Smartphones will kill off DSLR's soon/

[Andysu]

just can't get wide angle with smart phone . and no i certainly do not want an app . i just stick with Canon DLSR and the many lenses i have for it .

 

[Andysu]

taken with Canon 750D DLSR Magic and Bear ("rambo")

 

[rdenney]

I think we're all of the understanding that there are specialist use cases that smartphones aren't good for.. Next time I need a tilt shift lens (never) I'll borrow a camera so equipped. No one will be buying one "just in case" .

Speak for your yourself.

People have a tendency to extrapolate their own use cases to everyone.

I use a phone for documentation if the image will be printed small or only shown on a computer screen for documentation purposes. But for a big print, or for subjects needing the objective of preserving the illusion of endless detail, phone cameras are limited.

It is true that software can do lots of things, including the perspective correction that shifting lenses facilitate. But I'd much rather being out there making photos than sitting at the computer trying to overcome the limitations of a tiny sensor run by software aimed at the lowest common denominator users.

Rick "who uses his phone camera for most of his photos, but for very few of his serious photos" Denney

 

[Jmudrick]

Speak for your yourself.

People have a tendency to extrapolate their own use cases to everyone.

I use a phone for documentation if the image will be printed small or only shown on a computer screen for documentation purposes. But for a big print, or for subjects needing the objective of preserving the illusion of endless detail, phone cameras are limited.

It is true that software can do lots of things, including the perspective correction that shifting lenses facilitate. But I'd much rather being out there making photos than sitting at the computer trying to overcome the limitations of a tiny sensor run by software aimed at the lowest common denominator users.

Rick "who uses his phone camera for most of his photos, but for very few of his serious photos" Denne

Did you actually read the first thing I typed which was

"I think we're all of the understanding that there are specialist use cases that smartphones aren't good for"

 

[Koeitje]

Did you actually read the first thing I typed which was

"I think we're all of the understanding that there are specialist use cases that smartphones aren't good for"

Specialist situations like low light, fast moving objects (i.e. kids and pets) or high dynamic range (i.e. white/grey skies)?

 

[Andysu]

Bear ("rambo") laying on air conditioner taken with Canon 750D DLSR

 

[Jmudrick]

Specialist situations like low light, fast moving objects (i.e. kids and pets) or high dynamic range (i.e. white/grey skies)?

No, better smart phones can do a great job with all but perhaps the fast moving stuff . Night Sight and HDR work quite well. What phone camera do you use that performs so poorly?

 

[DMill]

In truth, your smart phone actually is a DSLR of sorts. Think about it. It’s the AVR of photography in that it does it all. In the future the camera in a smart phone may be able to capture mega pixels at a rate competitive with pro gear DSLRs but it will never be able to accommodate a 200mm lens and still fit in your back pocket.

 

[Blumlein 88]

There were some cameras a few years back with a different approach. They didn't focus the image. There was software that allowed you to focus anywhere in the image after the fact. They even made some cameras for sale. I think you could also recreate the results of different F-stops. In the future a largish sensor like that on a smartphone might remove one more element of needing multiple lenses. There is also some research on sensors that take photos without a lens at all. So there are still nifty advances possible on smartphones and other cameras too. Smartphones are a much larger market making it more profitable to improve than conventional cameras.

Lytro's new light field camera lets you focus after you take a picture

A new kind of camera captures rays instead of pixels, which lets photographers …

arstechnica.com

Newly Developed Camera Can Take In-Focus Photos Without a Lens

Researchers think that machine learning could be the key to a lensless camera.

petapixel.com

 

[rdenney]

Nice but kinda irrelevant to the forum topic. Or do you think Canon and Nikon are obliged to keep up production for a few hundred flying bug photographs? I'm guessing a very small percentage of DSLR advocates purchased new gear in the last year or 5. The production numbers indicate as much.

I didn't buy a camera often when I was a professional photographer and most pros I know didn't. I did pro work with a roll-film Mamiya C3 up until the late 90's, and that camera was made in the 60's. My main 35mm-ish cameras (we used to call these "miniature" cameras) have been a Canon F-1 (1972), a Canon T-90 (1987), an Elan IIe (1997), a 10D (2003), a 5D (2005--mostly to overcome the limitations of the 10D), and a 5DII (2015, when it was already obsolete, and which I still use). My main pro cameras have been the C3 (supplemented by a C33 and C330), a Pentax 645NII, a Pentax 67, and a Pentax 645z. I've changed large-format camera systems more often than that--from a Linhof in college to a New Vue (what a step down that was) to a Calumet to a Cambo and finally (now at least 20 years ago) to a Sinar.

The thing my professional cameras do that phones don't is integrate with lighting equipment easily. (The old joke goes that hobbyists talk about cameras, serious amateurs talk about tripods, and pros talk about lighting.) Phones use software to correct for lighting but still can't deal with mixed lighting, and that's often the only light that is already there. (Another old joke: The young photographer snootily announces to the old pro that he uses available light, and the old pro says, "If you had a flash in your trunk, it would be available.")

