That isn't too bad from a size perspective. It would probably be wider and longer to meet the desire for larger screens. The depth might not be much different due to the lens. I think it would be hard to mate a 1" sensor into an acceptable smartphone package mostly due to the lens requirements. It looks to be a valiant effort on Panasonic's part.Actually, there is a 1" cellphone / camera hybrid (announced in Sept 2014). I guess it was more camera than cellphone but still it exists. I'm not sure why it didn't gain more traction.I am thinking of a different format than a smartphone. Sort of a hybrid device between it and a dedicated camera. It could use a P&S type sensor, 1" or even a MFT sensor. The MFT sensor would be interesting as there would be a massive amount of lenses available from the start. Such a camera could be connected through you wireless plan like a tablet and run Android apps like a smartphone. I think this type of device would fly off the shelves if done right. Something like Google's Pixel group would be a good entity to do it. Plus, this would give the current camera makers incentive to start thinking outside the box to compete with this type of a threat to their survival.Probably, except the sensor in the t2i is 8 years old. However, it is one of Canon's better sensors.
And so was the iphone pic.
This is a MUCH BETTER example of an excellent cellphone pic. The resolution shown is much better than the iphone pic. This kind of lighting is where cellphones truly shine.
Yes, who knows what kind of advances AI will bring.
As time passes smartphones will get the same performance from higher resolution sensors. Then add in the advances of computational photography and the results will likely be very stunning.
If it was possible to put a 1" sensor in a cellphone that would be a huge advancement but I just do see how it's physically possible with more and more emphasis on making cellphones thin.
https://www.dpreview.com/products/panasonic/mobilephones/panasonic_lumixdmccm1
You have to wonder what it would look like today.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Pictures Like This Is Why EOS M's (and others) Days Are Numbered
- Thread starter fstopx2
- Start date
sportyaccordy
Forum Pro
I still see watercolor.
I think a lot of people miss the fact that cell phone photography is designed to be viewed on cell phones. On a 3x5" screen I'm sure this photo looks phenomenal. Can't see the weird fokeh artifacts at that size either. But for anyone who prints or views photos on anything bigger than a postcard smartphones still have a looooooooooooooong way to go.
I think a lot of people miss the fact that cell phone photography is designed to be viewed on cell phones. On a 3x5" screen I'm sure this photo looks phenomenal. Can't see the weird fokeh artifacts at that size either. But for anyone who prints or views photos on anything bigger than a postcard smartphones still have a looooooooooooooong way to go.
Paul B Jones
Veteran Member
It's not a great photo. On my retina screen it reeks of overwrought HDRed waxy excess noise suppression. But I'm glad you like it.
Don Karner
Senior Member
Why is this stuff always on the M forum?
It would have been less effort for you to ignore the post than type anything at all. There has been a lot of good banter in this thread and you want to ruin it for everyone that has enjoyed it? For what reason? If you don't like a thread, ignore it. It isn't all that hard to do.
Don Karner
Senior Member
I would like to see these kinds of questions on those other forums to see what kind of answers we would get. Seems like I always see them here, which makes me wonder what the agenda is, if any.
There is no agenda. Is isn't all that hard to ignore a thread. I ignore far more of them than I read every time I come to DPR.
Last edited:
Computational photography is in its infancy. It will not be perfect out of the chute. It is getting better at a fast pace. Don't judge all smartphone cameras by the OP's choice of photo. The fact it was PP'ed means it isn't representative of what the camera can produce on its own. Here is a photo straight from my S9+:
.
Sadly, the opposite is happening. The smarphones and their cameras which generate fake bokeh and overly bold NR and colors have forced the camera companies to act in the opposite manner...
The panorama feature of this phone is outstanding. I got this result in seconds doing nothing more than tapping the shutter. I would love to have this feature in my Canon cameras.
I took this one with a Note 8:
All the above photos are straight OOC. I have more great photos than I can count from using my smartphone. Mainly because it is always with me and at the ready. Getting a very decent photo is better than getting no photo at all.
