Image shows tilting of entire camera, not just lens.

Fox2232:

Image shows tilting of entire camera, not just lens.

Yeah, kind of looks like how they achieve 3d, even tho that doesn't even need an angle shift.

I'd rather buy a REAL camera for 800€ and a phone for 200€, over buying an overpriced piece of tech for 1000€ that does the same as a cheap phone but could never take the same pictures a dedicated camera does. Plus, the battery will be dead in 2 years so you're stuck with a 1000€ brick: no thank you. But hey, people think you need to spend thousands on phones to be social accepted, good for them!

I wish all manufacturers would just put in a lens which can be rotated 90 degrees facing out of top of phone instead of back of it like now So we could hold phone horizontal and still record in front. Ridiculous having to hold a phone up vertically just because camera is on back.

But.... why? You've got an absurd amount of cameras on the back yet you can't just include one with an ultrawide lens? Seems like a solution looking for a problem.

geogan:

I wish all manufacturers would just put in a lens which can be rotated 90 degrees facing out of top of phone instead of back of it like now

Unlike Samsung's idea, this is actually a really great one.

Silva:

I'd rather buy a REAL camera for 800€ and a phone for 200€, over buying an overpriced piece of tech for 1000€ that does the same as a cheap phone but could never take the same pictures a dedicated camera does. Plus, the battery will be dead in 2 years so you're stuck with a 1000€ brick: no thank you. But hey, people think you need to spend thousands on phones to be social accepted, good for them!

many wrong things, are u living in cave? how about showing 1000euro vs 200euro phone pictures comparison ? high-end phone camera already reaching entry-DSLR camera quality nowdays also lets be real with real camera, u paid for 800euro ... then u need lens, it will be more than 1000euro 800euro say skip lens u buy mirrorless like sony A6400 then : [youtube=JCnSCg9Wt5k] in real-world most people wont bringing REAL-camera every day around.... you bringing extra 1.8pounds camera everyday ? everywhere ? one thing again not every people need high-end, mid-phones enough for most people with mid phone camera also good enough, so why not ? replacing phone battery is easy, many DIY kit available on market... tons of guide on ifixit/youtube afraid doing urself, any phone service center, 3rd party or authorize service center will do it for samsung, iirc replacing battery is like $25 after warranty period (free within warranty period) u also get free battery replacement if replacing display so really no excuse for the battery either

@slyphnier That video is a terrible example. An entry-level DSLR from a few years ago could yield similar results as a $1000+ camera today to record that video. If you do anything other than portrait shots, vlogs, or record basic day-to-day events in a reasonable amount of light, you're going to need, as @Silva put it, a real camera. For the average person, a phone camera is more than good enough. For anyone who wants more than average, you're going to need a discrete camera.

schmidtbag:

@slyphnier That video is a terrible example. An entry-level DSLR from a few years ago could yield similar results as a $1000+ camera today to record that video. If you do anything other than portrait shots, vlogs, or record basic day-to-day events in a reasonable amount of light, you're going to need, as @Silva put it, a real camera. For the average person, a phone camera is more than good enough. For anyone who wants more than average, you're going to need a discrete camera.

so yea, how about u post something using latest DSLR vs smartphone then ? its bad to say my example wrong without u providing better example that sony A6400 is as close i can find decent for $900 range, rest is much more higher beside for good camera last long, not like smartphone that keep changing often, no ? if not, then there will be much more less reason to buy camera then again how much the price for real camera ? like Canon EOS-1D X Mark III ? we still need to remember, that price usually just body, without lens-kit and again all purpose photo/video shot, even in studio environment (obviously with proper lighting) nowdays mid-high smartphone video/picture is good enough so obviously smartphone is better choice and worth the price u paid, as its not only for camera, but u paid that price for multimedia device

slyphnier:

so yea, how about u post something using latest DSLR vs smartphone then ? its bad to say my example wrong without u providing better example that sony A6400 is as close i can find decent for $900 range, rest is much more higher

