Hi Guys,
I recently bought a Samsung Galaxy A35 mobile phone.
I am very happy with it and I decided to test out the Macro lens and compare it with
my old Canon EOS 1000d DSLR first using the Kit lens as intended and
then using a reverse lens adaptor on it with a mini tripod
and adjusting the focus by raising or lowering the height
with books and paper and using the remote shutter button.
My subject was a match head.
The A35 wins as it only took a few seconds whereas I had to muck around
for 30 minutes with the Canon to get it right.
The kit lens in standard use is blurry and that was the best out of over 10 shots.
The reverse lens does pick up more but it's not all in focus.
I like the old shot with the Canon but that flower is interesting.
It's amazing what phones can do and so little fuss. I use mine too often, I hardly grab my D810 and my phone is an old beat up Samsung S8.
I think it's the convenience of the phone fitting in my pocket.
Your phone image is sharp!
Quote:
using a reverse lens adaptor on it with a mini tripod
and adjusting the focus by raising or lowering the height
with books and paper and using the remote shutter button.
I used to have a small, adjustable, fold up device which was for photographing stamps, back in the 70s. I have no idea what happened to it (a lot of my stuff got stolen) but it was fun back then using an old 21/4 square (6x6) Ensign camera made in the 50s (which I still have). It wasn't an SLR, the view finder popped up on top of the body, focus was more luck than skill but I also did my own processing then and it was easy to calculate.
I used to have brown hair and grey matter, now they've exchanged places....
I like the old shot with the Canon but that flower is interesting.
It's amazing what phones can do and so little fuss. I use mine too often, I hardly grab my D810 and my phone is an old beat up Samsung S8.
I think it's the convenience of the phone fitting in my pocket.
Your phone image is sharp!
I used to have a small, adjustable, fold up device which was for photographing stamps, back in the 70s. I have no idea what happened to it (a lot of my stuff got stolen) but it was fun back then using an old 21/4 square (6x6) Ensign camera made in the 50s (which I still have). It wasn't an SLR, the view finder popped up on top of the body, focus was more luck than skill but I also did my own processing then and it was easy to calculate.
I used to have brown hair and grey matter, now they've exchanged places....
Hi Leo,
Yes the mobile phone image is very sharp and all I did was hold the phone and shoot -
it's so simple to use.
The new phones are amazing.
I used a home made focus rail to help me take that miniature flower shot
using my old Canon EOS 1000d - back in February 2015.
Of course a proper macro lens on my DSLR would be great but they
are very expensive and I would seldom use one.
I have an adapter to reverse my 80-200 f2.8 Nikon lens but it's got to be on a tripod, it's the older 16 glass element and quite heavy.
Dedicated macro lenses are beyond my means but I haven't tried macro with my old Samsung but I will. It won't be as sharp as your image but something to play with.
I do have a dedicated bellows rail unit but it's a lot to set up.
I have an adapter to reverse my 80-200 f2.8 Nikon lens but it's got to be on a tripod, it's the older 16 glass element and quite heavy.
Dedicated macro lenses are beyond my means but I haven't tried macro with my old Samsung but I will. It won't be as sharp as your image but something to play with.
I do have a dedicated bellows rail unit but it's a lot to set up.
Yes - here's my home made focus rail made from an old damaged focuser:
That's a very nice little set-up Allan at minimal cost!
That's a big thing with photography, I know people with seemingly unlimited blank cheques and while I love photographing insects, primarily bees, a macro lens would be good but out of my price range and not used regularly. Unless I one day find a cheap Nikon lens with mould or jammed focus which at the right price I'm prepared to strip and repair them myself knowing if I mess it up I'm not losing too much money. I have some very nice lenses in my kit I got in exactly those conditions for little money and stripped right down and fixed them.
It's amazing what can be achieved with a little time and no available funds. I've been on disability for over 30 years so money has been very tight over the years and I've come up with some amazing bits and pieces which cost very little and performed every bit as well as the high priced commercial items.
I have an old enlarger here with amazing rack and pinion rails I could use if I needed it but had a Nikon bellows unit given to me years ago by an old, ex photographer friend. I haven't tried it on my D810 but couldn't use it on my old D80 without an extension tube because it wouldn't mount directly in the lack of space where the lens fits on the D80 and just couldn't get focus quite right with it. Having poor sight and only a small viewfinder didn't help.
