I can no longer take my bulky DSLR and big lens on field trips anymore and I’m going to get either of the phones mentioned in the subject with the respective lens kit, which appear amazing, but as we know autofocus with a telephoto is key for getting the shot. From all the comparative reviews out there of these two cameras, no one talks about which might get you more on-focus flying bird shots at the full optical focal range.
Does anyone here have any experience with either of these that might help me decide which might be better?
I see that you have just joined but haven’t uploaded any observations yet and I’m wondering if you are just here for some useful user feedback from others who might have some real time shooting experience with the phone camera you mentioned.
It’s a fairly wide spectrum of cam tech experience levels here, but I have found that seeing what people are actually getting (via looking at their posted iNat observations) goes a long way to helping answer tech questions.
In-flight zoom shooting is one of the toughest technical challenges for lighter weight shooting setups. AF accuracy and speed, Low noise ISO support, high speed pre-shutter storage/speed. And more. But also, the physical stability of the camera itself.
That last one, especially when you are shooting with a back screen, not through an eyepiece I personally would have a lot of struggle with, based on some earlier experience I’ve had with pocketable bridge cameras that have backscreen viewing only. Going from dark to full brightness conditions can really slow things down, not so much because of the camera response, but the ol’ eyeballs adjustment to rapid ambience shifts, which a traditional eyepiece provides relief for.
Then there is the physical stability of the whole system, especially with the telephoto attachment on. Maybe this top end phone has an amazing image stability system to compensate but still, does it handle that task at full zoom better than a standard-sized, mirrorless body?
Lightweight, pocketable, high quality phone hardware might have the specs, but my guess is that in many cases most of the experience quality, especially at the extreme ranges, often gets compromised by the actual physical restraints of grip and feel of phone shooting. Sure, you can get decent cages for phone shooting, but there goes pocketability.
Anyhow, I’m looking forward to hearing from (hopefully) other members responses on this one. Hopefully with some actual samples to ponder, too.
Hi Robert,
Sorry I don’t have anything posted, but its unlikely that I will until I get this new setup I am thinking about. I do this for a living for biodiversity screening and surveys (I use iNat daily when at a desk) and usually I can’t divulge info I was paid to obtain for commercial clients, so I’ve just never been into posting stuff to keep myself out of trouble. When I travel for fun I enjoy not taking wildlife photos, and I leave the heavy camera at home.
These days I mostly do rapid assessments and often travel 5 in a pickup, always try to fly with carry-on only, then there’s weight (I’m getting old), time to setup… so I’ve had to stop bringing the extra bag just for the camera and huge lenses. I almost bought a Sony RX100 vii a week ago, as I’ve felt naked the last year travelling for work without something with decent reach, but since discovering these new phone-cameras, I reckon I’d regret the RX100 in a very short space of time and I don’t think it will be long before most of us are selling our glass.
I don’t expect these phones to be better than dedicated cameras in a shootout for getting the shot for a few years yet, but I reckon that they might lead to getting more shots anyway just because you can always have it on you and get it ready quicker. You can fit the Vivo and its 400mm lens in a pocket!
For me they’ll be fine, as I’m not the guy looking for the perfect shot to post or sell, just the guy trying to get enough of an image to make an identification of everything he sees.
I hear you about the viewfinder, but the screens are getting brighter and are big, so its a tradeoff I’m willing to sacrifice.. well I already have really. Its been a year since I travelled without the proper camera.
As far as I can tell, these things have better stabilization with the tele on than almost any dslr or mirrorless I have seen. my type of shooting is handheld, as I’m often in situations where a tripod isn’t feasible. the only thing I think they are still lacking is a sony or canon like autofocus, which is really the question at the crux of my post… which of these two new kids on the block does that better.
It wouldn’t surprise me if no one here is using them yet… maybe I’ll end up being the one informing on how one of them performs.
