Is the photophone, which we always carry with us, becoming the best type of camera? What is missing to progressively replace reflex, compact and action cameras? With 5 camera types compared, answer in pictures.
For this comparison, I have opposed a photophone (Samsung S20 Ultra) to a SLR (Nikon D600), an expert compact (Sony RX100 VI), an action cam (GoPro Hero 9) and a drone (DJI Mini 3 Pro).
I voluntarily chose to use jpeg files. The RAW format is however available on the cameras listed here (except for the Samsung telephoto lens). Of course they alter the quality of the original RAW image. But we must recognize that the algorithms applied by the latest cameras compensate well for the limitations of the sensor. Moreover, jpeg is much easier and lighter to share. And finally, most users do not retouch their photos. For my part, I retake less than 5% of my shots. If you retake more, I’m curious to know the reason: cropping? colorimetry? optical distortions? recomposition?
All the pictures were taken freehand. I did not want to activate the High Dynamic Range mode. Some cameras bracket two photos to produce an HDR. In wildlife photography with a telephoto lens, the slightest movement between these two photos generates a superposition effect that spoils the result. So I rarely use it.
Landscape at wide angle (+/-24mm)
All cameras are able to take a good shot with a well-lit subject. But with a high contrast, how does the automatic mode behave?
I discovered afterwards that the white balance was not in automatic and that I had -0.7 exposure. So I retouched the colorimetry of some photos of the Nikon.
The image is very contrasted. It was taken at f/22, 1/60th of a second at ISO 400.
At this speed, there is no big risk of camera shake. And if the number of pixels of the old sensor is limited, when zooming in, the text ‘Tubeless’ on the tire is almost readable. And the joints of the bricks around the window are distinct.
As the sensitivity is not too high, there is no visible noise.
Finally, the compression of the file is not sensitive: the gradations of the sky and the fairing are well progressive. This while keeping a reasonable file size of about 5MB.
The RX100 has a bit of a speed bias, 1/200th of a second, at f/3.5 aperture, with an ISO of 125.
The result is a slight background blur on the house. On the other hand, the foreground has a remarkable sharpness. Not only is the text on the front tire perfectly legible, but one can even decipher what is written on the headlight… as well as the fact that the bike needs a cleaning :-).
There is no visible noise with this sensitivity.
A large aperture produces a brighter image than the others, at the expense of the blue sky. The color histogram is flatter than the others, giving the feeling of a slightly bland image but not necessarily further from reality than the others.
Jpeg detail level has been set to ‘High’ and the resulting file is quite heavy: 16.4Mb. The resolution of 5472×3080 with 24bits of color necessarily takes up space, but such a size requires storage space and fast transfer means.
The GoPro was set to ‘linear’ shooting to have a focal length close to the others. The image is tighter than the others and yet the metadata of the file indicates a focal length equivalent to 15mm instead of the desired 24. This is strange. Could the image be a crop of a much larger image?
The processor made a rather particular choice: f/2.5, 1/483th of a second at ISO 106. It is precise.
This speed guarantees a lack of movement, which corresponds well to the spirit of an action camera. But the very low sensitivity forces to open wide which should reduce the depth of field.
However, the joints between the bricks of the window are clearly visible, which shows how brutal the sharpness enhancement treatment is. If at first sight the shot is sharp, you don’t have to zoom in much before you see the contour alterations: the text on the tire is not readable. And the grain is noticeable on the fairing to the right of the headlight.
Speaking of color, the rendering is good. The saturation boost makes the shot a bit artificial but the histogram shows a good balance.
The image is large (5184×3888, 24bit color depth) and yet it fits on 3.17MB which contributes to make the processing of the sharpness sensitive.
Hindered by the stand used for the other cameras, I moved the DJI Mini 3 Pro to the left. The bike looks smaller, and this perception is increased by the format, 4:3, which shows more space at the top. Although the lens has an equivalent focal length of 24mm.
The fixed aperture of the camera, f/1.7 allows to keep a low sensitivity, at ISO 110 with a high speed of 1/1000 of seconds.
I thought I had focused on the motorcycle headlight, yet the window is sharper. I’ll have to check if this is a focusing error on my part and not a limit on the minimum focusing distance. In any case, with the small sensor of the drone, the depth of field remains important.
The contrast is lower than the competitors. Image processing of the drone is automatically switched to HDR and seems calibrated to reduce the effects of backlighting: the shadows as the reflection of the sun on the fairing are less marked. The processing increases the color saturation a bit, but without going overboard.
The file has a reasonable size (6.5MB) for an image of 4032 x 3024 and a color depth of 24 bits.
And finally, the result of the Samsung S20 Ultra. The phone uses the best of its small sensors which opens at f/1.8, 1/276th of a second at ISO 50.