'Tis fun to play and some end results come out better than expected and so much cheaper and convenient with digital instead of my old 35mm stuff.
I'd love to see the images if you ever get spiders or bees or other bugs with the Samsung!
That's a very nice little set-up Allan at minimal cost!
That's a big thing with photography, I know people with seemingly unlimited blank cheques and while I love photographing insects, primarily bees, a macro lens would be good but out of my price range and not used regularly. Unless I one day find a cheap Nikon lens with mould or jammed focus which at the right price I'm prepared to strip and repair them myself knowing if I mess it up I'm not losing too much money. I have some very nice lenses in my kit I got in exactly those conditions for little money and stripped right down and fixed them.
It's amazing what can be achieved with a little time and no available funds. I've been on disability for over 30 years so money has been very tight over the years and I've come up with some amazing bits and pieces which cost very little and performed every bit as well as the high priced commercial items.
I have an old enlarger here with amazing rack and pinion rails I could use if I needed it but had a Nikon bellows unit given to me years ago by an old, ex photographer friend. I haven't tried it on my D810 but couldn't use it on my old D80 without an extension tube because it wouldn't mount directly in the lack of space where the lens fits on the D80 and just couldn't get focus quite right with it. Having poor sight and only a small viewfinder didn't help.
'Tis fun to play and some end results come out better than expected and so much cheaper and convenient with digital instead of my old 35mm stuff.
I'd love to see the images if you ever get spiders or bees or other bugs with the Samsung!
Thanks Leo,
yes - I'm enjoying playing with the new mobile phone.
Pics to follow.
OK here are 2 more pics - this time a small flower about 40mm across.
I cut off a stem of flowers and put them into a small jar
and took the shots under full sun inside the window sill.
The DSLR with Kit lens is not quite as sharp but the colours seem more natural.
Which camera wins? - what do you all think?
Pretty cool going Allan, yeah they have adaptable lenses for phones, maybe they create a reverse macro job and then they will 'Match' the Dlsr,
I still doubt any phone image could be printed nicely to fit on the side of a bus or a huge quality print in reality, but as far as the Screen world goes, difficult to tell the difference on the surface, ,
However, the flowers, yeah the phone looks more vibrant initially but after a normal quality check, I see the sharpening edge effects, also easily see that Fine Blotchiness that ph photos have,,
Ph chip pixels are very small lending a hand to obvious details and must add the Dslr Kit Lens is likened to the last out the blocks for any race,
That said I not favouring either, each with own advantages, in fact I am using my ph more and more for standard captures speshly with the super wide fields and panorama abilities, as mentioned 'all fits in ones pocket,,
Pretty cool going Allan, yeah they have adaptable lenses for phones, maybe they create a reverse macro job and then they will 'Match' the Dlsr,
I still doubt any phone image could be printed nicely to fit on the side of a bus or a huge quality print in reality, but as far as the Screen world goes, difficult to tell the difference on the surface, ,
However, the flowers, yeah the phone looks more vibrant initially but after a normal quality check, I see the sharpening edge effects, also easily see that Fine Blotchiness that ph photos have,,
Ph chip pixels are very small lending a hand to obvious details and must add the Dslr Kit Lens is likened to the last out the blocks for any race,
That said I not favouring either, each with own advantages, in fact I am using my ph more and more for standard captures speshly with the super wide fields and panorama abilities, as mentioned 'all fits in ones pocket,,
Thanks Bob,
The DSLR is not sharp because the Kit lens is of poor quality.
That’s all you get with the DSLR camera – you have to buy a good lens for big dollars if you want more.
It seems that the mobile phone only really wins from convenience –
you just have it with you – not in a cupboard at home.
The evolution of technology is amazing –
now – every Tom, Dick and Harry can take reasonable Macro shots that
years ago only someone with a DSLR could take.
BTW - there was no sharpening or any processing done to either image.
You mentioned in the first post the phone was hand held, do you know what the exposure time was?
They are crisp, no visible shake that's why I'm curios about the exposure.
