DPReview Going Downhill Fast

I notice you never said anything about my alternate suggestion for "toy". Why is that? What's wrong with saying "I don't think smartphones are real cameras because they don't have creative control"?

I don't have a problem with that. Or saying "because they don't have a zoom lens". Or "because they do too much image processing". Or "because they let ordinary people take pictures without photography skills". I may agree. I may disagree. But they're all claims with meaning that can be discussed, not empty name-calling. Disagreement is not the issue; lack of substance is.

My apologies if I'm wrong. But what it looks like to me - especially combined with statements like

and

is that you want to badmouth something without giving people anything of substance to respond to. Or being willing to listen to responses. That's just another way of shutting down discussion, and it makes me as angry as censorship does. It's dishonest, it provokes mudslinging, and it poisons a forum's atmosphere.

That's what really bugs me. Not how mild or strong "toy" is as an insult. But the dishonesty in jumping into a discussion just to name-call, without real claims that people can respond to. Saying that you're only there to push your opinion and not to discuss is the cherry on top.

As I said, that kind of cheap debating tactic drops your credibility to zero as far as I'm concerned. If you want respect and people to actually listen to you, that's not how to do it. I want a forum where people can discuss things freely, not one where people derail conversations by dive-bombing them with empty put-downs that they're not willing to discuss.

It's how I FEEL like describing it. Period. Most people inherently understand that a toy piano is not considered worthy of being used by a concert pianist in a concert. Calling a smartphone a toy is my way of saying I consider the same to apply here.

Plus, as one person said:

Anything can be considered anything, and that's why we rather allow free speech. It is not calling SOMEONES camera a toy. It is calling a piece of hardware a toy, and some people just "happen to own/use", and getting sensitive about it.
There absolutely has to be space for discussing stuff other ways than positive

I don't care to cater to everyone's particular sensitivities, even if I could, I still don't want to. I'm not name calling, I'm not using racist terms etc, so to me that's good enough.

As Ashley said to Will in Fresh Prince, in an episode where he said her maturing from a girl to a woman kind of made him uncomfortable, she replied "fine, be uncomfortable." She said nothing at all about sympathizing with how he felt, she made it clear--that's your problem and I feel no obligation towards it.

BINGO.

These kinds of claims with no association with facts or evidence are always the most compelling to me.

You make a great point here, 'My opinion is not dependent on how l make you feel'. When we feel that we have to tailor what we say to meet everyone's approval that invariably leads to dishonesty. This is effectively the chilling effect and the destruction of free speech, the self policing of communication. The destruction of free speech is one step away from 'thought crime'.

There is fine line in saying stuff that someone might found uncomfortable, or saying something uncomfortable on purpose. That might not fall under free speech, and might be forum rule violation. You may have your opinion, but upon further discussion, it can be offtopic or obtrusion.
I do not exactly remember though if anyone asked you for the toyish features by which you call a thing a toy, to explain your opinion if they do not understand it. On the other hand you explained yourself quite well. You are one "tough nut", and at this moment, it seems it is someone elses problem. A problem that is not appropriate to smear in technical discussion. Grey waters indeed. Let's presume and prefer freedom of speech unless harmful conduct is proven. I could not justify this as a harmful conduct, or an action that is more harmful than lack of freedom of expression. Hope others see it that way too.
We absolutely need to discuss uncomfortable, negative or not liked topics and opinions, to get to the bottom of things, to the truth, and such.

Toy does seem unnecessarily insulting rather than illuminating.

What's wrong with "I don't think smartphones are real cameras because they don't have creative control" is that, to me, the major creative controls are subject and composition and you have control over those with a smartphone. 😀

Thank you for confirming my guess.

So what's this all about? Preaching to the choir? How many people are going to be convinced by someone who jumps into a conversation just to make a cheap shot they refuse to support?

Why should I respect the opinion of someone who won't back it up? Why should anyone care about what you FEEL if you don't care about their opinions? It's a two-way street. If you want respect, you have to give respect. Taking cheap shots ain't respect.

Congratulations on completely and dishonestly misrepresenting my position.

To quote what I actually said, from the part you snipped (emphasis added):

I could agree, 100%, with the opinion that smartphones aren't real cameras - and still think it's a bad thing to take cheap shots without supporting them.

I don't want to shut down negative opinions. I don't want to squelch disagreement. All I ask is that when someone makes a claim, they back it up. Is that so hard?

Meanwhile, you've demonstrated you have no interest in an honest discussion, so I'm done with you. Good day.

May I suggest that you go and study at a University in this case? A forum is not the right place to throw in two pages of sources as an addendum. Furthermore I suppose you’re smart & old enough to do this kind of research by yourself.

I don't even see why they can even be questioned as "real" cameras. They are really cameras. They just don't have the flexibility of most dedicated cameras. They are "limited" cameras, limited in more ways than most dedicated cameras.

I have published entire technical manuals shot on a cell phone. Its a camera.

I use my iPhone, and the creative controls and tools it provides, to make deliberate, considered images. It’s a real camera. I’m a real photographer.

