[HN Gopher] DSLRs are dead, and lenses are never going to be the...
___________________________________________________________________
DSLRs are dead, and lenses are never going to be the same
Author : ingve
Score : 173 points
Date : 2022-01-15 15:17 UTC (7 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (nofilmschool.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (nofilmschool.com)
| aparticulate wrote:
| The largest market of photography dilettentes (like me) switched
| to phone. Most people just want a shitload of bokeh (real or
| software), sharp wide angle without a lot of distortion and
| ability to zoom without losing too much detail.
|
| Besides, most Good Photographs are 90%
| technique/framing/instinct/editing NOT hardware. (Just get closer
| to your subject.) "The camera you have with you..", too.
|
| So, that only really leaves Pro wedding, sports, and, journalists
| and that just isn't nearly as big a market as the golden age of
| late 00s DSLR Flickr hobbyism
| elxr wrote:
| Dedicated cameras, with all their compromises, are just more
| fun to use.
|
| Photography to me isn't just about the final output, but the
| experience getting that photo.
|
| > the golden age of late 00s DSLR Flickr hobbyism
|
| Even though I do miss parts of that era, the mirrorless cameras
| we get nowadays are great, and can do so much more. Even the
| APS-C cameras today can do just about anything you need a
| camera to do, and manage to be reasonably compact.
| pkulak wrote:
| Phones have surely gotten better, but boy have they gotten
| bigger. The iPhone Pro Max is more than halfway to the weight
| of a X100V, and only 100 grams lighter than my Olympus. I still
| like having a small phone with me all the time and a camera
| sometimes. It's nice to not have to have the greatest camera
| phone available because it's all you're going to shoot with.
|
| Plus, phones are just never going to manage decent shots on any
| focal length that's not wide as hell. I know they have long
| lenses now, but they are crazy slow and useless in anything but
| direct sunlight. I mostly take photos of people and almost
| never choose to shoot wide. Phones cut me right out of how I
| want to shoot. I've actually started putting a long prime on my
| camera and using my phone at the same time if I want a
| landscape. Works pretty darn well.
| UncleMeat wrote:
| It is also true that hobbyists love gadget, even if they don't
| really change their hobby capabilities.
| spoonjim wrote:
| It's true that most people switched because convenience and
| marginal cost usually beats quality. That's how we went from
| landlines to "can you hear me now." But I have the latest
| iPhone and a low end SLR and the SLR blows it out of the water
| for photos of my kids. All but one of the photos on our wall
| are from the SLR even though 90% of our overall photos are from
| the SLR.
| devbas wrote:
| Personally I really enjoy doing analog photography. As the
| feedback loop is very long, technique is important. Also, since
| the number of pictures is limited, I always have to ask myself
| the question: is there actually a picture here?
| aparticulate wrote:
| Analog has all the tactile aspects I miss from DSLR and more,
| I definitely take more analog than I used to.
|
| I also think there's a noticable gulf between fake analog and
| real, even on screen. The most skillful photoshop creations
| still looks totally off to me.
|
| Phone + an old analog camera is an incredible setup imo
| Hamuko wrote:
| >Most people just want a shitload of bokeh (real or software)
|
| Software bokeh isn't really that good though. It's especially
| apparent with things like hair, which is unfortunately a lot of
| the edge area if you're taking portraits.
| aparticulate wrote:
| It drives me crazy too. I think iPhone portrait mode has
| really rough results but people seem to use it. Honestly most
| DSLR bokeh photos were bad ten years ago too. (for different
| reasons)
|
| Take a look at Google image results for "bokeh". These are
| not exactly Kubrick-tier bokeh. https://www.google.com/search
| ?q=bokeh&sxsrf=AOaemvIRaTBieq-l...
|
| ie hobbyists have very low standards.
| acquacow wrote:
| The thing is, the people who use software bokeh don't care
| about how bad it looks. They see a blurred background and
| they are happy.
| saiya-jin wrote:
| And then people like me come along, point out how bad it
| looks and all the flaws present and their view on quality
| of software blur is changed (at least for some time).
| dheera wrote:
| > Software bokeh isn't really that good though.
|
| I think one of the problems is they don't simulate it
| correctly. They segment the person with a neural net and then
| blur the rest by a constant arbitrary amount.
|
| Ideally it should estimate the depth map of the scene and
| simulate different amounts of blur outside the DOF.
|
| Here's a RealSense-based software bokeh I wrote that
| interpolates between 2 levels of computed bokeh. If I didn't
| have to render at 30fps I would actually just compute it on a
| per-pixel basis.
|
| https://github.com/dheera/bokeh-camera
| ghaff wrote:
| I joke that the number of photos I take is inversely
| proportional to the expense of my camera system. I shoot most
| of my photos on my iPhone these days. I sometimes use my Fuji
| mirrorless system that I have a few lenses for if I want to be
| a little more serious on a trip--or I'm taking photos for an
| event, and I have a Full-frame Canon with both very wide and
| very long glass that I rarely use these days.
| jpablo wrote:
| Another big market for dslrs is studio photography. I haven't
| come across speedlite/studio strobes that can sync with a phone
| (tbh I haven't looked either!)
|
| A pro camera with a speedlite pointed at a white ceiling world
| produce amazing indoor pics everytime, unlike a phone which
| would be dependent on ambient light quality.
| 0xbadcafebee wrote:
| 40x optical zoom point-and-shoot, baby! The only reason I have
| a dedicated camera anymore. I keep it in a little belt pouch
| when I'm traveling or even hiking. I want to capture moments,
| but I don't want it to be my hobby.
| dheera wrote:
| > Most people just want a shitload of bokeh
|
| There was a point in time when people wanted this because it
| looked professional, but now bokeh is a dime a dozen.
|
| I think these days people want it because it isolates a subject
| without them having to do work in thinking of a good
| composition that isolates the subject with other techniques
| (e.g. contrast, color, and so on).
| AuryGlenz wrote:
| It's not always about work. When I'm shooting weddings f/1.4
| is a staple because unless it's the portrait portion of the
| day I have no control over the background, apart from my own
| positioning.
|
| The room the girls get ready in is always a disaster, for
| instance.
| domy wrote:
| I find that the experience of taking photos with an actual
| camera (be it mirrorless or DSLR) is vastly more engaging and
| enjoyable than with a phone.
| cerved wrote:
| SLRs even more so
| selectodude wrote:
| I agree entirely. However the experience of lugging around a
| camera bag is vastly less enjoyable.
| grujicd wrote:
| I find the experience of going trough 300 raw images and
| developing them the worst part of using DSLR and why I
| prefer modern phones with AI based image processing.
|
| But you can't argue with dslr results though. And when we
| talk about pro sport photography, well exactly same demands
| for large aperture, large and variable focal length, high
| iso with low noise, fast focusing and fast shooter speeds
| also apply to us amateurs taking pictures of our kids in
| poorly lit indoor sport events.
| theshrike79 wrote:
| I had a huge backpack full of DSLR gear in the early
| 2000s. I still have a backlog of unprocessed RAW images I
| need to get through... =)
| jsjohnst wrote:
| If I spent 10hrs a day for 365 days in a row I wouldn't
| get through my backlog (easily way over 500k photos), but
| that's not really the point. I don't need to process and
| post every photo I take, many are either just for me or
| alternate takes that I might want someday. Looking
| through photos I took 10 years ago is one of my favorite
| activities and I often find hidden gems that I had
| dismissed before in the moment when originally gone
| through.
| theshrike79 wrote:
| I do the same thing, I follow Johnny Harris' method[0]
| mostly. Basically I pick a random date (or an iOS
| provided "memory") and go through a bunch of photos
| related to that event. Then I delete all the useless
| ones, like the 99 takes I did of a sunset, and just keep
| the best ones.
|
| [0] https://youtu.be/GLy4VKeYxD4
| xdennis wrote:
| I find this argument nonsensical. Cameras don't force you
| to take 300 images, nor shoot RAW. As someone who shoots
| on film, I hear this all the time from people who try to
| justify why they shoot on film (...and then blow through
| ten rolls of Portra).
| grujicd wrote:
| I should explained that I mostly shoot kids, birthdays
| and their sport and other events. Strictly on amateur
| level, but for this kind of occasions it's quite
| beneficial to take 300 shots since it all happens in the
| moment and you'll have a lot of misses to end up with 30
| keepers.
|
| Also, jpeg straight out of camera can be ok if you're
| controlling circumstances and have time to take test
| pictures and adjust parameters. And not change entire
| scene in a seconds. Once I went to RAW I could never come
| back. Now you don't have to worry about white balance or
| even exposure in the heat of moment. It allows you to
| really save a lot of these shots which would be lost in
| jpeg. Price you pay is staring in 300 raw images
| afterwards.
|
| I must admit this affects my desire to use DSLR in the
| first place. I tend to use only if absolutely necessary.
| acquacow wrote:
| I dropped to a micro 4/3rds setup for walking around for
| this very reason. The lightest body and 2-lens setup I
| could configure was about 5-6lb depending on how many spare
| batteries I wanted to carry as well.
|
| My 4/3rds setup with flash, 5 lenses, and a few batteries
| was only 2.2lb. I don't even notice I'm wearing it.
| giobox wrote:
| I did this, 2013-2019ish. Unfortunately there has been so
| little development in m4/3 sensors over this time period
| that my iPhone has replaced it for all scenarios except
| occasional extreme-tele. The improvement in quality
| offered by even the best m43 camera and glass over the
| latest phones just isn't worth the effort to me anymore
| at focal lengths below 200mm-ish, or I want to do
| something that requires a traditional camera "hot shoe"
| like external lighting.
|
| The latest and greatest m4/3 camera today doesn't really
| take still pictures any better than an Olympus EM-5 from
| 2013 (the increase from 16 to 20mp makes little "real
| world" difference), cellphones improved _enormously_ over
| the same period. With a modern iPhone, I get an extreme
| wide angle, "standard" and reasonable portrait focal
| length lens all in one device, with the files in
| Lightroom immediately after taking them. Yes you can
| argue for days about "fokeh" vs the real thing, but m4/3
| isn't the platform you want to be on if rich bokeh was
| your primary objective in the first place. I've also yet
| to find a three lens kit that covers the range of a
| modern iPhone I can fit in my jeans pocket too, even in
| m4/3!
|
| I think in some cases, many people just like the "ritual"
| of using an interchangeable lens camera as much as they
| practically get any better images than with a decent
| phone, which is fine! For some reason it's not
| fashionable in photograhy circles to admit this, I guess
| the fear of looking like a dilettante etc.
| Zak wrote:
| The 20mp 4/3 sensors have noticeable advantages in
| dynamic range and high-ISO noise compared to the 16mp
| sensors. It's not just more pixels. A new ~23mp sensor
| with further performance improvements should show up this
| year in the Panasonic GH6 and an unnamed camera from the
| company formerly known as Olympus, though it's not clear
| if or when it will make it to more pocket-friendly
| models.
| alexashka wrote:
| Look into something like a Fujifilm X100V or Leica Q2
| (depending on your budget)
|
| A camera should be _nice_ and compact, then it won 't be a
| hassle to have it with you.
|
| The problem with modern cameras is they are heavy, bulky,
| junk build quality, have awful menu systems and don't play
| nice with your phone or your computer. What a wombo-combo
| of pain, just to get a nice photo!
|
| If you can afford a Q2, all of those problems are
| addressed.
|
| Modern cameras are like writing corporate software in Java.
| Leica Q2 is like writing short programs in Python. Phones
| are like using Squarespace to build a website.
| lovehashbrowns wrote:
| Hm, I quite like your analogy! I actually just got into
| photography not too long ago with an R5. Thinking about
| it now, it really does feel some sorta "corporate." I
| also considered the fujifilm xt4, all the reviews make me
| feel as if that'd be a Pythonic kind of camera.
|
| After falling in love with the whole photography
| universe, I hope one day I can experience the COBOL-like
| world of film. I did grow up when film was around, in the
| 90s and all that, but my family was too poor and I only
| ever messed around with disposable cameras and Polaroids.
| Polaroids themselves are a whole other insanely awesome
| universe to explore.
| insickness wrote:
| Obligatory Chase Jarvis quote: "The best camera is the one
| that you have with you."
| aparticulate wrote:
| I think the problem here is general purpose phone
| design/cheap optional cases. I would absolutely love a
| camera-like industrial design and a real/artificial shutter
| "snap". I hope this improves
| jillesvangurp wrote:
| That's the low end of the market basically. It's no different
| than picking up a cheap compact camera a few decades ago. I had
| one (a Kodak) and I knew absolutely nothing about photography.
| Point, click, bring the film roll to the store, and whatever
| you got back was it. Not very different from giving full
| control to Apple/Google over the creative outcome. And they do
| a decent job of course. They do some amazing things with the
| very limited sensors and lenses that these cameras have. But
| there are limits to that of course.
|
| Pro cameras start at a few thousand dollars. Clearly not for
| everyone but they always were that expensive. And that's before
| you consider the lenses. The type of person that spends 2000
| dollar on a lens that only works in very specific situations is
| never going to be satisfied by an iphone.
|
| Most amateurs with ambition fall into the pro-sumer segment
| that yearn for more than a cheap lens + sensor in a mobile
| phone can give you but are not necessarily interested in
| spending thousands of dollars on their hobby. There are plenty
| of options for those people. I bought a Fuji X-T30 in 2020; a
| typical entry level camera for people that like to have some
| level of control over the whole photo taking process.
|
| It was about the same price as an iphone and it definitely
| takes better photos if you know what you are doing (and
| probably even if you don't) because of basic physics. The
| lenses are bigger and better. Some of the lenses you can buy
| are actually way more expensive than a typical iphone. Also,
| the sensor is bigger. It's just more light and information
| being gathered before destructive post processing happens. And
| you have more control over the process. Not for everyone. But
| those people still exist.
| coldtea wrote:
| > _That 's the low end of the market basically. It's no
| different than picking up a cheap compact camera a few
| decades ago._
|
| It's quite different, market-wise, as in that today that "end
| of the market" it's 80% smartphones, and the previous "low
| end of the market" for compacts is as good as dead (and even
| a big part of the enthusiasts that bought cheaper DSLRs in
| the 00s and 10s is now content with just a smartphone).
| sudosysgen wrote:
| You don't have to spend anywhere near that money, though.
|
| When you're spending over 2000 dollars, you're at the point
| where you're either in a very niche category, or you're
| paying for convenience.
|
| At 600 dollars, you can get a full-frame Sony A7ii (used). At
| that point, you can get a 30$ adapter and use manual lenses,
| and you'll get a very competent collection from 24mm all the
| way to a 135mm 2.8 for an additional ~500$. This will last
| you forever, but you won't have any autofocus.
|
| If you want autofocus, you can spend 150$ on a used EF-E
| adapter, and buy a 50 1.8 for 100$, the venerable 80-200 2.8
| for 400$ or so, and a normal zoom for 200-400$ (I got the
| Tamron 28-75 for 200$). At that point, you'll get essentially
| any image you could want, at a stellar quality, for 1500$ or
| so, with autofocus and image stabilization.
|
| Past that point, you're either trying to do something
| extremely specific, or paying for more convenience. The gear
| itself will outlast you if you don't do anything stupid with
| it, and you will get more image quality than you can ask for,
| and absolute and complete control over every step of the
| photographic process, for less than the price of an iPhone 13
| Pro Max. And if in ten years you get tired of it, you can
| sell it for at least half the price you paid for it.
| intrasight wrote:
| Last year, I was going to buy ~$800 camera. I upgraded my
| iPhone instead.
| SECProto wrote:
| I spent <$800 on a DSLR back in 2014 or so, and it still
| takes better pictures in most situations than the newest
| iPhone/pixel.
