Why cameras like the M are still worth carrying everywhere

Started 1 month ago | Discussions thread
thunder storm Senior Member • Posts: 2,030
Re: Bad example.
2

Veducci wrote:

The phone image was not particularly good . My phone would have done much better.

Of course your Canon camera would beat out most phones but the bottom line remains

The bottom line is camera's are better and will be better in the future than phones for low light photography, while most customers are accepting significant worse IQ because they prefer being lazy and having cheap equipment.

It's not the phones IQ improving so much, it is the customers laziness and phone marketing brainwashing those customers so they experience IQ based on believes rather than an empirical based experience with a wider horizon than a phone screen.

In low light cameras are far superior over phones, and it will stay that way until aps-c sensors and a lens mount will be introduced to phones, which will be pretty much a camera enabling you to make a phone call with it.

Of course there are situations phones are fine. If you need a car for shopping a view small products a Fiat Panda and a Ferrari will be both just fine. This doesn't mean the Fiat Panda is just as good. You will notice once you drive both at the Nurburgring, and even on the German Highway on your way to the Nurgburgring.

Only using your car for shopping a view products: The Fiat Panda might be more adequate for you and your needs. But this doesn't mean its better than the Ferrari.

that dedicated cameras are on their way out but for the few that actually have a compelling need for better.

-- hide signature --

If your facts are different we could save the peace just by calling it copy to copy variation.

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
tko
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow