I guarantee that if you put that MP3 on a mobile phone, mute your notifications and use the same headphones it'll be the same or better quality.
-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Phones vs. dedicated devices for photography and audio
- Thread starter zwk500
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Some phones have very good DACs and chipsets that have very good codecs, but if you're on a train then I am sure you'd never be able to tell the difference anyway.
And clearly you can't raise a deposit for a house from skipping Spotify. You need to avoid Costa Coffee and smashed avocado sandwiches too. Keep your food budget to 30p a day and you'll be making an offer on Buckingham Palace in no time.
And clearly you can't raise a deposit for a house from skipping Spotify. You need to avoid Costa Coffee and smashed avocado sandwiches too. Keep your food budget to 30p a day and you'll be making an offer on Buckingham Palace in no time.
CaptainHaddock
Established Member
- Joined
- 10 Feb 2011
- Messages
- 2,221
That's not my experience.
Mobile phones are good for doing lots of things adequately but for the connoisseur a dedicated device will always perform a specific task far better.
For example if you hired a wedding photographer and he turned up on your big day with just an Iphone you'd be pretty hacked off, wouldn't you?
Bartsimho
Member
I think photography and portable music devices are 2 completely different kettles of fish.
Agreed. A top end phone supporting lossless codecs and all the hi-resolution protocols, with a suitable DAC, is likely to be every bit as good as a top-end audio player.
A camera phone isn't going to be a match for a professional camera with changeable lenses, although I'd say that for a lot of wedding photos (beyond the main ceremony) the best and most memorable photos will be the ones taken on the phones carried by the guests, as well as videos.
What file format are you playing? An .mp3 is not going to suddenly sound like it's being played from Abbey Road because it's on a Walkman (or whatever device is your preference) rather than an iPhone. The most important thing will be the file quality itself, then the quality of the headphones, and only then will the device itself make a difference. I wouldn't be surprised if an iPhone's DAC beat most dedicated players anyway, apple are pretty good on music quality.
That's not the same though. If I hired somebody to play the organ for my wedding and he turned up with a CD I'd be miffed, but this is listening to music on a train. There are lots of jobs where people might be required to take a quick photo for reference/documentation purposes - they're almost all taken on the company iPhone, because it's not necessary to have the sharpness of a professional camera setup for taking photos of, say, a parcel on a doorstep.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
Particularly as if you're using Bluetooth headphones the digital to analogue converter is not in the phone but in the headphones, thus the sound quality depends more on those than the phone. Similarly if you're using a plug-in Lightning to headphone converter, and probably USB C ones too (not 100% sure if USB C can carry analogue audio or not).
Having said that about cameras, the iPhones, particularly the Pro, are absolutely superb, particularly in low light. You certainly can do better with an SLR if you're an experienced professional, but if you hand an SLR with a set of lenses and a light meter to a random person in the street who isn't an experienced, professional photographer, and hand them an iPhone Pro, they will near as 100% produce a higher quality of photograph using the iPhone than the camera. And the iPhone I suspect beats pretty much every single compact digital camera on the market now.
There are Android phones that are as good right up the premium end, but most people on here who are cynics of smartphones are unlikely to have ever used one - cheap phones have cheap, poor quality cameras.
(from https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...oss-of-free-wi-fi.249107/page-11#post-6253367)
Iskra
Established Member
I'm down to just using my Iphone Pro and Beatz Headphones. That's a combination that works for me in just about every situation without carrying too many devices, cables, powerbanks etc around as I usually travel pretty light. The camera on the Iphone is amazing and with further editing it's fairly easy to make stunning photo's (assuming you're in the right place at the right time, with the right subject).
Only professionals are going to need more than a good smartphone these days.
Only professionals are going to need more than a good smartphone these days.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
I think it's the bit in bold that speaks for phone cameras best. The best camera is the one you have with you when something worthy of photography* happens. Several grand's worth of DSLR and associated kit are all very well, but they're more likely to be at home unless you were planning some photography. You'd be more likely to have a compact in your pocket 20 years ago, but now you've almost certainly got your phone, and only the cheapest dumbphones don't have a camera at all now.
* Obviously this is abused too, e.g. people taking photos of the people being resuscitated on Bournemouth beach a few days ago.
Yes, I would agree that some phone camera's are excellent and more than capable in producing good quality images. The issue for most people because they are oblivious that when pointing and shooting a subject, that the lens is set as a wide angle lens which creates a a partial fish eye perspective and neither true compared with what your eyes see either. To show what I described as a standard lens view (as per what your eyes actually see) you actually need to use fingers on the phone camera to shorten the view. Likewise, if you attempt to 'zoom' in with a phone camera, hand shake becomes an issue too. Like with any type of camera, the main ingredient for good images is good light too although the 'chip' involved in the this technology has improved remarkably over the last handful of years were recording some 'night' images has become easier.
Although camera phones have their 'everyday' uses and certainly have killed the 'compact digital camera' market for sure, a good quality DSLR camera with lenses is the best option for decent photography. Also remember, the final image taken is only as good as the person who took the image in the first place, with in numerous instances, is a lot to be desired!
Although camera phones have their 'everyday' uses and certainly have killed the 'compact digital camera' market for sure, a good quality DSLR camera with lenses is the best option for decent photography. Also remember, the final image taken is only as good as the person who took the image in the first place, with in numerous instances, is a lot to be desired!
birchesgreen
Established Member
My Nikon DSLR has gathered dust for some time, i just use my iPhone now for all photography and video. Much less to carry around and also a lot less conspicuous to those who think taking photos of trains is illegal.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
Premium phone cameras take multiple photos (it's actually a short video on iPhones) and use that to interpolate out blur from this sort of issue. There's a huge difference between budget or midrange phones and premium phones here.
True, though as noted above the software in phones can compensate for a lot of the issues a poor photographer might cause (though not simply for failing to get the subject within the photograph of course!
)
As far as phones vs mp3 players for audio, I find there is very little difference involved unless you are talking about an mp3 player with a decent DAC built in. I used to have a separate Chord Mojo DAC which I would use when on the move with a good pair of wired headphones, but I have come to find that in most situations you are better off with Spotify and a pair of decent headphones if you are willing to trade a small difference in audio quality for a much cheaper and more practical experience, despite what a lot of audiophiles would say. When you are on a train or a plane, good noise cancelling far outweighs any benefit that spending the money on a DAC or a better mp3 player would have instead.
I think the main difference between the camera on a phone and a proper DSLR is that the DSLR does not need to do software trickery to get decent photos, the image sensor on even the best phone camera is miniscule compared to even an APS-C sensor, which isn't the biggest though by no means the smallest.
It's zooming in on a photo where you start to notice the real differences, things that look sharp when zoomed in on my crappy old Sony A230 are blurry on my phone (though admittedly that's an old Lumia 950, they did have good cameras though (the best by far at the time)).
Personally I still like even a compact digital camera or camcorder as you can get proper optical zoom, my old Sony miniDV camcorder (brought in 2008) had 40X optical zoom, no phone has that.
Music wise I use my Lumia 950 primarily with CD rips using WMA Lossless or if I have to download it I'll try to get lossless versions where possible.
It's zooming in on a photo where you start to notice the real differences, things that look sharp when zoomed in on my crappy old Sony A230 are blurry on my phone (though admittedly that's an old Lumia 950, they did have good cameras though (the best by far at the time)).
Personally I still like even a compact digital camera or camcorder as you can get proper optical zoom, my old Sony miniDV camcorder (brought in 2008) had 40X optical zoom, no phone has that.
Music wise I use my Lumia 950 primarily with CD rips using WMA Lossless or if I have to download it I'll try to get lossless versions where possible.
birchesgreen
Established Member
Oh yes at distance a proper camera is best though if you are taking a photo of a train at a platform i doubt you'd notice any difference.
Having said that i was watching a live airport stream from Sydney airport, it was at night and the camera was able to handle it fine, able to see planes landing even at distance. I nearly fell out of my seat when the streamer said he was using an iPhone 14 not a fancy camera with night vision.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
With regard to optical zoom iPhone Pros have 6 times. Obviously not anywhere near 40 times, but most people aren't the paparazzi, and because the resolution is good a bit of digital zoom is OK on top.
J-2739
Established Member
A lot of my course involves photography. You can definitely tell the difference between a photo taken on a mobile phone and a photo taken on a dedicated camera.
I may go and invest in a good one during the summer.
I may go and invest in a good one during the summer.
It's the same for me. I have not taken my DSLR out for quiet a while (doesn't help that I need a new lens for it) and I've just been using my Samsung S20 to take photos. It takes good enough photos when I'm out and about.
RailWonderer
Established Member
For years I have had Canon DSLR (now mirrorless) and a Nikon F100 SLR for 35mm, and I always get better results in auto mode than doing the settings manually. I cannot adjust ISO, shutter speed and aperture to better the results from auto mode. I have long been considering a Nikon coolpix to take with me for better photos than my phone, but when I don't want or can't carry a camera with a telephoto.
When an iphone zooms in it absolutely falls apart - the sensor is way too small compared to a full frame 35mm or even a 65mm medium format sized sensor.
When an iphone zooms in it absolutely falls apart - the sensor is way too small compared to a full frame 35mm or even a 65mm medium format sized sensor.
"The camera are so good" is a subjective view. Pictures taken on smartphones are good enough for viewing on phones of normal monitors (1080p types). Viewing on a UHD (or better) screen, and definitely a hard copy print, clearly reveals the flaws in picture taken with substandard sensors and lens. That's before any processing is done to hide those flaws in the picture.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
Writes someone who has never used an iPhone Pro (or equivalent around-£1K Android premium device) and is making judgments based on budget or midrange phones.
Yes, you'll get a better photo from a DSLR if you're a good photographer*, but you certainly get a good quality one from an iPhone Pro. Yes, some of that is post-processing, but that's all built in, you just point it and press the button.
* An inexperienced photographer will probably get a better photo from an iPhone unless conditions are perfect.
Last edited:
I've just loaded a film into my Canon T90. Now I have to find something worth photographing.
Let me guess - the DSLR is from about 15 years ago? That was when people bought DSLRs in large numbers, superceding film SLRs and early digital compacts (the ones that looked like fag packets with a tiny lens in the corner, and about 1Mpx of resolution). I was in a camera club at the time and our numbers suddenly tripled. The numbers have gone down again now to the original hard core enthusiasts (or fewer), and those DSLRs are mostly on Ebay I think.
DSLRs themselves have moved on a lot too, with resolutions having risen from around 6 Mpx to at least 24 Mpx and up to 60 Mpx, and they are also much more expensive in real terms because the market is now much smaller and consists only of professionals and the keenest of amateurs.
Depends on your approach - I am never inclined to take impromptu photos. But you do need to be an enthusiast or a professional to get your worth out of a DSLR or MILC*. In film days I went out on trips specifically to take photos with a massive medium format camera outfit that weighed about 10 kg all told, and I only had 10 shots on a roll, and now I do the same with my DSLR and outfit of four lenses. At other times I admit that I would take out my phone to use its camera if I saw something like a bridge collapsing or aircraft crashing, but I would need to figure out how to put it into camera mode for the first time I would ever have used it that way.
* Mirrorless interchangeable lens camera.
Last edited:
class68fan
On Moderation
It depend on what type of photo you take. A phone is good for snapshot like would be done with instamatic film camera. A slr will always be better photo than phone for other photo. Whatever camera used it is how framed is how good a photo is.
birchesgreen
Established Member
Around then, i did use it for a long time but when the iPhone camera was good enough that took over, it has a number of benefits including auto geotagging things, can record videos on the same device, share immediately on social media. Modern DSLRs can maybe do these things too but i can't afford one.
The images seem good enough to me, when my first railway book comes out next year y'all can see if you agree.
Writes somebody who has no knowledge of either my phone/camera experience and moreso of those professional users that I know), who have tried to do anything worthwhile on even pricey iphones (and the so called 'pro' models).
There are limitations with any mobile phone when taking stills or video, that are mainly due to the need to get critical physical components/mechanisms into a package less than 10mm thick. The shortcuts of style over function can seriously affect the quality (when viewed from a professional or camera enthusiast standpoint). These include:
only 2D image stabilisation
non-constant frame rates
poor sound/image synchronisation
inability to set a true shutter angle
It is true that the best camera is the one that you have avaqilable so phones are well suited to quick snaps (still or video), but for anything that that needs to be more than "the best that I could do completely unprepared at the time", smartphones don't cut it, even at the top of the range.WelshBluebird
Established Member
- Joined
- 14 Jan 2010
- Messages
- 4,923
There's a few things being discussed here.
In terms of music playback, a high end phone used with high end wired headphones will absolutely match (and maybe beat) an MP3 player / digital music player. Especially something like a Sansa Clip which is a cheap mass market product.
In terms of photography, for the vast majority of people smartphone cameras are now good enough. Its why hardly anyone bothers with a point and shoot anymore. Sure they aren't the best, and if you had a modern decent quality point and shoot (which do still exist), then you would get better results, but for most people that isn't needed. Obviously for actual professional use (wedding photography is the example used up thread), then yeah you'd expect an actual professional bit of kit. Similarly you'd expect a wedding DJ to do more than just plug their phone into some speakers (though I suspect some will probably just do that!).
In terms of music playback, a high end phone used with high end wired headphones will absolutely match (and maybe beat) an MP3 player / digital music player. Especially something like a Sansa Clip which is a cheap mass market product.
In terms of photography, for the vast majority of people smartphone cameras are now good enough. Its why hardly anyone bothers with a point and shoot anymore. Sure they aren't the best, and if you had a modern decent quality point and shoot (which do still exist), then you would get better results, but for most people that isn't needed. Obviously for actual professional use (wedding photography is the example used up thread), then yeah you'd expect an actual professional bit of kit. Similarly you'd expect a wedding DJ to do more than just plug their phone into some speakers (though I suspect some will probably just do that!).
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
Tends to be a laptop these days, usually a Mac, but an iPhone can produce the same quality of sound as a Mac. Probably more about the ability to store enough music unless doing it off Spotify!
Quite possibly this is because I'm not very good at using the camera on my iPhone, but I get much better results from my 15-year-old Fuji camera (which still uses xD cards 
- fortunately I also have an old computer (running Windows Vista ) which has a card reader for them).
- fortunately I also have an old computer (running Windows Vista ) which has a card reader for them).- Status