The current camera makers are leaving an entire potential market untapped if this is their plan. If they don't fill it then Google, Apple or some Chinese brand will. That market is one where the products use the best of smartphone and dedicated camera tech. IMO, this could bring FF or even MF performance to small, lightweight cameras for a fraction of the price of these formats. Seeing what smartphone makers are getting with a $30-$40 tiny sensor camera makes me wonder what they can do with a P&S, 1" or MFT sensor.
Why does it need to exist? The above is the equivalent of someone buying a Ferrari and then installing wagon wheels on it..
WHY does this exist?
You are using hyperbolic examples that will never exist in the mainstream. What we will actually see will be much more functional.And those who opt for the Smart Phone will find marginal but deadlocked improvements with each model released. Your software will no longer be supported after a few years and your batteries and cameras will need to be replaces as the technology evolves faster each year. A camera phone will no longer be seen as an "investment" (like an actual camera). Prices will continue to rise and all that will remain in the current price ranges for phones and actual cameras will be old rubbish. Physics will still limit the technology of camera phones. This is why the interview with the optical physicist a couple of years ago (which I believe was posted here on DPreview) noted that higher resolution sensors require larger optics to increase performance, otherwise the technology simply can't advance. It was simply a limitation of physics itself that prevented the technology from moving forward.
.
A Sony Smart Lens on an Apple Smart Phone. WHY does this exist?
Check out what Google has done with low light photography in the Pixel 3. It is rather impressive and this software will get better and better over time. Computational photography is advancing much faster than standard photography and it is doing far more with far less costly hardware. IMO, the day is coming fast where will will be able to buy an inexpensive P&S camera that outperforms a FF camera as we know it today. If anon, Sony, Nikon etc. don't adopt computational photography they will probably get overrun by it.
It doesn't have to be a thin device. It can be small and highly functional in a format similar to a P&S camera. It can also be modular. Or, these devices can break all conventions of photography as we know it today and they likely will.
Actually, that would be a great effect to have on command.
You can tell your phone not to vibrate if it is enough of an issue.
The examples you present are not realistic. They are caricatures created by someone that doesn't understand the dynamics of photography. The serious people working on computational photography are not producing silly combinations of hardware. They are producing highly functional, easy to use devices that will continue to get better and better at a ferocious pace.
....but it isn't with you 24/7, won't do banking, make Amazon purchases, monitor your kids after school, get you to any location needed etc. A dedicated camera combined with a smartphone can do these things and will likely be something that fits into your pocket or snaps on a belt. Over time, it will give you results better than your M camera could dream of doing. Short term we will see smartphones with 4-5 cameras on the back plate. How much photography could you do with 4-5 prime lenses ranging from wide angle to telephoto and be able to utilize these primes as easy, and quickly, as a touch of a screen? This is coming and a lot more.
Hardware is reaching boundaries for photography and smartphones. What has just started in regard to reaching its potential is computational photography. IMO, this is going to bring about a sea change to photography, in general, as big as when we moved from film to digital.
Don Karner
Senior Member
It damn sure won't happen again.
Hclarkx
Forum Enthusiast
When will my phone come with an EVF?
Marco Nero
Veteran Member
Computational photography has its uses but it's not ideal for general recreational or professional photography. It's best used for black-box forensic recording and safety cameras. Of course the general public is being fed a story about it being useful for commercial application. Computational photography is essentially a form of image-stacking. This process is still limited by the quality of the optical elements used in the lenses. The first folks to push this technology were Google ...but in my opinion, cheering for Google's success is akin to rooting for the Nazis in WW2. I'm not about to do that. Feel free to throw your money at them though. Remember the PIXEL phone they made? It took great lowlight pictures but the paintwork literally "fell off" the metal exterior of the camera with general handling in under 2 days.... and it still can't guarantee quality bokeh or ideal results with faster shutter speeds.
.
Furthermore, the evidence is that the technology has stagnated. Several expensively funded projects using advanced computational cameras (including those by Leica and Google) have found themselves unable to advance now that the technological limitations have been identified. The 'Denoising' programs (which were touted as the way "forward" for computational photography have proven to be one of those stumbling blocks. And guess what? It turns out that quality optics are more important than the smartphone builders realized. "Content Aware Fill" can never fully function as it was envisioned... and that's yet another block which may never be truly resolved.
So you have one of two choices to work with right now: You can throw thousands of dollars at the top model phones and hope they take better pictures than a modern digital camera. This enables you to avoid buying a camera right now as you wait for the smart-phone technology to bypass the hurdles.
.
Or you can use a modern digital camera and hope that someday there might be a smart-phone that could someday allow you to take the same type of pictures with the same amount of quality. I'm betting on this scenario to be the best option for the next 8 years. And when the technology for those smart-phones advances, so with that of dedicated photographers.
.
Pointing a phone at a scene doesn't really make you a photographer. As good as the technology can possibly be, you need to frame your shot and take lighting into account. Already I can tell you that my pop-up tilt flash kills any smartphone camera lighting and I can whack an external flash with a swivel head if I want to run around and play "photographer". If you whip our your smart-phone instead of a camera when a client pays you to shoot a job I can assure you that you'll be laughed at. Hard. But tonight I took a really unflattering picture of two hamburgers and a serve of onion rings for a Google review with my $1600 iPhone. I wish I'd brought my camera with me instead.
Microprism
Leading Member
- Messages
- 788
- Solutions
- 1
- Reaction score
- 1,029
It's a fact, a true fact, that as of today you can take better photos in a wide variety of situations with cameras and camera lenses than with phones and their teensy-teensy lenses. Predictions of future wonders from phone cameras is speculation that relies on extrapolations of technology trends that may, or may not, continue.
Here's is an example (from Wikipedia and edited by me):
"Moore's law is the observation that the number of transistors in a dense integrated circuit doubles about every two years.…Moore's prediction proved accurate for several decades …In general, it is not logically sound to extrapolate from the historical growth rate into the indefinite future...Gordon Moore foresaw that the rate of progress would reach saturation: "I see Moore's law dying here in the next decade or so."
"Brian Krzanich, the former CEO of Intel…cited Moore's 1975 revision as a precedent for the current deceleration, which results from technical challenges and is "a natural part of the history of Moore's law".
Phones have become good enough to replace small cameras for most people. The question is if the trend of phones replacing cameras is nearing its limit. Come back in a few years and we will know, but, "In general, it is not logically sound to extrapolate from the historical growth rate into the indefinite future."
Last edited:
PostConsumerWat
Member
- Messages
- 48
- Reaction score
- 19
on my display it seems to be an example of why the phone camera is not good enough. but I tend to go for a natural look.
not to rip on the sample, but it reminds me of something like a gif where the colors cascade over and over to create a rainbow effect. "click here to win a trip, you've won!"
edit: actually my display was got knocked into CAD mode somehow, so the pic looks better now. It's pretty nice, but it still has some areas that seem unusual in their appearance. not bad in a pinch!
Last edited:
There are differences in our thought process on this topic. It seems you think that computational photography will be limited to smartphone use in its current format. That the two worlds of dedicated cameras and smartphones can not mix.
I see these two camps merging together and this is where photography gets revolutionized. The shortcoming you reference, which are legitimate, will be mitigated by using hardware from conventional photography. The result will be that lesser hardware, from a cost and size perspective, will deliver the results from hardware that is currently very expensive. Basically, the performance we get today from FF and MF systems will be put into people's hands for the price of a P&S camera. In fact, computational photography might make the P&S segment the juggernaut it was in the past and the dominant system overall.
Smartphones have shown that the future of photography will be ruled by convenience. Most people have been willing to give up some quality for convenience. The P&S segment has been decimated because the capability gap between them and smartphones shrank substantially. Applying computational photography to the P&S segment will widen this gap quite a bit while shrinking the gap they have with ILCs.
I am not saying that ILC systems are doomed. There will be a niche for them for quite a while. Where the general camera industry is headed will be where post processing is all but eliminated for the vast majority of users. The biggest reason most people buy an ILC and then dump it is because of the need for post processing to make using the gear worthwhile. I see this play out here a lot where newbies are told to shoot RAW and PP to get the results they expect. Most try it and then decide the process it too cumbersome.
To sum up, the photography revolution is where current dedicated camera technology marries computational photography. The result will be cameras that can do everything from taking a phone call, to seamlessly connecting to the online world, to manipulation of images in-camera to a degree that eliminates the need for post processing while having fantastic optical zoom ranges. These cameras will also be small, lightweight and inexpensive. Also, anyone that has switched to MILC over DSLRs for reasons of size/weight reduction and an increased feature set will flock to these new generation cameras for the same reasons.
I see these two camps merging together and this is where photography gets revolutionized. The shortcoming you reference, which are legitimate, will be mitigated by using hardware from conventional photography. The result will be that lesser hardware, from a cost and size perspective, will deliver the results from hardware that is currently very expensive. Basically, the performance we get today from FF and MF systems will be put into people's hands for the price of a P&S camera. In fact, computational photography might make the P&S segment the juggernaut it was in the past and the dominant system overall.
Smartphones have shown that the future of photography will be ruled by convenience. Most people have been willing to give up some quality for convenience. The P&S segment has been decimated because the capability gap between them and smartphones shrank substantially. Applying computational photography to the P&S segment will widen this gap quite a bit while shrinking the gap they have with ILCs.
I am not saying that ILC systems are doomed. There will be a niche for them for quite a while. Where the general camera industry is headed will be where post processing is all but eliminated for the vast majority of users. The biggest reason most people buy an ILC and then dump it is because of the need for post processing to make using the gear worthwhile. I see this play out here a lot where newbies are told to shoot RAW and PP to get the results they expect. Most try it and then decide the process it too cumbersome.
To sum up, the photography revolution is where current dedicated camera technology marries computational photography. The result will be cameras that can do everything from taking a phone call, to seamlessly connecting to the online world, to manipulation of images in-camera to a degree that eliminates the need for post processing while having fantastic optical zoom ranges. These cameras will also be small, lightweight and inexpensive. Also, anyone that has switched to MILC over DSLRs for reasons of size/weight reduction and an increased feature set will flock to these new generation cameras for the same reasons.
Last edited:
papybenenuts
Forum Enthusiast
I took those during my last trip to ORAN in Algeria
Canon M50 with 18-150
--
M.B.
Last edited:
We have seen it all before. Good enough largely replacing top notch.
It happened in the sound reproduction industry. Inferior, but good enough MP3 replacing hifi stereo at its best.
Another example is computers. Tablets, laptops, chrome books taking a large share of the computer market. The smaller number of users who want and will pay for the best will still opt for a tower with better cooling for faster and more reliable performance, expansion cards, superior graphics and audio.
In the same way P&S smart cameras will capture a very large share of the market, but the impossible to beat, large sensor, large, high end optics cameras will still be around for the smaller number of high-end pros and the amateurs who want the best possible images.
It happened in the sound reproduction industry. Inferior, but good enough MP3 replacing hifi stereo at its best.
Another example is computers. Tablets, laptops, chrome books taking a large share of the computer market. The smaller number of users who want and will pay for the best will still opt for a tower with better cooling for faster and more reliable performance, expansion cards, superior graphics and audio.
In the same way P&S smart cameras will capture a very large share of the market, but the impossible to beat, large sensor, large, high end optics cameras will still be around for the smaller number of high-end pros and the amateurs who want the best possible images.
irm
Veteran Member
Can't do birds in flight.
I don't think we will be giving up much for those using APS-C sensors. If fact, we might gain quite a bit. I would love to see the MFT system embrace this technology. It is small, lightweight, has a tremendous assortment of lenses and it has IBIS which could be very useful. Olympus needs to pair up with Google's Pixel team and give us something that is game changing.
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum