I’m not a professional photographer, but I once was a very keen amateur and one day when my bank balance and schedule allows I plan on becoming a very keen amateur once again. In the meantime, I’m a guy with an average smartphone in my pocket and a decent eye.
I still own a Canon 40D and a Leica LX3. Both were good cameras at the time; but neither were “professional” level, and they’re each about 10 years old now. These days the Canon is obviously heavy, slow and performs poorly in low light, not to mention its missing handy features like a touch screen, lots of focus points, etc. The Leica is lighter, but clunky to use, has no swapable lens and performs even worse in low-light.
In good light, shooting something relatively close I’d almost always choose my phone over either of those cameras; its already in my pocket and the software behind the sensor is about 100times better than either of them; but if:
- I was shooting a band at a gig, the 10 year old 40D would still outshine the phone in every measure. The lenses allow me to get in closer and sharper than digital zoom ever will; the (even relatively poor at the time) low-light performance is still miles better than my phone; and the weight of the rig helps keep my hand steady.
- I was shooting macro; I’d pick either of those cameras over the phone. A tiny phone lens just can’t focus that close or clearly. Both the old cameras still outperform.
- I was shooting landscapes or anything a further than about 10m away I’d take either of those cameras. Despite the (giant) leaps and bounds forwards, phone cameras still don’t result in the same depth of field that a well focussed decent piece of glass ever can; they can’t zoom or focus on anything far away; and the limitations to dynamic range still generally result in either flat, or under/overexposed images that are essential to so many decent landscape shots.
Given this article is about sports photography, the gear I’m discussing never would have even been close to adequate.