The phone images look brighter and a little crisper but I'd still prefer the DSLR and as Bob mentioned, enlarging the phone image will show pixelation compared to the DSLR.
I have a stand for my phone so it goes on a tripod and a couple of very small tripods which are very handy on short notice.
Because I had a phone with a poor camera going back (still do) I picked up a Canon compact with a 20 Mp sensor and my initial purpose was to keep it in my car so if I was out I had a decent camera. I eventually decided against that because of the heat and it wasn't the cheapest camera (relative to disability pension). I have older Samsung and Nikon compacts I picked up for a song at Salvation Army (condition unknown, both needed new batteries) and while older than my Canon and not the image quality I still can't bring myself to leave them in a hot car. This is where the phone wins out, it's in my jeans pocket if I go anywhere (mostly).
My little Canon does good macro shots but I don't understand the menu so my son uses it, he's very good with it (I can't read the tiny menu even with glasses), I'm also not so good without a viewfinder because it's how I stabilise cameras, prop my body against a wall and prop the camera against a thick, ugly, brainless skull. Holding anything at arms length just doesn't work for me.
You mention the Canon kit lens, which lens is it?
I'd love a dedicated macro for my Nikon, one day I may get lucky and acquire one, till then it's extension tubes.
You mentioned in the first post the phone was hand held, do you know what the exposure time was?
They are crisp, no visible shake that's why I'm curios about the exposure.
The phone images look brighter and a little crisper but I'd still prefer the DSLR and as Bob mentioned, enlarging the phone image will show pixelation compared to the DSLR.
I have a stand for my phone so it goes on a tripod and a couple of very small tripods which are very handy on short notice.
Because I had a phone with a poor camera going back (still do) I picked up a Canon compact with a 20 Mp sensor and my initial purpose was to keep it in my car so if I was out I had a decent camera. I eventually decided against that because of the heat and it wasn't the cheapest camera (relative to disability pension). I have older Samsung and Nikon compacts I picked up for a song at Salvation Army (condition unknown, both needed new batteries) and while older than my Canon and not the image quality I still can't bring myself to leave them in a hot car. This is where the phone wins out, it's in my jeans pocket if I go anywhere (mostly).
My little Canon does good macro shots but I don't understand the menu so my son uses it, he's very good with it (I can't read the tiny menu even with glasses), I'm also not so good without a viewfinder because it's how I stabilise cameras, prop my body against a wall and prop the camera against a thick, ugly, brainless skull. Holding anything at arms length just doesn't work for me.
You mention the Canon kit lens, which lens is it?
I'd love a dedicated macro for my Nikon, one day I may get lucky and acquire one, till then it's extension tubes.
Thanks Leo,
my DSLR Kit lens is a Canon EF-S 18-55mm here:
The data for the A35 mobile phone image -
f/2.4
exposure 1/1698 seconds
ISO-40
And yes - you're right - enlarging the phone image will show pixelation compared to the DSLR.
I took a small crop of each original image and then increased the size by 300% and
took a screen shot - then pasted it in to a new photo for comparison.
(That way there is no interpolation from Photoshop.)
It looks like the mobile phone has artificially sharpened the image -
plus pixelation.
The ultimate image for pixel peepers.
Not so much a pixel peeper more I disappoint myself when I want to print an image from my old Samsung S8.
At the format it shoots at which is more commonly used online it looks great.
No one could expect it to be as sharp as a DSLR when there's so much other electronic stuff packed in that little case compared to a dedicated camera and as such, the images are amazing. That wasn't 1/1698 second exposure with the Canon, that's remarkable when it's near impossible to hand hold a DSLR for the same type of image, I know, I've tried too many times when something has caught my eye while out shooting.
If large prints aren't the end game the phones take impressive photos and you can even phone or text someone and send the image where you like. Tasks some of which are impossible for the DSLR and sending the images far from as easy (unless you have the phone with bluetooth or WiFi or whatever it is).
Not so much a pixel peeper more I disappoint myself when I want to print an image from my old Samsung S8.
At the format it shoots at which is more commonly used online it looks great.
No one could expect it to be as sharp as a DSLR when there's so much other electronic stuff packed in that little case compared to a dedicated camera and as such, the images are amazing. That wasn't 1/1698 second exposure with the Canon, that's remarkable when it's near impossible to hand hold a DSLR for the same type of image, I know, I've tried too many times when something has caught my eye while out shooting.
