Which Format?

[John King]

Yes. Definitely. On a recent trip to Cornwall (SW England), I took pictures in the same place and at roughly the same time with both my M43 kit and iPhone 12 Mini. In some instances I prefer the iPhone output. I’ve yet to compare images properly on a big screen but I’m surprised / delighted / impressed by the phone images.

I would be interested in your thoughts after you have viewed them on a proper screen.

My smartphone images often look very good, but 'only' up to about A4 size.

My mFTs images look very good at up to about A0+ size ...

 

[Glevum Owl]

I would be interested in your thoughts after you have viewed them on a proper screen.

My smartphone images often look very good, but 'only' up to about A4 size.

My mFTs images look very good at up to about A0+ size ...

I’ll do my best. Might take a couple of days.

 

[Petrochemist]

Any smartphone shooters here?

My mobile is ancient, I have used it for record shots on half a dozen occasions, I think it still has Noah's meter readings on it...
I can't take a proper photo with it, as the phone decides all the settings. Six low resolution images is all the memory holds so it couldn't be used much without a memory card anyway.

Every camera I've bought in the last 10 years beats it hands down - including web cameras/boroscopes etc.

 

[John King]

My mobile is ancient, I have used it for record shots on half a dozen occasions, I think it still has Noah's meter readings on it...
I can't take a proper photo with it, as the phone decides all the settings. Six low resolution images is all the memory holds so it couldn't be used much without a memory card anyway.

Every camera I've bought in the last 10 years beats it hands down - including web cameras/boroscopes etc.

Even my retired one sounds better than that!

My new one is relatively decent, given phone ergonomics and other limitations.

More than good enough for happy snaps, and far, far better than the Instamatics of yore.

e.g.

Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

 

[Glevum Owl]

As promised, iPhone and Oly 5iii photos. Sorry if these don't come out too clearly. I'lll try to explain as much as possible in the accompanying comments. For info., despite shooting semi-pro in the past, I'm now retired so am a family / amateur / fun photographer. Photos these days go on digital photo frames, the annual calendar from Vistaprint, eBay and there's the very occasional print, no bigger than 7" x 5". Having said that, I do like to get the best quality images at all times. Best is, of course, a subjective term.

These comparison shots were taken on the coast of Cornwall, England at the tail end of one of the hurricanes (Eunice?) that hit the UK in February '22. On the cliff top the wind was so strong I had trouble standing still let alone holding a camera / phone steady. Thankfully it was blowing onshore else I'm not sure I'd be here.

First up, SOOC and SOOP images, side by side in LR Classic. Oly ORF = more accurate rendering of the colours of the sky at the time. iPhone HEIC = IMO a more immediate and aesthetically pleasing image despite being a factually inaccurate record of the scene.

Zoomed in version of the above

I ran the ORF through DxO tweaked it a bit and and applied DeepPRIME. It's not easy to see in the screen grabs but DxO image is predictably sharper and the contrast & colours faithful to the reality of the scene. Yet everyone to whom I show these prefers the iPhone image.

To return to the OP, the Oly and the iPhone are both 'worth' it: the former for creative latitude, the latter for convenience. YMMV.

If anyone wants to 'have a go' with either or both these images, I can make them available for download. Start a private conversation with me via the forum and I'll send the link.

 

[Darmok N Jalad]

As promised, iPhone and Oly 5iii photos. Sorry if these don't come out too clearly. I'lll try to explain as much as possible in the accompanying comments. For info., despite shooting semi-pro in the past, I'm now retired so am a family / amateur / fun photographer. Photos these days go on digital photo frames, the annual calendar from Vistaprint, eBay and there's the very occasional print, no bigger than 7" x 5". Having said that, I do like to get the best quality images at all times. Best is, of course, a subjective term.

These comparison shots were taken on the coast of Cornwall, England at the tail end of one of the hurricanes (Eunice?) that hit the UK in February '22. On the cliff top the wind was so strong I had trouble standing still let alone holding a camera / phone steady. Thankfully it was blowing onshore else I'm not sure I'd be here.

First up, SOOC and SOOP images, side by side in LR Classic. Oly ORF = more accurate rendering of the colours of the sky at the time. iPhone HEIC = IMO a more immediate and aesthetically pleasing image despite being a factually inaccurate record of the scene.
View attachment 297529

Zoomed in version of the above
View attachment 297532

I ran the ORF through DxO tweaked it a bit and and applied DeepPRIME. It's not easy to see in the screen grabs but DxO image is predictably sharper and the contrast & colours faithful to the reality of the scene. Yet everyone to whom I show these prefers the iPhone image.
View attachment 297533

To return to the OP, the Oly and the iPhone are both 'worth' it: the former for creative latitude, the latter for convenience. YMMV.

If anyone wants to 'have a go' with either or both these images, I can make them available for download. Start a private conversation with me via the forum and I'll send the link.