| erwincoumans wrote:
| What percentage of pictures do you take using your DLSR
| versus your phone?
|
| For me, it turned less than 1% versus 99%.
| SECProto wrote:
| Approx 1% of photos taken is with the DSLR. But approx
| 20-25% of quality photos (i.e. those that I share or
| post) are from the dslr
| spindle wrote:
| Me too, and that's an important point ... but for the
| photos I put on my website and still look at later, the
| proportion is more like 50%.
| aparticulate wrote:
| Better in the situations where you are lugging it around,
| forsight to change lenses etc. I was reminded of a
| photojournalist who took great shots with an early iPhone
| to North Korea https://www.npr.org/sections/pictureshow/2
| 013/03/05/17349916... Fidelity doesn't matter that much.
| hammock wrote:
| >Just get closer to your subject
|
| Fine advice but when combined with the distorting wide angle
| lenses on phones it's counterproductive
| yakubin wrote:
| Until you hate noise. Noise makes phones a non-starter (the
| sensor is too small). Or until you're in non-standard lighting
| conditions, like a dark night. A year ago I found a mantis on
| my balcony[1]. I tried to make photos of it with my phone and
| my compact camera, and all of them were crap due to noise.
| Several months later I bought myself a DSLR and now I can take
| pretty good photos in very different lighting conditions. I
| plan to go further in that direction still and get myself a
| full-frame camera to get even better photos.
|
| Also, stabilising a full-blown camera in hands is a lot easier
| than stabilising a smartphone.
|
| [1]: Mantises aren't really a thing in this part of the world.
| pomian wrote:
| I was just reading Master and Commander series of books.
| There is a great scene where Maturin (the surgeon/naturalist)
| is taking notes while watching a pair of Mantis's mate; they
| continue while the female bites off the male's head. Now
| that's the photo we hope you capture!
| anta40 wrote:
| True, for any non hobbyist, smartphone is more than sufficient.
| You take some pictures, do some editing, and post them to
| family Whatsapp group or Instagram. Mission accomplished. All
| done on the same pocketable gadget. Let's how the fancier Sony
| A7 RIV or Hasselblad XD handle that :)
|
| You want bokeh, long exposure, HDR, etc? Smartphones are
| obviously won't compete in image sensor size, but they have
| powerful CPU. Say hello to computational photography:
| https://vas3k.com/blog/computational_photography/
|
| :D
| dtjb wrote:
| There's a huge segment of prosumers missing from your list -
| aspiring content creators. If you look at the numbers someone
| like Peter McKinnon is putting up on youtube, you realize there
| are millions of people out there learning how to use mirrorless
| + DSLR kits for things like twitch, youtube, ecommerce, etc.
| vmception wrote:
| This isn't about killing off interchangeable lens cameras that
| look like DSLRs, its about killing off actual DSLRs
|
| Theyre just getting rid of the inferior mirror technology, the
| thing that flips in front of the sensor, not conceding to
| phones
|
| The entire sony a7 line, for example, is still going to be made
|
| its kind of a troll discussion but its a good thing to happen
| because SLRs have been associated with a look or form factor
| too long and its time for that ambiguity and term to die.
| simonw wrote:
| Don't forget wildlife photography. I have a Canon 100-400mm
| lens on a DSLR and wildlife photography with it is a really
| rewarding hobby. Don't use it for anything else really.
| snapetom wrote:
| Yeah, I do wildlife photography as a hobby. Cellphone cameras
| will never catch up, especially bird photography. That
| 100-400 lens will bring subjects 1/4 mile+ away right in
| front of you in great detail. Software can't make up for the
| gap in data that sensors and lenses bring.
| petre wrote:
| Agreed. I like phones for photography, the image quality and
| the optimizations, features are great, but they have shitty
| ergonomics compared to a real camera. The thing with the phone
| is that it's always on me and that's what matters in the end.
|
| I used many cameras, film and digital from compacts to one of
| the best 6x7 medium format rangefinder. Just pulled the trigger
| on a Leica DG 15 mm for micro four thirds, which will probably
| be my main lens from now on.
| jopsen wrote:
| It also seems to me that the future is with phones, because
| manufacturers keep pushing the envelope on phone camera
| performance.
|
| And as fewer people buy standalone cameras, research in
| better camera will focus on phone camera, since that's where
| the market is.
| petre wrote:
| A phone camera is like a multitool. While it can replace a
| computer or a camera for 80% of the tasks, doing real work
| still requires a computer or a camera. There are also
| physical limitations, as in physics. You won't see too many
| sports or wildlife photographers doing their job with a
| phone, but for the majority of people who take selfies and
| snaps of their food, babies and cats, it's perfect. Also
| for the creative types and new media.
| skwirl wrote:
| Completely agree. My DSLR is mostly gathering dust these days -
| the things I bought it for that phones could not do well at the
| time were primarily landscapes, low-light photography, and
| wildlife. My current phone has a wide angle lens that does a
| great job with landscapes. Phones over the last few years have
| gotten very good at low light. DSLRs still win here, but not by
| enough to make it worth lugging around (with a tripod, too).
|
| Wildlife is my only remaining use case where the DSLR is still
| the only viable option as I generally can't get very close to
| the subject. This seems too niche to keep an entire market
| afloat, though.
|
| I'll also still lug the DSLR out if I have a shot planned out
| that I want to nail or when I'm asked to take photos of
| someone's kid. Having the ability to work with raw gives a lot
| of options for fixing lighting and colors. Today's phones do a
| fantastic job of getting you 80% of the way there
| automatically, though.
| noahtallen wrote:
| Definitely true. I did photography as a hobby, but phones match
| or exceed the performance in many cases now. For example, low-
| light mode on phones outperforms older entry-level canon DSLRs
| (T3/T6) by default without having to twiddle with the settings.
| Of course, you could get better pictures with these cameras,
| but it takes time and a really good lense! So in other words,
| it's just not ideal for quick pictures around the house.
|
| I think there are two areas where phone cameras have a lot of
| room for improvement: sharpness and landscape.
|
| By sharpness, I mean that if you zoom into any phone picture,
| it falls apart very quickly. There is a lot of software
| optimization hiding how a small sensor can't actually do that
| well in the details.
|
| By landscape, I mean if you take a picture of a mountain or
| object in the far distance, you'll barely be able to see it in
| the phone because the lenses are so wide. It really makes
| nature pictures underwhelming :)
| j1elo wrote:
| > _low-light mode on phones outperforms older entry-level
| canon DSLRs_
|
| Shouldn't you compare with _modern_ entry-level DSLRs?
| Otherwise of course, you are possibly skipping all
| technological improvements that DSLR cameras might have
| received over time.
| acquacow wrote:
| There isn't a real comparison with low light mode on phones
| vs what the best SLRs can do at high ISO at night.
|
| Phones are now using a combination of photo stacking and
| HDR in order to achieve pretty ridiculous low-light
| results.
|
| You could certainly sit there with an SLR and bracket half
| a dozen shots and then stack/HDR them in post, but that is
| a lot more work and can't be uploaded to facebook/instagram
| seconds later ;)
| AuryGlenz wrote:
| Don't get me wrong, it's impressive that I can take a
| photo of my moving baby in dark situations and my iPhone
| will do image stacking to get an acceptable image - but
| it's just that, acceptable. On a phone. Blow any of those
| up and they're a smeary, noise-reduced mess.
|
| I'd rather shoot at high ISO on one of my cameras and
| have some grain.
| kyriakos wrote:
| I only agree on the seconds later and that's where it
| ends. Unless you are shooting for social media even old
| dslrs with a good lens outperform any phone in terms of
| final output. It takes offline processing but the result
| is almost always better. Phone photos definitely look
| nice but generally look nice on phone screens, zoom in a
| bit and all the magic is gone.
| aparticulate wrote:
| I just try to keep things in perspective, it's pretty
| wild how many pictures I took with my iPhone 4S because
| it finally had a reliably good camera.
|
| If I can't take high quality pictures with a iPhone 12,
| that's a creative issue, not hardware. Low light capture
| is better than my DSLR ever was without a tripod, also.
| coldtea wrote:
| > _Shouldn 't you compare with modern entry-level DSLRs? _
|
| Not if the quality of those older entry-level DSLRs was
| already good enough for most people, and even good enough
| to win photo awards, print and hang in galleries in many
| cases.
|
| > _Otherwise of course, you are possibly skipping all
| technological improvements that DSLR cameras might have
| received over time._
|
| Considering the above, who cares, if their current phones
| already do a fine job as far as they are concerned?
|
| In 2000-2005-up to around 2010 or so, the era of "potato
| camera phones", that wasn't yet the case, so casual Joes
| and Janes still bought the entry-level DSLRs of the time.
| to11mtm wrote:
| Nawww, you're missing the market here.
|
| 2000-2012ish, Casual Joes and Janes were buying Point and
| Shoots. Most folks only bought DSLRs if they were
| actually doing it as a hobby or decided to take
| Photography as an elective in college.
|
| At the time, DSLRs were a worse video experience for
| casual users, if they supported video at all. Point and
| Shoots were anything from pocket sized to 'DSLR' sized
| and typically (but not always) accordingly scaled in
| relative capability.
|
| In any case, Point and shoots are what got killed in the
| last decade, or rather, got moved to niches. It's still
| the best option for certain things (e.x. Superzooms like
| Sony's RX10 IV or Nikon's P1000) Whether DSLRs/MILCs get
| niched out remains to be seen.
| jeremyjh wrote:
| I think the point is more that someone who felt they needed
| an entry-level DSLR a few years ago can get better
| performance from their phone today, and doesn't need any
| camera.
| spindle wrote:
| Both comparisons are interesting, IMO.
|
| Phones naturally get replaced every two years or so, for
| lots of reasons most of which have nothing to do with the
| cameras.
|
| DSLRs are expected (by me, anyway) to last for decades.
| Mine was made in 2009 and still looks and functions just as
| if it was brand new. Since they last so long, lots and lots
| of people still have DSLRs as old as mine and want to know
| how they compare to the recent phone camera that they also
| have.
| aparticulate wrote:
| Yeah, that's always dissapointing. Realistically, this is
| only an editor issue, no viewer can even zoom into a photo on
| Instagram etc. Even the sharpest Ansel Adams print is subject
| to the same JPEG compression artifacts. Not sure if the
| modern hobbyist/entry level print much these days.
|
| It's still so nice to zoom deep into my crisp old shots.
| petre wrote:
| Ansel Adams and the New Topographics are meant to be seen
| in a museum. Or at least in a book. Definitely not on
| Instagram.
| anta40 wrote:
| These days, those who print their photos are usually:
|
| - Couples after finishing their pre-wedding photo sessions
|
| - Photography enthusiasts. Some even still have their own
| darkroom.
|
| The rest? Nahh. Printing is a waste of money. We have
| social medias, which are cheaper and faster.
| timeon wrote:
| > who print their photo
|
| Print? Who is even looking at photos after taking them.
| But photos are also used as input for other graphics that
| can be printed - which is now also less common for
| reasons you have already mentioned.
| vagrantJin wrote:
| I agree. DSLR manufacturers never really took phone camera
| seriously. This hit me when my SO decided to buy a new IPhone
| over a Sony alpha for her YT channel.
| ghaff wrote:
| And Canon and Nikon is particular were/are mostly hardware
| companies who catered to professionals desiring complete
| creative control. Sure, they stuck on all the various auto
| modes for the casual users who wanted to use a "real" camera
| which in all fairness gave them better results than the
| alternatives even if they weren't exercising a fraction of
| the camera's capabilities.
|
| However, with the last few generations of smartphones, it's
| really pretty silly to be using a DSLR with a kit lens on
| full auto. Even food porn or snapshots in low light--which
| was one of the last day-to-day things that phones really
| didn't do well--is remarkably good on phones these days.
| eyelidlessness wrote:
| Rarely do I find a take that overlaps 100% with my own but here
| we are.
| sudosysgen wrote:
| I think your opinion is shared by a lot of people, but at the
| same time, "DSLR hobbyism" is alive and well, it's just shifted
| to Instagram.
|
| That being said, as another dilettante, I take WAY MORE
| pictures with my very heavy camera system (~7000 a year) than
| with my phone. It's because phones can't come close to the the
| focused experience of having a camera in your hand.
|
| As far as Good Photographs being 90%
| technique/framing/instinct/editing, that's true. But phones
| don't allow you to get near the level that's possible in those
| categories as an interchangeable lens camera.
|
| Let's say I want to do some street photography. On an
| interchangeable lens camera, I have a choice to go between 18mm
| to 300mm+ in focal length, and if I compensate with my position
| for the main subject, I can get very very different framing. I
| don't have this lattitude with a phone, where I can go from
| 13mm to 77mm, but where I have to sacrifice a lot of the little
| quality lattitude I have outside of three discrete positions.
| That's only in sunny situations. If you're inside or of it's a
| bit dark out, you can't use the telephoto lens, and you have a
| tiny native range from 13-26 or so on most phones, because the
| quality is so atrocious for longer focal ranges in less than
| stellar conditions that cropping a wide angle is better.
|
| As far as fake Bokeh, it's great for simpler portrait. However,
| if I want to use the defocus more subtly or in a more complex
| way than sharp foreground/blurry background, tough luck. This
| isn't hypothetical, multiple layers of depth is a good way to
| get a better sense of pop that just adding on more blur. Most
| of my all-time best photographs use mildly defocused elements
| in the foreground to create and organic frame for the subject,
| which is then followed by a slightly blurred background again.
| This way, you can have an organic framing of your subject
| without distracting from it, and creating an increased sense of
| depth.
|
| You say "just get closer to your subject", but that removes a
| _lot_ of compositions. Your position dictates the perspective
| you have, and your focal length dictates your framing options.
| So if I have to get really close to my subject, I just lost a
| lot of my creative power in how I want to frame my image!
|
| Then there's instinct. When you are this limited in your
| freedom and creative choices, you can never fully develop your
| instincts.
|
| Then there's editing. To get a usable image out of a phone
| camera, you need a massive amount of editing that simply cannot
| be done by a human. As a result, you can only get a fraction of
| the manual editing latitude of a bigger sensor camera. The
| lower actual resolution also hurts your ability to edit a lot.
|
| So while I agree that Good Photos are only 10% hardware, using
| a phone camera means you also have a sacrifice a lot of the
| rest of the 90%.
| nradov wrote:
| There is still also a niche market for underwater
| photographers. Housings are available for some smartphones now
| but the photos are mostly crap due to small sensors and poor
| integration with external strobes.
| aparticulate wrote:
| Go Pro results look stunning, come in tiny housing,
| affordable. Anything more elaborate is no longer hobby-tier.
| nradov wrote:
| Nope. Go Pro still images look _terrible_ once you go
| deeper and lose a bit of natural light. They don 't really
| work with external strobes either. But for video they do
| fine as long as you have good lights.
|
| The preferred hobby tier underwater still camera is now the
| Olympus TG-6 with a cheap plastic housing.
| saiya-jin wrote:
| Sorry but no - if by underwater you mean diving, and not
| putting your hand 0.5m underwater or similar depth
| snorkeling. Gopro has tiny sensor and crappy lens and it
| shows, even if you set the bar of quality as low as phone
| screen-only.
|
| You _can_ end up with reasonably nice pictures from time to
| time, I 've ended up with dozens from all activities I've
| mentioned (and that's using gopro hero 2 with custom
| housing in the past, now newer variants), but you will lose
| many more moments due to rather poor device performance.
| petre wrote:
| Depends on the hobby. Maybe some people have niche hobbies
| like using ULF cameras the size of a box truck.
| aparticulate wrote:
| The key word is niche. The area that these companies can
| ONLY afford to cater to. The Canon Rebel users of yore,
| taking slightly out-of-focus holiday snaps are totally
| lost to phones.
