Anyone switched to really small cameras?

OK, just shot a resolution target with Canon 7DII (c.2014), Canon S110 (c.2012), and Motorola Z3 smartphone (c.2019)

All shots framed to capture full height of target at full height of frame, then cropped down to about same height, to show resolution target in finer detail areas.

1. 7DII 20MPixel Canon 100mm at f/5.6 ISO400 (RAW) 5472x3648
   
2. S110 used max FL setting at f/5.9 ISO400 (RAW) 4000x3000
   
3. Motorola used zoom at about 4x f/2 (JPG) 4000x3000
   

Are those 100% crops? It would be interesting to see the image not shrunk down.

I did not control the viewing size of the images. All were brought into LR at pixel dimensions listed, then cropped down to about same vertical photo area, then output to 1600 x1200 JPG for posting.

I just reviewed the three orginal but cropped to same vertical images in LR, and I feel that the posted JPG pretty much reflects differences visualized in LR Develop module for each image. I both viewed full image, and with LR one-click zoom, and quality of image did not change.

I believe that what the results represent is that IQ is NOT simply about pixel count. The lens has to deliver quality to the pixels, or else the pixel count was wasted because the lens was the limiting factor. The fact that both S110 and Z3 images were 4000x3000 as captured is indicative that they should have been similar in result, with perhaps better results from the 7DII. But reality was that 7DII and S110 are quite similar, and the Z3 is considerably inferior in detail resolution.

I wonder why Z3 (2018 model) puts solid black frame on rectangles.
I have iPhone 8 (2017) and it should be even worse. Yet, no plans to change because newer iPhones ain't any better due to same tiny 1/3.6 sensor. Z3 sensor is 1/2.9.
All of those are tiny sensors comparing to 2009 GRD III's 1/1.7 I have.

https://assets.newatla​s.com …camera-sensor-size-12.jpg

kf095 wrote in post #19256727
I wonder why Z3 (2018 model) puts solid black frame on rectangles.
I have iPhone 8 (2017) and it should be even worse. Yet, no plans to change because newer iPhones ain't any better due to same tiny 1/3.6 sensor. Z3 sensor is 1/2.9.
All of those are tiny sensors comparing to 2009 GRD III's 1/1.7 I have.

https://assets.newatla​s.com …camera-sensor-size-12.jpg

Huh? what 'solid black frame on rectangles'?
That link you posted shows FF (24mm x 36mm) reference sensor area, then on top of a grey field reference size it superimposes the smaller APS-H. APS-C, 4/3, etc sensor images, assuming the same FL lens was used on all bodies, to demonstrate how small of an area you get with that particular sensor. So APS-C sensor size is about 60% of the length of FF (24mm x 36mm). Because thd sensor is 60% of the FF size, its 'normal lens' is sized at about 60% of 50mm 'normal' for FF.

Objects, figures with solid dark grey. From Z3 they have black frame on them.

Sensor size is directly related to image quality.
https://en.wikipedia.o​rg/wiki/Image_sensor_f​ormat

Nokia 808 PureView is 2012 phone, but people are still using it as camera.
https://www.flickr.com​/groups/808pureview/po​ol/
Sensor size is 10.67 × 8 mm.

kf095 wrote in post #19256760
Objects, figures with solid dark grey. From Z3 they have black frame on them.

Can you post a link to what you are talking about? Or do a screen grab and post it?
I just took a Z3 photo, moved it to desktop PC...no black or grey 'frame' around the image...the image ends with no frame. You comment puzzling.

Your comments about sensor size related to IQ are well known phenomenon...smaller pixel = less gathering power of photons, so less 'signal' and with same inherent circuit noise this results in lower signal:nose ratio.
Assming same pixel count in 10sq.mm sensor vs. 100sq.mm sensor vs. 500sq.mm. sensor shows same detail resolution but with generally proportional benefit is signal:noise, all else being equal (assuming lens optics presents proportionally higher line-pairs per millimeter MTF).
But the application of more effective noise processing of the image can diminish observed differences...the 'old' 8Mpixel sensors seemingly more noisy than today's 30Mpixel images because noise reduction processing has improved over the past 15 years, and maybe a bit of inherent circuit noise reduction as well. That is how we now get higher ISO values with less noise now.

