The end?

Cyril Catt wrote:

Thomas A Anderson wrote:

Cyril Catt wrote:

Thomas A Anderson wrote:

[...]

It's really too bad that people look at images mostly on their phones or other small screens. It's also a shame that people don't realize how much better their images would be with a zoom lens, larger sensor, and LESS processing.

I'm sure that many people DO realise that (technically)...

I wasn’t referring to technical image quality alone.

I was. I assumed you were also referring to aesthetic qualities as well.

I recently went on an outing to compare shooting with my smartphone and shooting with my R w/ RF 24-105f/4.  The difference in compositional flexibility was stark.  Image quality also stark.  It was day time, so AF was no problem.  In normal indoor lighting situations smartphone AF (iPhone 12 mini) is still a huge drag.

I've said it many times, most people who shoot images on their phones don't actually have any interest in photography as a hobby or art form.  Their interest is in posting to social media strictly as a documentary method to avoid long descriptive narratives.  And that's a perfectly legitimate use, of course.

A zoom lens allows for widely varying compositional techniques to be used, especially when you’ve got the variable aperture to go along with it.

...'better' images are possible with better lenses...

Not better lenses alone, also a variety of lenses including zooms.

And variable frame format, to reduce post processing time?

Not sure what you're talking about.  I was only saying that if you have a zoom, especially a high quality zoom with modern/fast AF motors, you're starting from an advantageous position.  The vast majority of phones have 1 or 2 focal lengths available.

...and sensors , and less processing. But I suspect that many are satisfied with what shows up on the small screens of their pads, with little or no processing time....

Sure. They’re also unaware that their phone is a pretty lousy camera.

Certainly many may be unaware. But some will surely rate convenience higher than perfection.

Let's not exaggerate here.  It's not a competition between huge convenience and "perfection."  Often it's not a competition at all -- convenience and being forced to buy a camera with one's phone is often the ONLY impetus many people have for EVER taking a single image.  There are many cameras that are small and light that just bury smartphones in almost every conceivable way.  The camera being forced upon those who would carry their phone everywhere they go anyway is not only convenient, it's the ultimate convenience and that certainly is compelling for many....especially those with no actual interest in photography as an expression for its own sake (apart from Instabook or Mygram posting on the interwebs).

The narrative that is so commonly repeated is that phone cameras have made most regular cameras obsolete.

Not obsolete: but instruments for special needs, warranting high precision manufacture for limited markets

High precision?  Special needs?  Cameras have ALWAYS been for a very limited market, it just so happened that DIGITAL cameras were the new toy that pros, enthusiasts, and even the average consumer had some motivation to purchase.  The low end, low precision, cheap as heck market is what has taken the real hit because of smartphones.  The high end, expensive body market took a hit from that market maturing -- there was no real need to upgrade your two year old body any more because all the big new technologies already exceeded the needs of most people.

That was much the same as the recognition by George Eastman that simplicity was a seller.

And that’s why the narrative exists. Most people don’t really care about photography, so the camera glued to their phone is just fine.

Standards of acceptance are also changing.

As mentioned, staring at a 6" screen to consume most media has a way of doing that.

There are fewer press photographers being employed: shots from phone cameras wielded by reporters’ or the public ‘will do’.

Part of that has zero to do with photography.  It is almost exclusively because ALL traditional reporting has become either unprofitable or operating on razor thin margins.  This is another knock on affect of the internet:  reporting is a much more competitive market with everyone and their dog starting websites and youtube channels.

Wide angle shots with obvious distortion are also prevalent.

The cost and complexity of producing excellent poster sized images may not be considered relevant if the final product sought is simply a postcard sized image on a screen.

That misses the point, but I imagine that’s exactly the oversimplified story many phone photographers believe accurately reflect the attitude of those snobby photographers who use a camera other than their phone.

And might THAT not be an oversimplified point of view?

It's just a counter exaggeration to yours.  People are fed the line that you can only care about real cameras if you want poster sized prints of insanely high quality.  It's such a bad faith, false narrative.

I’m sure there are still quite a few photographers who started in the 1940s with a simple Kodak camera, learnt by trial and error the successful use of lighting; saved costs, and reduced delays, by doing their own processing; advanced to larger formats, cut film and 35 mm; and to removeable lens cameras.

Then, after decades of travelling with several camera bodies, lenses, light meters, dozens of cassettes of film, and hope that they’d ‘got the shot’, welcomed the semi-automation of exposure and focus. And with digitization, the convenience, instant check of results, and lower expense of still, video, colour and monochrome all in one piece of equipment; and very quickly thereafter, the increasing availability of zoom and wider angle lenses.

Are you saying that men in their 90's want smaller rigs?  No argument here.

The lighter weight of is of particular concern to those octogenarians,

I guessed it!  Okay, that's reasonable and why would I not agree with older people wanting uber-convenience?  I don't think that reflects the general markets that the two types of camera appeal to.

who may nevertheless still carry a small digicam, and pause from their rapid recording of exotic scenes to smile at people who seem to carry expensive cameras, with long zoom lenses attached, slung conspicuously around their necks - but never seem to raise them to their eyes to take a shot!

Never seen that person.  When I see someone with a big camera, they rarely have their phone out unless it's to talk with someone on the other end of the line.