Cellphone/Smartphone Photography
So tell us, does it count as art? Should it be taken seriously?
Will it replace DSLRs and other cameras?
This series is all about having a healthy debate over photography-related topics, so please feel encouraged to leave a comment here with which side you're on, respond to the comments other members leave here, and debate with each other in a polite manner. Have fun with it!
Last Month's Debate:
Last month the debate was "DSLR vs. Bridge/Ultrazoom/Other" and there were some very interesting arguments!
TFG1001 said:
I adore my Canon 100D DSLR camera. I have 2 lens for it, Wide angle and Telephoto, it cost me £500 with a bag, 2 SD cards. Im only student photographer, and so having moved onto digital workshops, I went straight to a DSLR camera, but I'm aware with bridge cameras, they are lighter and the lens are 'fixed'. I reckon depending on the photographer and the way they want to present themselves for work experience and jobs, DSLR is my top priority, but both are digital, but the Bridge cameras are closely related to the compact cameras, and I like to learn a lot of new features and I love learning new controls to the creation of an image rather then simply clicking a button to take it, I love looking at the apertures, shutter speeds, flash, and other controls, basically more to learn is my preference so I have covered everything. DSLR cameras weigh more than a Bridge camera, but DSLR to me has wide range of more features and options.
13CatsAndCounting said:
I started out with a Minolta X370 film camera, and to this day it was the best standard SLR I ever used. However, unless you have your own darkroom, digital photography is the way to go. Bridge cameras are a good affordable alternative to DSLR's, so long as you do your homework and get a good one. My first such camera was a Fujifilm S5200. I loved it dearly, but eventually 5.2 megapixels wasn't enough. So I got another Fuji with 12 megapixels, and I like this one just as much. Eventually I would like to have a DSLR, but the prohibitive cost means it won't be any time soon, and it won't be new.
CeaSanddorn said:
Bridge Camera!
A must-have for travelling, because it is not so heavy to carry.
The lenses are great too ( depends on the producer).
I am absolutely happy with my Olympus Pen Pl5.
Sarah-BK said:
I am for dSLRs - being able to swap lenses according to your need is probably the best feature. As far as I'm aware sensors in bridge cameras are smaller, hence shallow depths of field (which has so much creative potential) are not as easy to obtain. Even if sensors were as large as a crop sensor dSLR, the fixed zoom lens will never have a wide aperture such as f/1.8 which you can slap on your dSLR (for cheap - Canon/Yongnuo 50mm f/1.8 for example) if you wanted to.
Of course bridge cameras are often cheaper than dSLRs (depending what you are looking at, perhaps not by much), but with interchangeable lenses (especially the ability to use fixed prime lenses) and better image quality a dSLR is worth the investment. If you don't have a lot of money up-front you can build your lens collection slowly for your dSLR, with the bridge ur stuck with one. Changing lenses can be a pain though unless you choose to invest in a zoom (this is a misnomer since zooms are actually cheaper than a bunch of primes), but wide apertures and prime lenses cannot be beat. Although, Fujifilm's XF zooms actually seem to rival the sharpness of their own primes - something new and unusual to me.
Weight-wise, now that's a debate. My Canon 600D and 40mm pancake are really light - you wouldn't get the flexibility of a superzoom, but in actual fact the reason I would go out with my 40mm attached is cause the sharpness beats my kit lens out of the window. Prime lenses also help me compose my shots, since I get used to the focal length and know what will fit in my viewfinder before lifting my camera to my face. For varying situations then having a prime may be a disadvantage sometimes, but I prefer to have fewer good quality sharp images than mediocre ones at varying focal lengths.
Nalusa said:
I'm a new hobbyist photographer, so I might be talking out my nose while wearing rose-colored glasses, but I think each has its own perks; be it convenience, weight or expandability.
I've had a hand full of cameras, a point and shoot sony, and a Mamiya/Sekkor 1000 dtl (which was eventually stolen, unfortunately) and now my Nikon D3300. Each was great- and while I can't vouch for a true bridge camera, I can for each of the cameras I have owned.
The Sony was convenient and durable, the DTL had an amazing feel and while the screw-on lenses were trippy, it was a dream to handle and easy to operate even with my limited knowledge. The Nikon is proving to be a beast I can learn with, and it also has settings where if I just want to point and shoot (say at a BBQ with friends) I can. It also wasn't prohibitively expensive for the starter kit.