My point is you don't need a fancy camera to out-perform a smartphone camera. Look up photos from professional photographers taken 15 years ago and you'll find photos that a smartphone can't do. You'd have to be blind to not see a difference. There are 3 fundamental things that will make a legit camera better: 1. A physical and progressive shutter. The physical shutter helps "de-stimulate" the sensor for a cleaner image, and phones are almost exclusively rolling shutter, which is objectively bad unless you know how to take advantage of it and take some trippy photos/videos. 2. Interchangeable lenses with better-quality glass (there is a long list of reasons why this matters) 3. Much larger sensors, that allow in more light and therefore less noisy images. There are actually many more features that make a real camera better, but most of that is done entirely through software or phones will eventually get them given enough time and/or processing power. That being said, there are things the A6400 can do that no smartphone camera can, but those features aren't used/needed when you're recording a vlog with a kit lens. To put things into a different perspective, that's like asking why a construction worker needs to drive a pickup truck with enough power to tow a train when "my hatchback can carry my toolbox and a bunch of 2x4s just fine". The construction worker didn't buy a truck because of the occasional hobby project; a hatchback isn't going to get the real job done. A professional photographer/videographer doesn't buy a $900 camera so they can capture moments with their kids or make a vlog.

beside for good camera last long, not like smartphone that keep changing often, no ? if not, then there will be much more less reason to buy camera

Nope. Some of the most well-paid photographers and videographers use very outdated equipment. Some still use film. Newer isn't always better. But... you'll never find them doing a serious project with a smartphone.

then again how much the price for real camera ? like Canon EOS-1D X Mark III ? we still need to remember, that price usually just body, without lens-kit

Well, I'll put it this way: I spent about $40 for my phone and $450 for a Canon 200D and a whole bunch of accessories. I have a budget phone and a budget camera. My phone's battery can last for 3-4 days and since the screen isn't made of glass, it won't shatter. It does everything I need it to sufficiently (admittedly, it'd be nice if it were a little faster to respond). My camera at half its max resolution takes noticeably better quality images than any smartphone camera available today, especially in low-light situations. I've had the phone for 2 years and the camera will probably last me at least a decade; probably more. The battery is easily removable in the event I need to upgrade it. Together, they cost less than the iPhone 11, and leave me with enough extra money to buy more lenses that can see what no smartphone camera can ever physically see (which I have done).

and again all purpose photo/video shot, even in studio environment (obviously with proper lighting) nowdays mid-high smartphone video/picture is good enough so obviously smartphone is better choice and worth the price u paid, as its not only for camera, but u paid that price for multimedia device

Swap out "all purpose" with "general purpose" and I would agree. Smartphone cameras are very good for everyday needs and for the average person. But step outside the boundaries of normal and suddenly it's not very capable. I wouldn't consider a DSLR or mirrorless camera all-purpose either (since they're not very portable) but they are incomparably more capable.

schmidtbag:

Swap out "all purpose" with "general purpose" and I would agree. Smartphone cameras are very good for everyday needs and for the average person. But step outside the boundaries of normal and suddenly it's not very capable. I wouldn't consider a DSLR or mirrorless camera all-purpose either (since they're not very portable) but they are incomparably more capable.

i am kinda lost in what u really want saying to me?.... as i think obviously u know we both know the point between camera & smartphone silva said he prefer buy 800euro camera+ 200smartphone so the point is u saying u agree with this ? do bringing ur old $450 Canon 200D everday everywhere ? for specific-moments, when u really want the best shots such weddings, most people would rather hire pro, beside they have the equipment needed, they should know how to take best shot either, should be better than ur amateur shot so what ur old canon 200D for ? beside maybe hobbyist for learning photography? let be real, if someone work for photo/cinematography (professional) obviously smartphone camera wont cut, they need real camera but are we talking about those professional ? NO now if we considering those pro, they can buy those their equipment that cost few grands, then saying like they cant get 1000euro smartphone for whatever reason is really dumb 1000euro isnt cheap, but not the thing that everyone cant buy if they want to Now to put perspective , u said get both camera + smartphone less than iphone11 price, do u use ur camera more than ur smartphone ? ur camera might last a decade or more, yet how much u using that camera ? do u use it everyday ? most people using their smartphone all day, way more use than a camera, with that in mind, getting better smartphone rather than getting camera+cheap smartphone obviously what most people choose today what for spending into a thing that rarely used ? it doesnt make it worth more so really what ur point again? or u want to loop saying everyone need camera again ?

slyphnier:

silva said he prefer buy 800euro camera+ 200smartphone so the point is u saying u agree with this ? do bringing ur old $450 Canon 200D everday everywhere ?

I do agree with that, because an 800 euro camera will remain relevant for a very long time and is much more capable, whereas an 800 euro phone will only remain relevant for maybe 3 years; 2 years if the battery degrades too quickly. A 200 euro phone has a camera that is good enough for everyday use. And that's the crux of the matter: even the best flagship smartphone cameras are only "good enough" for everyday use. Even my $40 phone has an adequate camera; the colors are terrible and you need a lot of light but if all I'm trying to do is share something, scan a QR code, or quickly record a moment I wasn't prepared for, it's sufficient. If I spent a little more money, I'd have a phone camera with comparable results to flagships.

for specific-moments, when u really want the best shots such weddings, most people would rather hire pro, beside they have the equipment needed, they should know how to take best shot either, should be better than ur amateur shot so what ur old canon 200D for ? beside maybe hobbyist for learning photography?

I've been asked a couple times "hey could you be the photographer for this event?" and I said no, because even though I have the right tool and a firm understanding of how to use it, that doesn't mean I'm fit for the job. A professional wedding photographer with a smartphone would do a better job than me with my 200D. But, a professional who uses a smartphone is needlessly making their life harder. Phones aren't ergonomic cameras. They focus slowly. There's no aperture control. The zoomed-in detail is terrible. Darker moments without a flash will either be too blurry or too grainy. Some phone cameras don't filter out UV or IR light (to my knowledge, the flagships usually do). I got the 200D because it can take photos a smartphone can't. It's good enough where even though it will be (kinda already is) obsolete, it will never be irrelevant; it will always take great pictures and videos. Although I've been told I could sell my work, I don't intend to. I just wanted a proper tool. I take a lot of photos that either warrant a macro lens (like a jumping spider that takes up the entire frame) or warrant a zoom lens (like a bird dozens of meters away in a tree). Even if I'm holding the camera with a 24mm lens and I'm with friends, I rarely take any group photos, because honestly, a smartphone is better for that.

let be real, if someone work for photo/cinematography (professional) obviously smartphone camera wont cut, they need real camera but are we talking about those professional ? NO

Most professionals today wouldn't buy a ~$500 camera. Buy the right tool for the right job. A $500 camera is good for amateurs like myself and can do things a smartphone can't. I have the money for a flagship phone but I deliberately didn't buy one because I find most of their "features" to be faulty or gimmicks. So for the same money, I got a good camera kit and a phone that does what I want with a minimized long-term expense. Win-win.

Now to put perspective , u said get both camera + smartphone less than iphone11 price, do u use ur camera more than ur smartphone ? ur camera might last a decade or more, yet how much u using that camera ? do u use it everyday ?

Let's make a different comparison for a moment: You could spend $50 on a multitool (like a Swiss army knife) and $500 on a bandsaw. Both tools can do precision cutting. The portability and versatility of the multitool will basically guarantee it is used more often; even for cutting/sawing. But does that mean the bandsaw isn't worth the extra cost despite being used less? I wouldn't say so. But to answer your question, on average, I'd say I spend about 20 minutes on my phone every day. Sometimes I've gone an entire day never waking it up once, sometimes I've used it for 4 hours straight. I don't use the camera every day but whenever I do pick it up, it's usually for more than 20 minutes.

most people using their smartphone all day, way more use than a camera, with that in mind, getting better smartphone rather than getting camera+cheap smartphone obviously what most people choose today

And most people are satisfied with what phone cameras offer, which is fine. Most people don't need anything different. I do. I'm not special, I just take photos that smartphones can't do and I care about things that smartphone cameras are especially bad at.

what for spending into a thing that rarely used ? it doesnt make it worth more so really what ur point again? or u want to loop saying everyone need camera again ?

You are being so narrow-minded. It's not about value, it's about the results. Also, I never at any point said everyone needs a real camera. Silva expressed his personal preference for one, you shot down his idea, and I came to his defense explaining why some people prefer a real camera over a fancy smartphone. You're basically arguing what people's preferences should be and using the most generic example (a vlog) as to why. You have no right to tell people what their preferences should be. You don't have a firm grasp of what people value in this context or why. I have no problem with people using phones as a daily camera. The reason we're having this discussion is because you're basically saying "unless you're a professional, a smartphone camera will cover all your needs" and that's just not true at all.

schmidtbag:

You are being so narrow-minded. It's not about value, it's about the results. Also, I never at any point said everyone needs a real camera. Silva expressed his personal preference for one, you shot down his idea, and I came to his defense explaining why some people prefer a real camera over a fancy smartphone. You're basically arguing what people's preferences should be and using the most generic example (a vlog) as to why. You have no right to tell people what their preferences should be. You don't have a firm grasp of what people value in this context or why. I have no problem with people using phones as a daily camera. The reason we're having this discussion is because you're basically saying "unless you're a professional, a smartphone camera will cover all your needs" and that's just not true at all.

i dont mind arguing with u, but imo u need to fix ur mind before arguing like first reply saying my example is terrible because few years old camera 2nd reply saying old camera last for decades, and now you agreeing with today phone camera those are conflicting each other, so what u trying to say? also with all-purpose and general-purpose, both isnt much different in my understanding u know english is not my native, so i ask u : If-you-want you can use smartphone-camera in any situation, right ? then whats wrong with saying it "all-purpose" there are no such rule that not allowing smartphone camera in commercial/production use etc. making it looks like limited by saying "general"-purpose is just a rule that u decide for urself, not others its just ur mindset that think smartphone is only for casual/private stuff... dont be delusive [youtube=u7KZrt_cHH0] this movie shot using iphone... that in 2018 [youtube=DQRJSxV2lLs] this with iphoneX there bunch others similar like this, so like i said "if you want" it can be done yea obviously there is real-different with real-cinema-camera but AGAIN that not what we are talking about he,you and some other can have your own perference , that cool ... i dont arguing with that but the point is, again, the part that i say many-things-wrong is that over buying an overpriced piece of tech for 1000€ that does the same as a cheap phone but could never take the same pictures a dedicated camera does and what he said for battery part, if u think that correct, then prove it, cheap phone camera as good as high-end 1000euro smartphone and also prove it that latest smartphone camera is to far to compare with dedicated camera that we even not start talking about, photography skill, obviously using camera u need basic photography knowledge, OR u want to say joke, that person without photography knowledge, with camera then magically can take better picture than smartphone camera AI ? do i said that u should change ur mind to go with 1 smartphone and ditch the camera? and that the only right way now ? now you might choose un-practical way buy using both camera+cheap-smartphone, thats your choice, and that not the point of talk, i NEVER saying having camera is wrong things. thus i only asking whether its practical in daily-life? as for me its not. Read again my post. lmao saying other narrow minded, but the point u arguing is way off, plus none proof i asked provided so far

slyphnier:

i dont mind arguing with u, but imo u need to fix ur mind before arguing like first reply saying my example is terrible because few years old camera 2nd reply saying old camera last for decades, and now you agreeing with today phone camera those are conflicting each other, so what u trying to say?

I'm arguing with you because you're treating your preferences like fact. You act like vlogging and portraits are the only uses for cameras. Where's the conflict in what I'm saying? A camera that's a few years old is one that could last over a decade... I said from the very beginning that phone cameras are good for general-purpose photos and videos. They are sufficient for the average person. But that aren't all-purpose and they are woefully inadequate beyond average use-cases. So, when someone like Silva wants a mediocre phone with a good camera, it's probably because he wants to go beyond average.

also with all-purpose and general-purpose, both isnt much different in my understanding

All-purpose means it is good in any situation. General-purpose means it is good in most/many situations but may under-perform in something more specific.

u know english is not my native, so i ask u : If-you-want you can use smartphone-camera in any situation, right ? then whats wrong with saying it "all-purpose" there are no such rule that not allowing smartphone camera in commercial/production use etc.

Because you can't use a phone camera in any situation. That's my whole point. Phone cameras have terrible low-light sensitivity. Even on the best of the best, the digital zoom quality is abysmal. There is no aperture control. There is no adjustable optical zoom, whether you want something ultra-wide or something very far away. The auto-focus isn't sufficient for certain fast-moving targets. Most are pretty good for up-close shots but they're still limited as to how close they can get. And like I mentioned before, there's no progressive/global shutter for most, if not all phone cameras. There are actually many more issues (like proper HDR support, exposure bracketing, white balance, etc) but, some phone cameras or apps do have some control for that, or have the potential to. So, how is that even slightly all-purpose? Bear in mind, I'm aware most people don't care or need such things. That's why phone cameras are good for everyday purposes.

making it looks like limited by saying "general"-purpose is just a rule that u decide for urself, not others

It's not my definition. General-purpose does not mean something is fit for all uses.

its just ur mindset that think smartphone is only for casual/private stuff... dont be delusive this movie shot using iphone... that in 2018

And you can tell it wasn't shot with a more serious camera. The focal lengths are distinctly the same. There's hardly any depth to anything. There's a distinct fisheye effect in most of the scenes. That doesn't at all mean it was filmed poorly; far from it. It was done very well, and you could argue the things I mentioned were a deliberate. I never said you can't do anything serious with a phone camera. Like I said, a professional with an iphone will do better than me with a pro tool. For that video, there's nothing particularly challenging or unusual about the way it was shot or the subjects of the shots. The only thing that really tested the camera's capabilities were the dark scenes. Here's the thing though: As much as that was well-made, give the same creators a legit video camera (so, not even a DSLR/mirrorless, because they don't have the right ergonomics for video) and I assure you, it'd come out better. Granted, not a lot better.

there bunch others similar like this, so like i said "if you want" it can be done yea obviously there is real-different with real-cinema-camera but AGAIN that not what we are talking about

Yes, if you have the will and the skill, you CAN make something amazing with a phone camera. But you're still limited. Tell someone to work for National Geographic with nothing but their iPhone and I can tell you right now they won't be re-hired. Tell someone to record an event with a live audience using a iPhone and they're basically going to be standing in the scene; that's not acceptable. Try to re-create some of the most famous scenes in cinema history with an infinite budget, but you have to use an iPhone, and you won't be able to do it.

he,you and some other can have your own perference , that cool ... i dont arguing with that but the point is, again, the part that i say many-things-wrong is that over buying an overpriced piece of tech for 1000€ that does the same as a cheap phone but could never take the same pictures a dedicated camera does and what he said for battery part,

Actually, you are arguing that. Your first response to Silva was basically questioning why he'd choose a more expensive camera over a high-end phone. The fact you still believe that this "overpriced piece of tech" does the same thing as a cheap phone really shows you don't understand why it is priced the way it is. Yes, its camera does everything a phone camera can do. And more. The "more" is what you're paying for. More quality, more features, more capabilities

if u think that correct, then prove it, cheap phone camera as good as high-end 1000euro smartphone and also prove it that latest smartphone camera is to far to compare with dedicated camera

Go to google images. Search for "national geographic animals". The vast majority of those shots could never be taken with a phone camera. Of the ones that could be taken, the quality would be distinctly worse. I really don't understand how you think a 1000 euro camera is comparable. That's like comparing a Honda Civic to a McLaren saying "they're both getting you to your destination, why spend so much more on a McLaren?" as if going to your everyday commute is why anyone buys a sportscar.

OR u want to say joke, that person without photography knowledge, with camera then magically can take better picture than smartphone camera AI ?

I have already stated several times that the user is more important than the camera. But give a chef dull rusty knife and the meal will come out worse. The meal will be better than someone who doesn't know how to boil pasta, but it won't be as good as it could be.

do i said that u should change ur mind to go with 1 smartphone and ditch the camera? and that the only right way now ?

