Optical vs Software Photography ?

Started 8 months ago | Discussions
Antti Roine Regular Member • Posts: 312
Optical vs Software Photography ?
3

Some 16 years ago I wrote directly to Canon and Nikon R&D that "please replace mechanical mirror, pentaprism and shutter with the digital solutions". They gave polite answers that they will make the inventions by them selves. Now they have finally made these inventions in Canon EOS R and Nikon Z7.

I was also knocked out in these forums:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/10760390

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/10970000

My wishes have finally came true. However, Canon and Nikon bet on the wrong horses again: They are investing on the optical photography instead of the software photography. This is not wise because:

1) With tiny phone camera sensors we can get a long depth of field and very sharp photos, but also beautiful bokeh with the software photography even in dark conditions.

2) With full-frame sensor and wide aperature lens you can get beautiful bokeh, but with software photography it is impossible to convert the unsharp background to sharp one.

3) Full-frame sensors makes the mirrorless cameras large and heavy.

If Canon and Nikon directors are wise, they will invest on smaller APC-C size sensors and inteligent software photography integrated to the camera - like the mobile phone manufacturers do. Most of the users do not want to edit raw files in the Photoshop.

The latest small mobile phone cameras gives us the prelude of the possiblities of the software photography with the small sensors and automatic GPS location data.

-- hide signature --

Antti

Canon EOS 5DS R Nikon Z7
If you believe there are incorrect tags, please send us this post using our feedback form.
MediaArchivist
MediaArchivist Veteran Member • Posts: 5,363
Re: Optical vs Software Photography ?
12

Antti Roine wrote:

I was also knocked out in these forums:

What do you mean by "knocked out"?

My wishes have finally came true. However, Canon and Nikon bet on the wrong horses again: They are investing on the optical photography instead of the software photography. This is not wise because:

1) With tiny phone camera sensors we can get a long depth of field and very sharp photos,

In good light and with static subjects, this is true.

but also beautiful bokeh with the software photography even in dark conditions.

That is not correct.

2) With full-frame sensor and wide aperature lens you can get beautiful bokeh, but with software photography it is impossible to convert the unsharp background to sharp one.

I'm not sure you typed that correctly. With a FF camera, you can get a deep DoF by using a smaller aperture. Or, a good looking shallow DoF by using a wider aperture. Ta-da!

3) Full-frame sensors makes the mirrorless cameras large and heavy.

Already, many are complaining they are too small!

-- hide signature --

Want a roXplosion!?

 MediaArchivist's gear list:MediaArchivist's gear list
Sony a99 II Sony 24mm F2 SSM Carl Zeiss Distagon T* Sony 135mm F2.8 (T4.5) STF Sony Carl Zeiss Planar T* 50mm F1.4 ZA SSM Tamron 15-30mm F2.8 +25 more
newmikey Veteran Member • Posts: 4,976
Oh, wow!
28

1) With tiny phone camera sensors we can get a long depth of field and very sharp photos, but also beautiful bokeh with the software photography even in dark conditions.

Wrong, you can get manipulated fake unsharp backgrounds but that still does not equal "beautiful bokeh".

2) With full-frame sensor and wide aperature lens you can get beautiful bokeh, but with software photography it is impossible to convert the unsharp background to sharp one.

Yes, soooo.....? Why would you want to convert unsharp backgrounds to sharp ones? Just get your focus and DOF right.

3) Full-frame sensors makes the mirrorless cameras large and heavy.

And easy to hold and balance larger lenses on as well as allow more room for decent exposure circuitry and fast storage.

The latest small mobile phone cameras gives us the prelude of the possiblities of the software photography with the small sensors and automatic GPS location data.

"Software photography" does not exist, "software manipulation" does. You want a phone with a decent camera module, by all means get one. But please don't confuse it with a real camera.

 newmikey's gear list:newmikey's gear list
Ricoh GR Pentax K-70 Sigma 8-16mm F4.5-5.6 DC HSM Pentax smc DA* 50-135mm F2.8 ED (IF) SDM Pentax smc DA 50mm F1.8 +3 more
golfhov Forum Pro • Posts: 11,891
First verse
7

Antti Roine wrote:

Some 16 years ago I wrote directly to Canon and Nikon R&D that "please replace mechanical mirror, pentaprism and shutter with the digital solutions". They gave polite answers that they will make the inventions by them selves. Now they have finally made these inventions in Canon EOS R and Nikon Z7.

That was so nice of you. It is a shame other company spies saw your letter

I was also knocked out in these forums:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/10760390

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/10970000

My wishes have finally came true. However, Canon and Nikon bet on the wrong horses again: They are investing on the optical photography instead of the software photography.