| epivosism wrote:
| Software support for moving photos from SLR => disk/gphotos is
| nonexistant. Huge miss that DSLR companies haven't made this
| work. They just gave up and ceded the market for "take a picture
| and conveniently share it on social media"
|
| See this question:
| https://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/128140/setup-to-ha...
| Thomaschaaf wrote:
| The Camera Control API (CCAPI) which Canon provides is actually
| very good it allows our company to create software which grabs
| the pictures of the camera and put it where we like.
| epivosism wrote:
| That's interesting, found details here:
| https://dphacks.com/how-to-canon-camera-control-api-ccapi/
| propter_hoc wrote:
| > vintage glass has become a lucrative option for filmmakers and
| creatives alike
|
| Can someone explain to me what this means? How does one make
| money with old camera lenses? Buying and selling them online?
| kjkjadksj wrote:
| They are saying less of their budget goes to equipment when
| creating the art they sell for a living.
| zwieback wrote:
| General trend in technology during my 55 years on the planet:
| moving parts get replaced once the replacing tech is good enough,
| at that point looking back is just nostalgia.
| smiley1437 wrote:
| IME the remaining advantage of SLRs is the speed of phase
| focusing over contrast focusing - moving subjects are much
| easier\faster to track with phase focusing.
|
| Has contrast focusing caught up yet?
| nullc wrote:
| Modern mirrorless cameras (and some DSLRs) use phase detecting
| image sensors.
|
| E.g. on Canon R5 every pixel on the sensor is microlensed into
| two sub-pixels, one that sees the left half of the aperture and
| one that sees the right half. The difference between the two is
| the phase information for auto-focusing.
|
| The use of the image sensor for auto-focusing also means that
| the camera can use ML object detection to refine the focus
| point (e.g. eye-detection) and the camera can use optical flow
| for servo of moving subjects tracking. Without a viewfinder
| prism in the way the focusing sensor also receives more light,
| and it's not interrupted while a photo is being taken. So even
| though the on-sensor phase detectors are less good than the
| ones used in DSLRs there are a lot of offsetting benefits.
|
| The camera can even preserve the dual subpixel info in raw
| files, though there isn't yet much software to make use of the
| info in post-processing.
|
| In manual focus mode the camera can highlight the portion of
| the image that's in-focus according to the phase detection.
| It's pretty @#$@ amazing, especially when using a tilted lens.
| gaudat wrote:
| Phase detection AF on the image sensor had been here for more
| than a few years. I remember the 5D2 (or 5D3) has a "Dual pixel
| AF" system that does phase detection.
|
| My A7m3 does phase detection if there is enough light and it is
| practically as quick as the DSLRs I used before.
| klodolph wrote:
| From the reviews I've read, it sounds like contrast focusing is
| damn fast these days. A mirrorless system won't beat a DSLR
| under _all_ conditions, but under most conditions, at the same
| price point.
| nikita2206 wrote:
| Mirrorless cameras are using both contrast and phase detection
| these days
| 5tefan wrote:
| I used to be an avid photographer. Then got drowned in an
| overkill of technology since then. I preferred the look of AA
| filter sensors.
|
| Modern lenses and modern cameras are so tack sharp that to me
| photos feel like they are beyond reality. Too much of everything.
| I have difficulties to connect to the image itself. Much more of
| an craft you learn than art you explore. Keeping a piece of the
| world to carry with you to revisit and to remember or to
| cherrish.
|
| Only Ricoh managed to have a line up that keeps me interested.
| Seems if the photo bug bites again I'm happy with old gear.
| sudosysgen wrote:
| Turn off the default sharpening in your preferred image editor.
| Shoot in RAW. It should fix the issue. I agree with you,
| though.
| akpa1 wrote:
| I'm a rather frequent photographer myself, but I shoot solely
| 35mm film and Fujifilm instant photos. There's still a thriving
| market for film and there are plenty of labs around to develop
| your films at. You can pick up various old cameras and lenses
| for fairly small amounts of money on eBay and similar (or you
| can spend a ridiculous amount, your call haha).
|
| Film has a certain quality to it that I adore. You don't get
| insanely crisp images like you describe, you don't get to edit
| your photos, you just get what you pointed your camera at. And
| you get something meaningful and physical that you can pick up
| and hold when you're done. It's wonderful.
| Springtime wrote:
| _> you don 't get to edit your photos, you just get what you
| pointed your camera at_
|
| There's still the whole aspect of developing and printing
| film, which itself can be an artform and very much change the
| end result. See for example how much the analog dodging and
| burning were used to change the tonality of an image, drawing
| attention to some aspects and reducing others. These final
| results are typically what we think of when we see classic
| film photography.
| snapetom wrote:
| I have three cameras that I use - a Canon R5, Canon FT QL,
| and a Zenza Bronica S2A.
|
| The first one is a joy for many reasons and I use it for the
| things the later two can't do very well - action and very low
| light. However, the later two offer an incredible experience
| to shoot. They're not forgiving, and film gives you a hazy
| look that is still poorly reproduced by software.
| voisin wrote:
| I would love to buy an adapter to connect my iPhone to DSLR
| lenses. I have no idea if this is possible. I hate the workflow
| on DSLRs.
| pomian wrote:
| A cool trick, although takes practice to get it right, is shoot
| with camera through a binocular lens. Can do that with SLR
| lenses too, similar issues: light leakage, stability, edge
| effects, etc. But it's fun.
| melissalobos wrote:
| It looks like a whole bunch of people have done this, if you
| search for "phone dslr lens diy", you can find videos like
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOtctDtdo44
| frostburg wrote:
| It is possible but the iphone has a tiny sensor with other
| lenses on top that you can't easily remove. You would also have
| issues with lenses that use electronic aperture control.
|
| Overall not really practical.
| blagie wrote:
| It's a really, really, really bad idea. dSLR lenses are
| designed for sensors which are 24mm x 36mm. Cell phone sensors
| vary, but a largish one might be around 6x8mm.
|
| That's not to mention issues like autofocus.
|
| There were a few attempts to bridge this gap, which attach a
| large sensor to your phone. The best-known ones are the Sony
| QX1 and the Olympus Air. They never took off. I think that was
| due to very poor execution. I though the Olympus Air was close,
| but had a few complete showstopper issues which made it
| unusable. A v2 might have done well, but instead, Olympus gave
| up.
|
| A few cameras are getting improved workflows with interfacing
| to cell phones, so perhaps we'll get there another way.
| NoSorryCannot wrote:
| Back in the day, hobbyists looking for a cine look would hook
| up a kind of adapter to use SLR or cine lenses with a
| consumer camcorder.
|
| Of course the camcorders had tiny sensors behind fixed
| lenses, so what was happening was the adapter had a bit of
| vibrating ground glass onto which the external lens was
| projecting its image, like a viewfinder, and the camcorder
| recorded that.
|
| The effect looked very good. Manual focus of course but this
| was considered desireable. I'm not suggesting this as a
| commercial solution, I just thought it was very inventive.
| frostburg wrote:
| Honestly smartphone workflow are just bad for different
| reasons. The best UX in digital photography is found in Leica
| rangefinders and Hasselblad / PhaseOne detachable medium
| format backs (not really the mirrorless medium format
| Hasselblad or Fuji cameras which have the usual awful menu
| systems).
| blagie wrote:
| It depends on what you want out of a workflow. As I'm
| getting older, I'm finding I like taking photos, viewing
| photos, and I hate editing photos. For 99% of what I do,
| cell for workflows would be great, if not for the privacy
| issues.
|
| Google takes my photos, and sometimes shows me "this day 3
| years ago" or a nice montage. I like that.
|
| I like having raw files for that 1% of photos I will edit,
| but that's a much less important use.
| frostburg wrote:
| Of course, yes. My issue with phones (besides the
| limitations in acuity, DR, etc.) is that they
| unpredictabily decide a lot by themselves in an opaque
| fashion.
| blagie wrote:
| My preferred workflow would be:
|
| - Camera unpredictably decides a lot by itself in an
| opaque fashion. I get useful automation for family
| photos.
|
| - I get a RAW file if I want to decide something
| different or if I'm printing and framing a photo
|
| 99% of the photos I shoot fit in the former category, but
| the 1% in the latter is about equally important (1 framed
| photo is worth a lot more than a random cell phone
| snapshot).
| sudosysgen wrote:
| RAW+Jpeg with a modern mirrorless in Aperture priority
| and vivid presets does that for me. Send off all the pics
| into Amazon Photos or Google Photos, put the RAWs in my
| NAS, and edit them whenever I want to.
| alexashka wrote:
| Nope.
|
| Lenses are designed for a specific sensor size. Phones have
| tiny sensors.
| voisin wrote:
| Ok, I get that. In that case, it would be fantastic if
| someone created professional lenses for smart phones. The
| nearest I've seen are nowhere near the capabilities for
| telephoto.
| petre wrote:
| Not practical because of physics. It would ruin phone
| ergonomics and you'd end up with a brick. Or maybe requirea
| cumbersome adapter and lens assembly. New flagship phone
| camera assemblies are big and ugly enough as it is. Phones
| with 3 or 4 cameras because the consumer demands it.
| sudosysgen wrote:
| The thing is, if you wanted to get a 200mm lens with
| equivalent quality to the main lens in the iPhone 13 Max,
| it would need to be 8 times wider and 8 times longer.
| That's around 5cm long and 3cm wide. Just doesn't work.
| cletus wrote:
| I get why this is happening but it still makes me sad. There's
| really no better experience than being able to look through the
| viewfinder, track the target and have a pretty good idea of the
| composition (the viewfinder is typically 95-99% of the frame).
| Any mirrorless system has limitations on low light and latency
| (of reading the light and then displaying it on a separate
| screen). This has gotten better but it can never really compete
| with the sensitivity of a human eye and low latency of passing
| through a prism (or mirror).
|
| The article mentioned compatibility and flange distance but
| didn't really explain why this is the case. Take the two big 35mm
| DSLR players of the 20th century Nikon and Canon. Nikon
| introduced the F mount in 1959 [1]. These were manual focus
| lenses. Autofocus came much later. Nikon chose compatibility to
| the point that you can buy a DSLR and a manual focus F mount lens
| from 1960 and it will work.
|
| Canon OTOH had a number of lens mounts (eg FD). When Canon
| introduced autofocus they bit the bullet and broke backwards
| compatibility to introduce a new mount, the EF [2] in 1987.
| Oddly, this situation kind of reminds me of how Java and C#
| introduced generics, each with a different philosophy.
|
| But the point is that Canon learned from its "mistakes" and
| corrected them with EF and benefitted from it.
|
| None of this really explains why DSLRs are dying though. This
| chart [3] does. Digital cameras in part funded DSLR development
| and phones killed the digital camera market (~85% drop in sales
| from the peak).
|
| I like digital cameras. Generally speaking picture quality is
| better, optics are better, framerates are better and the form
| factor allows things that phones can't do (eg waterproof to 40m,
| shooting 1080p at ~1000fps, 100x optical zooms).
|
| But they're a pain in the ass to use. I think this is a failing
| of camera manufacturers not to integrate seamlessly with phones.
| Like why can't I pair a camera with my phone and have photos just
| transfer to the phone automatically? I end up never using digital
| cameras because I simply can't be bothered with the steps
| required to do something with that photo. Phones solve that so
| much better.
|
| Lastly, it's worth pointing out that at this point only two
| companies produce digital camera sensors at any kind of volume:
| Canon and Sony. Sony literally produces almost everything else.
| This volume and market hold gives them economies of scale that no
| one can compete with.
|
| But Sony also makes phone camera sensors so Sony really doesn't
| lose anything if you buy a camera instead of a phone of vice
| versa. This probably contributed to manufacturers not caring at
| the smartphone revolution that literally destroyed that industry.
|
| [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikon_F-mount
|
| [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_EF_lens_mount
|
| [3]: https://www.statista.com/chart/5782/digital-camera-
| shipments...
| sudosysgen wrote:
| Mirrorless cameras now have much better low light through the
| viewfinder than a DSLR. A viewfinder is limited to around
| f/2.8, while a mirorless evf can do any aperture your lens can.
| The sensor of the camera has around 3-4x the sensitivity of
| your eyes. So we're at the point where even running the sensor
| at a fourth of its capacity and binning or throwing out pixels,
| at 120fps, is going to be better in low light than an ovf.
|
| Lag is an issue, yes. But the 20-30ms latency EVFs now have is
| really really close to the blackout lag of a DSLR.
|
| As far as Sony having no incentive to make you buy a camera, I
| don't think that's true. They're making at most a 1$ profit on
| smartphone sensors, and certainly around a 50$ profit on large
| sensors. If you buy their cameras, they're going to make
| something like 100-200$ in profit, and if you buy a lineup of
| their lenses, it's going to be somewhere like a 1000$ profit.
| So they definitely want you to make more cameras!
|
| As far as photos being seamlessly transferred, new Sony cameras
| do have that. As soon as you start the app, it will transfer
| images you take in the background, but I don't know if it works
| with RAW images.
| nullc wrote:
| > Any mirrorless system has limitations on low light and
| latency (of reading the light and then displaying it on a
| separate screen).
|
| Surely there is more latency, but on the most recent mirrorless
| cameras like Canon R5 it's not noticiable.
|
| Low light there is absolutely no contest: R5's viewfinder is
| totally usable in situations where you'd see nothing but black
| in a DSLR viewfinder. Sometimes after going out at night with
| the R5 in the woods I find myself looking through the
| viewfinder just to get a better view of the path ahead.
|
| The electronic viewfinder also makes it reasonable to build
| full time high ratio lenses that would be too dark to
| comfortably use through a viewfinder much of the time. For
| example, https://files.catbox.moe/fgxew8.jpg this image is
| 1/60th of a second ISO 5000 on a fixed f/11 lens. It would have
| been annoyingly dark on a DSLR viewfinder (and DSLR autofocus
| wouldn't function on an F/11 lens.).
| anta40 wrote:
| Sooner or later, I think DSLR is fundamentally "dead".
|
| To understand my PoV, perhaps we need to go back into 1940/1950s.
| Practically the most camera used at this time is a rangefinder
| (including Leica), which was a mirrorless. Rangefinder is
| compact, but limited to shorter primes, like 50mm and wider.
|
| SLRs don't have such limitation. You want longer lenses like
| 200mm, 300mm? No problem. Or a zoom lens? why not. In the 1960s,
| pro journalists started to adopt SLR and there's a decline in
| rangefinders usage.
|
| Now we are living in the digital world. Why do we still have to
| keep extra space for mirror box, which makes the camera body
| bigger? After all, there's no issue using tele or zoom lenses on
| mirrorless.
|
| Please don't understand this as "yet another anti DSLR post". No.
| My main camera is a Nikon Df, equipped with some AI and pre-AI
| lenses. I'm happy with the result, it suits my shooting style.
| That said, if I have some cash for another camera system, it's
| obviously going to be a mirrorless. Probably medium format
| mirrorless :D
| snapetom wrote:
| I was vehemently anti-mirrorless up until maybe a few months
| ago.
|
| I went on a big wildlife trip and realized I had to finally
| upgrade my Canon 70D. The first thought was to jump to a 90D,
| but I had to review what mirrorless options were.
|
| I tried to find every reason in the world to go with the much
| cheaper 90D than mirrorless. In the end, I couldn't. For my
| primary use cases (wildlife, night cityscapes, and sports), the
| Canon R5 has so many game changing advantages, I couldn't
| ignore it. I lose nothing with the lens adapters, and they
| mostly solved or mitigated the issues with the first gen.
| berkut wrote:
| Battery life when using the EVF (vs viewfinder in SLR) seems
| to be the only downside currently with Canon (I think Sony's
| is better). Hopefully over time this will improve.