You didn't tell me to, but your first sentence to Silva after expressing what he wanted was "many wrong things, are u living in cave?". That to me sounds like "you should change your priorities".

saying other narrow minded, but the point u arguing is way off, plus none proof i asked provided so far

Are you so incapable of google searching something? I don't even need to provide you something specific, I just have to provide you a few keywords, and the proof will show itself. You get the freedom to pick your comparisons. I feel that confident.

First of all Why U think i am thinking like u been thinking ? I said what in my head, but u still insist that i think like in your mind ? dude you cant be serious with this arent you ? so u telling i exactly thinking like in your mind ?LMAO as why i said "are u living in cave" , simply because smartphone camera catching good enough as simple as that, and we are seeing many times now, so if someone still dont know it, what else if he not living in cave ? i really no idea why urself think i suggesting priorities? and u really think u understand my mind ? so then what for arguing then ? ... its not like u proofing anything either then for proof, if that easy then why not post in here? i did many times like youtube vids, links .... if u that lazy then why starting discussion anyway ? then another out of point again, from where we talking about 1000euro camera? silva comparing 1000euro smartphone not the camera, why u cant focus, like adhd ? and to clear u up if u read again all my post, i basically just saying "its natural/practical nowadays smartphone camera is the one more used not camera" and i am saying that based what i currently see around me , thats why i am asking u, if u doing any different? but if u instead see my post arguing like u said (its your mind that decide that way): "unless you're a professional, a smartphone camera will cover all your needs" and that's just not true at all. so how about you proof it ? just saying true or false is damn easy, but it need real proof, otherwise its just bs go ahead make survey, how many % people taking camera-kit everyday everywhere with them obviously there is camera hobbyist, that love their camera now like we see in subculture, such cosplay event, where it gather lots of カメラ小僧(camera-boy) most of those camera-boy use good cameras event area sometimes turn like this https://kai-you.net/press/img/EBrbKOyUYAEU17N.jpg i ever asked them why they dont use their smartphone, some said that shooting the cosplayer with smartphone kinda unpolite because it feel "casual" but that is the tradition in past, nowdays most cosplayer saying its totaly fine to take picture with smartphone either so yeah lots people with camera, yet nowdays beside hobbyist that using camera for specific event who didnt use their smartphone camera for quick snap ? who that always go grab their camera for every single picture snap ? then u said the result matter, u think most people without photography knowledge get better result with camera? in the end if not 100% then how could u saying Not-True-At-all? if u stick with that mind, then why i have to agree with ur mindset, even more if u couldnt really proof it anyway ? i get it u are camera-person, that love camera, i am cool with that i do also work in visual, i do lots of editing, so i really know how camera can really make changes and how different (in positive way) when i editing those but cmon, u think mindlessly defending camera (that not even the point of talk) is cool ?

Silva:

I'd rather buy a REAL camera for 800€ and a phone for 200€, over buying an overpriced piece of tech for 1000€ that does the same as a cheap phone but could never take the same pictures a dedicated camera does. Plus, the battery will be dead in 2 years so you're stuck with a 1000€ brick: no thank you. But hey, people think you need to spend thousands on phones to be social accepted, good for them!

Your definitely on to something there. Lets go with then: Sony RX 100 mark 5a and a Nokia 7.2= 1000. Anyone else got a killer combo like that? 🙂

slyphnier:

First of all Why U think i am thinking like u been thinking ? I said what in my head, but u still insist that i think like in your mind ? dude you cant be serious with this arent you ? so u telling i exactly thinking like in your mind ?LMAO

...what? I know English isn't a first language to you, but that really made no sense at all.

as why i said "are u living in cave" , simply because smartphone camera catching good enough as simple as that, and we are seeing many times now, so if someone still dont know it, what else if he not living in cave ?

Catching up in what way? It's physically impossible for a phone camera to have the same level of capability as discrete cameras/camcorders. Add all the megapixels you want, it won't make up for the limitations of the lens and sensor size. Software can only do so much, and even then, the software for phone cameras isn't on-par with pro cameras. It's getting closer, but it's not quite there.

i really no idea why urself think i suggesting priorities? and u really think u understand my mind ?

