Why not buy an iPhone 15 Pro Max instead of a camera system costing more than 1500?

This series of articles on the iPhone Pro Max, with excellent photos by a pro photographer, makes one wonder what specific need there is for a heavy camera that costs (with lenses) more than 1500.

I have a problem with iPhone ergonomics (I have only an SE model), but apart from that, the price level of this new device, while excessively high for a phone, is considerably less than my investment in my Canon R6 and lenses. If one considers the camera function to be primary, with a working phone and internet connection as subsidiary benefits, 1500 is a good price for the quality demonstrated in the articles. Of course, it will not replace the situation where a tilt/shift lens is required, nor the extreme telephoto needs of the birds in flight photographers, but for everything in between it seems to work well, do more non-photographic things, and take up much less space in the pocket than my Sony Rx-100.

Food for thought!

David

Why not, indeed. I have literally don that at the beginning of this year (iPhone 14 pro max) and I am not looking back. I still have my Fuji x-T4 with long glass for birding or studio strobe work but for just about everything else, I use my iPhone. When my Fuji dies, I will need to decide to either replace it or just not bother. Right now, I’m in the “probably replace it” camp but that is becoming less and less so as the months tick by.

I just returned from a hike (2000-ish vertical feet up over 2.5 miles (steep-ish)). It was an absolute blessing to “only” have my iPhone and the images coming out of the phone, including long exposure waterfall shots, are frankly as good as I could create with my Fuji and 10 pounds of gear.

I shoot proraw and process in LR mobile on an iPad …. Finish up as needed in LRC.

With the iPhone 14 pro max, the image quality from the main sensor to me is so good that I just can’t see a need to go back to MILCs for virtually everything I shoot.

Indeed much of my photography is of static subjects and more documentary than aesthetic.

Took these ten years ago with a Samsung Galaxy II

Is "$#@! Apple" a good enough reason? Cause I feel like that's a good enough reason.

It continues to amazing how hard professionals continue to want to devalue their craft

Sorry, but I am at a loss to understand how a type of equipment can devalue a "craft".

craft: an occupation, trade, or activity requiring manual dexterity or artistic skill

Let's say that the craft of photography is one that requires manual dexterity ...

... if that craft now requires less manual dexterity does that increase or decrease it's "value"?

I’ve long been negative on using a phone for high quality imaging. The latest phones like the 14 and 15 Pro Max have really surprised me. Comparing what I get with the 48mp sensor vs 16 and 24mp DSLRs on decent sized prints like a 16x20 showed limited differences. While I noticed subtle differences on prints made on my Epson 3800 and HM Photorag 308, friends and family struggled to find anything meaningful. Viewing on a phone or iPad rendered any difference invisible. At 30” wide the layperson was then able to see a slight difference…but the opinion was it didn’t really matter. As few people even print as large as 16x20, for most people now, myself included, a phone, with good technique and processing gets the job done…and does not diminish the art.

Heresy 😈

if i was going to buy a happy snap camera phone it would be the oppo x6pro hands down, nothing else competes.

If you no longer need skills to do the same quality of work as someone who has studied the craft, then how is that not a devaluation of the craft?

Just my opinion, but AI can and AI will ultimately devalue almost any craft (there is some money in). I feel like the processing/thinking for you and filling in is what camera phones will excell at! Currently it's usually still a mixture of (admittedly very impressive) optical tech and processing, but I feel like the former will not be needed for long, at least in the current form... I get the frustration (@OpenCube expresses) honestly, I hate the whole development as well.

Photographers use the gear they know, are comfortable with, enjoy using, and can rely on for quality performance. This has played a huge factor in the rise of the smartphone as the dominant platform in still photography and video. It also influences the choices made by photographers who use dedicated digital cameras and photo processing & editing apps.

I enjoy using my digital cameras. I enjoy processing and editing my photos. I'm not as big a fan of publishing - it's too slow and cumbersome for my taste - but that is not enough of an inconvenience to make me give up the other tools.

I suspect the vast majority of photographers who still use dedicated digital cameras would echo my sentiments about that platform being familiar, fun to use, and reliably delivering the goods.

It's a much smaller market than it was a decade ago and that contraction may not yet be complete, but I suspect there will always be a small market of photographers who prefer the user experience a dedicated digital camera offers...assuming that market remains large enough to keep the manufacturers in business.

I detest phones for many reasons and you certainly won't catch me using one for photography. Phonetards can go take a flying leap! All this BS advertising about how great phones can be make me laugh. Suckers who buy into that nonsense need their heads examined.

I am waiting for someone to find fault with the photos in the article!

David

Because the iphone, or general all phones, can't load any film (analog 135/120 film formats)
I'll be using a film camera instead 😁
And don't like any Apple products, I only will eat apples, do have a few apple trees in our backyard😂

did i miss the studio portrait section ?

Might be in here:

In a good light and static subject any camera can produce a decent image. The challenge is when light is getting low or there is a moving subject like action of BIF for example.

I don't bother wasting time on BS articles about phones, so I didn't look at them. But I could probably guess they were taken under the same conditions that would make a 110 film camera look great as well. I'm certain there is plenty at fault with the narrative that probably reads like a used car salesmen's handbook.