I forgot the HDR mode in automatic. And what jumps out immediately is the strong saturation of the blues, the most important of all, to the point that the clouds themselves have a blue reflection. As for the drone, shadows are significantly lightened and light tones are muted. Smartphones are used to saturation, but on this model dedicated to photography, we could hope for a more realistic result.
I have since tried to make other photos by disabling the HDR. But even so the camera manages to blue the sky on a foggy day. We can’t say that the color fidelity is there
Especially since the rest of the image is not subject to any criticism: the sharpness of the image is just below the best of this comparison.
At ISO 50, no noise. There is no optical distortion, chromatic aberration, or compression defect.
This nice result and the 4000×3000 points of the image allow enlargements to crop or study details. As for the file weight, it remains reasonable: 5.35MB.
In conclusion, the photophone, which we always have in our hands, is a good choice for classic photos at 24mm, provided that HDR is deactivated and that we accept a somewhat whimsical color rendering. Its shots are comparable to those of real cameras.
Now let’s play with the zoom
70mm zoom and telephoto lens
The zoom is essential to not intimidate your subject, human or animal, by staying at a distance. It also reduces the perception of depth by reducing the difference in size between objects in the foreground and background. However, the higher the magnification, the more you have to open the lens to maintain a correct shutter speed, which results in beautiful pictures where the subject stands out in front of a blurred background.
The sun had gone down during my shoot, which put me in conditions close to those of hunting photography.
The Nikon and its multiple lenses offers almost unlimited zoom possibilities. Even at the highest magnification the image remains detailed enough to read the inscriptions on the bottom right of the lighthouse. The grain is non-existent, the bokeh is soft and regular even on the picture at 200mm with an aperture of f/6. The only flaw, which is not noticeable on these examples, is the vignetting at long focal lengths. All image processing tools correct it easily and the result is flattering.
With its 50-500, the camera becomes however very bulky and regrettably heavy. And that’s without counting the weight of the tripod which becomes quite useful to avoid moving. It is difficult in these conditions to do anything else than observation on the lookout.
The Sony RX brings a better compromise. It is very discreet with its small size and almost no shutter noise. Zoom lenses usually have a maximum optical quality at their intermediate focal length. This is the case here, at 70mm, with a perfect shot. Of course the ring bokeh doesn’t have the nobility of the reflex one, but the precision is really remarkable.
Pushed to its limit, fixed at 200mm, the small lens that opens at f/4.5 cannot hope to compete with the oversized barrel of the Nikon. The sensor produces a better image of the bike, but the quality deteriorates sharply in the background, with a grain that becomes sensitive. Also the foreground doesn’t stand out as well from its environment, giving an impression of clutter compared to the SLR.
I only mention the GoPro to recognize that it offers a digital zoom system. The image quality being the worst in 24mm, I didn’t even try to see the result after enlargement.
The DJI Mini 3 Pro offers a 2x digital zoom. On what claims to be a 50mm equivalent, the image is a bit blurrier than on the one taken at 24mm. I don’t see the reason for this. The action camera’s waterproof shutter release requires a lot of effort to take a picture, but I doubt that explains the blur because the shutter speed remains high (1/500th of a second).
What annoys me the most is the choice of the camera to focus on the background despite the place taken by the motorcycle on the image. A bad point for the autofocus.
The autofocus problem is honestly less annoying with a drone. Because its purpose is not to zoom but to take altitude with respect to its subject. It is the only one able to take these points of view. The image, taken at 1/240 of a second, ISO 100, f/1.7 would deserve more contrast. A ND4 polarizing filter could improve this point. Let’s put the drone aside for now…
Samsung made a lot of publicity on the monstrous 100x zoom of its Galaxy S20 Ultra. Comparable to the magnification of a telescope, but using a microscopic sensor! Really?
A magnification equivalent to 90mm is enough to understand the trickery. Up to 103mm, the zoom is digital and progressively reduces the quality. The initial image being very good, one can be satisfied with the result, but it is no longer possible to enlarge without noticing the degradation. The software processing does reduce the pixelation, but in its efforts to increase the sharpness of the image it distorts the naturally blurred parts of the image, as here in the lighthouse.
Impossible to magnify more in these conditions. So the camera switches to its 103mm telephoto lens. It is however less good than the 24mm sensor. The sharpness is a little behind what the software processing compensates imperfectly. If the grain is non-existent in the well exposed parts, around the headlight, the HDR processing reveals it in the darker parts at the fork.
With more magnification, the photographer feels the same disillusionment as before. The digital zoom only brings an increasingly blurred crop. Beyond 30x, the magnification does not really serve any purpose, except to embellish the technical sheet of the camera.