Because you keep saying that a phone camera is enough, or that it's all-purpose. It isn't. You criticized Silva for his personal priorities; that implies your own.

then for proof, if that easy then why not post in here?

You really have such a hard time typing in 3 words?: https://lmgtfy.com/?q=national+geographic+animals&t=i Again, I don't need a specific source, just scroll through that link. That's enough proof.

i did many times like youtube vids, links .... if u that lazy then why starting discussion anyway ?

Because I didn't think someone would be so arrogant and clueless as to think a phone camera is actually sufficient for all purposes.

then another out of point again, from where we talking about 1000euro camera? silva comparing 1000euro smartphone not the camera, why u cant focus, like adhd ?

Fair enough, I did misread it. To be honest, this discussion is getting exhausting and I don't really understand why I have to keep telling you that a smartphone camera, regardless of price, is not enough for some people. That's the only point that really matters here and the only reason I responded to you at all.

and to clear u up if u read again all my post, i basically just saying "its natural/practical nowadays smartphone camera is the one more used not camera" and i am saying that based what i currently see around me , thats why i am asking u, if u doing any different?

Yes, that's true. I don't really see how that relates to your first response to Silva. Just because more people carry around a phone, that doesn't make a discrete/pro camera less worthy of a buy or need.

but if u instead see my post arguing like u said (its your mind that decide that way): "unless you're a professional, a smartphone camera will cover all your needs" and that's just not true at all. so how about you proof it ? just saying true or false is damn easy, but it need real proof, otherwise its just bs

Again, not sure if it's English being a 2nd language but I don't get what you're saying here. A smartphone camera won't cover all needs whether you're a professional or not. It will cover most needs on a day-to-day basis. So I agree, that statement isn't true. The link I just provided (which again... you could have effortlessly looked up yourself) is the proof.

go ahead make survey, how many % people taking camera-kit everyday everywhere with them

Seriously, how is this a valid argument? The % of people taking a camera kit with them has NOTHING to do with whether it is a worthwhile purchase and if you still insist it is, that's not your problem.

i ever asked them why they dont use their smartphone, some said that shooting the cosplayer with smartphone kinda unpolite because it feel "casual" but that is the tradition in past, nowdays most cosplayer saying its totaly fine to take picture with smartphone either

I don't know how many times I have to tell you that cameras are used for more than just vlogs and portraits... Phone cameras are purpose built to take such shots. It's the only thing they're actually really good at. It just boggles my mind how you think a picture like this or this can be done on an iphone with similar level quality (these images are downscaled). It's not gonna happen.

who didnt use their smartphone camera for quick snap ? who that always go grab their camera for every single picture snap ?

Where did I say they shouldn't? I keep telling you that phone cameras are perfectly fine for such things.

then u said the result matter, u think most people without photography knowledge get better result with camera?

Depends on what you mean by "better". The composition won't be better but the quality will be. An expensive tool doesn't make you a pro, but a pro using a crappy tool is limited by how good the result can get. Doesn't matter what it is; this applies to all products and all industries. In most cases, the pro using the crappy tool yields a perfectly adequate result. So, if a pro wants to use a phone camera, great - go for it. But there's a good reason you practically never see that happen. Nobody willfully handicaps their efforts.

i get it u are camera-person, that love camera, i am cool with that i do also work in visual, i do lots of editing, so i really know how camera can really make changes and how different (in positive way) when i editing those

Actually I'm not. I'm no artist. I could never justify spending $500+ on either a camera or a lens. I don't edit my photos, because I don't care enough (and I prefer things to look as natural as possible). But I actually understand why someone would prefer one of these over a better phone.

but cmon, u think mindlessly defending camera (that not even the point of talk) is cool ?

Uh... what to you is the point of this discussion? The only reason we're here is because you were undermining someone else's decision to get a camera with a cheaper phone. It's his right to do so. I am defending his right by explaining why a DSLR/mirrorless is better.

