S___ me blind when people compare camera phones to pro gear stating categorically that they are just as good.


Take a look at the "no 7D2 in 2013" thread..... I posted pictures of the moon from a 60d and from an iPod to end a ridiculous "gear does not matter" debate. Although phones can take great pictures, particularly in the right conditions, once it gets a bit more challenging there is no substitute for a "real" camera.


----------



## sunnyVan (May 15, 2013)

jdramirez said:


> I see these photos on an iphone or windows phone and I KNOW that photo wasn't taken with a camera phone. The bokeh gives it away. It was probably a 35mm f/1.4 (or a 135mm f/2) with a 5dmkiii (or whatever the Nikon equivalent is) with wireless umbrella lighting being side lit from both the right and left.
> 
> But no... that was a wide angle camera phone photo which simply looks like a 135mm f/2 was used. So your gear that costs $5000 is really just overkill, since the camera phone's is MORE than sufficient. Ughh...



Even if the phone camera gave you similar result at first glance (which is disputable), I bet you'd still invest in your real camera gear. At least I would. I enjoy the process of learning and getting the result I want. There's always shortcuts to do things but it's ok and doesn't bother me. 

By the way, another comment about photography in general. Once I've learned to appreciate light, gear becomes secondary. It's not unimportant otherwise I wouldn't be lusting for the 135L right now. But having the right eye and appreciation for light is more important. When lighting condition is good phone camera performs well. But I still carry my real camera almost everywhere I go, even to work.


----------



## J.R. (May 15, 2013)

GMCPhotographics said:


> Amusingly all Canon DSLR product shots (photos of the camera unit) is usually taken on digital medium format.



Interesting ... in India, Canon is running a TV ad which mentions at the bottom of the screen, "the entire commercial shot with a 5D Mark III"


----------



## dstppy (May 15, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> wickidwombat said:
> 
> 
> > It does S___ me blind when people compare camera phones to pro gear stating categorically that they are just as good.
> ...



Which iPod? From the camera in the iPhone 4S up, the pictures decidedly do NOT suck . . . I digress, it's still not the same, but they're getting less crappy ;D

Why is anyone 'discussing' this? The only people disagreeing are doing the same thing as the advertisers: distorting the truth. Why does Mercedes Benz advertise: ranked highest in INITIAL quality? Because Lexus has lower long-term defect-to-units-sold and saying that doesn't sell cars.

I will, however, advocate better cameras in smartphones as it will . . . hopefully . . . some day . . . replace the fax. I have a image-to-PDF application that I use before erasing my whiteboard or for personal things I have to send to someone during work hours.


----------



## JBeckwith (May 15, 2013)

The issue that makes me upset is in both pictures the phone is supposed to be showing off its camera function using these fake images. It's not so much misleading as it is blatantly false advertising. 

It would be equivalent to test driving a Honda Civic that the dealership secretly installed a Corvette engine in, then sending you home in a regular one without letting you know.


----------



## Nishi Drew (May 15, 2013)

J.R. said:


> GMCPhotographics said:
> 
> 
> > Amusingly all Canon DSLR product shots (photos of the camera unit) is usually taken on digital medium format.
> ...



No MF video out there yet, if the commercial was shot with 5D3 video that's believable, but if all the photos of the gear were with the 5D3 (sorry, can't tell which you're referring to) then yeah, hmmm

Well, yes, camera phones and other consumer gear are getting better, but just because a phone can get a good IQ shot especially in nice light, doesn't mean you will 'get' the shot. Why did anyone want the 7D over the 5DII when the 5D had the bigger sensor and huge leap in IQ and noise performance? Speed, the AF that won't fail and weather sealing. For having so much DOF the iPhone's AF baffles me, I'm just trying to take a picture of a rigged up camera and somehow the phone focuses on the wall behind, even when the subject I want to focus on is filling the frame... well to say, pro gear and consumer toys are getting close with IQ, but that phone isn't going to guarantee a captured shot, or work in every condition and environment, and instead will give you a loading screen or fall asleep, or run out of battery because it's running everything else non camera related etc etc etc done to death argument... but, just want to get back how gear matters and don't let anyone tell you otherwise... I mean, if people were truly content with the older iPhones in camera quality, then fewer people would have upgraded and made a big deal about it's camera being "good enough",simply people want quality and functionality, but when they don't want to invest in a real system they'll say "oh, gear doesn't matter, I can make ART with this" and if another iphone with a super good camera comes up, heck, those hipsters will upgrade because it's got even better "good enough camera" what a joke... sure, if you can get great shots with any camera then go ahead, I'm not against that, but I'll judge on the shots that were missed!


----------



## RLPhoto (May 15, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> wickidwombat said:
> 
> 
> > It does S___ me blind when people compare camera phones to pro gear stating categorically that they are just as good.
> ...



Humorous post sure, but you didn't get close enough with the ipod. 

Instagram is a decent app for faking DOF, but it always just has that look of an overlay.


----------



## cayenne (May 15, 2013)

JBeckwith said:


> It would be equivalent to test driving a Honda Civic that the dealership secretly installed a Corvette engine in, then sending you home in a regular one without letting you know.



I'd buy one of *THOSE*!!!


----------



## jdramirez (May 15, 2013)

my wife baited and switched me. and I know the quality of phones won't rival an slr, but it does bother me when advertisers assume the customer is dumb. I object to selling stuff at $99.99 because it seems like a smaller amount than $100.


----------



## Rocguy (May 15, 2013)

iPhone 5 commercials are also fond of showing photos that take up the whole iPhone 5 screen. But when you take pictures on the phone they do not fill up that large screen...


----------



## Brand B (May 17, 2013)

trojdor said:


> the photoshopper got the reflection angle in the glass completely wrong on the second image (Sony). That's the kind of stuff that drives me crazy.
> 
> Set a product at the same angle on a reflective surface, and you'll find the reflection goes in the opposite direction they show. That's just lazy.



Hmm, I read it as the phone is sitting perpendicular to the surface, and the whole image is just tilted. Maybe because it didn't make sense any other way.


----------