On this series of photos the winner hands down is the SLR equipped with a real telephoto lens. The compact camera takes an honorable second place with its optical zoom. The triple lens solution of the photophone (wide angle, telephoto and super wide angle) is obviously less efficient.
Low light
Wildlife photography makes high demands on the sensors in low light. Whether the subject is hiding in the dark, only coming out at dawn or dusk, or whether you need to increase the shutter speed to avoid motion blur, or all of the above, the sensor needs to capture every photon possible. The large surface of the full frame sensor of the reflex should excel in this exercise.
And indeed, for this series of pictures taken under the headlight, the image taken by the Nikon is of good quality. Corrected to -0.7 stop, in spot exposure metering, the shot presents a balanced contrast and the radiator grill is both clear and sharp.
Although the sensitivity was raised to ISO 1000, noise is still not very noticeable.
Focusing is less of a problem for the Sony, whose depth of field is much greater. The image is however taken at f/2.8.
It is important to note that the camera has kept a low sensitivity, ISO 200, and consequently an equally low speed of 1/8 of a second. The focus, on the hoses, is a bit forward compared to the image taken by the Nikon. Despite a rather long pause time, the stabilization avoids the blur.
The image is quite good. But the camera seems to find its limits in the dark areas, at least as far as the jpeg processing is concerned which shows irregularities (on the radiator cap on the left of the fork). The colors are always colder than in reality. However, the multiple menus allow to correct the balance.
I regret again the too important depth of field because it does not allow to separate the subject from its environment.
The GoPro is forced to go to ISO 2140 to maintain a speed of 1/100th of a second. As a reminder, the HDR mode is activated and tries to lighten the dark areas. It succeeds in doing so but not without difficulty in terms of sharpness. The one on the radiator is acceptable. But the rest is “soft”, with a sensitive grain even if it seems that the processing has improved things a little by smoothing the color differences.
The GoPro offers a low-light function which was not activated here. In fact, except for filming in dark environments, such as caving or dark night, I am not convinced of the interest of this function.
Still at f/1.8 the Samsung does not go too high in ISO, 640, to maintain a speed of 1/100th of a second.
I missed the focus of the radiator, it’s the hoses that are sharp. As a side note, the S20 allows you to switch to ‘Pro’ mode to focus manually. This option is very effective, especially in macro, but I did not use it here. And as you can see, the focus by pointing the area to be considered on the screen is quite approximate.
The rest of the picture is remarkable thanks to the power of the HDR mode. The wiring at the top left of the screen is the sharpest of all, without the bright areas being saturated. On the contrary: the grass in the lower left is well exposed. The same mode that previously rendered a photo with unnatural colors manages to work miracles here for those who want to reveal all the details. It is almost so effective that one wonders if an option to adjust the HDR compensation would not be useful sometimes.
Depending on the type of rendering you want to obtain, cinematographic or encyclopedic, you will turn to the reflex or to the camera. The compact camera may be suitable after some colorimetric adjustments.
Macrophotography
From the foam of a cappuccino to the head of a beetle, there are photos that require showing only fine details.
A special macro lens (Tamron 100mm) mounted on the Nikon works wonders. So much so that at this point we surely already have a winner.
Focusing requires precision because the depth of field is millimetric; as shown by the blur of the needle separated just a few millimeters from the dial. The diaphragm is however at f/11.
The lens of the Sony opens at f/4. But it does not have the same nobility and cannot claim to magnify as much. The definition of the sensor allows to enlarge the shot to show a result similar to the SLR.
However, it cannot go much further without pixelation being visible, while its opponent allows to go into even more detail. It only does proxiphotography, not macro.
The result produced by the GoPro is simply unusable. The camera is not designed for this purpose.
Next…
The intermediate lens of the Galaxy S20 Ultra, the wide angle, is the one with the widest sensor. It is used here.
The 1/662 second speed compensates for shakiness. Even under the strain of setting the focus correctly, always complicated on a phone, I should not have any blur. Yet it is there. It is just not possible to magnify to do macro photography.
In summary, more than in all other conditions, macro photography requires the use of an adapted, even specialized lens. The SLR is the only winner of this comparison.
Synthesis
The digital cameras of the photophones are of very good quality. In simple conditions, their very detailed sensors associated with strong image processing capabilities provide results similar to those of real cameras. However, they need to correct their overly saturated colors.
The Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra also handles low light conditions well.
To deal with other situations faced during travel, zoom, macro, but also the use of optical filters (solar, polarizing …), creative illumination (remote flash, colored, multiple …) photophones still can not offer the versatility of an expert camera or SLR.
The image quality of the GoPro and drone tested here is comparatively disappointing. Both are actually intended for video. The image quality is less important than the formidable stabilization and the resistance. But that’s another comparison.