I purchased a camera a couple of years ago because I wanted to take better bee photos. Maybe I could have achieved the same objective if I had upgraded to a newer cell phone, but I discovered that I found the physical/haptic process of taking photos far more enjoyable with proper camera far more than with a cell phone. (Note that I’m a glasses-wearer and have never found it comfortable to use a viewfinder, so this is not a factor – I am interacting with the back screen in either case.) I have an APS-C setup which weighs about 800g and, while not pocketable, fits into my relatively small everyday handbag. This includes a modest zoom with 135mm (200mm equivalent) on the long end that is suitable for most general purposes (I have a longer zoom that I use if I am intentionally going out birding; I rarely use a tripod). And most importantly, I expect to be able to continue using it for a decade or more, which is quite a bit longer than the life-span of even the high-end flagship phone models.
It is quite possible that you would find both the telephoto reach and the image quality of my set-up lacking if you are accustomed to professional equipment, but it suits my needs.
I would venture to suggest that the phone you are eyeing may not be the giant technological leap forward that it is being presented as. If you are concerned that you would regret the RX100 in a very short space of time, I am uncertain why you think a phone with an external telephoto would not also prove a disappointment. It seems to me that it would come up against the exact same physical limitations, though the computing power behind the lens is probably more sophisticated.
Your mention of a new Sony RX100 makes me sure we live in very different camera budget worlds. What I paid for my (used) birding cam is a little less than twice the sales tax I would pay today for that Sony. Still, I thought I might just mention my gear details as we DO share a lot of the same camera objectives, and perhaps you might be curious.
I’ll preface with the disclaimer that I am solidly a very casual, fair-weather birder, mostly shooting during the early spring migration through Southern Ontario, Canada – until my real passion – the arthropods – come popping out.
I just checked my species total for birds and I’m at 125. (https://www.inaturalist.ca/observations?place_id=6712&user_id=broacher&iconic_taxa=Aves) And about 95% of my iNat bird shots (that link) were taken with a camera I picked up two years ago. A bridge camera that I’ve grown to love and is now definitely my just-1-camera-only travel choice – the Nikon P950.
Sporting a tiny (1/4 the size of that Sony) 16MP 1/2.3 sensor that is ‘meh’ at best for low-light sensitivity, it’s main claim is taking that tiny sensor and plopping a compact super-zoom lens in front of that sensor (f2.8-6.5) to achieve a 24-2000mm (83X) equivalent focal range in a package that weighs in at almost exactly 1kg (2.2lb) and fits easily into my carry-on personal, small knapsack.
What I discovered as well is that with the addition of a small (back pant pocket) Raynox clip-on lens, I extend the camera’s macro range down to a full-field width of 4mm. Essentially, one camera handling birds AND (most) bugs.
Weatherproof? No. Video: 4K with manual controls for high speed shutter. I rarely take BIF or fast-action shots, but when I have done so with this camera, I set the shutter high and shoot video and sift through the frames later for any decent shots. (example? Capturing the water-ring vortex of a courting merganser).
I should mention that this kind of zoom power is also very handy for catching plants and fungi in hard-to-reach perches or off-trail areas.
What really makes it all work though, is shooting in RAW and running those through later with a good RAW developer (I use PureRaw).
When I do come across ‘true’ birders or birder groups on my spring migration walks I am struck by how so many of them are seniors struggling with these massive (and $$$) zoom lenses and accompanying tripods. When I first got my 950, I was the only one locally who seemed to be shooting birds with just a camera on a neck strap. Now?
I have had a chance to show some of them my shots and let them see what the zoom can do, and many have since switched to the ‘cheap’ side of the P950. Sometimes I’ve stumbled across a pile of guys (it’s always been guys, for some reason) surrounded by enough lenses, tripods, and super cameras to buy a bus, all quietly sitting/sipping thermoses, and focused on an owl nest a couple hundred feet away.
They park there for most of the day. That’s when from the sidelines, I’ve lifted my ‘little’ 950 to my face, picked out the far-off babies, click click, and get out of there before their coffee gets cold.
The AF on this cam is slow and pretty limited. Especially compared to full-sensor sized cam bodies. But, you learn a few tricks and it all comes down to the tradeoffs for size and convenience. It really works, for me.
