It's no secret that mobile cameras are getting better and better, but a series of incredible Olympic snaps from one photojournalist prove just how far smart phone snappers have come.
The Guardian's Dan Chung has been collecting his podium-placing pics on one page, documenting the London 2012 games in an effort to test how well a tiny mobile would fare. And as it turns out, from athletics to diving to fencing, the results are very impressive.
Captions on Chung's excellent photos reveal that he's using an iPhone 4S, though his sporty snaps haven't been achieved without the help of a few other gadgets -- Canon binoculars have been deployed, as well as a Schneider lens (possibly an iPhone-adorning iPro offering) and remote triggering tech in some instances.
The excellent Snapseed iOS image-editing app has also been used to give Chung's photos a little more bite. The app costs £3, but offers some seriously powerful tools if you're looking to tinker with your photos.
The iPhone has no optical zoom, only a digital option that crops your image, resulting in a frustrating loss of quality -- that's why Chung opted to use binoculars for many of his photos. While it's lacking in the zoom department however, the iPhone 4S boasts an extremely impressive smart phone snapper.
Trouncing the older iPhone 4 in the camera stakes and holding its own against the Samsung Galaxy S3 and HTC One X in our exhaustive camera test, I reckon the iPhone 4S is a fine substitute for a compact digital camera, and while I think you'd need more equipment and pro experience to nab the kind of shots Chung achieves, Apple's effort could make a fine camcorder for when you're on holiday.
What's your phone's camera like? Are there any mobile shots you're particularly proud of? Let me know in the comments or on our Facebook wall.
Image credit: The Guardian
Android App 
RSS Feeds 
iPhone App 
Newsletters 
24 month contract
24 month contract
Comments 22
Add your comment
anonymous 6 August, 2012 13:45
yea so their saying you need extra equipment on your phone to make it a better camera? so its not really the phone so much then? lol fail samsung galaxy s 3 all the way dont need all that equipment and apps....
anonymous 6 August, 2012 13:55
I'd like to reference an article from your American site from back in April ( http://news.cnet.com/8301-11386_3-57415777-76/how-dxo-labs-tests-hot-cameras-like-canons-latest-slr/ )
"If you scale down the quality to the sensor size, today the [phone] cameras and sensors are better than the SLR sensors," Guichard said. "In the end, the image quality is not as good because it's smaller. But if Canon were able to put the technical quality of a 2012 phone camera on full-frame sensor, they would win about 1 stop more [in image quality]. It's a big difference."
In short, this article doesn't surprise me, and with the limitations for what you can take into the venues without a media pass, its good for someone to come out (even if they are a pro) and show you how even the average person can get a good quality photo if they're willing to experiment
anonymous 6 August, 2012 14:08
Should have put some of the decent shots up instead of the bad ones, then this article wouldn't seem so ill-founded
neilpost 6 August, 2012 14:09
Sorry, both the above pictures are rubbish. Grainy and blocky - esp. the Mo Farah one.
Quite how anyone can say a Camera-phone with no zoom is as good as a proper camera's is beyond me. It's barking mad ridiculous.
anonymous 6 August, 2012 14:25
neilpost - its easy when you have green-tinted specs ;)
I have to say, they're ok quality, certainly impressive for a phone, but I think Luke is the only person who actually thinks they put pro-cam shots to shame
anonymous 6 August, 2012 14:56
I took my iPhone 4S on a recent trip to Rome and Vatican City as part of a tour group to use as my main camera whilst other people on the trip took supposedly better SLR cameras. I used the default camera app with the HDR option enabled by the way.
At the end of the weeklong trip at dinner I showed the 1000 pictures I took to the group to see if anyone would like any of them emailed to them as well as the people with the SLR shots. Nobody wanted any of the SLR shots and wanted my iPhone pictures instead.
It was a right pain sending 45 people 1000 pictures.
The iPhone 4S has a fantastic camera!
anonymous 6 August, 2012 15:18
This article is iphone fanboy and childish.
anonymous 6 August, 2012 15:24
This guy Luke needs his head checking. If this is what we call technology news I might as well renew my subscription to the knitting times! Sony arc, best camera by far, couple that with a samsung screen and we'd be onto a true winner.
Richard Bown 6 August, 2012 15:29
shouldn't the headline be "iphone 4s and third party apps and some binoculars takes some nice but poor quality photos" instead? Sorry but the only thing that is impressive is the fact that he's managed to resist using some instagram style filters to finish them off.
Daniel Rawr 6 August, 2012 15:31
I dunno where these "AMAZABALLS OH MA GOSH I WEED MY PANTS" Iphone pics are... but one thing for certain their are not in this article....! :/
anonymous 6 August, 2012 16:24
@anonymous 6 August, 2012 14:56
SLRs tend to be used by people who know what they're doing, as opposed to point and shooters (thats what the compacts are for)
As a result, very little if any processing is done, as the images are intended to be edited in Photoshop etc. The iPhone oversaturates the colour to make people go "oooooh" much like LCDs against Plasma tvs on shop floors, and are meant to be ready to go in the sense that you're not expected to edit them much apart from cropping.
It is in low light conditions that SLRs really come into their own though. On a nice bright day or a scene with a lot of lighting (say, an Olympic arena ;) )almost any camera can take a decent shot
Haymo Figueiredo Wuthrich 6 August, 2012 16:32
Seriously? So the title should say "Third Party ad-on's for iPhone put pro cameras shots to shame" The focus in this article is the iPhone, that without these third party ad-on's would not put pro cameras to shame. So what the hell? Bad journalism right here. He completely modified the iPhone, so clearly he was not happy with the shots the iPhone took.
anonymous 6 August, 2012 19:40
Crave.net? That says it all!!! They are paid to hype this crap.
Aaron Lothian 6 August, 2012 22:03
I think you'll find the Samsung Galaxy S3 and iPhone 4S use the same camera lens. Therefore there is nothing to compare other than colour dynamics, accuracy and how true it looks. To be honest, there is some psychosocial propaganda going on here. Read the GSM reviews and detailed analysis on there. Using 3rd party apps to enhance or other equipment is not a true reflection of a devices performance however it's not always possible to do a null test. And if you're too dumb or naive to understand what I'm getting at then don't bother replying to this.
billfred 7 August, 2012 12:02
I don't get it... I just ... What the ... why am I ... no. No.
anonymous 7 August, 2012 12:38
billfred, I'm starting to think that Crave are the website equivalent of a troll. Posting daft stories with sensational/ridiculous headlines in an attempt to get hits on their site, much like a troll looking for reactions
I used to think it was the tech equivalent of the Huffington Post, but its more like the Sun or Daily Mail really
anonymous 7 August, 2012 13:13
If these weren't Olympic photos nobody would think they were anything but over exposed grainy camera pics. Fail.
anonymous 7 August, 2012 13:42
Terrible terrible terrible. Just get yourself a Nokia PureView 808 - no need for special lenses, binoculars or even forking out for an image editing app - it's all included in the phenomenal phone :0)
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/08/06/nokia-808-pureview-olympic-test_n_1747147.html
anonymous 7 August, 2012 15:48
You are off the board here RUBBISH photos quality is crap. While not use cameras, not toys
barky 7 August, 2012 16:02
very low quality grainy photos in article ... can get far better using an old sony ericsson ... would probably have been better if not murdered by snapseed?
ericklamothe 8 August, 2012 10:09
The advances in mobile imaging technology are undeniable, and to this discussion one should also acknowledge the advancements in mobile video recording, from the VGA at 30fps of the LG Viewty several years ago, through to the current full HD video recording capabilities of top line smartphones. These advances are also noticeable with the arrival of pocket camcorders which can often capture with great clarity. However, there have equally been major advancements in dedicated imaging equipment, from mirrorless systems with interchangeable lenses through to the quality of top range lenses. And the laws of physics remain ever present to support the widely held view that for no compromise imaging, dedicated systems which incorporate optical zoom, etc offer the greatest results. However, advances in image capture over the coming decade may further help mobile devices to become not only a ubiquitous way to record video and capture images but also a quality method of doing so.
anonymous 8 August, 2012 20:10
You *********************. Cnet with their rubbish again.. If you know you can't have a grip over Iphone. Then go work for apple. <br />
<br />
So where do you put Galaxy S3, Oh you don't have one. <br />
Ykcustoms.