Photojournalists, who treat their cameras as if disposable, may buy new stuff every year or two, but the working pros I know have never been the cash cow for the camera companies. And that's precisely the problem--as the Uncle Harrys switch to mirrorless and then to phones, the camera companies struggle to survive. The result will be more photography but not better photography. This has already been seen--most photography touted these days seems to me more software than scene.

Rick "get off my lawn!" Denney

 

[DMill]

There were some cameras a few years back with a different approach. They didn't focus the image. There was software that allowed you to focus anywhere in the image after the fact. They even made some cameras for sale. I think you could also recreate the results of different F-stops. In the future a largish sensor like that on a smartphone might remove one more element of needing multiple lenses. There is also some research on sensors that take photos without a lens at all. So there are still nifty advances possible on smartphones and other cameras too. Smartphones are a much larger market making it more profitable to improve than conventional cameras.

Lytro's new light field camera lets you focus after you take a picture

A new kind of camera captures rays instead of pixels, which lets photographers …

arstechnica.com

Newly Developed Camera Can Take In-Focus Photos Without a Lens

Researchers think that machine learning could be the key to a lensless camera.

petapixel.com

There is a really cool app I use called Halide that allows you to take control over your smart phone. There are others I’m sure.

 

[Jmudrick]

Photojournalists, who treat their cameras as if disposable, may buy new stuff every year or two, but the working pros I know have never been the cash cow for the camera companies. And that's precisely the problem--as the Uncle Harrys switch to mirrorless and then to phones, the camera companies struggle to survive. The result will be more photography but not better photography. This has already been seen--most photography touted these days seems to me more software than scene.

Rick "get off my lawn!" Denney

I guess Mr lawn that we're in agreement then. I thought this whole discussion was supposed to be about the future of DSLR production, not a survey of whether we like them. Holding on to my wonderful Nikon film gear because I love their ergonomics and filmy goodness isn't doing anything to help Nikon.

 

[rdenney]

Camera apps that offer manual control is available on both OS, which makes it available on all phones.

But they are a pain in the butt to use. My cameras have physical controls that don't require me looking at them or away from the subject to manipulate.

Rick "buttons, man!" Denney

 

[Jmudrick]

But they are a pain in the butt to use. My cameras have physical controls that don't require me looking at them or away from the subject to manipulate.

Rick "buttons, man!" Denney

No relation to Ted I hope.

 

[Blumlein 88]

There is a really cool app I use called Halide that allows you to take control over your smart phone. There are others I’m sure.

I've not tried any such apps recently not since I purchased my current phone. I need to do some reading and try a couple out. So thanks for giving me the name of one good one to try out. My phone also already gives me some considerable control.

 

[rdenney]

Did you actually read the first thing I typed which was

"I think we're all of the understanding that there are specialist use cases that smartphones aren't good for"

Yes, but I wasn't just responding to you. Clearly, the use of tilt/shift lenses for focus-plane control or perspective correction is not a use case in your needs list, lest we forget what the word "never" means, but the fact that you don't see the need to own one does not transfer to, say, me.

The rest of my post was a general response to the thread.

Rick "no need to be defensive" Denney

 

[rdenney]

No relation to Ted I hope.

NONE!

Someone on AK derisively accused Ted Denney of owning an Adcom preamp. I doubt Ted Denney owns an Adcom preamp, but I do. I'll take my Adcom preamp over his magic beans any day.

Rick "it's not that uncommon a name" Denney

 

[Jmudrick]

Yes, but I wasn't just responding to you. Clearly, the use of tilt/shift lenses for focus-plane control or perspective correction is not a use case in your needs list, lest we forget what the word "never" means, but the fact that you don't see the need to own one does not transfer to, say, me.

The rest of my post was a general response to the thread.

Rick "no need to be defensive" Denney

That's understood. But you getting down with such Scheimpfluggery doesn't mean the market economics will be there next year for Nikon or whoever to keep producing..

Glad you're not related.

 

[rdenney]

I guess Mr lawn that we're in agreement then. I thought this whole discussion was supposed to be about the future of DSLR production, not a survey of whether we like them. Holding on to my wonderful Nikon film gear because I love their ergonomics and filmy goodness isn't doing anything to help Nikon.

Right. Camera companies have never prospered long-term on the pro market alone. A few large-format makers have (barely) survived (e.g., Linhof, Sinar, and Cambo), but none of the current pro SLR makers have done so without considerable market support from amateurs.

And that is an existential threat for pros who need the power and features offered by pro cameras. Smart phones will always seek to simulate professional results, but they will use software to do so, or (more likely) the definition of "professional results" will shift to what smart phones produce. That is already happening.

Rick "who can make quite decent photos with a smart phone, and 'quite decent' is good enough for most people" Denney

 

[mansr]

The thing my professional cameras do that phones don't is integrate with lighting equipment easily. (The old joke goes that hobbyists talk about cameras, serious amateurs talk about tripods, and pros talk about lighting.) Phones use software to correct for lighting but still can't deal with mixed lighting, and that's often the only light that is already there.

I worked briefly for Profoto, a manufacturer of studio flashes. It's the only place I've seen that provided sunglasses for wearing at work.