Uh..........in fairness the software manipulates the existing optics. You cannot have one without the other

This is not wise because:

1) With tiny phone camera sensors we can get a long depth of field and very sharp photos,

Uh......no. are you familiar with diffraction? There is a reason cell phone makers stopped trying to pack extra pixels in

but also beautiful bokeh with the software photography

Uh......I am gonna disagree here. We just filled up a 151 post thread about a "great example" of this. Of the hundreds of recent images I have seen with this(and taken) few are close to "beautiful" , a handful are ok, most are meh, and some are really bad

even in dark conditions.

Uh.....no. some of what cellphones NES can do is impressive for the size BUT they still struggle against anything with a basic kit lens with some sort of stabilization

2) With full-frame sensor and wide aperature lens you can get beautiful bokeh, but with software photography it is impossible to convert the unsharp background to sharp one.

Then just stop it down. It's a choice

3) Full-frame sensors makes the mirrorless cameras large and heavy.

To a degree. It isn't so much the sensors as it is the lenses

If Canon and Nikon directors are wise, they will invest on smaller APC-C size sensors and inteligent software photography integrated to the camera - like the mobile phone manufacturers do. Most of the users do not want to edit raw files in the Photoshop.

Ok......now we may be getting on the same page a bit BUT then when it comes to "good enough" why bother with an ILC at all? The cellphones give most people  "good enough". Why bother with an ILC at all? This seems to be why the bottom of the market is disappearing. Trying to put the hardware into ILCs to drive the girls the same way cellphones do would probably be cost prohibitive for the very audience you are targeting

There also seems to be limits to how small you can make a camera

The latest small mobile phone cameras gives us the prelude of the possiblities of the software photography with the small sensors and automatic GPS location data.

They do. And on the software and ease side they are awesome. There are limits to what software can do.

-- hide signature --

Antti

I

 golfhov's gear list:golfhov's gear list
Panasonic LX10 Sony a7R II Sony a7 III Sony FE 28mm F2 Tamron SP 70-200mm F/2.8 Di VC USD +11 more
Bobthearch
Bobthearch Veteran Member • Posts: 9,333
Re: Optical vs Software Photography ?
2

An APS-C mirrorless camera system is no doubt on the way from Nikon.  Canon already has one.  How much gimmicky photo effects will be included is anyone's guess.  But still, who is the target audience?

Will DSLR enthusiasts be quick to switch over?  Some will but many others won't, especially if it's a new mount.  Battery life remains a major hurdle as well.

Will pros move from FF to APS-C or smaller?  Almost certainly not.

Will average people transition from cell phones back to cameras?  Probably not.

New entry-level photographers?  I think yes, but many will only choose the ML option if those are priced are competitively with entry-level and mid-range DSLRs.

As you know there are mirrorless APS-C camera systems available right now from Canon, Sony, Fuji...  So if you're sitting around waiting for Nikon to release one before you buy, why?

-- hide signature --

Personal non-commercial websites with no ads or tracking:
Local photography: http://ratonphotos.com/
Travel and photography: http://placesandpics.com/
Special-interest photos: http://ghosttowns.placesandpics.com/

 Bobthearch's gear list:Bobthearch's gear list
Nikon D7100 Nikon AF-S DX Micro-Nikkor 85mm f/3.5G ED VR Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 35mm F1.8G Tokina AT-X Pro 11-16mm f/2.8 DX II Nikon AF-P 70-300mm F4.5-6.3G VR +2 more
mamallama
mamallama Forum Pro • Posts: 57,176
Re: Oh, wow!
2

newmikey wrote:

1) With tiny phone camera sensors we can get a long depth of field and very sharp photos, but also beautiful bokeh with the software photography even in dark conditions.

Wrong, you can get manipulated fake unsharp backgrounds but that still does not equal "beautiful bokeh".

2) With full-frame sensor and wide aperature lens you can get beautiful bokeh, but with software photography it is impossible to convert the unsharp background to sharp one.

Yes, soooo.....? Why would you want to convert unsharp backgrounds to sharp ones? Just get your focus and DOF right.

3) Full-frame sensors makes the mirrorless cameras large and heavy.

And easy to hold and balance larger lenses on as well as allow more room for decent exposure circuitry and fast storage.

The latest small mobile phone cameras gives us the prelude of the possiblities of the software photography with the small sensors and automatic GPS location data.

"Software photography" does not exist, "software manipulation" does.