| snapetom wrote:
| That's really the only disadvantage I came up with. I was
| also really nervous about lag and blackouts, but once I
| actually used one, even in the older R, I realized it was a
| non-issue.
|
| It's still an incredibly strange concept for me, and
| admittedly I'm not sure I'll ever be fully comfortable with
| it. However from a practical standpoint, there's really no
| issue.
| ur-whale wrote:
| I think the camera industry has yet to realize the amount of
| processing power that's available in modern chips.
|
| Once they do, the very concept of lenses as we know them is
| likely going to evolve drastically: at the end of the day, the
| signal captured by the physical CCD needs not in any way to look
| like the finished product (the final photo).
|
| They've realized that for color already (CCD captures a signal
| that's heavily processed for color before final delivery, eg
| debayering + color correction).
|
| Wait till they realize they can pull off the same trick with
| geometry, the entire discussion in this thread will become moot
| in a heartbeat.
| Rapzid wrote:
| > I think the camera industry has yet to realize the amount of
| processing power that's available in modern chips.
|
| I find this incredibly unlikely. What leads you to believe
| this?
| lm28469 wrote:
| Physics > algorithms.
|
| Just look at iphone bokeh (background blur), it's utterly
| disgusting. Nothing beats real world light rays hitting a large
| sensor, the larger the better (that's why 4x5 cameras still
| shit on modern 150mpx sensors).
|
| CCD aren't used btw, they all migrated to CMOS
| ur-whale wrote:
| > Just look at iphone bokeh
|
| Does the human eye have bokeh?
|
| Or are you just enamored with an artifact produced by
| existing sub-par technology after having been exposed to it
| for long enough that you now have Stockholm syndrome?
| mmaunder wrote:
| Ever wondered why modern digital film is still shot at
| 24fps and a shutter speed of 1/48th of a second when a
| faster shutter and higher frame rate would produce a
| technically superior product? It's because audiences are
| enamored with the feeling that sub par technology created
| decades ago and want that feeling to continue. It's also
| why guitarists use tube amps and digital tube amp emulators
| are so popular. Art is context and film and photo has over
| a century of context.
| Zak wrote:
| A faster shutter speed would not produce motion blur that
| looks similar to how human vision perceives it in
| reality. A higher framerate without changing the shutter
| speed (i.e. 48 FPS with a 1/48s shutter duration)
| produces a smoother result with the same motion blur, but
| may still be rejected by audiences because "that's not
| how movies should look".
| Zak wrote:
| > _Does the human eye have bokeh?_
|
| Yes. When your eye is focused on something close, point
| sources of light in the background will look larger and
| blurry. You'll also see two of them if you have two eyes
| open and have a sense of depth that a single lens
| projecting the scene onto a flat sensor cannot capture in
| the same way. 3D photography using two lenses has existed
| for a while, but viewing the result requires compromises
| relative to a print on paper or conventional screen
| technologies.
|
| The ability to have a shallow depth of field is valuable as
| a compositional tool to focus the viewer's attention where
| the photographer wants it. Bokeh - _how_ the defocused area
| looks is an artistic quality, and so far the digitally-
| created version I 've seen produced by smartphones is not
| aesthetically pleasing to me. I imagine that will change as
| the algorithms get better.
|
| I think some of the trends currently popular in photography
| using dedicated cameras are driven by what smartphones
| can't do, which includes (optical) shallow depth of field.
| ruined wrote:
| cameras are a dedicated tool for sampling visual data. they are
| very tightly designed to be good at that, and have been
| optimized to a nearly ideal form over the course of more than a
| century. cameras won't provide a decent ergonomic experience
| for anything else without significant change.
|
| on the professional end, the camera will always remain strictly
| a sampling tool, and processing the sample is done with full
| attention, usually later. the level of detail and control that
| is already demanded by post-processing requires a complex
| interface, and often dedicated control surfaces. additional
| creative complexity will not be attempted at point of capture
| with worse control.
|
| in every other use case, of course there is room for
| experimentation, but there is no reason to put that on the
| camera. every user is carrying a more powerful device with a
| bigger display and better touch surface in their pocket. the
| camera will remain an optimized sampling tool.
| ur-whale wrote:
| Strictly none of the things you said contradict what I said.
|
| There are very many ways to conduct sampling, the current
| method just being one of them, and the past 100 year of
| optimizations were conducted under the rather punishing
| constraint of "no math allowed at then end of the pipeline".
| mmaunder wrote:
| You still need the data. And most pro film and still shooters
| shoot raw which is either pre debayering or partially debayered
| as is the case with BMD.
| ur-whale wrote:
| > You still need the data.
|
| You're entirely missing my point.
|
| The "data" as you call it can come in all shape and forms, as
| long as it contains enough information to rebuild what the
| camera "saw"
|
| The "data" could come from 150 sensors arranged in a
| geometric pattern that completely alleviate the need for a
| traditional lens (see telescope arrays).
| epivosism wrote:
| DSLR manufacturers also actively resisted improving features on
| phones to enable market segmentation.
|
| Open source hacked DSLR replacement operating systems like Magic
| Lantern prove they are just market manipulators. example: every
| canon dslr is intentionally software limited in features like
| time lapse support, shorter exposure times, motion detection,
| bulb activation, and many more.
|
| In general the product space was undeveloped for years for them
| to keep their for short-term profits from massively marked up
| high end bodies; unlike the phone world where _every_ phone has
| the best features it possibly can, and there is no 2k, 5k+ USD
| iphone which "really" has the best features. Canon/others did
| not innovate and this is what they should get. It's a shame
| considering what they might have been.
|
| https://magiclantern.fm/
| elxr wrote:
| Entry level DSLRs also only had 1 control wheel for a long
| time. This was always one of my biggest issues when looking for
| a decent, affordable DSLR. It really kneecaps usability. When
| in aperture priority, having only a single wheel for F-stop,
| exposure compensation, and ISO is an exercise is frustration.
| epivosism wrote:
| Or how even on 2k+ DSLRs you cannot specify "auto ISO limits"
| - i.e. AUTO means 50-400 but do NOT go over that. So you
| can't build in your requirements for photos - after verifying
| that quality up to a certain ISO is okay for your purpose,
| and above it is NOT okay, you have no way to force the camera
| to match your requirements.
| andrewaylett wrote:
| My Canon EOS 550D has a "maximum auto ISO" setting that
| lets me pick anything from 400 up.
| cruelty2 wrote:
| Not a day too soon. This is probably caused by dwindling
| accidental buys and the user realizing how much of a pain they
| are to use
| mancerayder wrote:
| I used to be a big photography hobbyist and I'm slowly getting
| back into it. My interests were a) street photography b) portrait
| lighting / controlled lighting with remote strobes (a.k.a.
| strobist).
|
| I've owned Canon EF gear for decades, and the 'most recent' which
| is now old, is a 6D, and my best lens is a 35mm 1.4L from the
| early 2000's which I love.
|
| A few years ago I invested in Fuji gear, including the X100series
| and a XT-4 with two prime lenses.
|
| A couple of points.
|
| 1. DSLR's have big sensors and lenses. The 6D with lenses like
| the 35 1.4 which I have, and the 85 1.2 which I rented, have
| INSANE bokeh and low light performance. I don't claim to have a
| science background, but it's pretty well established that a
| bigger sensor size (the 6D has a 35mm size sensor) and a large
| aperture contribute to low light performance - the bigger
| aperture because you have a faster lens (it needs less light/you
| get away with a [edit] faster shutter speed) and less noise (the
| larger sensor has less noise artifact happening). This gives you
| a fair amount of creative flexibility in your settings.
|
| I thought about selling the 6D and the 35 but I'm having trouble
| 'letting go' even though I haven't used them in a while (and they
| are huge and heavy)
|
| 2. DLSR's have a hella lotta weight to them. When traveling, I
| used to travel with the 6D and a bunch of lenses (some I now sold
| including a 70-200 F4L with which I took pictures I'm proud of
| and want to keep forever). Well the stress of filling 30-50% of
| your luggage space with camera gear and nervously waiting your
| suitcase in the airport conveyor belt is one thing I don't miss,
| nor having to pick and choose which lenses on a hike.
|
| 3. Mirrorless has unlimited shutter speed, practically, since
| it's electronic. If you want to shoot against the sun, and turn
| your shutter speed so high that the world is dark, and you have
| controlled lighting with a probe, you can't do that with a 6D due
| to the slower shutter speed, since it's made up of physical
| curtains. This gets cool effects outdoors.
|
| 4. Mirrorless are obviously better street cameras, since they fit
| in your pocket / hand and aren't as visible. Once I got into a
| concert where no cameras were allowed, because the rule was, no
| cameras where the lens is removeable are allowed (that's only for
| paid pros in the concert).
|
| 5. Subjectively: I'm having a LOT of trouble steering myself away
| from the DSLR mindset, I'm finding myself reluctant to use the
| XT-4 for portrait type work. And I think I'm selling the X100F
| since I prefer 50 EFL instead of 35 EFL for the street.
| nullifidian wrote:
| I would add that lenses are never going to be the same in that
| the latest mirror-less full frame lenses, even the higher-end
| ones (which cost $1000-2500 and more) are increasingly made out
| of greater proportion of plastic than the DSLR lenses (Canon EF,
| Nikon F). Even the mount is attached with screws that first go
| through a plastic frame, which consequently contains at best a
| partially metal assembly, which was fully metal previously.
|
| I'm not familiar with how well do modern plastics age, but
| suspect that it's not as well as the old metal lenses (50ies
| onwards) which are still usable. So it's more of a planned
| obsolescence trend in my opinion.
|
| And the increasing reliance on digital post processing for
| correcting optical aberrations like distortion and chromatic
| aberration. Some Micro Four Thids lenses' raw files are downright
| unusable without such corrections.
| jasonjayr wrote:
| This is complete speculation on my part, but doesn't plastic
| tend to deform more than metal in harsh temperatures? Won't the
| lack of a metal frame to precisely position all the optical
| elements cause more aberrations over time?
| blagie wrote:
| Over temperature? Nope.
|
| Or to be precise, not well-engineered plastics.
|
| There are a ton of games one can play. For example, one can
| mix something which expands by 1%, with something which
| contracts by 1% (which can also mean expanding in the
| opposite direction). Modern lenses do very well across
| temperatures.
|
| Over time? At least based on what I've seen, older plastic
| lenses have not aged well. Of course, that means more sold
| products. A new lens will blow away an older lens if the
| older ones is plastic and slightly wobbly. Planned
| obsolescence.
| [deleted]
| sudosysgen wrote:
| Not at all. This is actually part of why telephoto lenses use
| a lot of plastic, you can get a plastic to have ~0 thermal
| expansion, but that's impossible for a metal, meaning better
| IQ.
| ganzuul wrote:
| LEGO has pretty good tolerance over time. Perhaps they can keep
| up with a toy manufacturer if given the right materials.
| petre wrote:
| Use Fujifilm X, Leica DG or Zeiss lenses if you're discontent
| with the build quality. Sigma also has a very good quality lens
| lineup. I only need two, a standard and a 28-30 mm equivalent.
| Could also do with the wider one. On the Ricoh GRD I never
| needed anything else.
| IdontRememberIt wrote:
| Soft plastics on my nikon are an issue. I have noticed that
| they tend to deteriorate quickly on beach holidays. I suspect
| it is a combination of Sun, residues of solar cream on the
| hands and the salt in the air.
| petre wrote:
| You mean the grip? Nikon rubber grips are notorious for
| falling apart. Which is part of why I sold all my digital
| Nikon gear when they were tone deaf and peddalled dSLRs and
| the dumbed down 1 system. Went with the m43. It's not an open
| standard but it's considerably more open than others.
| acquacow wrote:
| The rubber grips are cheap and take 20mins to replace.
| formerly_proven wrote:
| Do you mean the "rubber textured" plastic on the D50, D70
| etc.?
| petre wrote:
| Yes. And the D700, D800 etc. It isn't so much of a
| problem now with 3d printing and so many materials being
| available.
| juusto wrote:
| If you interested in great feeling and great IQ lenses with a
| small foot print look not further than the Zeiss Loxia line,
| Sony 24mm F2.8G / 40mm F2.5G and 50mm F2.5G, the new Sigma
| Contemporary lens line for both E and L mount and Voigtlander
| lenses for both E and M mount. All of them have metal bodies
| and some of these are even weather sealed and have AF.
|
| There is some Chinese lenses as well which seem to be very well
| built.
|
| Great lens resources: https://phillipreeve.net/
| https://dustinabbott.net/ and https://www.fredmiranda.com/
| nullifidian wrote:
| If I'm not mistaken Sony G lenses are the greatest offender
| in terms of the amount of plastic used in the $800-$2000
| price range:
|
| https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2016/04/sony-
| fe-85mm-f1-4-g... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMXjJxFXRVs
| juusto wrote:
| That's one of the reasons I mentioned those three.
|
| I think we have to distinguish between plastic, the one
| that feels cheap and might crack even when exposed to cold
| like many of the cheap DSLR lenses. And the "new" kind of
| plastic that is sturdier and more resistant to drops or
| scratches. The FE 24-105 is the latter and it does not feel
| anyhow less quality than more expensive top zooms.
|
| Plastic has its positives as well: it won't scratch as easy
| as metal and, specially for zooms, its lighter. Imagine a
| zoom made of metal like a Voigt lens.
| D13Fd wrote:
| I don't understand people's obsession with plastic vs metal
| lenses. I have 10+ year old plastic and metal lenses and all
| are fine. I once dropped a plastic lens and it rolled about 20
| feet down a steep gravel and stone driveway. No issues other
| than some scuffs on the exterior, and I've used it for years
| and years since.
|
| For truly old lenses - 50 years or more like you mention -
| mildew and fogging seem more likely to be a problem than
| plastic aging. Plus, lenses of that age are often of limited
| real-world use anyway given the developments in cameras.
| asciimov wrote:
| > I don't understand people's obsession with plastic vs metal
| lenses.
|
| It's an issue with perceived quality. So much of the inner
| workings of things have been replaced with plastic, usually
| not for the better. When you spend as much money on lenses
| these days, you don't expect them to cheap out on a small
| ring.
|
| Also, not all plastic is made equal. I have two lenses made
| in the last 20 years that have plastic that is starting to
| deteriorate and become sticky. It's a real shame as those
| lenses still work and do their job.
| aimor wrote:
| Plastic deterioration like this has ruined so many things I
| liked that are otherwise well designed. I've had it happen
| with computer mice, umbrellas, knives, camera tripods,
| shoes, flashlights. I don't know the chemistry behind why,
| but it's a terrible feeling to have something either
| disintegrate, or become terribly sticky, or turn into
| putty.
| chiefalchemist wrote:
| I think the issue is, how well the plastics age. Some over
| time get brittle and less "flexible", and thus prone to
| fatigue.
|
| I had a Minolta SLR as a teen (read: late 70s to early 80s).
| I gave it away 25+ yrs later. I'm not sure about internals,
| but there was no fears about plastic fatigue. I believe it
| might still be in use.
| D13Fd wrote:
| I think it's pretty clear at this point that well made
| plastic lenses hold up for at least 10-15 years. In my
| view, the vast majority of use of a typical lens is going
| to be in the first 10 years or so. After that, if the
| lenses haven't been scratched, dropped in the ocean, etc.,
| use is probably going to drop off anyway as better cameras
| and lenses come along.
| kjkjadksj wrote:
| A magic drainpipe is a 30 year old lens and is still
| optically excellent and performant.
| sudosysgen wrote:
| Yes! I have one, and wide-open it outresloves the 24MP
| sensor of my A7ii. It's so sharp that I have to turn down
| the default sharpening settings in lightroom because then
| it looks unnaturally sharp.
|
| The reason why it's so good is because it doesn't have
| in-lens IBIS. It took 15 years to make an IS lens with
| similar quality to the legendary 80-200!
| Andys wrote:
| I agree, I've had both (from Nikon). Plastic tends to bounce,
| metal bends. The plastic lenses stand up to a bearing very
| well.
| newsclues wrote:
| Because plastic breaks. Metal is superior in longevity.
| AuryGlenz wrote:
| As far as dropping lenses goes, plastic is superior. It
| bounces back in to shape. Metal bends/dents.
| picture wrote:
| Metal breaks too. It entirely depends on how it's
| engineered. Cheapest plastic sucks a lot more ass than the
| cheapest metal, but when engineered for permanence,
| plastics can be superb materials.
| newsclues wrote:
| I wrote that comment after the plastic buckles on my
| messenger bag just broke. Perfectly fine, hardly used,
| but it just broke because it was ten years old. Plastic
| sucks.
| lm28469 wrote:
| The lens I use the most is a 70 years old leica lens, it's
| all metal and glass and looks as if it came out of the
| factory yesterday. It stills holds up on an m10m sensor
| (40mpx without bayer array).
|
| Plastic will always be inferior to metal no matter what, both
| in feel and durability. The only plastic lens I have is also
| the only lens with helicoid play... it's not even 1/3rd the
| age of the leica
| samatman wrote:
| Plastic will also always be superior to metal in weight,
| and functionality is all over the map: good lens (for ones
| purpose) dwarfs enclosure material for that.
|
| It wouldn't be hard to pair you with someone mad at their
| old-school lens for helicoid play who has no complaints
| about their plastic. Especially in the last decade, it's
| not a useful filter, just one of many factors to consider
| in selecting gear.
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| yardie wrote:
| No talk of the micro-4/3rds? I found them to be technically
| superior to dSLRs and way more compact since they don't need
| prism and shutter.
| petepete wrote:
| Another factor working against them is that we're starting to
| see bodies that are very comparable to M43 ones.
|
| Sony's full frame A7C is 124 x 71 x 60 mm.
|
| For comparison a Panasonic GH5 is 138.5 x 98.1 x 87.4 mm and an
| Olympus's OMD em10 120 x 83 x 47 mm.
| perardi wrote:
| It's not clear how much longer that'll be a thing.
|
| Olympus divested its camera operations to some third-party
| holding company. I am skeptical they'll have the capital and
| expertise to really be competitive.
| (https://www.dpreview.com/news/0412395347/olympus-
| finalizes-d...)
|
| And Panasonic doesn't seem to really be in it anymore, save for
| their video-focused cameras. They have a new full-frame mount
| now.
| LegitShady wrote:
| micro 4/3 is just a mirrorless sensor format. It is competing
| with other mirrorless sensor formats, many with full size
| sensors.
|
| I have mirrorless cameras with APS-C or larger sensors, so the
| micro 4/3 format is just a smaller sensor.
| cthalupa wrote:
| They're not really even in the discussion when it comes to
| being real replacements for DSLRs. Their sensor size is
| significantly smaller than even a crop frame dslr/mirrorless
| camera, and roughly a quarter of the size of a full frame
| camera.
|
| This smaller sensor size means they're not going to be used at
| the prosumer or pro level, and that in turn means a limited
| selection of high end lenses, etc.
| nottorp wrote:
| Ok silly non specialist and even non hobbyist question.
|
| The only reason I own a DSLR (the cheapest Nikkon I could find)
| is because I hate looking at a LCD. With how (d)slrs are set up
| what I see in that view finder is what i get in the photo.
|
| Mirrorless cameras only have the LCD right? Is there any option
| that fixes that?
|
| Note that there may be a camera category that I don't know about
| that fixes my problem. If yes, please tell me which it is :)
| twic wrote:
| Lots of mirrorless cameras have electronic viewfinders - you
| have a conventional-looking viewfinder, but you look at a tiny
| screen, rather than a prism and a mirror. Because you are
| seeing an image captured by the sensor, it is precisely "what
| you see in that view finder is what you get in the photo" -
| including things like adjusting exposure compensation, which
| you would not see in an SLR viewfinder.
|
| This also allows various helpful features to operate in the
| viewfinder, rather than just on the back LCD. I use
| magnification a lot, and there is also focus peaking and
| highlight and shadow indication. It can be really useful to
| have those a couple of button taps away while i'm composing a
| shot.
| IAmEveryone wrote:
| I was given a Sony camera to take photos at an event recently.
|
| After two days, I noticed that the viewfinder would be dark
| when I turned the camera off. This was different than my usual
| Canon, so I wondered why.
|
| Turns out it was a mirrorless camera, where the viewfinder is a
| screen. And I didn't notice that I was looking at a screen the
| whole time.
|
| Edit: this was a Sony Alpha 7c. I really enjoyed using it. It's
| comfortably small and has the silver retro design of something
| from the 1930s.
| LegitShady wrote:
| the problem is the success of the viewfinder varies between
| models, whereas most DSLR viewfinders were decent to good by
| nature of the SLR system.
| alessioalex wrote:
| It's the smallest (usable) full frame camera from Sony
| (there's another smallrer one from Sigms but it doesn't have
| a viewfinder). Its weight is 509g / 1.1 lb, has the same
| sensor as the Sony Alpha 7III and better autofocus (tracks
| humans as well as animals with eye detection - for photo and
| video).
|
| I recently bought it and like it very much.
| nottorp wrote:
| Oh i looked at a few models and indeed some have what looks
| like a viewfinder. If there's a lcd _inside_ instead of a
| direct optical path I don 't think it matters for my simple
| needs. As long as I don't have to hold the camera at arms
| length and still not see anything on that external lcd because
| of the sun...
|
| The one mirrorless i played with didn't have the viewfinder so
| I assumed that's how they all are.
|
| Looks like I just need to be careful what I buy. Thanks!
| sudosysgen wrote:
| Modern mirror less cameras have an OLED screen inside the
| viewfinder, which in my humble opinion is a lot better than a
| normal viewfinder.
| frostburg wrote:
| Leica M cameras and Fuji X-pros have optical viewfinders.
| Lio wrote:
| Fuji's specialist X100 series actually have both optical and
| electronic viewfinders.
|
| I've had a few. First generation I mostly used the optical
| finder. Over time they've improved enough that I mainly use
| the electronic one now.
|
| I like that you can see how the film simulation and exposure
| will look _before_ you take the shot.
| mulmen wrote:
| > I like that you can see how the film simulation and
| exposure will look before you take the shot.
|
| This is an important insight. Optical viewfinders show you
| what will _hit the sensor_. Electronic viewfinders show you
| _what you get_.
| sudosysgen wrote:
| Not even, actually. Optical viewfinders have a different
| optical path, and you will see a different image. For
| example, you'll get incorrect behaviour at large
| apertures.
| Lio wrote:
| That's true for rangefinder style cameras but not for
| SLRs.
|
| Most optical viewfinders will allow you to stop down for
| preview at the correct aperture.
|
| There's a useful feature on the X100 series to give you
| the framing offset.
| frostburg wrote:
| No, it's also true for traditional SLR cameras, due to
| the nature of focusing screens and other issues you don't
| get accurate depth of field for very fast lenses, for
| example.
| frostburg wrote:
| The viewfinder on the xpro shares the same hybrid design
| (Leicas do not have this feature, however).
| [deleted]
| dsego wrote:
| An electronic viewfinder or a hybrid viewfinder like the fuji
| xpro/x100.
| bradly wrote:
| I believe you can have an optical view finder but the actual
| photo will be framed slightly different that what you see
| through the view finder.
| LegitShady wrote:
| you can have a digital viewfinder but not an optical
| viewfinder without DSLR like design. mirrorless cameras don't
| have the prism-mirror system.
| daniel-thompson wrote:
| That's the key feature of the design - there is no _real_
| optical viewfinder because there is no mirror & pentaprism,
| which would be needed to redirect the incoming light from the
| sensor to a viewfinder.
|
| Some mirrorless cameras have viewfinders, but it's either a
| digital display of what the sensor sees, or an actual optical
| path that doesn't go through the lens system. In either case
| it's not actual light redirected from the lens. A few
| illustrations:
|
| -
| https://static.wixstatic.com/media/d28f27_00f04a01eccc4831b9...
|
| - https://images.squarespace-
| cdn.com/content/v1/5c17fb063917ee...
| Der_Einzige wrote:
| My Sony A6100 has a 120hz oled viewfinder which is smooth and
| good enough that I don't believe that the advantages of a real
| viewfinder outweigh the benefits of a new mirror less camera
| body.
| DanCarvajal wrote:
| A modern mirror less cameras typically have a digital
| viewfinder, often OLED, that replicate the optical viewfinder
| to varying degrees of success.
| snapetom wrote:
| The viewfinders in mirrorless (at least in Canons) are all
| electronic. I know, it sounds weird, I know it sucks up battery
| life, I know there are concerns about lag. However, I resisted
| them for a long time until I actually used one.
|
| They're pretty awesome, I recommend anyone that they're zero
| issues, and yet, I still don't feel right about them.
| tristanperry wrote:
| That's an annoying blog. I was half way through reading when a
| full page "enter your email address" pop-up appeared. I closed
| it, and was sent to the top of the page again. (Samsung S20,
| Chrome).
| djkoolaide wrote:
| If a website treats me this way, I close the tab without
| finishing the article.
| pwg wrote:
| UblockOrigin, with default deny all JavaScript mode turned on,
| prevented any 'half way through popup' from appearing for me.
| felubra wrote:
| I recommend you installing Samsung Internet browser and using
| the Adblock Fast software to block ads. This browser has built-
| in support for blocking ads using the Adblock Fast. And if this
| not works, most of the time I just use the reading mode to
| bypass the paywalls and ads.
| mmaunder wrote:
| Clarification on Canon discontinuing EF lenses:
|
| https://petapixel.com/2021/04/22/canon-clarifies-discontinui...
|
| Not that several camera makers make EF mount cameras and third
| party lens makers make EF mount lenses, like Yongnuo, Samyang,
| Schneider, Sigma, Tamron, Tokina, Cosina and Carl Zeiss.
|
| Be very careful investing in lenses that have a short flange
| focal distance. In other words, where the distance from the mount
| to the sensor is short. We went big on Sony E mount primes for
| shooting video. When we moved to Blackmagic Design Ursa and
| pocket cine cameras with Canon mounts we couldn't adapt the
| lenses and had to get rid of them. The general point here is that
| as you grow as a shooter your needs will change and you'll be far
| happier if you can adapt your old lenses somehow.
|
| You can, for example, put an EF mount lens on a Sony E mount
| camera, but not the other way around.
|
| What my media dept has done is to standardize on Canon EF mount
| lenses. We now have a great collection of L series and cine
| lenses that will work on everything from our 5Ds to BMD Ursa 12K
| to our pocket cine cameras.
|
| Don't get vendor locked in and make sure you retain a few
| options.
| petre wrote:
| Do the EF lenses retain the autofocus capability on cine
| cameras or do you even need it in cinematography?
|
| The only drawback with longer flange is more complicated
| designs for wide angle lenses. That didn't stop Canon from
| making a rectilinear 15 mm EF lens.
| ChrisMarshallNY wrote:
| I worked for decades on software for DSLRs.
|
| I completely agree that they need to go away, and that new lens
| tech needs to appear.
|
| But I think that we are -just now- starting to get to the point
| where we can have truly excellent mirrorless cameras that
| actually can replace (and will surpass) DSLRs.
|
| A lot of it has to do with on-chip computational photography. All
| the camera companies are coming up with custom image processing
| chips, and these are what makes the difference.
|
| Lag time needs to be in the single-to-mid-double-digit ms range.
| I don't remember what the number was, but the company that I
| worked for, did some research, on what the maximum allowable lag
| time on a viewfinder could be, and I think it was like 50ms. That
| means that you need to expose the chip, scan the image from it,
| do the A/D conversion, demosaic, gamma correct, color correct,
| denoise, vignette correct, distortion manage, remove chromatic
| aberration (because cheap lenses), and all the rest of the image
| processing, then, display it on the screen, continuously, within
| 50ms per frame, while also not draining the battery. Also, pixel
| density has a big impact on this performance. More pixels, more
| milliseconds; more battery drainage.
|
| Not a simple task. You can do tricks like scale down the image
| early on, and eschew some of the finer image processing tasks,
| but you still need that viewfinder image to be right on the
| money, and to the standards of a very picky photographer.
|
| Also sensor physical size has a lot to do with the image quality,
| bokeh, and what-have-you. A big issue with smartphone cameras
| (and point-and-shoot cameras), is that small sensors mean that
| there's little control over DoF (Depth of Field). Apple has
| introduced artificial bokeh, with their software.
|
| Sensor size, and the length of the optical path, are what really
| drive lens size. They discuss that, in the article. Hasselblad
| and Phase One (if they still do that stuff) cameras have these
| monster sensors. They still need big lenses.
| omegalulw wrote:
| > That means that you need to expose the chip, scan the image
| from it, do the A/D conversion, demosaic, gamma correct, color
| correct, denoise, vignette correct, distortion manage, remove
| chromatic aberration (because cheap lenses),
|
| Can you explain what's the difference in gamma correction and
| color correction? New gamma correction uses perceptual mapping
| right (e.g. Dolby vision) - doesn't that already put you into a
| standard color space?
|
| > then, display it on the screen, continuously, within 50ms per
| frame
|
| That's 20 fps. Don't you need at least 24 to capture cinematic
| footage?
| realityking wrote:
| > That's 20 fps. Don't you need at least 24 to capture
| cinematic footage?
|
| They're not talking about fps but latency. From light hitting
| the sensor to it being emitted again by the viewfinder With
| all the processing inbetween.
| ChrisMarshallNY wrote:
| Gamma is basically a logarithmic light correction. It is a
| digital reflection of an original analog process. Color
| correction is a much more intricate and subtle thing. Digital
| cameras have color bias (for example, they tend to like red,
| a lot, while film liked greens and blues). Color correction
| makes sure that the colors that come out, can be accurately
| correlated to the ones that came in. You can also do some
| cool things, by remapping into different color spaces (a lot
| of image processing is done by changing the data to a new
| color space, and playing with the channels).
|
| We're talking the viewfinder, so it is latency. It is also
| FPS. The viewfinder can be slightly relaxed, but pros will
| want the viewfinder to be highly representative of the final
| outcome. Latency is critical, because they use the viewfinder
| to make the decision when to snap the image, or set the
| scene.
|
| The final output can be slightly more relaxed, with post
| processing in a buffer. Video makes that a lot more intense.
|
| That's why you have a limit to how many frames you can have
| in a burst. They get fed into a buffer, for post processing.
|
| Another big advance will be true electronic shutters. I'm not
| sure we're there yet.
| alexashka wrote:
| > Another big advance will be true electronic shutters
|
| We're pretty much there. The latest Nikon flagship (Z9)
| doesn't have a mechanical shutter.
| snapetom wrote:
| Yeah, I was vehemently anti-mirrorless until maybe just like 6
| weeks ago. I tried to use every reason to stick with the latest
| Canon DSLR, but there are just too many advantages with the
| mirrorless R5.
|
| And a lot of advantages are the computational tech in the
| cameras that you speak of. The eye tracking and focus is
| absolutely incredible. Those that claim cellphone cameras will
| replace dedicated cameras have no idea the advances that are
| taking place in the cameras. Camera companies are not sitting
| by idle and waiting for cellphones to make themselves obsolete.
| They are making incredible strides. With the advantages of the
| sensor sizes and lens physics, I'm not going to say cellphones
| will never catch up, but I find it hard to believe they will.
| ChrisMarshallNY wrote:
| The new Sony flagship[0] is awesome. It's a $7,000 body that
| they can't keep in stock. Sony also has great glass.
|
| [0] https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1619483-REG/sony_i
| lce...
| snapetom wrote:
| At that MP and that price, it's dipping its toe into medium
| format photography.
|
| Ultimately, in the hardware sense, I think making medium
| format technology accessible to the masses, is where
| Canon/Sony/Nikon is heading. It's going to be about
| striking a balance between camera size, sensor size, using
| software to fill in the compromises, and of course, cost.
| However the point is that while cellphones are catching
| cameras, cameras are also moving ahead.
| ChrisMarshallNY wrote:
| Medium (and large) format has more to do with the size of
| the sensor.
|
| Big sensors require big housing, a minimum optical
| distance, and big, expensive glass.
|
| Ansel Adams must have been pretty diesel. He used to haul
| these gigantic cameras around in the wilderness. They
| often had a plate size of 8" X 10".
| jhoechtl wrote:
| And then came the next iPhone.
|
| I am by no means an Apple zealot but its astonishing that
| with every iteration they set new standards.
| goblin89 wrote:
| Different purposes of computational capabilities in modern
| cameras vs. phones place them reliably in different
| categories.
|
| The former aim to computationally adjust settings and make
| it easier to capture raw scene data the way you intend. The
| "magic" happens on lower levels (e.g., tracking subject),
| and you generally feel in control of how it's applied.
|
| The latter focus on computationally interpreting raw data
| and generating a display-referred image. The "magic"
| happens throughout the process, and is mostly a black box
| (recall that case where iPhone camera replaced human head
| with a leaf on a group photo). If you use phone camera to
| capture raw image, phone software may still be able to
| assist to a degree, but challenges arising from sensor size
| and lens limitations would become more obvious.
|
| (I would, however, watch out for the line becoming blurred
| if/when phones--hopefully not cameras!--start to capture
| computational raws. Potential improvements offered by
| applying extensive magic at unmosaiced raw signal level
| would for me be killed by that human-head-turned-to-leaf
| possibility, which would ruin phone photography for me.)
| Xylakant wrote:
| > (recall that case where iPhone camera replaced human
| head with a leaf on a group photo)
|
| Though that leaf was just a leaf, hanging in the wrong
| place - no magic involved, not the iPhones fault.
|
| https://petapixel.com/2022/01/03/the-mystery-of-an-
| iphone-re...
| goblin89 wrote:
| Didn't know this was debunked, my faith in iphoneography
| was restored a little!
|
| Still, I occasionally notice artifacts of computational
| processing--most recently, wrong color of a building (it
| somehow decided it's yellow, instead of reddish beige),
| other times some skin improvements, eye sharpening and so
| on. (I don't shoot in raw on my phone though.)
| orbital-decay wrote:
| 1. GCam, MotionCam etc were always able to output stacked
| raws. In case of raws, "computational" is pretty much a
| marketing buzzword that means very little, it's just good
| old exposure fusion and stacking in bayer domain, with
| in-camera alignment robust enough to shoot a long stack
| handheld. They pretty much have the same exposure/iso
| priority and controls you expect to simplify capturing
| the most of the scene data unchanged. There's even
| experimental RAW video recording in MotionCam, however
| ridiculous that might sound.
|
| 2. RAW is also pretty much meaningless with modern
| mirrorless since it's not literally raw. They also do a
| lot of stuff under the hood for years, including
| "computational" stuff like noise suppression or pixel
| shift/superresolution in bayer domain.
|
| So the line isn't just blurred, it doesn't exist at all.
| All this "computational" stuff is here _precisely_ to
| capture more of the real data, not to draw something that
| never existed.
| goblin89 wrote:
| I don't know what are things you reference in (1), some
| apps?
|
| In (2), either you are speaking about consumer point-and-
| shoots, or you are speaking of features that can be
| turned off, or more typically have to be turned on. (Have
| you ever tried to use pixel shift, by the way? What kind
| of magic do you think does it do, except for capturing
| multiple pixel-shifted exposures?)
|
| Mirrorless cameras I use get me a dumb array of raw light
| values, and I am free to apply (or not) noise reduction
| as I interpret the data. And if they were applying noise
| suppression, I would not put it anywhere in the same
| domain as computationally detecting and smoothening human
| skin or the like.
|
| The line is there, and at this time it's pretty sharp. If
| you don't believe, try some of the latest "dumb" pro
| mirrorless cameras with the latest iPhone and compare
| their respective raw captures.
| orbital-decay wrote:
| GCam is Google Camera, the app that started all this.
| Funny how everybody praises iPhone when Apple actually
| have been very slow to notice this trend, and their
| camera apps really sucked for many years. I hate GCam
| specifically because it requires lots of fiddling with
| mods and ad-hoc setups if you want full potential, but it
| doesn't change the fact that a "computational" camera
| outputs real scene data.
|
| _> computationally detecting and smoothening human skin
| or the like_
|
| Seems like there's some misunderstanding. I'm not talking
| about stuff like face detection or beautifying,
| computational bokeh, one-size-fits-all tonemapping etc.
| I'm talking about _raw capture_ , which simply aligns and
| stacks many frames (discarding bogus ones) without
| demosaicing. There's really nothing more to it. Not much
| different than, say, Pentax' pixel shift. Similar
| process, same limitations and issues, no opaque magic
| that tries to think for you. I've used similar process
| for years with HDRMerge to shoot landscapes with my
| DSLRs.
|
| _> If you don't believe, try some of the latest "dumb"
| pro mirrorless cameras with the latest iPhone and compare
| their respective raw captures. _
|
| I currently use the a7S III, but I fail to see how it's
| relevant. The difference is not due to them being dumb
| but because of having better sensors and optics, variable
| aperture, mechanical shutter etc. There's nothing smart
| or special in smartphone raw capture.
| snapetom wrote:
| My wife has the latest Pro Max. I have a mini. I also have
| one of the latest Canon mirrorlesses and pounds and pounds
| of lenses.
|
| Give me my setup any day, but I'm looking at it for what I
| love to do - wildlife, sports, cityscapes. I don't care
| about portraits, I don't care about taking picture of food,
| I don't care about capturing life memories/events. Sure my
| use case is not what a regular consumer uses a camera for,
| but a cellphone can't come anywhere close to what I do.
| spindle wrote:
| My experience is similar, and I bet our experience is
| very common (among people who've tried both). My prosumer
| DSLR and medium-expensive lens is so much better than any
| phone for wildlife photography. For indoor low-light
| portraits, though, my Google Pixel 3 is actually better
| than my DSLR, and I say that as someone who very much
| expected the opposite.
| UltraViolence wrote:
| In my experience even the cheapest (mirrorless) digital
| snapshot camera runs circles around any mobile phone's. I
| used to have a cheap Nikon camera and its pictures still
| stand-out compared to those of even high-end mobile
| phones (like my Samsung Galaxy S9), especially in low-
| light or imperfect lighting situations.
|
| If you want to take great looking pictures, buy a camera.
| Don't settle for a mobile phone.
| snapetom wrote:
| I agree. Light issues are like distance issues. It's
| about capturing data, which cellphones will never match
| given their sensor and lens limitations.
|
| Sure Apple/Samsung boats how good their phones are in low
| light situations these days. But people forget how
| _awful_ they were in the past. Cellphones were useless
| for low light even just a few years ago. They 've made
| great strides, but the lower and lower light you go,
| cameras are the clear winner.
| meraklis56 wrote:
| I read somewhere, the photos from phones are looking
| great when are viewed on phones. The moment you view them
| on a big screen, you immediately understand the picture
| is not that great as you thought. One could argue the
| great screens of phones nowadays and the vivid colors
| affect the perception of the image
| snapetom wrote:
| Absolutely. How you view photos absolutely come into
| play. Digital? Print? Viewing them on a monitor, even a
| huge one, has different requirements than, say taking a
| photo and making a wallpaper (as in a real wallpaper, on
| a real wall) out of it. I have terabytes of photos that
| look fine on screen, but if I printed it on an 8x10 to
| hang up, they look like crap.
| ChrisMarshallNY wrote:
| What really is the mark of a pro photographer, is
| composition, and control of light.
|
| My wife is a far better photographer than I am. We could
| be standing next to each other, shooting the same
| subject. When people look at my photos, they go "That's
| great!", but when they look at hers, they forget all
| about mine.
| hammock wrote:
| >Apple has introduced artificial bokeh, with their software.
|
| Google did it first, on Android phones
| ChrisMarshallNY wrote:
| I believe that. The Pixels have excellent cameras.
| rileyphone wrote:
| One of the nicer parts of mirrorless cameras the article touches
| on briefly is the reduced focal distance makes it easy to adapt
| older lenses with just a cheap tube. Combine with focus peaking
| in viewfinder and sensor image stabilization and you have a great
| platform for messing around with cheaper vintage glass like the
| classic Helios lens. I'm hoping to get a Sony A7 II as it has all
| these features, but it is hard to stomach watching the price go
| up over time on a 7 year old camera!
| sudosysgen wrote:
| I have an A7ii, and I did the same with cheap vintage glass. It
| is quite amazing! Eventually I upgraded to older canon EF
| lenses with a Metabones adapter I found on local classifieds
| for 100$. The AF isn't amazing, but it's good.
| mkhpalm wrote:
| The almost exclusive reason I never bought a DSLR is because
| nobody ever saw the reason to add a GPS chip to encode exif data
| into the pictures being taken. Sure, you could sometimes buy
| another device and plug it into your already large device you
| have to lug around to get that metadata. I just never wanted to
| deal with all that for something so fundamental to digital
| photography in my mind. I could however see the trade-off of the
| larger form factor for the lenses. I was not going to lug around
| and keep plugging in a GPS module though.
|
| To me, going back 20+ years now I have been convinced that the
| metadata is as important as the images themselves. I just got
| tired of looking into it every few years, getting disappointed,
| and trying to remember to go look again next year. Seemed like
| phone cameras could deliver more of that baseline for digital
| images should be underneath the lenses. When I look back on my
| images I don't want to guess where they were taken or hope that
| the timestamps were right. Using a DSLR was too risky to me. Too
| much information about an image was lost like the most critical
| bits of coordinates and accurate timestamps.
| nayuki wrote:
| For starters, consult the list at
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cameras_which_provide_...
| . Most photographers I talked to have the opposite stance as
| you - they care about grouping photos by event (vacation,
| portrait session, hiking, etc.) but don't care about the exact
| street. As you are in the minority, I can see why the cameras
| are not reliably released with geotagging features.
|
| I've used several cameras with geotagging capabilities and I'd
| like to describe their quirks:
|
| * Canon EOS 6D: Built-in GPS receiver. Drains a lot of battery,
| especially if you set the update interval very short (1 second,
| 10, 60, etc.). Takes unreasonably long to first acquire
| location (easily 2~10 minutes). The weak receiver struggles
| with urban canyons and airplane windows - phones have much
| better receivers. Sometimes calculates completely wrong
| coordinates that are ~10 km away. As a result, some photos
| don't have geotags (slow acquisition) and some are wrong. But
| the extra transfer step is mildly annoying.
|
| * Canon EOS M6: Make sure camera has the correct time set
| (can't be off by hours and days). Run the "Canon Camera
| Connect" phone app and enable continuous location logging.
| After shooting (e.g. end of day), use Wi-Fi to connect phone
| and camera, and use the app to apply geotags onto the photos
| after the fact. My phone is extremely accurate (GPS+GLONASS)
| and supports indoor geolocation through Wi-Fi, so essentially
| 100% of photos get tagged and mistagging is rare.
|
| * Canon EOS RP: Use Bluetooth to pair the camera with the
| phone. Must run the "Canon Camera Connect" phone app in the
| background while shooting. Periodically check that the phone OS
| didn't evict the app due to inactivity, quite annoyingly. Every
| time you turn on the camera, wait 2~10 seconds for it to
| connect to the phone, and then you'll get geolocation data at
| the time of shooting. If the connection failed for whatever
| reason, you cannot go back and add geotags to photos after the
| fact.
|
| Even though the Canon app can connect to all 3 aforementioned
| cameras over Wi-Fi, their geotagging functionalities are
| completely non-overlapping. You cannot send geotags to the 6D
| at all. You cannot geotag the M6 in real time. You cannot send
| geotags to the RP after a photo is shot.
|
| By contrast, when you shoot a photo on a phone, it gets
| geotagged automatically with no fuss. The phone's accurate
| GPS+GLONASS+WiFi sensors are used (unlike the slow and
| inaccurate 6D), you don't have to do manual actions after
| shooting (unlike the M6 synchronization), and you don't need to
| wait because the phone geolocation service is always ready
| (unlike the 6D and RP).
| densh wrote:
| Canon 6D was one of the few DSLRs that had built-in GPS
| support, but the feature wasn't that successful since most
| people preferred to keep it off to save battery life.
| epivosism wrote:
| 100% support this. It's unbelievable that my 100k+ DSLR photos
| over 15 years are not connected to their location when it would
| have been so easy. (I would have gladly carried a multiple
| pound extra battery to support always-on GPS).
| vmladenov wrote:
| I was bothered by this too, but this app works well enough for
| me to where I don't miss the lack of a builtin module
| https://www.geotagphotos.net/
| formerly_proven wrote:
| Small differences in flange distance are less important than is
| often thought in the photo-tech-gawking sphere because it doesn't
| per se limit the back-focal distance of a lens design; note how
| in most non-tele lenses the back element is inside the mount or
| protudes out of the lens mount. Flange distance is merely a
| property of the mechanical interface, not an optical property.
| E.g. some people argue that Canon RF has to be worse than Nikon Z
| because the flange distance is 2 mm longer, but if you look at
| the available designs both have lenses with a BFD of 10 or 11 mm.
|
| The article mentions image-side telecentrism for reduced
| aberrations. This is another talking point often brought forth;
| "the big mount allows a rear element so big that it can cover the
| image sensor with a near-telecentric swath of rays". Again, if
| you do a reality check here you'll notice that the chief ray
| angle (the angle between the chief ray of a ray bundle on the
| image circle to the image plane; chief rays are those crossing
| the center of the aperture) in actual lens designs is nowhere
| near 0deg and is instead somewhere between 35-50deg. Part of that
| equation is certainly that microlenses are offset as you leave
| the center of the sensor, so essentially sensors are designed for
| a particular range of CRAs and will not do well if you go way out
| of that range. Like the wide-angle rangefinder primes usually
| did: putting these on a digital camera results in strange color
| shifts towards the edges of the frame.
| azalemeth wrote:
| I'm moderately convinced that this is all about manufacturing
| costs. SLRs are complex beasts with mechanical parts that need
| to be made to very tight tolerances and eventually wear out.
| The physicist in my knows that numerical aperture, the various
| inevitable trade-offs made in lens design and ultimately sensor
| size are _really_ what limits optical performance. Going
| mirrorless means that you can spend the budget on these
| components rather than the mirrorbox and pentaprism /
| pentamirror on the top and the associated electronics with the
| viewfinder. It's not necessarily a bad thing, but it is above
| all a business decision and not really a scientific one.
|
| I personally like my [pentax] dSLR a lot -- the batteries last
| _for ever_ as a consequence of the fact that most of the time
| all the power-hungry electrical components are off. The optical
| compensation with the viewfinder and my eye works perfectly,
| and I _like_ the fact that, unlike an EVF, it will give me a
| human representation of how bright or dark a scene is. Put a
| long telephoto lens on, and watch everything get darker. I very
| much "feel" that the process of pressing the shutter button
| connects me with the physics of what I am doing in a very
| visceral way.