Samsung's phones are too primitive for me, no headphone jack, if they aren't good enough to have those in their phones then their phones are not good enough for me to spend money on. I'm on a Galaxy S9+ I've had for over 2 years, and I very much like it aside from the fact that it gets 3-4 security updates per year instead of 1 per month, but I won't ever be buying a Samdung phone again. I'm amazed the mouth breathers at these companies are surprised that their mongo infinitely increasing profit model stopped dead in its tracks. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that phones have reached a point of "good enough for the near future" for most people and that even includes me... and their prices which are so stupid that just hearing them lowers the human IQ. My MSI X470 Gaming Pro Carbon board decided that its BIOS chip should spontaneously implode, so I didn't have a motherboard for 2 weeks because LOL RMA process that's totally not pointlessly retarded (and I made sure it went as fast as possible, normally it seems it'd take 3+ weeks). For 2 weeks I used my phone as my desktop, plugged it into a primitive hub along with a keyboard and mouse and either used the garbage-ass Samdung DEX interface which they intentionally cripple to 1080p unless you buy their overpriced by literally 40-50x garbage. Or when DEX sucked too much I just used screen mirroring directly. It absolutely sucked, but for just simple work and watching videos, it was passable. If it's passable for basic work and videos as a desktop, it sure as hell is passable as a mobile device. I don't need to ever buy the "best" phone available again, I'll be perfectly content getting a crappy LG phone with boot loops and a headphone jack. Samdung/Apple can go suck themselves off back in whatever corner of hell they came from.

People are so passionate about cameras on phones etc, and here is me wishing flagship phones had a version with a basic camera .... Nexus 6 on 399 with killer specs and a bleh camera was awesome! Personally i have to take a picture with my phone over a year ...well a picture with anything really 😛 . I will be also interested in a phone that is camera free !

schmidtbag:

Uh... what to you is the point of this discussion? The only reason we're here is because you were undermining someone else's decision to get a camera with a cheaper phone. It's his right to do so. I am defending his right by explaining why a DSLR/mirrorless is better.

U are really ignorant fool or what ? I will explain to u again for last time his choice to go with camera+cheap smartphone is NOT my concern everyone can choice what they want, so why i should telling other what they should do ? what the benefit for me anyway ? Get your mind open IF he write " i will stick to my camera + and get cheap phone" then i wouldnt make any reply either What make i replied his post, like i already said is his saying "buying an overpriced piece of tech for 1000€ that does the same as a cheap phone but could never take the same pictures a dedicated camera does. Plus, the battery will be dead in 2 years so you're stuck with a 1000€ brick" ↑ this to me doesnt sound right, thus i replied with "many wrong things, are u living in cave?" and i explained why i said that in my posted So if you agree with him : 1. piece of tech for 1000€ that does the same as a cheap phone 2. overpriced piece of tech for 1000€ but could never take the same pictures a dedicated camera does. 3. Plus, the battery will be dead in 2 years so you're stuck with a 1000€ brick i suppose u agree with number 2 , so did i, but saying smartphone camera never take same pictures also can different in some cases, as we know the picture quality now getting better so how about rest , just answer that first, and give me the proof before u talk other things that not is the point of discussion edit : fix some typo

@schmidtbag addition : that single photograph wont be a comparrison proof and what i am asking is a comparrison ok u simply said that nothing in smartphone cant produce those nat.geo photograph but how about for example close up insect photograph, that maybe can shoot good enough to match nat.geo photos? Arrogant ? Clueless ? that what u think of me ? I never post BS talk, before post something i usually check something first Isnt that you that clueless saying things without even knowing the point? i am not sure why u seeing me arrogant, in this forum sometimes i said wrong things, and someone else mention it, and i admit it and last for your joke all purposes that is different in your definition u know what i am saying all-purpose, because many products using that name all-purpose flour, all-purpose cleaner, all-purpose tool (https://www.amazon.co.jp/Folding-All-Purpose-Stainless-Pouch-%E4%B8%A6%E8%A1%8C%E8%BC%B8%E5%85%A5%E5%93%81/dp/B0017D5U6S) rarely a product named with general-purpose ... thus that what in my head and so that what i said it