Let’s be clear. I consider myself a phone camera “specialist”.

I don’t believe I’m an especially talented photographer, but I use phone cameras in specific ways to accomplish professional tasks. I enjoy photography, and I think I’ve cultivated a personal style for macro and candid shots. I don’t believe my experiences are unique, and generally anyone with a basic level of curiosity would likely arrive at a similar level of proficiency.

I’ve shot since high school, starting with old 35mm film cameras, and bring those experiences to mobile and digital photography.

When you ask a specialist about their hobby, you’re likely to get a very different response than someone who’s more passively “into technology”.

With that preamble out of the way, what’s the deal with new phone cameras?

Are you really getting all these upgrades that the manufacturers keep promising? Why don’t your photos look any better? WHAT ABOUT THE AVURAJ CUNZOOMERS???

Promises

Every year manufacturers make claims about their new products. Photos and videos are a MAJOR form of communication over social media. Every new phone arrives with promises of INCREDIBLE advancements in camera performance. More light! Better color! Smoother video!

Separating the marketing from the real-world performance is critically difficult.

Marketing conflates new technologies on a spec sheet with the in-the-hand experience a consumer is likely to find.

The gap between marketing promises and the reviewer conversation has never been wider. I do not believe it’s appropriate for reviewers to frame a conversation on gadget performance, at an “average” user level, above a $600 price tier.

For phones, we know the vast majority of phone sales around the world take place well below $600. That represents the “average” sales tier of a consumer phone.

The quality of camera one can find on a phone in the $400 to $600 range is startlingly good these days. If we examine camera performance above $600, we face radical diminishing returns for “average” use as the price climbs above $600.

Reviewers need to highlight what makes more expensive camera hardware more expensive.

That sounds absurdly obvious. However, it’s incredibly difficult to span a conversation focusing on higher level performance while also keeping the expectations at lower than “average” use.

“ONLY push the shutter button” versus “Incredible advances in RAW capture and high frame rate HDR video”

If a manufacturer is making more aspirational or dramatic claims, those claims can’t be properly assessed focusing on the lowest expected consumer use.

Improvements

The frustrating aspect of this conversation, we HAVE seen substantial improvements to mobile optics. There is truth in the marketing claims.

The most recent generation of “Ultra” and “Pro” phones with larger image sensors are capable of capturing more photographic images and cinematic video. I’ve covered in several videos now what the practical improvements look like. Our phones are capable of output significantly closer to what we might see from standalone cameras.

Breaking down technical specs, phone sensors are passing 16mm and Super16 film. Lenses are delivering shallower depth of field. Phones can process higher resolution and higher frame rate video. These capabilities are closing in on professional camera use, without significantly sacrificing the convenience of owning a computer that fits in your pocket.

Mentioning those improvements, we clearly see part of the problem. Making a camera “better” means making it better for producing content. Standalone cameras are tools built to enable a creator’s specific vision.

There’s a spectrum of camera users. Tech reviewers aren’t wrong that a good number (probably a majority) of users are casual in their phone camera use. Simple composition, capturing slice of life moments, interacting on social media and video calls.

It’s not uncommon for me to talk to family and find that the rear cameras on their phones are RARELY used, despite those cameras being optically superior.

Maximizing convenience doesn’t require anything particularly fancy. Shooting casually, we see FAST diminishing returns on improving camera hardware.

In personal experiences, my family and friends can capture better images from a phone selfie camera than they can from a nicer (significantly more expensive) mirrorless camera. The phone camera is more familiar, and the phone software handles more exposure and post processing decisions.

A mirrorless camera is built for a different style of content creation. A mirrorless camera expects that the human operator will make more choices and will have a final image in mind.

A similar split happens with “Ultra” tier phone cameras.

Pros and Cons

I’ve mentioned numerous improvements, and those improvements are real.

This new generation of MEGA sensor phone camera delivers stunning results. These are better tools for composition. The natural depth of field looks fantastic, where your subject “pops” in front of a softer focused background.

These sensors are better performers in darker and more challenging conditions.

Performance improves even more indoors when shooting candids, especially from newer and larger telephoto sensors.

Cozy indoor lighting, but our phones can grab these moments MUCH better now.

Anyone who’s curious about improving their photo skills, those folks can find significantly better tools to practice with on phones now. That’s really all it takes to learn more about light and composition.

Shoot a LOT of photos, and magically you will become a better photographer. The camera hardware you use matters a lot less than the curiosity and consistency of the photographer.

Camera “improvements” don’t exist in a vacuum however.

Improving capabilities in one area can often introduce compromises in another area. MEGA SENSOR phones are no exception.

Phones with big blocks of cameras might face issues with durability. Bigger lenses can be prone to accidental damage.

Autofocus becomes more precious. As depth of field blur become shallower, missing focus on someone’s eye might make other parts of a face blurrier.

Focusing on the crack in the shell, the edges are already falling out of focus.

This runs double for “vacation” photos. These sensors are amazing for portraiture and highlighting a subject. A photographer needs to balance the subject of a photo with the background if they want more of the background in focus. That takes practice and understanding distance and focus.

Hope the background wasn’t important to you…

A mid-range phone selfie camera will maintain a longer depth of field.

Video is especially challenging on larger sensors. VERY few phones can control the aperture of the camera, and letting in more light, the only way to control the exposure is to increase the shutter speed. A faster shutter can help tame brightness, but it also makes video look really choppy or stutter-y.

The improvements that make big sensors so attractive to photographers can sometimes work against the shooting styles of more casual consumers.

A Pixel 6A, with a smaller main camera sensor, might be easier for a casual shooter to use. This isn’t a slight against the phone, and it’s not a slight against less experienced phone camera users. It’s a practical critique of how different tools should be used for different jobs.

That smaller “mainstream” camera sensor size has roughly been in operation since the days of the Galaxy Note 4 or LG G4.

It’s a wonderful balance of optics and performance. It protrudes less from a modern phone case. We have YEARS of data on how to train camera apps and processing to finish off images from those sensors. They don’t require phone processors to crunch as much data, and they can run cooler over longer shooting sessions.

We can try to WOW consumers with fancy new camera specs, but we’re ignoring the experience and familiarity found with these more established solutions.

Talking Past Each Other

New optics! New Sensors! New Processing! WHOA!

When we discuss camera performance, we’re doing a huge disservice to consumers trying to cram technique heavy improvements into an “avuraj cunzoomer” conversation. The user’s behavior is the largest determining factor in whether a new phone will deliver better photos for that user. If someone tries to use their new phone the same as their old phone, that lack of familiarity can often result in a down-grade for output.

Companies need time to update camera algorithms and processing software to fully realize the advantages of new hardware. We refined the last generation of camera tech over roughly seven years, and those older sensors are still in operation today for good reasons.

It’s not just color and HDR processing, a reviewer should be able to describe optical differences like depth of field.

The expectations set by marketing are a little impossible.

Exciting new tech IS exciting, but it’s only a change in the POTENTIAL to achieve better images. Someone buying a MEGA SENSOR phone, expecting to get brilliant professional images, but continuing to only shoot in a casual “push shutter” style, are going to be disappointed.

I believe this is why so many people seem underwhelmed with new phone purchases.

It doesn’t take much effort to see the benefits of camera hardware improvements, but it does take SOME effort from the user to realize those improvements.

These new tools are incredible, and if you’re interested in growing as a creator, you’ll be well rewarded.

If you’re not interested in working new hardware to get more out of it, there shouldn’t be any shame in shopping the mid-range and getting a MUCH better bang for your gadget buck.