SurreyAlan A few years back my daughter in law brought her full frame Canon along with her grey 400 lens (I think the grey ones are a bit better and a lot pricier than the black ones) and taking pictures of birds on a very distant tree, by the time you’d zoomed in on the computer there really was no difference in quality, they were both fuzzy but the Canon cost a great deal more. I believe to get that amount of zoom (1200) Bridge cameras use the same size sensor as a phone so perhaps a phone is as good as good as a camera.
In my opinion, those are two of the most obvious areas where “proper” cameras are going to wn out over mobile phone camera functionality in every situation bar one, that being portability and convenience. It comes at a price though.
As for “grey” lenses …. yes. Those SLR lenses come in what could be categorised as ‘consumer/prosumer’, and ‘professional’, but the ‘pro’ class would certainly include serious enthusiasts if they have the funds to afford them. Canon’s high-end lenses have an “L” designation. Most, but not all, L lenses are in white/grey, and I’m not aware of any non-L lenses other than in black. But there are some L lenses, especially the physically smaller examples, that aren’t white, so being white isn’t definitive as to whether it’s L or not. I have or have had two L lenses that aren’t.
Both “macro” photography (like the mushrooms) and high magnification telephoto (or zoom) work certainly come with their own challenges. In the case of macro, it’s often either getting enough light on the subject (enter specialist flashguns, etc) or, getting enough of the subject matter in focus (enter huge fun with “focus stacking”). In the case of the long range stuff, it’ll again be light (hence expensive, or VERY expensive, lenses with very large maximum aperture (smaller f-number), and that then brings up issues of both solid support for camera and lens because handheld is often no practical) and/or image stabilisation.
You mentioned “1200”. Canon used to have a 1200mm telephoto, though I think it’s deleted/superceded now. Some years ago, courtesy of a Canon UK product manager, I managed to have a play with one. That thing was collossal, a real beast. It must have been getting on for 3.5 feet long for a start, and weighed so much I used not one but two tripods supporting the lens, with the camera just hanging off the end. I certainly didn’t want the tripod, and you NEEDED tripods, overbalancing. At that time (maybe 20 years ago) that lens was :-
- built only to order, not manufactured for stock,
- priced, I was told, according to the Yen ecxhange rate when ordering, and
- in the realm of UK £80,000.
Yeah, £80k, 20-ish years ago. Dropping it would not have gone down well’ It’s the kind of thing used by the BBC Wildlife unit, and for National Geographic magazine, for ultra long ranges. That, obviously, is taking things to the extreme, but the very cheapest of those L lenses are around £500 mark, and you can top £2k pretty easily, wth many being significantly above that.
As might be obvious, I’m pretty keen on my photography, but while a little of my photo work has been commercial, I’m most certainly not a professioal photgrapher. More of a keen amateur that happened to get paid work sometimes. And while I would certainly maintain that that kind of equipment knocks mobile phone cameras into a cocked hat 100% of the time for image quality, IF your needs are demanding enough, many mobile phones are certainly astonishingly good at most things, and for most people most of the time, every bit good enough. And I use my phone camra a fair bit, not least because it’s the one I almost certainly have with me.
I’ve also known a few pro photographers use phones in SOME situations. For a start, trying to shoot “candid” or “street” photography with a ruddy great SLR with a dirty great white lens on it? Well, let’s just say you stand out a mile. Click away with a good phone, though, and barely anybody will notice let alone give a hoot.
IMHO, it’s horses for courses.