That is in essence my point--unless someone is threatening, using racist words, or being hardcore personally insulting, I think people should be free to just post what they feel and then everyone else is free to respond likewise.

The problem as I see it might be called the "pendulum problem." That is, in trying to fix one problem (overt ugliness) the pendulum swings too far the other way and now you've overcorrected, in this case making it to where if ANYBODY finds a particular word or expression offensive, we now can't say it at all. I have no interest in that. I vehemently disagree with that.

This discussion has somewhat turned into a debate about smartphones, in terms of whether they're "real" cameras (I contend they're not, they're toys that no self respecting photographer would use in their artistic pursuits, same as how no one used Kodak 110 cameras back in the day). I was merely giving an example of a view which I have and which I should be free to say, with NO expectations of backing it up, just saying "that's just my opinion." I was NOT trying to start that discussion, I was just illustrating what I think should be ok behavior in here.

To me there's too much "inclusion" and too much "niceness" sometimes to where you're discouraged from being honest, because we are told we can't upset anybody ever. You see it too in how everyone wishes dog lovers Happy Mother's Day. I'm sorry, but I don't think Mother's Day is for pet lovers, it's for female parents of human children ONLY. That's not a slight on people who love their pets, or on fathers either, but it's called MOTHER'S day. That's what it is. It matters not that you can't have children, or that you think your pet is your "child," none of that matters. What matters is, it's Mother's Day, you're not a mother, case closed.

I want to see more of that in our culture. I understand being careful about getting too high and mighty, and certainly being downright ugly, but I think we're getting carried away with "inclusion" and in tip toeing around everyone's sensitivities beyond the point of being cordial. Tasteful honesty, that's what I vote for.

The whole point of saying 'they don't have creative control' is that it's a claim of substance that can be discussed like this, not an empty put-down. That's why I was so insistent on it. :)

They are limited, in ways that make me reluctant to use them for artistic photography - the lack of true optical zoom (and telephoto - even most multi-lens smartphone cameras are 'wide' and 'normal' at best) and the lack of true depth-of-field control being two of the biggest. But in situations where zoom and DoF don't matter, newer models can be very good. And for documentary purposes, they're great - when I wanted to get a pic of my camera bag setup, it was faster and simpler to pull out my phone and take a pic.

To me, they're the equivalent of the Instamatics using 126 film, or 35mm compacts like the Olympus Stylus Epic - a simple camera with strict limitations that automates just about everything. They fill the same point-and-shoot niche, making them good for non-photographers. But they're a lot more capable than an Instamatic. :) And even Instamatics could take good pictures if you had a good sense of composition.

This is an example of the kind of discussion I want to see on the forum. Free to disagree, free to make negative comments, but discussing actual substance and not making cheap shots.

While there are still some limitations, e.g., fixed aperture lenses, and I still figuring out how to get portrait mode with raw files, I think phone cameras are real cameras and can take great photos. If such cameras are toys, they are relatively expensive and capable toys.

By the way, isn't talking about phone cameras as toys a little OT from the topic?

The only limitations I currently see:

• touch control instead of dedicated buttons
• no interchangeable lenses
• no EVF for sunny days
• small sensor sizes
• (at least on an iPhone) no access to the real RAW file

Besides the first point everything else also applies to “real” P&S cameras.

The last two points are non-issues for me.

So yeah, they are real cameras and a tool that gives you the freedom to express your creativity.

I usually prefer to use a dedicated camera body, BUT

I just treat them like a kit with one body and three primes. One of them a fast PRO / L / whatever branding, and two slower ones. Most of them, the iPhone 14 Pro Max included, don’t have a nice tele lens, but the Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra has a really exceptional tele lens for its size. I heartily recommend to try it out if you’re interested in smartphone photography, but think it won’t deliver because of a missing telephoto lens.

Newer smartphones are essentially like your typical wide angle lens: if your subject is near enough you’ll also get a real DoF (wasn’t true for my iPhone X & the first Google Pixel, but the iPhone 14 Pro Max & Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra deliver).

So I would argue that even if you want DoF & telephoto modern smartphones will result in decent enough photos.

I agree. The ubiquitous internet connectivity and mature software are two very practical benefits of smartphones.

I would agree that smartphones are cameras, but it's simply disingenuous to suggest they fit the bill if you need telephoto; the best ones will get you by, in some circumstances, but that's a long way short of being able to twist a 200-600 zoom onto the front of a traditional camera.

My problem with smartphone isn't the hardware though, it's very useful and impressive, but ultimately still limited. It's when you combine that hardware with the (rapidly ongoing) revolution in (cheap or free) onboard software that allows almost anyone, with very little practice, to emulate the sort of photo it would have taken a pretty talented photographer a fair bit of time and some quality kit to capture 20 years ago. In doing so it leaves some people feeling "what's the point" when contemplating a hobby they've loved for many years.

There are also short telephoto lenses which are completely left out in this statement. It should be obvious that a smartphone shouldn’t be the first choice for BIF.