Note that Nikon has stopped production of the 950. Not sure why, but these are tough times for camera makers. So much of the market has moved to phones. But I have to say that I agree with spiphany here, the REAL shooting experience difference between even the highest tech phones and a dedicated camera is still miles apart. It’s also just a physics reality of optics and mechanics. The smaller and lighter you make the camera, the more vulnerable it is to smaller shakes, and the more dependent you are on the stabilization systems.
Stuff like this rarely gets touted on the list of specs picked for selling the machines.
Good luck! Like you, I’m hoping to hear from real owners/observers of these new super-phones you mentioned. Especially from those with experience with the traditional choices for comparison.
As you said, I’m not looking for the perfect shot either. I’m looking for a solid ID with a max dimension of 2048 pixels. Mostly. Sometimes I get lucky and squeeze in some ‘art’ (or close enough). But I’m okay with the odds. If a lesser (cost, durability, size, weight, AF, sensitivity etc) camera means I can move with more freedom and less worry, I’m more than fine with that.
I’ve thought about this a lot too. And I’m especially interested in a tech section that didn’t make people feel like the only solution was buying more expensive gear. I’m pretty firmly in the cheap camp but that doesn’t mean we can’t share tips and techniques and learn how to still come up with good or even great observations with less than high-end gear and some creative thinking.
Gear economic classes are often like the pachyderm in the cubicle when it comes to trying to stick to the ‘nature observing for everyone’ ideal that iNat is striving to create. We need to do more to help change that.
hahaha…though I’m not a birder per se, the near senior struggling with massive kit part was me until I stopping carrying a year ago. The last ten years is was carrying a 70D, 2 to 3 Sigma art lenses and the Sigma sport 120-300mm as the big dog, sometimes with a 2x extender. I came from full frame before that, but the 70D with the 120-300 and 2x will always remain my all-time favorite setup. It will pain me to sell it. Yes going to mirrorless would cut that weight by half or more, but still the extra bag thing is the most limiting for me now with the type of trips and types of places I go to in latin america. even entering some project sites with that stuff will have everyone else waiting 20 minutes for me as the security guard registers all the items and serial numbers.
I mostly believe I’d have regretted it because the Sony is effectively discontinued, zero possibility of updates, while the phones will likely get IS and AF improvement updates for a few years. I totally agree that these are really hyped at the moment, but there is some justification it seems. My prediction is that in 2029 these phones will have surpassed all consumer DSLR and mirrorless systems in every aspect. I think the camera companies have seen this too and is probably why the RX100 will never go to viii and other similar point and shoots are just getting airbrushed improvements, some even removing the viewfinders in the latest models. Sell you stock in Nikon! :)
If the camera is of decent quality in the first place, why are IS and AF improvements essential to having a continued good experience using it? Why does the technology need to be the best and newest?
You rather missed my point.
Cell phone cameras – even models with some external tele capacity – rely primarily on computational methods for image quality. It is undeniable that these computational methods are getting better all the time.
But photography is not just about algorithms. It is also the product of light hitting a sensor. As such, it is subject to certain rules of physics. There is a reason why telephoto lenses are big and heavy; it is not so that professional photographers can show off. A small sensor and comparatively short physical tele of a cell phone will not and cannot have the same light collecting capability or reach. An algorithm may be able to compensate for this lack to some extent, but it is arguable whether it can truly replace it.
In addition, some people prefer cameras to cell phones for photography for other reasons, such as the haptic experience, the greater control that they have as a photographer, etc. This includes people who engage in photography purely as a hobby. Even though cell phones undeniably have made photography accessible to almost everyone at any time, there has simultaneously been a rediscovery of cameras – including analog cameras – as part of a larger trend of people embracing physical hobbies in a world that has become increasingly digital. The market for consumer-grade cameras still seems to be very much alive and well and I don’t see cell phones replacing anything but the lowest price segment (basic pocketable point and shoot) in the near future.