This will though...
-
WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!
Smartphones will kill off DSLR's soon/
- Thread starter Ron Texas
- Start date
I find Google does a remarkable job of identifying spam calls. I can't remember the last time one got through.
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?
OP
- Joined
- Jun 10, 2018
- Messages
- 6,249
- Likes
- 9,393
- Thread Starter
- #244
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
MakeMineVinyl
Major Contributor
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.....
Yes. My next camera will be the Píxel 6A when I'm back from Cambodia. Expect small improvement in skin tones and good increase in speed over 5A. I'd love a top of the line Huawei or such just for the camera but I'm not a $1500 cell phone kinda guy. That kinda money goes to audio.
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2016
- Messages
- 20,793
- Likes
- 37,702
There are external flash and continuous lighting rigs for smartphones.
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.
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.
mhardy6647
Grand Contributor
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2019
- Messages
- 11,414
- Likes
- 24,780
Prana Ferox
Addicted to Fun and Learning
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.
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.
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. I see people trying to seriously use their phones as cameras (or even worse, swatting full-size iPads around) and it looks clunky, awkward and unenjoyable.
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. As such there will always be active demand for more and better (or vintage and quirkier) photography equipment among the young. Some of this will be fancy phones (and when the phone costs 4 digits+ it may crowd out a lot of other purchases) but many are going to look for more dedicated tools.
I would also not underestimate the effect the video capabilities of modern mirrorless cams have, they have utterly demolished the low-end dedicated videocamera market and continue to encroach further up. Phones are not and will not be there and no, just because you saw an iPhone commercial shot on an iPhone doesn't make it so.
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.
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. I see people trying to seriously use their phones as cameras (or even worse, swatting full-size iPads around) and it looks clunky, awkward and unenjoyable.
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. As such there will always be active demand for more and better (or vintage and quirkier) photography equipment among the young. Some of this will be fancy phones (and when the phone costs 4 digits+ it may crowd out a lot of other purchases) but many are going to look for more dedicated tools.
I would also not underestimate the effect the video capabilities of modern mirrorless cams have, they have utterly demolished the low-end dedicated videocamera market and continue to encroach further up. Phones are not and will not be there and no, just because you saw an iPhone commercial shot on an iPhone doesn't make it so.
Those are obviously carefully arranged to provide optimal conditions for the phone camera.
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2019
- Messages
- 2,369
- Likes
- 3,557
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.
Even some costly enthusiast grade cameras offer “film-simulation modes”, which is a fancy name for a bunch of presets.
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.
MakeMineVinyl
Major Contributor
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.
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.
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 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.
I only have two digital bodies, both M43, but I have plenty of lenses. I don't think I have ever used the kit lens that came with my ILC. And I occasionally shoot with a 1950s Rolleiflex 6x6 that my Dad left for me. Is it "quirky"? It's less practical, but it keeps my basics very trained. And to this day the pictures are amazing (when you nail them).
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.
And... wouldn't you call the vinyl renaissance a "quirky and vintage" thing as well? :-D
Last edited:
Those Fujifilm cameras styled like old rangefinders seem to be aimed squarely at the hipster market.
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.
Last edited:
MakeMineVinyl
Major Contributor
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.
Similar threads