| to11mtm wrote:
| Manufacturing costs are a big part of it. Its safe to assume
| the AF Sensors for a given segment (often as much a
| differentiator as megapixels in DSLRs) are fairly
| custom/proprietary widgets and thus more expensive, compared
| to Sensors where often costs are more amortized (i.e. Nikon
| using Sony sensors.)
| xdennis wrote:
| How so? Aren't DSLRs cheaper than mirrorless cameras?
| pas wrote:
| Are they cheaper on a cost basis or cheaper due to current
| supply-demand? (Ie mirrorless is in demand, DSLRs are not.)
| Tagbert wrote:
| Cost and customer preference for a more compact camera.
| jacquesm wrote:
| And quite importantly: lighter, and longer battery life.
| Displays, CPU, RAM, flashlights and storage use a ton of
| power, anything that can save on that is useful.
| cozzyd wrote:
| DSLR's have longer battery life unless you're constantly
| taking pictures (and consequently are lighter since the
| battery can be smaller), since the sensors is typically
| off (whereas in mirrorless it's constantly going to the
| EVF).
|
| The majority of the size of the camera is going to be in
| the lens anyway. Mirrorless is not going to make your
| telephoto any smaller*
|
| The two advantages mirrorless really has over DSLR (other
| than... lack of a mirror which makes it cheaper) is
| faster photo rates (since you don't have to move the
| sensor, though modern DSLRs have liveview anyway, though
| not through the VF), and the fact that the EVF shows the
| effects of ISO/exposure/etc (though again, modern DSLRs
| have liveview, though not through the VF).
| azalemeth wrote:
| Ironically, those are all arguments against a mirrorless
| camera and towards a DSLR, swapping an EVF's circuitry
| and screen for five lightweight mirrors. My Pentax is
| built like a brick and quite sturdy, but a modern low-end
| Canon DSLR is amazingly light and really quite
| surprisingly so: the 250D is 419 g.
| jacquesm wrote:
| Interesting, yes, that is a good point if the camera is
| 'on' more than off between shots. The DSLrs that I'm
| familiar with all have whopping large batteries vs the
| mirrorless ones that come with puny little cells.
| dheera wrote:
| Shorter flange distances do mean that retrofocusing design can
| be avoided, and an equivalent optical setup can be made much
| smaller.
|
| For example, a Voigtlander 35/1.2 lens for mirrorless full
| frame is about 60mm (diameter) x 60mm (length) while I don't
| know of any equivalent lens for an SLR that is less than
| 90x120mm.
|
| Also, you can't have the rear element go too far behind the
| flange distance of an SLR without getting smacked by the
| mirror. With mirrorless this isn't an issue. But you don't want
| your ray angles to be too extreme or the microlenses won't
| focus well onto the photosite.
| abdullahkhalids wrote:
| I want to use a RPi to take pictures of objects within 1-6 inches
| of the lens? Does anyone have any recommendations? The smaller
| the lens, the better.
| londons_explore wrote:
| DSLR's are dead because they can't do the stuff phone cameras can
| do on the software side. No DSLR can take 100 raw frames inside
| 100 milliseconds and do optical flow and stacking to get a higher
| resolution, reduced noise, nobody-blinks photo.
|
| None have 3 lenses like an iphone to be able to generate a depth
| map and use it for smart stuff like software-adjustable focus
| after taking the photo.
|
| Best you can hope for with DSLR's is 10 raw frames in 100
| milliseconds, and a lot of effort in lightroom or photoshop to
| manually overlay and select frames with the least motion blur and
| best face of each person.
| sudosysgen wrote:
| Actually, mirorless cameras CAN generate a depth map from their
| phase detection sensors.
|
| They also can take multiple frames and stack them
| automatically, either for higher resolution or lower noise.
|
| But the thing is, there's no reason you would want 100 raw
| frames in 100ms (which no phone can do, that's 168Gbps of
| bandwidth, the sensor interface can only do around 8-12 Gbps),
| instead of a single 20ms exposure from a large, high resolution
| sensor.
|
| A 35mm sensor will, in that 30ms exposure, accumulate around 20
| times as much light in the best conditions for the phone
| (normal focal length) taking 100 pictures in 100ms. If you're
| using the wide angle or the "telephoto" lens, now the big
| sensor is now accumulating anywhere from 40 to 200 times more
| light.
|
| The big sensor can have three times the resolution or more, and
| actually make full use of that resolution. At that quality, no
| amount of image stacking can improve the resolution unless you
| have a 2000$ lens and a tripod to use sensor shift mode - which
| a mirorless camera can also do.
|
| In the end, even if your algorithms are perfect, you will
| always have a much lower resolution and much higher noise on
| the phone, no matter how much image stacking you do. At that
| point, you improve by using AI to replace the imperfections
| with plausible looking generated replacements. You can also do
| that well on a computer, but in most cases this only makes it
| worse, because there aren't the imperfections to begin with.
|
| If you decide to remove frames without motion blur and
| imperfect faces, now you go from 100 pictures to stack to maybe
| 10. At that point, the critical parts of your picture will only
| have 8ms or so of actual exposure vs 20ms on the MILC. But the
| 20ms exposure also has 50-300x more light in it, so now your
| phone camera is way behind.
|
| So it ends up being better to just crank up the shutter speed
| to 1/200 and get a 5ms full sensor exposure, as the critical
| parts of your picture will have more light, less noise, and
| more detail than the stacked version you take on your phone.
| anyfactor wrote:
| I think there was a peak in hobby photography after the
| introduction of consumer grade DSLR cameras, which in my opinion
| is slowly fading away. The bulkiness of having a dedicated camera
| to take pictures, stopped making sense to me. For special
| photography needs I can rent or borrow a friends camera like my
| parents used to do in the SLR days.
|
| Like most other things in life we are progressively choosing
| convenience over features and photography just reached it's limit
| to add new and useful features.
| wombatmobile wrote:
| > I think there was a peak in hobby photography
|
| By "hobby photography" it sounds like you mean SLR hobby
| photography. Of course, hobby photography has boomed off the
| charts with phones.
|
| Meanwhile, professional photography is nearly an extinct
| profession.
|
| Over the last 20 years, as print publications were replaced by
| online, the professions of journalist and press photographer
| declined to the point where they now hardly exist.
| anyfactor wrote:
| Say you are buying a car at pre-tesla days. There is plenty
| of competition in the market and there is no clear market
| leader. You need to buy because you have to buy a car. The
| features never add much to anything and you make your
| decision based on recommendation and the reputation.
|
| Now, you are making cars and you want people to buy more car.
| How can they do that? Upping the speed of your average
| consumer vehicle? Making it more mobile? Making generic
| upgrades in comfort features? Essentially adding units to
| existing features isn't a viable sales strategy. They can do
| nothing to have an uptick in car sales by just adding units
| to the features they offer.
|
| Now you have the entire camera industry. Since the advent of
| decent mobile photography, you don't have to buy camera, so
| the manufacturer are already in a bad position. Then as far
| as innovation they are just adding units to existing
| features. More megapixels, better low light capabilities,
| higher FPS and that's about it. There isn't any effort or
| innovation in delivering something that is featurewise a new
| concept. There isn't anything that warrants someone to buy
| and carry it.
| zygy wrote:
| What's the tech advancement/invention that pushed mirrorless
| cameras past DSLR?
| [deleted]
| WithinReason wrote:
| I'm guessing fast enough digital processing of the image
| sidhuko wrote:
| Integrated sensors really. Things like AF would work on
| different sensors in DSLR. Sony removed the mirror and put
| everything on the sensor. Fast AF tracking, shorter distance
| between sensor and lens so better low light capability.
| rythie wrote:
| I think it's a number of things.
|
| Interchangeable lens cameras now all have video features and
| increasingly most of the improvements are in that area. When
| SLRs are used for video the mirror needs to be flipped up and
| auto-focus system that is used for photos can't be used, so the
| camera need another one on the sensor. In this case the mirror
| is redundant and the viewfinder can't be used.
|
| Tracking of fast moving subject is difficult with a SLR, the
| SLR cannot see the image in viewfinder mode only a focus module
| can, which likely only has a few hundred focus points (or less)
| and those points often don't reach the edge of the frame.
| Additionally mirrorless cameras are able track a subject eye
| using AI and keep that in focus. A SLR cannot do this in the
| viewfinder mode as the focus sensor does not have nearly enough
| resolution to recognise small item like an eye or to know that
| it is an eye.
|
| Burst shooting is also difficult on a SLR, for each shot the
| mirror needs to flip up and down and the focus module use a
| brief period to change focus. Canon is/was the leader in sports
| photography cameras. The highest end Canon SLR camera can do
| 16fps with autofocus, but 20fps with the mirror up. The Sony a1
| (mirrorless) can do 30fps. These fast shooting rates are only
| possible with mirrorless cameras.
| Aardwolf wrote:
| Excuse me for this very uninformed question, but (D)SLR, as far
| as I can tell, is about using a prism to split light, to allow
| having a viewfinder.
|
| Why does a digital camera need a prism for it, can't the digital
| sensor directly show the image on screen (or viewfinder, do
| photographers still look through a viewfinder?)
|
| Or does DSLR stand here for any camera with exchangeable lenses?
| Does the article mean professional cameras with exchangeable
| lenses are dead?
| zimpenfish wrote:
| > can't the digital sensor directly show the image on screen
|
| A bunch of them do -
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_viewfinder - but a
| screen or viewfinder isn't going to have the same kind of
| resolution as your eyes when you're trying to judge
| focus/DoF/etc.
| hylaride wrote:
| A digital camera doesn't need a prism...anymore. When DSLRs
| first came to market two decades ago, they didn't do video.
| Even if they did, the batteries at the time wouldn't have held
| up for long shoots for weddings, sporting events, etc if they
| were showing video in the screen.
|
| As the article states, the move to mirrorless cameras is now
| pretty much a given. Canon announced their latest DSLR will be
| the last.
| dale_glass wrote:
| Several reasons:
|
| * Until fairly recently, cameras couldn't focus well using just
| the sensor. The simple sensor-based focusing is based on
| contrast, and the problem with the method is that the camera
| can't tell whether it's as focused as it can get, or in which
| direction should focus be changed. So the camera constantly
| "hunts". You can see that happening a lot on youtube with
| people trying to show stuff from close (eg, Bosnian Bill, AvE
| very often have this problem).
|
| * Phase focusing fixes this issue, but initially couldn't be
| incorporated into the sensor. The mirror in DSLRs bounces light
| into the better focus detectors, which are located on the
| bottom of the camera. Here's an illustration of the system:
| https://photographylife.com/how-phase-detection-autofocus-wo...
|
| * Sensors get hot when they're constantly lit. Cameras refuse
| to keep taking pictures when it overheats. A DSLR's sensor can
| cool off while the mirror is blocking it.
|
| * Sometimes the viewfinder is the better way, eg, if the LCD
| can't overpower the sun. Making a good digital viewfinder is
| harder than just optics.
|
| * An optical viewfinder has no lag and almost zero battery
| usage
|
| But yes, mirrorless is definitely the future. The DSLR was a
| technical compromise, and in fact mirrorless has advantages of
| its own:
|
| * As this article says, DSLRs require a large separation
| between the sensor and lens to make room for the mirror, and
| that makes some kinds of lenses hard to design. Mirrorless
| cameras can use whatever distance works best.
|
| * Also, the mirror is a pretty delicate, very quickly moving
| piece that creates vibration, and this needs taking into
| account. It's common to incorporate a delay to allow for
| vibration to settle, or to use a special mode where the mirror
| is permanently kept up for the cases in which vibration needs
| to be minimized. Mirrorless cameras don't have a moving mirror,
| so this is not an issue.
| rileyphone wrote:
| Photographers definitely still need viewfinders, but only
| recently did the pixel densities of digital ones reach the
| point where they are an acceptable replacement for looking
| directly through the lens. This also means mirrorless cameras
| can add features to the viewfinder like focus peaking
| (highlighting the areas that are focused).
| treis wrote:
| >Excuse me for this very uninformed question, but (D)SLR, as
| far as I can tell, is about using a prism to split light, to
| allow having a viewfinder.
|
| They have a mirror that reflects light to the view finder. The
| mirror flips out of the way to let the light hit the sensor.
|
| What you describe are called mirror less and is the revolution
| the article is about. They've been around for a while now but
| the combination of sensor, battery, and screen improvements
| have finally reached the point where the disadvantages are
| mostly gone.
| kjkjadksj wrote:
| By not using a screen dslrs have 3x or more the battery life of
| a given mirrorless camera.
| LegitShady wrote:
| >Or does DSLR stand here for any camera with exchangeable
| lenses? Does the article mean professional cameras with
| exchangeable lenses are dead?
|
| No. By removing the mirror-prism system as mirrorless cameras
| with interchangeable lenses have, you can bring the lens a lot
| closer to the sensor which opens up design choices that
| couldn't happen during the SLR or DSLR era. That's exactly what
| the article is describing.
|
| The article just does a fairly subtle job of explaining it:
|
| >These new lenses and lens mounts differ in one special way
| from previous generations. They aren't limited by the design of
| the camera. The distance between the sensor and lens can be
| whatever the manufacturer wants it to be for the best results.
| With that limitation out of the way, lenses can embrace the
| advantages of rangefinder lenses, without their disadvantages.
|
| That being said its going to be a while before I declare DSLRs
| dead, because the great majority of people will be
| extraordinarily well served by a modern SLR, and I buy all my
| camera equipment used anyways.
| crote wrote:
| A screen on the back of a camera is lit up by the environment,
| so it needs to be extremely bright to work properly in direct
| sunlight while also having zero backlight bleed in near
| darkness. Viewfinders solve this issue.
|
| The problem with live preview from a digital sensor is that the
| sensor needs to be able to stream the entire image constantly.
| Early sensors were not designed for this, and would often
| overheat quite quickly. It also needs to update often enough to
| not be jittery, and in low light conditions early digital
| sensors just weren't sensitive enough. You also need an
| extremely high-resolution viewfinder screen to provide enough
| detail for things like focus. Those didn't exist yet either.
|
| One thing to keep in mind is that it was definitely _possible_
| : consumer cameras did it quite early on! But the quality was
| quite poor: good enough for holiday snapshots, but not nearly
| good enough for professional photographers. Sticking to the
| DSLR approach was a no-brainer for them.
|
| Also, a (D)SLR doesn't _split_ light: a mirror flips down in
| front of the sensor to reflect the light into the viewfinder.
| When you take an image the mirror flips up, allowing light to
| fall onto the sensor.
| nayuki wrote:
| > a (D)SLR doesn't split light
|
| It actually does. When you're not taking a picture, the main
| mirror is down. But there is a translucent part of the main
| mirror that goes to a secondary mirror that goes to the
| autofocus sensor below.
| https://keyassets.timeincuk.net/inspirewp/live/wp-
| content/up... ;
| https://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/technique/how-
| focusing... ; https://alison.com/course/1326/resource/file/re
| source_200-14...
|
| Moreover, there are camera designs with a fixed mirror that
| always splits between the main sensor and AF sensor (but not
| viewfinder): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_SLT_camera
| nayuki wrote:
| The film SLR was the predecessor of DSLRs. Back then, you
| basically had two choices - preview through a different lens
| than you shoot with (twin-lens reflex, rangefinder), or preview
| through the same lens that you shoot with (single-lens reflex).
| In an SLR design, you need a way to swap between the light path
| to the film versus the light path to the viewfinder, and a
| mirror and prism is the most practical way to do so.
|
| Yes, a DSLR can simply show in real time what is being captured
| on the sensor - this is called "live view" and was introduced
| some years after the first DSLR, as it's not a critical
| feature. But live view drains a lot of battery. It also had
| terribly slow and inaccurate autofocus using contrast
| detection, but was improved using phase detection (e.g. Canon
| DPAF). Another consideration is that live view takes a second
| or two to start up, whereas most DSLRs will let you pick up a
| camera from idle and shoot through the viewfinder in a fraction
| of a second.
