It seems like iPhones really can do serious filmmaking (with the help of the equipment mentioned in the blog post). I'm curious how this translates to photography.
How much would you need to spend on a dedicated camera to shoot better photos than an iPhone can?
If you're going to be taking pictures of people indoors with bad lighting you need a lens with an aperture of 2.8 or less, probably a 1.4.
If you're going to be taking group pictures indoors you'll probably need a wider angle 2.8 lens.
If you're going to be doing indoor sports a 70-200mm 2.8 is probably the minimum.
If you're going to be doing outdoor sports with good lighting a 4.0+ is probably fine.
If you're doing outdoor landscapes you just need a wide lens, like 10-30mm and a tripod.
I'm not a pro by any means, so take this with as much salt as you want.
Any camera that can handle this will do fine. There are tons of cheap full-frame cameras out there now. But lenses generally don't drop in price, even if they're really old - which is quite aggravating.
Example: with a 1.4 lens if you focus on the G key on your keyboard the T and B keys will be out of focus. Some 1.4 lenses have back/front focus issues, where you focus on G but the picture is actually focused on T (back focus) or B (front focus). This gets more complicated the further away you are from your subject, since the DoF will be small; you might accidentally focus on someone's nose instead of their chin, etc.
OTOH you can take great pictures with a 1.4 in 1 lumen (essentially 1 candle).
I don't need them for anything at the moment, I haven’t taken a dedicated camera on a sightseeing tour or hike in 12 years despite my enthusiast interest in camera gear and my ability to appreciate focal lengths
interestingly, if you do to the trendiest hipster hangouts, people have point and shoots now, having graduated from polaroids in the most contrived “Y2K” rerun possible
- Better IQ
- Use with flash
- A variety of focal lengths that the iPhone doesn't have for more flattering perspective (200mm and up)