Changes in lens design/application

[ScotHill]

When I was little, my dad's camera lenses seemed like they were basically made out of glass fairy dust - they were massive things, the bigger the better, and if I even looked at one the wrong way I'd get told off and he'd get a little cloth and clean the end, meticulously keeping a lens cap on until he was ready to take a photo.

These days camera lenses on phones are tiny, they have no covers and people don't care about getting greasy fingers on them or having them sloshing around in a bag along with sticky drinks bottles and biscuit crumbs, and yet they can still take phenomenal photos.

What changed over the last forty years?

[Steve_H80]

Image processing mainly.
If your phone has a raw setting see what produces, it's usually rubbish, the spectacular image is highly computer generated.
In the olden days with film you needed to get it right first time thus the you wanted good lenses.

[Simpo Two]

Another factor is the sensitivity to light of the recording medium. In the 1980s the commonest speed was 100 or 400. 1,000 just existed but it was incredibly grainy. And so you needed to shovel a fair amount of light onto the sensor to get good results. Hence the bigger the lens, the better.

With the advent of digital imaging, the ability to amplify the signal and clever processing on top, you can get good-looking results from a tiny lens. The laws of physics haven't changed, just the technology.

[Bob_The_Builder]

As has already been mentioned image processing is the number one thing to improve the final image you see. Raw image = garbage

Other tricks such as increasing the gaps between photosensor sites will result in a sharper looking image.

[StevieBee]

ScotHill said:

These days camera lenses on phones are tiny, they have no covers and people don't care about getting greasy fingers on them or having them sloshing around in a bag along with sticky drinks bottles and biscuit crumbs, and yet they can still take phenomenal photos.

A phenomenal photo can be taken on any device capable of capturing light on to the appropriate surface; film or sensor. Where the smaller cameras and phones fall down is on the technical quality of images which is made up for via all manner of processing and trickery. Rarely an issue if the image will only ever be kept on the phone or an instagram account ... or if you think that depth of field is OK like that generated on a Teams call.

On phones, the lens is protected by an outer glass window, rather like UV filters you'd add to a traditional lens. These protect the lens and inner workings of the camera/phone from the elements and content of you pocket. Because they're small, they're easily wiped clean.

Those that still use 'real' cameras with 'real' lenses will treat them with the same respect as your Dad did.

[GravelBen]

The phone camera photos may look good on a small phone screen, but if you ever look at them on a larger screen the unpleasant truth is revealed.

[Fordo]

I think theres also been changes in types of glass, hardness and coatings, so camera phone lens glass is probably a little more resistant to finger grease dirt etc.

Also dont forget, a lot of people change their phones every year or two. So they magically get a new clean lens! - but proper old fairy dust lenses are / were kept for a long time, so theres more onus to look after them

[YorkshireStu]

Good glass is vastly superior to the lenses on a mobile.

The best investment a photographer can make is quality glass and it can last a very long time.

I have switched from Canon EF L quality to RF L quality and the lenses are very, very good. Newer coatings and processing are the main advancements.

[johnymac]

I have long suspected that phone images can look really good on a digital screen but would look pretty poor on say a 10 X 8inch print without a huge amount of processing. Has anybody here tried to print out a fairly large from a phone? If so, how pleased (or not) were you with it