fbpixel

Moderators: Greg Downing, E.J. Peiker

All times are UTC - 5 hours

  
« Previous topic | Next topic »  
Reply to topic  
 First unread post  | 9 posts | 
by SantaFeJoe on Sat Sep 21, 2019 3:21 pm
User avatar
SantaFeJoe
Forum Contributor
Posts: 6933
Joined: 28 Jan 2012
Location: American Southwest
An interesting article that, to me, sounds very accurate. Camera purists will always denounce the camera phone as amateurish and not “professional”, but they are becoming very capable instruments, although the focal length limitations are still to be overcome. There are some 6x lenses out there that are not bad, though. I do think that they will take down the R&D of full size cameras financially.

https://photographylife.com/smartphone-vs-camera-industry

Joe
Learn the rules like a pro, so you can break them like an artist.  -Pablo Picasso
 

by DChan on Sat Sep 21, 2019 9:46 pm
DChan
Forum Contributor
Posts: 1962
Joined: 09 Jan 2009
SantaFeJoe wrote:
An interesting article that, to me, sounds very accurate. Camera purists will always denounce the camera phone as amateurish and not “professional”, [snip]



Hey, they have to convince themselves buying a "professional" camera is money well-spent : :D 

Image quality, something that is important to a small number of people in the world.
 

by SantaFeJoe on Sat Sep 21, 2019 10:42 pm
User avatar
SantaFeJoe
Forum Contributor
Posts: 6933
Joined: 28 Jan 2012
Location: American Southwest
DChan wrote:

Image quality, something that is important to a small number of people in the world.


One of the key thoughts of the article is “How Media is Consumed”. A comparison would be needing a production car like this for American roads. It’s pure overkill, just as most people who currently take and view photos don’t need super high quality images for viewing on a phone or tablet.

https://www.foxnews.com/auto/the-278-mph-koenigsegg-agera-rs-is-the-new-worlds-fastest-car

A related article:

https://photographylife.com/how-much-resolution-do-you-really-need

Joe
Learn the rules like a pro, so you can break them like an artist.  -Pablo Picasso
 

by Craig Lipski on Sun Sep 22, 2019 7:32 am
User avatar
Craig Lipski
Forum Contributor
Posts: 4030
Joined: 20 Aug 2003
Location: The bustling metropolis of Fowlerville, Michigan
Member #:00495
I’m in a weird, (really not “weird, probably “diminishingly common” would be better,) position. I’m amazed at how good phone cameras have become. I’m a total amateur/hobbyist. I’m not just shooting vacation snaps, the kids’ soccer games, and family gatherings. I love “playing” with my camera, and having the ability to optimize the image, as best I can, to match my “vision,” both in-camera and in pp. I love being able to significantly crop and still have a “quality” image. I rarely print, but am glad I can get prints of decent quality and size. Since we’re financially secure, I can afford to buy “very good” equipment, although I can’t justify, nor do I need, the latest and greatest. Hopefully there are enough “prosumers” still out there to keep the demand high enough to keep the market profitable enough that a variety of options continue to be produced.
Good light,
Craig
 

by SantaFeJoe on Sun Sep 22, 2019 8:02 am
User avatar
SantaFeJoe
Forum Contributor
Posts: 6933
Joined: 28 Jan 2012
Location: American Southwest
If the camera manufacturers will just apply some of the phone innovations and, especially apps, they may just find people will keep buying them. While you can do so many things in phone apps to your image as a creative, you can do little on a dedicated camera to change an image. Camera manufacturers keep putting out just minor incremental improvements, while phone cameras are changing by leaps and bounds. When high enough IQ can be attained in a phone, casual shooters will have little reason to shoot anything else. They have a fun factor that MIL and DSLR’s can’t presently achieve or even come close to. It’s instant gratification that youth desire. No real work is involved with AI, machine learning and computational manipulation of an image. It can be done anywhere instantly with no laptop or desktop computer or real skill required. Working with an image from a dedicated camera requires more learned skills. It’s like art vs. engineering. Art is freeform, while engineering an image is methodical and precise. Phones are even available now with 1TB storage built in and an additional card slot for more storage. It’s too easy and it’s probably too late to save the camera industry. I can see the prices on quality cameras going through the roof because of the reduced demand and dropping sales numbers. P&S cameras don’t sell enough to support R&D of other cameras anymore.


Joe
Learn the rules like a pro, so you can break them like an artist.  -Pablo Picasso
 

by Scott Fairbairn on Mon Sep 23, 2019 8:04 am
User avatar
Scott Fairbairn
Forum Contributor
Posts: 4523
Joined: 13 Jan 2005
SantaFeJoe wrote:
If the camera manufacturers will just apply some of the phone innovations and, especially apps, they may just find people will keep buying them. While you can do so many things in phone apps to your image as a creative, you can do little on a dedicated camera to change an image. Camera manufacturers keep putting out just minor incremental improvements, while phone cameras are changing by leaps and bounds. When high enough IQ can be attained in a phone, casual shooters will have little reason to shoot anything else. They have a fun factor that MIL and DSLR’s can’t presently achieve or even come close to. It’s instant gratification that youth desire. No real work is involved with AI, machine learning and computational manipulation of an image. It can be done anywhere instantly with no laptop or desktop computer or real skill required. Working with an image from a dedicated camera requires more learned skills. It’s like art vs. engineering. Art is freeform, while engineering an image is methodical and precise. Phones are even available now with 1TB storage built in and an additional card slot for more storage. It’s too easy and it’s probably too late to save the camera industry. I can see the prices on quality cameras going through the roof because of the reduced demand and dropping sales numbers. P&S cameras don’t sell enough to support R&D of other cameras anymore.


