This will though...Will that app eliminate spam calls?
This will though...Will that app eliminate spam calls?
This will though...
Unsurprisingly, there is plenty of photographers here. And again unsurprisingly they have valid opinions based on knowledge and facts . What kind of internet is this?I didn't expect this thread to have so much interest when I started it.
There is a tendency for threads I start to wander off in all sorts of directions.Unsurprisingly, there is plenty of photographers here. And again unsurprisingly they have valid opinions based on knowledge and facts . What kind of internet is this?
My pixel phone does a pretty good job of identifying spam calls but there's still things I wish it would do like not even registering a spam call on my screen.I find Google does a remarkable job of identifying spam calls. I can't remember the last time one got through.
My pixel phone does a pretty good job of identifying spam calls but there's still things I wish it would do like not even registering a spam call on my screen.
Anyway, about that cell phone camera.....
Except burst mode only works well in good lightning conditions, otherwise the shutter speed has to be too long to get a sharp shot. You don't need a f1.2 lens to do well in low light, you need a sensor that has low noise so you can bump the ISO. The larget the sensor the lower the noise. The number of pixels is even irrelevant for this.Modern smart phones like the iphone 13 pro, Pixel etc do have a burst mode which is well equipped to handle action shots by shooting 10 frames per second. Not something I use but it's there. Yes of course if you happen to have a 1.2 Canon lens with you it will do better with action in low light.
How To Use iPhone Burst Mode For Amazing Action Photos
Discover how to use iPhone burst mode to take perfect action shots. With burst mode, you'll never miss a great photo opportunity again!iphonephotographyschool.com
When I talk about dynamic range I talk about stops, the difference between the brightest and the darkest part of an image. When I went from APS-C to FF it was such an obvious difference in the dynamic range I was able to capture. It was probably the biggest difference I noticed.Well, I am fine with 7 stops of native range on M43 20mpix sensor (eg done solely by the sensor, no electronic enhancements done in semi-post). Extended ISO range is 9 stops.
But we are talking different dynamic ranges when speaking of in 12 or 14 bits of color... Yes its linked with dynamic range in ISO terms.
I noticed same thing when i upgraded from 16MP sensor with native ISO up to 1600 to a 20MP sensor with native ISo up to 6400. Yet there was another difference, first sensor could handle 12bits of color, the second one 14bits. That means way different precision when measuring light intensity, and thus much more levels it can take.When I talk about dynamic range I talk about stops, the difference between the brightest and the darkest part of an image. When I went from APS-C to FF it was such an obvious difference in the dynamic range I was able to capture. It was probably the biggest difference I noticed.
Conversely, I tend to be an entropic force in thread diversion.There is a tendency for threads I start to wander off in all sorts of directions.
Those are obviously carefully arranged to provide optimal conditions for the phone camera.just because you saw an iPhone commercial shot on an iPhone doesn't make it so.
With the constraint that the photographer spend no more than 10 seconds on post-processing, sure. Until some DSLR manufacturer adds a mode with all the same magic processing, that is.Sony didn’t claim that mobile devices would kill the DSLR, but rather, that image quality from mobile devices could exceed that from DSLR.
I've found that the likelihood of producing a 'pleasing' image, having been casually taken, is higher on a smart phone than on my DSLR (Canon 5DMK III). I'm sure that the more sophisticated image processing on the phone makes a lot of this possible. Of course this type of processing is 'technically' possible on a high end DSLR, but a typical user of such a camera would not be all that inclined to use these modes anyway, so the manufacturers would be wasting money in including them.Sony didn’t claim that mobile devices would kill the DSLR, but rather, that image quality from mobile devices could exceed that from DSLR. And from a certain perspective, I think it has already happened: For the casual shooter, how wonderful to have devices which simplify picture-taking to a single tap or spoken command! For them, the prospects of processing raw images in Photoshop may hold no appeal.
Even some costly enthusiast grade cameras offer “film-simulation modes”, which is a fancy name for a bunch of presets.
I am not sure I agree entirely - in photography the "newer thing" (if we apply that to smartphones) has a very small sensor and mostly fixed lenses and zero chance of delivering on several key performance considerations for halfway ambitioned photographers (I am no pro, but I am keenly aware of my smartphone's shortcomings). ILCs are no hipster market, there are huge and very visible perfomance advantages.It is a lot like the debates of CDs killing vinyl, or local FLAC killing CD, or streaming killing owning music at all. The newer thing has technical advantages but not without downsides, the older thing maintains hipster cred and cult following, sometimes and sometimes not enough to sustain a new market.
Same here - but when I want to be truly creative, shoot a great portrait or capture wildlife etc... I don't even try to do it on my smartphone. Like you said, smartphones ultimately take awesome (I admit that, I am a user) *snapshots*. I don't care about the ads they do to claim super photographers exclusively rely on smartphones. Only an idiot would go on a safari in Masai Mara and only take a smartphone...I personally use my phone all the time, for snaps. It's a late-model Pixel and it does very impressive things for the tech. I don't think it can equal photos from a full-blown camera with a serious-business lens, not when waving it around taking snaps; demo shots from photographers who could make a Lomo shot look like a masterpiece aren't persuasive arguments. But it is absolutely the camera I have on me, almost every hour of every day, and is the tool for easily 90% of my pictures.
I don't think it's generational. It's about whether you are truly into real photography. If your goal isn't to truly *create* and *compose* great shots (and take pride in them), then by all means stick to the smartphone, I'd recommend to those people. It also takes work and learning. Sure good cameras offer an "auto" mode, but to me, if you want the camera to do everything for you - indeed - smartphones are the better tool for the job. They were designed for it. DSLRs were not.If I'm going out for the purpose of taking photos for fun I take an ILC. I've bought 4 bodies in the past year or so, after a lull of a few years, along with a pile of lenses (and both mostly used.) This may be a generational thing but the act of composing the shot just feels better holding the camera eyepiece to my face and interacting with knobs, dials, buttons, switches by feel, than doofing around on a touchscreen mid-shot.
It is pretty cheap to listen to very good music quality these days. Smartphone stuff yet again... with halfway decent headphones - voila! Very impressive audio quality we have to admit. That's how most go about it. And Sonos speakers etc aren't complete trash ether, if you're so inclined. I think that both hobbies invite us to sometimes be a little elitist and get too serious about stuff.Social media like Instagram and Snapchat keep photography (in its many forms) as an active and socially popular hobby in ways that, for instance, audio fidelity enthusiasm simply isn't.
And... wouldn't you call the vinyl renaissance a "quirky and vintage" thing as well? :-DAs such there will always be active demand for more and better (or vintage and quirkier) photography equipment among the young.
Those Fujifilm cameras styled like old rangefinders seem to be aimed squarely at the hipster market.ILCs are no hipster market, there are huge and very visible perfomance advantages.
They are *very* capable cameras though. Like with everything, either you like the design or you don't. (I don't own one). I also hear they are very manual. So not a good choice for the average hipster.Those Fujifilm cameras styled like old rangefinders seem to be aimed squarely at the hipster market.
Hipster or not, there was a strong retro-looking-vibe-thing going on back when I was following all that stuff in the mid 2Ks.Those Fujifilm cameras styled like old rangefinders seem to be aimed squarely at the hipster market.