If large prints aren't the end game the phones take impressive photos and you can even phone or text someone and send the image where you like. Tasks some of which are impossible for the DSLR and sending the images far from as easy (unless you have the phone with bluetooth or WiFi or whatever it is).
Galaxy A
You can't do this this is only for s series phones
so it looks like – yes the A35 is processing the image before you can see it
and you can’t obtain the RAW data to work on in Photoshop.
That’s why it’s all pixelated when it’s expanded to 300% size.
I thought - what if increase the F stop - would it be sharper?
Also with those settings the the RAW .CR2 file was available and I used it.
I took over 15 shots and I ended up with this setting for the best picture.
Canon settings:
Shutter speed 1/5th second
F-Stop f/16
ISO 800
No flash - I used a side spot lamp.
The mobile chose its own settings:
Samsung A35 5G
Shutter speed 1/100th second
F stop f/2.4
ISO speed rating 40
Flash used - plus a side spot lamp.
You can see at 100% that the A35 has added some sharpening
and the Canon picture is showing some noise.
Which picture is better?
The Samsung is definitely a little sharper.
I'm not criticising the phone images, they are amazing for what's squeezed in that little box. Phone cameras have certainly advanced and I remember thinking the 3Mp thing on my old Motorola Razor was good and it was back in the day.
No RAW?
I thought newer phones had that, I don't spend much time with phone stuff.
My son did recently show me with his S10 if he swipes down on the shutter button it takes a series of 23 (from memory but could be wrong) images in quick succession. My old S8 if I hold the shutter down it does the same. He's suggested to someone up the north coast it might enable them to capture lightning with their phone. I'm not sure if it changes any settings (bracketing) or just the one lot of same exposure images.
The Samsung is definitely a little sharper.
I'm not criticising the phone images, they are amazing for what's squeezed in that little box. Phone cameras have certainly advanced and I remember thinking the 3Mp thing on my old Motorola Razor was good and it was back in the day.
No RAW?
I thought newer phones had that, I don't spend much time with phone stuff.
My son did recently show me with his S10 if he swipes down on the shutter button it takes a series of 23 (from memory but could be wrong) images in quick succession. My old S8 if I hold the shutter down it does the same. He's suggested to someone up the north coast it might enable them to capture lightning with their phone. I'm not sure if it changes any settings (bracketing) or just the one lot of same exposure images.
Hi Leo,
well it looks like only the S series Samsung's have RAW data available.
Mine is an A series - a mid range model -
the S series are the premium models.
In any case the Samsung has won the Macro shootout except of course
if I used a reverse kit lens on the DSLR -
put it on my focus rail -
took many shots and used focus stacking software to make an image -
then the DSLR would win easily.
Or - if I used a proper Macro lens on the DSLR.
In any case the Samsung mobile phone is so convenient and simple to use.
I didn't even use a tripod and remote shutter switch - as I did with the DSLR.
The data for the A35 mobile phone image -
f/2.4
exposure 1/1698 seconds
ISO-40
And yes - you're right - enlarging the phone image will show pixelation compared to the DSLR.
I took a small crop of each original image and then increased the size by 300% and
took a screen shot - then pasted it in to a new photo for comparison.
(That way there is no interpolation from Photoshop.)
It looks like the mobile phone has artificially sharpened the image -
plus pixelation.
The ultimate image for pixel peepers.
see 300% pic here:
I may not have missed out on anything by not having Samsung RAW photos available
in Pro or expert mode in their S series mobiles.
I have an A Series - A35 Samsung - no RAW mode .DNG files available.
In the post above.
You can see that the .jpg from my phone has been sharpened by the Samsung software.
That's why it would be handy to have the RAW .DNG file
Looks like Samsung has made a mess of it.
Samsung RAW photos are in a .DNG format –
However there are many complaints here and also difficulties opening them with Photoshop.
cihaneken
New Here , Feb 04, 2024
I have roughly analyzed your problem and my guess is that it might be a decoding incompatibility between Samsung and Adobe.
It's no secret that DNG images from Samsung phones are not real raw files. They are only partial DNG files.