Yes, I believe most modern smartphones aren’t just taking a RAW image and applying a simple NR filter. Instead, it’s applying AI and possibly even some multisampling to output something more sharp and vibrant, and noise is often nuked to oblivion. iPhone actually doesn’t even go as far as something like a Galaxy or Pixel, which often raise saturation and/or vibrance even more. As you mention, casual observers seem to prefer that result, and I’ve seen reviewers actually criticize the iPhone’s output when compared to Pixel because it’s not as colorful, or that it didn’t handle shadows as well when shooting directly at the sun! It’s definitely a ”perception vs reality” situation. It’s actually kinda funny, of all the phones I’ve owned over the years, I preferred the output of the LG G4 and iPhone XR the best. Newer iPhones really seem to overcook it, IMO, and they aren’t even the worst offenders, but I guess it’s what people want.

 

[Glevum Owl]

Yes, I believe most modern smartphones aren’t just taking a RAW image and applying a simple NR filter. Instead, it’s applying AI and possibly even some multisampling to output something more sharp and vibrant, and noise is often nuked to oblivion. iPhone actually doesn’t even go as far as something like a Galaxy or Pixel, which often raise saturation and/or vibrance even more. As you mention, casual observers seem to prefer that result, and I’ve seen reviewers actually criticize the iPhone’s output when compared to Pixel because it’s not as colorful, or that it didn’t handle shadows as well when shooting directly at the sun! It’s definitely a ”perception vs reality” situation. It’s actually kinda funny, of all the phones I’ve owned over the years, I preferred the output of the LG G4 and iPhone XR the best. Newer iPhones really seem to overcook it, IMO, and they aren’t even the worst offenders, but I guess it’s what people want.

I’m with you 100% on the last few generations of iPhone overcooking images.

Landscapes and architecture look great. People on the other hand can look odd if shooting a single subject from the waist up or closer; colours can be way over the top with sometimes too much recovered from the shadows leading to a weird HDR look.

Initially I was impressed with my iPhone’s camera but recently I’ve begun to miss my little Panasonic LX10/15. Maybe compacts are still “worth it” at least for those of us still wanting something closer to reality.

 

[MoonMind]

I’m with you 100% on the last few generations of iPhone overcooking images.

Landscapes and architecture look great. People on the other hand can look odd if shooting a single subject from the waist up or closer; colours can be way over the top with sometimes too much recovered from the shadows leading to a weird HDR look.

Initially I was impressed with my iPhone’s camera but recently I’ve begun to miss my little Panasonic LX10/15. Maybe compacts are still “worth it” at least for those of us still wanting something closer to reality.

Welcome aboard, Glevum Owl!

M.

 

[davidzvi]

@MoonMind have you ever done a direct Z7 vs E0M5.3 comparison?

I'd love to see say at 1600, 3200, & 6400 ISO with the exact same aperture, shutter, focal length (not MMe), and distance to subject. With the Z7 cropped down to approximate framing / MP. Should result is similar ~20MP images.

 

[JensM]

I have used APS-C, but that is as large as I have gone, and it was somewhat as I feared at the time. The K7 spent most of its time on the shelf, while I pottered around with a number of very pocketable Ixus models. Interestingly enough, the K7 and the GF1 came out at the same time, but just reading that the M43 sensor size was comparable to the not to sharp 110 film turned me off that at the time and Panasonic making cameras? Dont make me laugh...

And yet, in retrospect and after getting a GF1, I really cant but wonder how many thousands shots I have missed between 2009 and 2016, when I finally stepped into the very nice world of M43 and took up photography as a proper past-time again. Sometimes I do hear the song of the Fools Frame (tm), but what I am curious about in regards of those are oldies, the Nikon D700 and the EOS5D MkII, but those two are more on the praise to what the sensor does, rather than what size it is.

As for the phones, I have tried it for EDCìng for three, four years, but found it not to my liking, based on lack of tactility. I do not fear the smaller sensors sizes, but prefer a compact camera over a phone.

Medium format intrigues me quite a bit, particularly the Fujis, but I cant really see that happening anytime soon based solely on Cost/Benefit.

I could probably enjoy a medium form film camera to some extent, but after shooting a roll of regular 35mm the other year, I found the proccess around it somewhat tedious, but I really liked getting the envelope with the enlargments, so it is somewhat of a toss-up, not something I am actively pursuing but not off the books, either.

What do I base this off?

The boring insight is that gear size matters for me, and that I so far in my life haven't made hard copies in anything larger than A3, and rather few of those as well.

Mostly it has been 10X15 cm (6X4) or 20X30ish cm (A4/12X8ish) so I don't really think I have any need for something that can print several feet in each direction from an unmassaged file all the time. If the time comes to print that large I am not doing it at home anyway, so the lab handling the task is probably more than competent do undertake the job of getting me there, or I can run it trough the Topaz suite for cleanliness, sharpness and size.