Joe




I agree with all that, however, the camera industry is very closed IMO. They like to maintain proprietary file formats and so on, and the only way they'll get to apps and such is by either adopting an iOS/Android type operating system so the platform is open to software developers otherwise, I'm not sure how they'll ever compete.
Case in point, my family went to Italy this summer, no one took a "real" camera. All smartphones. I see more and more of this type of photography, even people using iPads.
 

by signgrap on Mon Sep 23, 2019 9:27 am
User avatar
signgrap
Lifetime Member
Posts: 1658
Joined: 01 Sep 2004
Location: Delaware Water Gap, PA
Member #:00424
I think this all goes back to an old axiom "What is the best camera to use? - The one you have with you!" The only camera that most people have with them ALL the time is a smartphone. The number of photos taken per day now is huge; there is no way to put this genie back in the bottle. At this point traditional cameras will never replace the smartphone for taking photos by the average user. The only way the camera industry can remain viable is to offer what a smartphone doesn't. What that is I don't know but if the camera manufacturers don't figure it out soon they will follow Kodak in becoming a footnote in history. Mirrorless is a step in the right direction. But menus need to become shorter, simpler and intuitive. Lenses need to become smaller - why put IS in a lens and a camera body? Develop ways to make a lenses smaller/lighter. Camera manufacturers think the ONLY way to make traditional cameras superior to a smartphone is to make a camera with a sensor that has a huge number of pixels. Yes this is one way but not the ONLY way. The list goes on and on.
Dick Ludwig
 

by DChan on Mon Sep 23, 2019 11:03 am
DChan
Forum Contributor
Posts: 1962
Joined: 09 Jan 2009
signgrap wrote:
[snip]  At this point traditional cameras will never replace the smartphone for taking photos by the average user.   The only way the camera industry can remain viable is to offer what a smartphone doesn't.  What that is I don't know but if the camera manufacturers don't figure it out soon they will follow Kodak in becoming a footnote in history.   Mirrorless is a step in the right direction. But menus need to become shorter, simpler and intuitive. Lenses need to become smaller - why put IS in a lens and a camera body?   Develop ways to make a lenses smaller/lighter.  Camera manufacturers think the ONLY way to make traditional cameras superior to a smartphone is to make a camera with a sensor that has a huge number of pixels. Yes this is one way but not the ONLY way.  The list goes on and on.


IMO the question should be: "what can a traditional camera, mirrorless or not, do that I cannot do with my smartphone?" For most people, they don't need a super-telephone lens. But, even a smartphone these days also a 50x digital zoom, aka Huawei. You may say: "well, the image quality is very poor." Sure, but, most people are not that fussy about image quality.

Smaller lenses? No problem as long as you can live with a smaller sensor. No? Why not? Is that that image quality thing again?

Why put IS in a lens and a camera body?? Because they let you take 20 sec exposure shots hand-held aka Olympus. Ok, not many people do that I know :-)
 

by OntPhoto on Wed Sep 25, 2019 8:50 pm
User avatar
OntPhoto
Forum Contributor
Posts: 6674
Joined: 09 Dec 2006
Location: Ottawa, Ontario. Canada.
SantaFeJoe wrote:
An interesting article that, to me, sounds very accurate. Camera purists will always denounce the camera phone as amateurish and not “professional”, but they are becoming very capable instruments, although the focal length limitations are still to be overcome. There are some 6x lenses out there that are not bad, though. I do think that they will take down the R&D of full size cameras financially.

https://photographylife.com/smartphone-vs-camera-industry

Joe

I am practical so whatever works, use it.  I'm still on the iPhone 5s (like the slim, small form factor) so am out of the loop far as image quality improvements are concerned on the latest generation of iPhones, like the X.  The photos linked above give me an idea though. I use my 5s for everyday photos and videos in good light.  I don't have to be a purist to know that a smartphone will never be as good in low light or as fast to capture action stills as my Canon 6D (the original one).  Recently, I went for a walk in the woods and was shooting the 6D at ISO 52,000 and 102,000 handheld with the 70-200 2.8L III IS.  Only because I could :-)  I was testing out the high-ISO capabilities of the 6D.  An option for photographing owls when I don't want to use flash. Whatever is practical, that's what I use.  

PS.  the article mentions the early cell phones and what bricks they were. I still have a large tower cellphone from 1992.  My first cellphone back when very few people had cellphones.  It was well worth the $$, practical and comforting as I did a lot of traveling back then, often returning home on long drives late into the night.  
 

Display posts from previous:  Sort by:  
9 posts | 
  

Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group