This article seems to well summarize the tradeoffs and the compensations

"No matter the technology, in photon noise regime, all cameras have the same behavior. To achieve
this ideal limit as quickly as possible, the largest number of electrons per DU as possible is best. This is
the main advantage of a bigger sensor format. However, this goal is opposed to the demands of higher
resolution sensors (smaller pixels). Therefore, manufacturers must improve technology before a new
camera is released on the market to guarantee that pixel noise performance is similar (by increasing
the quantum efficiency, microlenses, stacked and backilluminated designs, and manufacturing) while
photographic SNR performance is usually improved. Overall, 24 Mp seems the standard resolution
for today’s consumer cameras in the mid price range, with higher resolution models that benefit from
image sensors technology developments for phone cameras. In the future, ILC camera makers should
be more focused in improving the processing abilities and camera functionalities since phone cameras
are minimizing their intrinsic unsolvable physical limitation (a much smaller sensor) in very clever ways,
specially thanks to computational photography techniques."

infrared guy wrote in post #19256522
Ever see the Pentax auto 110? The interchangeable lenses are about the size of darkroom enlarger lenses. Shoots 110 film cartridges.

i remember seeing these in the Sears and Roebuck catalogs and thinking how cool would this be?!

kf095 wrote in post #19256555
With image quality worse than from mobile phone cameras released in 2004.
https://www.photrio.co​m …era-image-quality.180063/

ive seen some results from these cameras. youre right...

With exposure increased.

kf095 wrote in post #19256813
With exposure increased.

Hosted photo: posted by kf095 in
./showthread.php?p=192​56813&i=i205158598
forum: The Lounge

Very odd. You shot this photo of a grey diamond, and it outlined the outside edge with a black line?!
I just shot a grey rectangle (18% grey card) wih my Motorola Z3, and all I got was a grey rectangle!

I did not shot anything.

It is screen shot from your Z3 image with increased brightness to make it easier for you to see what Z3 gave you.

It is pretty well known that phone cameras/software usually heavily edit images before saving them. There should be little surprise that phones, even today, don't quite deliver the IQ that we are accustomed to with our dedicated digital photographic devices. I am surprised that we would even really bring phones into the mix for this discussion, as every manufacturer, and even down to the model, could have a variety of pros/cons to the images they provide. Darkening edges of high contrast areas is just one trick of the trade with photo imagery on a mobile device, in an attempt to show how "detailed" and how "great" the phone might be at photography.

I find them to be great for "capturing the moment" and for "memory shots", but beyond that, if I am sharing with others at a scale greater than the size of a phone screen or instagram/facebook's limitations, I always pull out the Canon gear.

kf095 wrote in post #19256921
I did not shot anything.

It is screen shot from your Z3 image with increased brightness to make it easier for you to see what Z3 gave you.

Still odd. Still puzzling what is happening. In the target which was shot with 3 cameras, the 'diamond' area in the target is solid black, and conveyed that way in all three photos.
You do not mention what software or web browser is displaying what you are seeing. I admit I do see a hint of it in the Z3 image (of the triplet embedded within my earlier reply) while I am typing this reply and POTN makes it light, while typing this reply.
I do not see a hint of the black border in either of the JPG from Canon cameras. So it must actually be within the JPG file generated by the Motorola Z3 itself, whereas the Canon images are both JPG generated by Lightroom.

(edit: I guess TeamSpeed's reply states the Why of the outline.)

TeamSpeed wrote in post #19256945
It is pretty well known that phone cameras/software usually heavily edit images before saving them. There should be little surprise that phones, even today, don't quite deliver the IQ that we are accustomed to with our dedicated digital photographic devices. I am surprised that we would even really bring phones into the mix for this discussion, as every manufacturer, and even down to the model, could have a variety of pros/cons to the images they provide. Darkening edges of high contrast areas is just one trick of the trade with photo imagery on a mobile device, in an attempt to show how "detailed" and how "great" the phone might be at photography.

I find them to be great for "capturing the moment" and for "memory shots", but beyond that, if I am sharing with others at a scale greater than the size of a phone screen or instagram/facebook's limitations, I always pull out the Canon gear.

I decided to include a phone in my test because an earlier reply commented that smartphone cameras were more than good enough to sub for a small camera..."The main issue with small cameras is that phones are now so good...and I think it's time to just settle for the phone when I want to go without a bag."
So I was curious to see just how 'good' it might be, when compared to a 9 year old 'small camera'.

I dont switch but I use smartphone to shoot landscape & macro more regularly than my dslr

The iphone 11 color rendition is really good ... not sure about other phone but pretty much it serves me well for all kind of photography purposes that I need

The reason I am still using dslr because I need to use flash for portrait.