|
| > any camera with exchangeable lenses
|
| These are called interchangeable-lens cameras (ILC), a category
| which has significant overlap with but isn't identical to
| DSLRs.
|
| > professional cameras with exchangeable lenses are dead?
|
| Mirrorless cameras with interchangeable lenses (MILC) are
| quickly becoming the new professional gear.
| Lio wrote:
| Yep totally possible, that's what a mirrorless camera like
| micro-4/3 does.
|
| Many DSLRs also let lock the mirror up and just view via
| sensor.
|
| In theory running the sensor continuously generates heat that
| can lead to image noise.
|
| Realistically though the sensors are now so good that you don't
| need to worry about it.
| frostburg wrote:
| Digital cameras don't really need it but DSLR cameras needed
| the apparatus for phase detection autofocus anyway. This isn't
| really a concern anymore.
| vmception wrote:
| Exactly it does not mean exchangeable lens, just the inferior
| mirror/prism technology is being killed.
|
| The article eventually becomes clear about that.
|
| Mirrorless cameras that look the same as DSLRs are still
| thriving.
| tticvs wrote:
| What you are describing is called a "mirrorless" camera which
| is what the article says will be the future. They also have
| interchangeable lenses, but there are less constraints on the
| design since they don't have to interface with another optical
| system, just the digital sensor, which is the main point the
| article is trying to make.
| biztos wrote:
| I can't quite RTFA because I have an ad blocker, but I will say
| -- Full-frame mirrorless is a revolution in _cheap_ lenses for
| anyone serious about artistic photography. Which I hope would
| include most cinematographers.
|
| Last summer I bought a 40-year-old lens in so-so condition on
| Etsy for $20 and have made wonderful photos with it. I plan to
| spend more on old glass.
|
| This is only possible because the mirrorless systems allow
| adapting these lenses where most DSLR systems did not. And a lot
| of the old glass makes _nicer pictures_ -- not sharper, but
| nicer.
|
| Just search eBay for "canon FD lens Japan" and you will find the
| tip of this wonderful iceberg.
| spekcular wrote:
| "And a lot of the old glass makes nicer pictures -- not
| sharper, but nicer."
|
| I hear this a lot, and every time I grow more skeptical. On
| every conceivable technical measure, new lenses are superior to
| older ones. The single advantage of old lenses is, as you say,
| they are cheap. (I got a metal Nikon 50mm f/1.4, manual focus,
| for less than $100 on eBay!)
|
| Unless you can point to some objective property of older lenses
| in general that assists them in taking better pictures, I'm
| forced to conclude that this claim is just a photographic
| superstition.
|
| For certain lenses, like the old Nikon 105 2.5, you might be
| able to do this! But for old lenses in general I think not.
|
| (Another thought: maybe you find the extra distortion and tint
| of old lenses pleasing?)
| NoSorryCannot wrote:
| I think you're onto something at the end there! The commenter
| was almost certainly talking about subjectively "nicer"
| photos that have been made more interesting by the use of
| flawed lenses.
|
| And this isn't an uncommon idea either. It is the idea behind
| lensbaby, Lomography, and the slightest resurgence of
| Polaroid.
| spekcular wrote:
| My (superficial) understanding is something like: even with
| modern lens technology, certain design tradeoffs have to be
| made, e.g. between distortion and other aspects of lens
| performance. I have heard it said that accepting some
| distortion makes lenses that take pictures that look closer
| to those taken by "old school" film photography lenses, and
| also that Fujifilm deliberately favors relatively more
| distortion in their lens designs for exactly this reason. I
| think my original source for this is Thom Hogan's blog - I
| have not checked the technical specs to verify it (which
| you can easily do if you're curious by browsing lens review
| sites). But if it's true, maybe it's useful information to
| someone here!
|
| But, the coatings on modern lenses are _amazing_...
| themodelplumber wrote:
| (I tried reading the article without an ad blocker. When I was
| nearing the end, a full screen modal popped up. Closing it
| caused the browser to instantly return to the top of the
| article. Sigh...)
|
| That's interesting about the old glass. Personally I'm into
| portable superzooms lately, because of the usual distance to
| fauna in my area, and also it's fun to ID and capture the big
| passenger jets at sunset. But I'd really like to explore the
| kinds of lenses you mentioned someday. You can definitely see a
| difference with the lens changes.
| dheera wrote:
| > I can't quite RTFA because I have an ad blocker
|
| https://outline.com/ZFnBEd
| vmception wrote:
| This isn't about killing off interchangeable lens cameras that
| look like DSLRs, its about killing off actual DSLRs
|
| Theyre just getting rid of the inferior mirror technology, the
| thing that flips in front of the sensor, not conceding to phones
|
| The entire sony a7 line, for example, is still going to be made
|
| its kind of a troll discussion but its a good thing to happen
| because SLRs have been associated with a look or form factor too
| long and its time for that ambiguity and term to die.
| perardi wrote:
| I'm going to dispute, a little, that mirrors are inherently
| inferior.
|
| 1. It's only recently that the very best mirrorless cameras
| (Sony A1, Nikon Z9) have really reached the autofocus
| capabilities of the best SLRs...and arguably, they still aren't
| quite there. It's close, but a Nikon D6 is still a bit better--
| but certainly not worse. The dedicated phase detection sensor
| is powerful. If only because you get more phase separation.
|
| 2. A DSLR, used like a film camera, has what feels like a
| perpetual motion machine inside of it. Just wild battery life.
| My old Nikon D700 had wayyyyy better battery life than a
| current camera, beacause if you kept the screen off, you were
| hardly touching the electronics in the camera. The imaging
| sensor was almost always asleep, and drawing next to no power.
|
| Obviously mirrors have drawbacks. Phase detect sensor/imaging
| plane alignment issues, and they are big and clunky, but they
| have benefits.
| AuryGlenz wrote:
| I disagree with you in the autofocus front for most use. I
| have a D850 and Z6ii strapped to me for most jobs and the
| only time I don't find the Z6ii to be leagues better is in
| heavy backlighting or extremely dark scenes.
|
| My hit rate for wedding dances goes way, way up when using
| the Z6ii. For regular portraiture they're both fine, but only
| with the Z6ii can I get the front eye tack sharp 90% of the
| time at f/1.4.
|
| Sports might be another matter, but I did some Polar Plunges
| last year mostly with the Z6ii and it did extremely well.
| That has people running and jumping in to water, and it
| usually kept their faces in focus until a splash obfuscated
| them.
| sudosysgen wrote:
| Disagree. The best mirrorless cameras, say A7iv/A1, are a lot
| better at focusing than any DSLR. Not only do they focus
| accurately, but they have eye-detection AF. Yes, it will take
| slightly longer for them to give you the AF confirmation in
| some scenarios, but that's because they only give focus
| confirmation when it's actually perfectly sharp on the
| sensor. No DSLR can do that, because of the way dedicated
| phase detection sensors work.
|
| As far as battery life, you're right, but now that battery
| banks are a thing I don't think it's a real issue for those
| days you're going to be shooting for 4+ hours, and otherwise
| they're just so convenient to charge by usb-c
| vmception wrote:
| Yes, I agree with all except the drawbacks weigh much more
| heavily, to me.
|
| The wear and tear and sensitivity to brunt force of the
| mirror mechanics make them inferior to me.
| Terry_Roll wrote:
| So by removing the mirror, you remove the lag in the camera
| systems making future camera's become more like human eye capture
| units which then has implications for AI development.
| indymike wrote:
| A few years back I bought a middle of the road Lumix micro four
| thirds camera instead of DSLR. The reason I went with the MFT
| camera is it could shoot 4k video without the sensor overheating.
| At that time, DSLRs would overheat in 10-15 minutes and 4k
| capable DSLR bodies were 2x more expensive than the MFT Lumix.
|
| I really liked the mirrorless better than the last DSLR I owned.
| MFT sensors can't deliver as much bokeh as a 35mm DSLR, but the
| trade off was the body and lenses were a lot lighter and more
| compact. I'll often grab the Lumix when I would have left the
| bulkier DSLR home... and it really is a better camera than any
| mobile phone I've used.
|
| Compared to the phone (Samsung Galaxy S20), shots are much more
| color accurate, it's easier to focus on exactly what you want,
| and you get better lines in wider angle shots. That said, I'm
| usually pretty happy with the phone, but I love being able to
| change lenses and the precision of the camera (compared to the
| phone).
| sandGorgon wrote:
| Has someone managed to do video conference calls (zoom, etc) with
| functioning Bokeh without dslr ?
|
| Cos I thought that the entire market was moving to video calls. I
| don't think there's really any other way except to use a dslr
| right ?
| nullc wrote:
| The replacement for the DSLR isn't tiny cameraphone sensors,
| ... it's mirrorless cameras like the Canon R-series.
|
| This cameras look and function like DSLRs but the the
| viewfinder is electronic, not optical-- running the sensor like
| a video camera.
|
| IMO, it's much better than a DSLR and not just for the lens
| design reasons mentioned in the article with about the only
| downside being battery life.
|
| I use one for teleconferencing, with the camera in a
| teleprompter: https://files.catbox.moe/5p2p55.jpg
| shagie wrote:
| In order to have nice bokeh (a function of the aperture of the
| lens), you also need to have a shallow enough depth of field at
| a fairly close range.
|
| As the sensor gets smaller, and the field of view remains
| constant, the depth of field increases and so the opportunity
| for bokeh disappears.
|
| For pleasant bokeh in a video call, you're going to need a
| larger sensor than the ones used in camera phones or laptop
| screens - probably significantly so. Additionally, the lens is
| going to be quite a bit larger to have good illumination across
| the entire sensor.
|
| From a cost perspective, the cost of the sensor has to do with
| the yield of the wafer. It costs about the same to make a wafer
| no matter what you put on it (with certain caveats of the
| complexity of what you put on it).
|
| https://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/53826/why-does-inc...
|
| If you're working from a full frame sensor, you can at best fit
| 24x 24mmx36mm chips on a standard 8" wafer. Going to a 13.2mm x
| 8.8mm sensor you can put 244 of them on the same wafer. Then
| there's the yield on top of that which further reduces it.
|
| This gets it to the point where "to have a nice depth of field
| for a video call, you're going to need a camera that has
| similar costs and dimensions of a good digital camera." Adding
| that to a phone or laptop screen isn't possible.
|
| That said, I wouldn't be unhappy to find an affordable usb
| capable video camera with a nice lens on it (and maybe paired
| with a ring light or off axis hot lights)... but that's
| probably easily in the $300-$400 range.
| Helmut10001 wrote:
| Not sure about the lenses in the title - they state that most
| lenses will remain compatible with newer mounts and some vintage
| lenses even increase in popularity. So, this is like it has
| always been: Buy expensive lenses, to keep them over 30+ years.
| Buy cameras every 5-10 years, to get the new features. I have 15k
| worth of lenses and they stick with me across camera upgrades. I
| am not as far as attached to my cameras.
| dylan604 wrote:
| Camera bodies have pretty much become annual upgrades like
| phones. There's nothing wrong with the one you have, but the
| new one just has that "one more thing" to them.
| sudosysgen wrote:
| I disagree. There has been basically no improvement in image
| quality (a tiny bit) since the Sony A7r2, which is now 7
| years ago.
|
| The image quality of phones still improves a lot every year,
| though they are approaching their limit.
| Helmut10001 wrote:
| It is less about image quality but more about what you can
| do with the cameras. Smaller? 60fps? 120fps? 360deg? AI?
| 40MP? 100MP? All of this _can_ be an argument to upgrade,
| even if image quality has improved zero.
| sudosysgen wrote:
| The A7r2 can do 42MP. It's not really practical to have
| any more megapixels.
|
| The rest of the things are useless to 99.9% of people, so
| it's just a gimmick or convenience update. That's where
| we're at for cameras.
|
| Phones however still see big image quality improvements,
| and you could take pictures that were previously
| impossible as they added and improved suppmentary
| cameras.
| dylan604 wrote:
| We've already seen cameras running on Android.
| Eventually, we'll see cameras with all of the artificial
| image manipulation that you are seeing in the phones. I'm
| not so sure that's a good thing, but it will be done. At
| that point, it will be this annual update cycle
| sudosysgen wrote:
| The A7r2 actually does run android. You can even sideload
| APKs. It does some level of image manipulation, if you
| ask it to. The issue is that photographers want to be in
| control of their image, so the generally use RAW files.
| Because of that, the artificial image manipulation is
| left to your computer for best results (I often use the
| new AI features of Lightroom, they're great)
| thg wrote:
| That's maybe true for Sony shooters obsessed with their spec
| sheets, but bodies have usually been ageing fairly well for
| the past few years.
|
| The Nikon D850, for example, has been out for over 4 years
| now and it's still among the best one can buy.
| elxr wrote:
| Not true at all. All camera makers take years (some times 5
| or more) to update their sensors to newer versions.
|
| And while feature updates like better EVFs or better video
| specs are a bit more frequent, they aren't yearly. Probably
| closer to 3 years for most brands other than Sony.
| dylan604 wrote:
| I wan't meaning to imply each manufacturer releases a new
| camera per year. It's sort of a leap frogging of each
| vendor releasing something better than the other vendor's
| previous release.
| geerlingguy wrote:
| Not dead, so much as not being made anymore, in the same
| quantities as before. I still shoot Timelapses with my Nikon D700
| and use it as a backup camera for some event photography. I often
| use my old Nikon 60mm f/2.8 macro lens I picked up years ago for
| a song.
|
| I figure many people will be able to purchase amazing lenses
| (maybe not the legendary ones, those will always be collectible)
| for a very good price as more of the (admittedly shrinking)
| photographers of the world switch systems and get tired of
| adapting their old lenses.
| rfreiberger wrote:
| I started with SLR's in high school photography and loved how you
| could see just what the camera was doing. Using the Pentax K1000
| with a 50mm 2.0 lens (at the time was a super cheap combo kit)
| just inspired me to really learn more about photography. When I
| moved to DSLR's later, it was even better, I could now see the
| images and taken nearly endless amount photos.
|
| But I started to get bogged down trying to take a full bag of
| lenses and large DSLR to social events or traveling. I found that
| I was spending more time behind the lens with the technical side
| vs spending time capturing the moment. Sold off my kit and went
| with a Fuji X100T, fixed length compact camera. It's not great
| for action but worked wonderfully capturing the kids and with the
| fully silent mode, very well for weddings.
|
| Once my phone camera quality started to approach my camera, I
| stopped using the Fuji as much and followed the rule of "the best
| camera you have is the one you carry". While I love having that
| dedicated camera, just having the live cloud backup, apps to
| edit, made my next decision to be an upgraded phone over a
| camera. It's hard to hear the news about Canon especially, the
| 70-200mm F/2.8 IS lens is simply amazing and I rented a 85mm
| f/1.2 which is the lens for portraits.
| alistairSH wrote:
| Likewise, when it came time to upgrade my camera drawer, I
| decided spending a bit more on the iPhone Pro made more sense
| then a new body or lens. Glad I did, as it's always in my
| pocket.
|
| I do still have a pair of Olympus u4/3 bodies and ~5 lenses for
| special occasions. Vacations, wildlife, etc.
| rfreiberger wrote:
| The biggest reason why I held off on the camera was missing
| the fisheye lens, once that became a common feature, I was
| pretty much sold going with the phone over a camera.
| alistairSH wrote:
| My use case for the camera are wildlife (reach), low-light
| (phones can't beat a moderately priced f1.8 lens), and
| macro (haven't tried an iPhone 13 Pro yet).
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-01-15 23:02 UTC)