Read more of the great arguments here: Photography Debates: DSLR vs. Bridge Cameras
TFG1001 said:
I adore my Canon 100D DSLR camera. I have 2 lens for it, Wide angle and Telephoto, it cost me £500 with a bag, 2 SD cards. Im only student photographer, and so having moved onto digital workshops, I went straight to a DSLR camera, but I'm aware with bridge cameras, they are lighter and the lens are 'fixed'. I reckon depending on the photographer and the way they want to present themselves for work experience and jobs, DSLR is my top priority, but both are digital, but the Bridge cameras are closely related to the compact cameras, and I like to learn a lot of new features and I love learning new controls to the creation of an image rather then simply clicking a button to take it, I love looking at the apertures, shutter speeds, flash, and other controls, basically more to learn is my preference so I have covered everything. DSLR cameras weigh more than a Bridge camera, but DSLR to me has wide range of more features and options.
13CatsAndCounting said:
I started out with a Minolta X370 film camera, and to this day it was the best standard SLR I ever used. However, unless you have your own darkroom, digital photography is the way to go. Bridge cameras are a good affordable alternative to DSLR's, so long as you do your homework and get a good one. My first such camera was a Fujifilm S5200. I loved it dearly, but eventually 5.2 megapixels wasn't enough. So I got another Fuji with 12 megapixels, and I like this one just as much. Eventually I would like to have a DSLR, but the prohibitive cost means it won't be any time soon, and it won't be new.
CeaSanddorn said:
Bridge Camera!
A must-have for travelling, because it is not so heavy to carry.
The lenses are great too ( depends on the producer).
I am absolutely happy with my Olympus Pen Pl5.
Sarah-BK said:
I am for dSLRs - being able to swap lenses according to your need is probably the best feature. As far as I'm aware sensors in bridge cameras are smaller, hence shallow depths of field (which has so much creative potential) are not as easy to obtain. Even if sensors were as large as a crop sensor dSLR, the fixed zoom lens will never have a wide aperture such as f/1.8 which you can slap on your dSLR (for cheap - Canon/Yongnuo 50mm f/1.8 for example) if you wanted to.
Of course bridge cameras are often cheaper than dSLRs (depending what you are looking at, perhaps not by much), but with interchangeable lenses (especially the ability to use fixed prime lenses) and better image quality a dSLR is worth the investment. If you don't have a lot of money up-front you can build your lens collection slowly for your dSLR, with the bridge ur stuck with one. Changing lenses can be a pain though unless you choose to invest in a zoom (this is a misnomer since zooms are actually cheaper than a bunch of primes), but wide apertures and prime lenses cannot be beat. Although, Fujifilm's XF zooms actually seem to rival the sharpness of their own primes - something new and unusual to me.
Weight-wise, now that's a debate. My Canon 600D and 40mm pancake are really light - you wouldn't get the flexibility of a superzoom, but in actual fact the reason I would go out with my 40mm attached is cause the sharpness beats my kit lens out of the window. Prime lenses also help me compose my shots, since I get used to the focal length and know what will fit in my viewfinder before lifting my camera to my face. For varying situations then having a prime may be a disadvantage sometimes, but I prefer to have fewer good quality sharp images than mediocre ones at varying focal lengths.
Nalusa said:
I'm a new hobbyist photographer, so I might be talking out my nose while wearing rose-colored glasses, but I think each has its own perks; be it convenience, weight or expandability.
I've had a hand full of cameras, a point and shoot sony, and a Mamiya/Sekkor 1000 dtl (which was eventually stolen, unfortunately) and now my Nikon D3300. Each was great- and while I can't vouch for a true bridge camera, I can for each of the cameras I have owned.
The Sony was convenient and durable, the DTL had an amazing feel and while the screw-on lenses were trippy, it was a dream to handle and easy to operate even with my limited knowledge. The Nikon is proving to be a beast I can learn with, and it also has settings where if I just want to point and shoot (say at a BBQ with friends) I can. It also wasn't prohibitively expensive for the starter kit.
Read more of the great arguments here: Photography Debates: DSLR vs. Bridge Cameras
Don't hesitate to contact CRPhotography!
Whether you have a question, issue or concern, please do not hesitate to note us! We would love to assist you in any way we can.
We are always looking for suggestions on improvement within CRPhotography and as your Photography Community Team too. Contact us for anything about the Photography Community on DeviantArt that you would like us to know, and support us by donating
here! 