What do you think RAW and all post processing is but software manipulation? Just because it is done with digital files from regular cameras does not mean it is not software manipulation.

You want a phone with a decent camera module, by all means get one. But please don't confuse it with a real camera.

Are real cameras limited to those that look like the old film cameras of 1950?

 mamallama's gear list:mamallama's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX85 +1 more
newmikey Veteran Member • Posts: 4,976
Re: Oh, wow!
1

mamallama wrote:

Are real cameras limited to those that look like the old film cameras of 1950?

No, why? Some things are pretty dependent on the fact we have two hands but besides that, quite a number of manufacturers have already shown cameras can have lots of different and sometimes quirky form factors.

 newmikey's gear list:newmikey's gear list
Ricoh GR Pentax K-70 Sigma 8-16mm F4.5-5.6 DC HSM Pentax smc DA* 50-135mm F2.8 ED (IF) SDM Pentax smc DA 50mm F1.8 +3 more
threw the lens
threw the lens Senior Member • Posts: 2,203
Re: Optical vs Software Photography ?
5

Call me cynical, but I never trust anyone flogging a dead horse while using the word 'aperature'.

Come on, if you're supposed to be intellectually brilliant, you could at least spell basic photography terms right.

Bobthearch
Bobthearch Veteran Member • Posts: 9,333
Re: Optical vs Software Photography ?
2

Antti Roine wrote:

1) With tiny phone camera sensors we can get a long depth of field and very sharp photos, but also beautiful bokeh with the software photography even in dark conditions.

Some cell phones are finally able to take sharp photos, but with many limitations and caveats.  For example my XR takes reasonably fine photos as long as the lighting is abundant, as long as you shoot RAW using third-party software, as long as you don't crop, and as long as the composition is perfectly suited to a wide-angle 24mm perspective.

Keep in mind that the XR is the cheapest current-generation iPhone, and yet it still costs 2X more than an entry-level DSLR that blows away the XR's image quality and photographic capabilities.

2) With full-frame sensor and wide aperature lens you can get beautiful bokeh, but with software photography it is impossible to convert the unsharp background to sharp one.

A real camera has a user-selectible aperture, meaning you get a choice; I have no use for a fixed-aperture camera.

3) Full-frame sensors makes the mirrorless cameras large and heavy.

So don't get a FF mirrorless if they're too heavy for you.  There are plenty of APS-C and smaller options.

If Canon and Nikon directors are wise, they will invest on smaller APC-C size sensors and intelligent software photography integrated to the camera - like the mobile phone manufacturers do. Most of the users do not want to edit raw files in the Photoshop.

Most serious enthusiasts and professionals do take the time and effort to carefully adjust photos while viewing the images on a real monitor. That's what makes them serious enthusiasts and professionals.  For people who don't care, cell phones already suffice.

I'm not sure how much market there is for in-between products.

The latest small mobile phone cameras gives us the prelude of the possiblities of the software photography with the small sensors and automatic GPS location data.

Cameras of every sensor size have offered GPS since forever, either built in or via a snap-on accessory.  In my years of shooting though I've never needed to know the exact location of a photo.  Not once.  Ever.  In 45 years.

-- hide signature --

Personal non-commercial websites with no ads or tracking:
Local photography: http://ratonphotos.com/
Travel and photography: http://placesandpics.com/
Special-interest photos: http://ghosttowns.placesandpics.com/

 Bobthearch's gear list:Bobthearch's gear list
Nikon D7100 Nikon AF-S DX Micro-Nikkor 85mm f/3.5G ED VR Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 35mm F1.8G Tokina AT-X Pro 11-16mm f/2.8 DX II Nikon AF-P 70-300mm F4.5-6.3G VR +2 more
threw the lens
threw the lens Senior Member • Posts: 2,203
Re: Optical vs Software Photography ?

Bobthearch wrote:

Cameras of every sensor size have offered GPS since forever, either built in or via a snap-on accessory. In my years of shooting though I've never needed to know the exact location of a photo. Not once. Ever. In 45 years.

GPS sounds a cool feature but I am not sure how it is supposed to help me in photography, either.

I thought GPS helps me when I am lost.

I don't very often take a photo of a random thing in a forest and need to return to it.

Maybe if I were making a wildlife documentary...

I would turn it off in the back of beyond to make more of the battery. When I'm away from civilisation I'm guessing that will be more important.

sybersitizen Forum Pro • Posts: 15,593
Re: Optical vs Software Photography ?
9

Shouldn't there just be a sticky thread with a similar title and unlimited post count where people can just sign in with a '+1' or something instead of starting a new one every two days to say the same things? It would be so much more efficient.

newmikey Veteran Member • Posts: 4,976
Re: Optical vs Software Photography ?
2

threw the lens wrote:

Bobthearch wrote:

Cameras of every sensor size have offered GPS since forever, either built in or via a snap-on accessory. In my years of shooting though I've never needed to know the exact location of a photo. Not once. Ever. In 45 years.

GPS sounds a cool feature but I am not sure how it is supposed to help me in photography, either.

I thought GPS helps me when I am lost.

Oh, I often use the GPS module when on vacation so as to see where I took the images. It's so easy to forget the details when traveling around. GPS can be handy but it doesn't really do anything else than pinpoint shooting locations.

 newmikey's gear list:newmikey's gear list
Ricoh GR Pentax K-70 Sigma 8-16mm F4.5-5.6 DC HSM Pentax smc DA* 50-135mm F2.8 ED (IF) SDM Pentax smc DA 50mm F1.8 +3 more
mamallama
mamallama Forum Pro • Posts: 57,176
Re: Oh, wow!

newmikey wrote:

mamallama wrote:

Are real cameras limited to those that look like the old film cameras of 1950?

No, why?

You seem to think that cameras in smartphones are not real cameras.

Some things are pretty dependent on the fact we have two hands but besides that, quite a number of manufacturers have already shown cameras can have lots of different and sometimes quirky form factors.

Like smartphone cameras?

 mamallama's gear list:mamallama's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX85 +1 more
Bobthearch
Bobthearch Veteran Member • Posts: 9,333
Re: Optical vs Software Photography ?

newmikey wrote:

threw the lens wrote:

Bobthearch wrote:

Cameras of every sensor size have offered GPS since forever, either built in or via a snap-on accessory. In my years of shooting though I've never needed to know the exact location of a photo. Not once. Ever. In 45 years.

GPS sounds a cool feature but I am not sure how it is supposed to help me in photography, either.

I thought GPS helps me when I am lost.

Oh, I often use the GPS module when on vacation so as to see where I took the images. It's so easy to forget the details when traveling around. GPS can be handy but it doesn't really do anything else than pinpoint shooting locations.

I have a Canon with built-in GPS.  It reportedly drains the battery very fast but I've never used it to see for myself.

For me it simply doesn't matter where I took a photo.  As long I can identify the city or property by name, that's good enough.  Of course other people may have more strict requirements.

-- hide signature --

Personal non-commercial websites with no ads or tracking:
Local photography: http://ratonphotos.com/
Travel and photography: http://placesandpics.com/
Special-interest photos: http://ghosttowns.placesandpics.com/

 Bobthearch's gear list:Bobthearch's gear list
Nikon D7100 Nikon AF-S DX Micro-Nikkor 85mm f/3.5G ED VR Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 35mm F1.8G Tokina AT-X Pro 11-16mm f/2.8 DX II Nikon AF-P 70-300mm F4.5-6.3G VR +2 more
newmikey Veteran Member • Posts: 4,976
Re: Oh, wow!
5

mamallama wrote:

You seem to think that cameras in smartphones are not real cameras.

Correct. They are mini-modules which can capture images. Here's the one in the iPhoneX. Hardly qualifies as a "camera" wouldn't you think? No shutter, no aperture, no proper corrective elements with varying diffraction indexes. Most you could say is that they are simple optical elements with a semiconductor capture chip.

Like smartphone cameras?

No, smartphones are what the name implies...smart phones. You wouldn't mistake a smartphone for a desktop computer either even though it does some of the things a computer does. Why would you consider it a "camera" just because it is able to capture images?

 newmikey's gear list:newmikey's gear list
Ricoh GR Pentax K-70 Sigma 8-16mm F4.5-5.6 DC HSM Pentax smc DA* 50-135mm F2.8 ED (IF) SDM Pentax smc DA 50mm F1.8 +3 more
golfhov Forum Pro • Posts: 11,891
Re: Optical vs Software Photography ?

Bobthearch wrote:

newmikey wrote:

threw the lens wrote:

Bobthearch wrote:

Cameras of every sensor size have offered GPS since forever, either built in or via a snap-on accessory. In my years of shooting though I've never needed to know the exact location of a photo. Not once. Ever. In 45 years.

GPS sounds a cool feature but I am not sure how it is supposed to help me in photography, either.

I thought GPS helps me when I am lost.

Oh, I often use the GPS module when on vacation so as to see where I took the images. It's so easy to forget the details when traveling around. GPS can be handy but it doesn't really do anything else than pinpoint shooting locations.

I have a Canon with built-in GPS. It reportedly drains the battery very fast but I've never used it to see for myself.

Which model? Some models have a greater draw than others

For me it simply doesn't matter where I took a photo. As long I can identify the city or property by name, that's good enough. Of course other people may have more strict requirements.

Yup. Strokes for folks. We all have different memories and expectations. Popular tour destinations shouldn't be an issue but if you photograph less frequented stops the GPS could be helpful for all sorts of things.

To each his own but I don't know that GPS would be my top priority

-- hide signature --

Personal non-commercial websites with no ads or tracking:
Local photography: http://ratonphotos.com/
Travel and photography: http://placesandpics.com/
Special-interest photos: http://ghosttowns.placesandpics.com/

 golfhov's gear list:golfhov's gear list
Panasonic LX10 Sony a7R II Sony a7 III Sony FE 28mm F2 Tamron SP 70-200mm F/2.8 Di VC USD +11 more
golfhov Forum Pro • Posts: 11,891
Pedantic pedalists
1

newmikey wrote:

mamallama wrote:

You seem to think that cameras in smartphones are not real cameras.

Correct. They are mini-modules which can capture images. Here's the one in the iPhoneX. Hardly qualifies as a "camera" wouldn't you think?

You may want to look up the definition of "camera" this easily qualifies

No shutter, no aperture, no proper corrective elements with varying diffraction indexes. Most you could say is that they are simple optical elements with a semiconductor capture chip.

Feel free to check the definition of "camera". It's boring but he is right

What about old disposables, point and shoots, and smaller formats from the film days?

Like smartphone cameras?

No, smartphones are what the name implies...smart phones. You wouldn't mistake a smartphone for a desktop computer either even though it does some of the things a computer does.

A smartphone is a varied instrument. I refer to it as ALL sorts of things.

Why would you consider it a "camera" just because it is able to capture images?

By definition YES but it is rare most people refer to a smartphone as JUST a camera. Then again when in a conversation about taking a photo cell phone users often say "camera" and among normal people this rarely launches a conversation about defining "camera"

 golfhov's gear list:golfhov's gear list
Panasonic LX10 Sony a7R II Sony a7 III Sony FE 28mm F2 Tamron SP 70-200mm F/2.8 Di VC USD +11 more
newmikey Veteran Member • Posts: 4,976
Suit yourself (nt)
1
 newmikey's gear list:newmikey's gear list
Ricoh GR Pentax K-70 Sigma 8-16mm F4.5-5.6 DC HSM Pentax smc DA* 50-135mm F2.8 ED (IF) SDM Pentax smc DA 50mm F1.8 +3 more
kiwi2
kiwi2 Veteran Member • Posts: 5,024
Re: Pedantic pedalists
1

golfhov wrote:

newmikey wrote:

mamallama wrote:

You seem to think that cameras in smartphones are not real cameras.

Correct. They are mini-modules which can capture images. Here's the one in the iPhoneX. Hardly qualifies as a "camera" wouldn't you think?

You may want to look up the definition of "camera" this easily qualifies

No shutter, no aperture, no proper corrective elements with varying diffraction indexes. Most you could say is that they are simple optical elements with a semiconductor capture chip.

Feel free to check the definition of "camera". It's boring but he is right

What about old disposables, point and shoots, and smaller formats from the film days?

Like smartphone cameras?

No, smartphones are what the name implies...smart phones. You wouldn't mistake a smartphone for a desktop computer either even though it does some of the things a computer does.

A smartphone is a varied instrument. I refer to it as ALL sorts of things.

Why would you consider it a "camera" just because it is able to capture images?

By definition YES but it is rare most people refer to a smartphone as JUST a camera. Then again when in a conversation about taking a photo cell phone users often say "camera" and among normal people this rarely launches a conversation about defining "camera"

Yep, even a box with a hole in it is called a pinhole camera.

-- hide signature --
 kiwi2's gear list:kiwi2's gear list
Fujifilm X-T2 Fujifilm X-T100 Samyang 12mm F2.0 NCS CS Fujifilm XF 16mm F1.4 R WR Fujifilm XF 35mm F2 R WR +4 more
golfhov Forum Pro • Posts: 11,891
And on and on
1

Spy camera

Obscura camera

Trail camera

Action camera

There are more than a few designs

 golfhov's gear list:golfhov's gear list
Panasonic LX10 Sony a7R II Sony a7 III Sony FE 28mm F2 Tamron SP 70-200mm F/2.8 Di VC USD +11 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads