I finally got it

Started 1 month ago | Discussions
riveredger Veteran Member • Posts: 3,658
Re: Would U mind to post samples

alcelc wrote:

to let us know how good the phone are? Better in not good lighting condition and some might need a zoom...

Had seen a lot of samples but nothing really impressed us who prefer a camera yet. Might be a shooter problem partially. I trust your sample can show the real quality of a phone can be.

There are tons of results on Google for you to sift through.

 riveredger's gear list:riveredger's gear list
Canon G1 X III Samsung Galaxy S9+
doady Senior Member • Posts: 1,720
Re: I finally got it
1

The convenience of smartphones with smaller sensors replaced the convenience of cheap point-and-shoot cameras with smaller sensors for casual usage at the consumer level. For more dedicated/serious photographers, I don't think much as changed.

 doady's gear list:doady's gear list
Olympus C-7070 Wide Zoom Olympus E-M1 II Olympus 12-100mm F4.0 Phase One Capture One Pro
StarPortraits
StarPortraits Regular Member • Posts: 359
Re: I finally got it
1

but this device is now the ideal choice for travel photography, vacation photography, family photography, or for casual snapshots. And lets be honest, those subjects are around 90% of what amateur photographers shoot.

And thats why smartphones are here to stay. They are not turning back. On the contrary, they are improving the technology. It will never be the same. I could not buy a point and shoot camera today like I did 15 years ago with my back then Sony cybershot. There is no need for it. The dslr might be the final frontier tho because I can tell the quality is better but for travel, family thanksgiving, Christmas and instant uploads why carry a mammoth. Lets face it. I go to Disney and they are everywhere.

 StarPortraits's gear list:StarPortraits's gear list
Nikon D700 Nikon D7100 Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.4D Sigma 17-50mm F2.8 EX DC OS HSM Tamron 18-270mm F/3.5-6.3 Di II VC PZD +1 more
Max Iso
Max Iso Senior Member • Posts: 8,134
Re: I finally got it
3

absquatulate wrote:

Donald B wrote:

Im going to be perfectly honest , the image distortion is just terrible with phones shooting portraits/people/ family . so lets take another 80% off good enough images. that leaves you with 10% usable

Don

My smartphone has a 5x optical zoom, problem solved.

Fantastic, now you can zoom all the way in on your left eye. Problem solved !! For the other guy asking what Don meant, he's talking about hand holding your own cameras for selfies. It doesn't matter how good the camera is, when you hold a camera 2' from the subject, it will have distortion.

-- hide signature --

"Burning, burning, faster, faster are your revolutionists,
If I could collapse the masses,
We'd be free to grow our wings" -

 Max Iso's gear list:Max Iso's gear list
Nikon D300 Olympus E-M1 Panasonic Lumix DC-G9 Canon EOS M50 Canon EF 100mm f/2.0 USM +7 more
Max Iso
Max Iso Senior Member • Posts: 8,134
Re: I finally got it
1

I agree Lee and while i love my phone it's use envelope is very small. Another ILC advantage, using my 1250mm scope (2500 equiv).

-- hide signature --

"Burning, burning, faster, faster are your revolutionists,
If I could collapse the masses,
We'd be free to grow our wings" -

 Max Iso's gear list:Max Iso's gear list
Nikon D300 Olympus E-M1 Panasonic Lumix DC-G9 Canon EOS M50 Canon EF 100mm f/2.0 USM +7 more
fferreres Veteran Member • Posts: 3,626
Re: I finally got it

vzlnc wrote:

Also, factor in that people's tastes have been spoiled by using phones for viewing and taking pics. On the small screens ppl dont really notice the shortcomings of the images.

Blurry, OOF, grainy, overprocessed, detail-less images are shared and liked and have become normalized. Many people have actually forgotten that optical zoom exists and what a difference it makes. Recently I was explaining this to a friend who has a D3300 he doesnt use. He never bothered to see what his D3300 can do and uses his iphone for family pics mainly.

Also, to the huge majority of people, pics only mean snaps they take at a function or get-together and as long as they can convey to the social media that they are having fun, and that they are awesome, the actual technical quality of the image is irrelevant. 99% or pics taken today are probably selfies. That itself precludes any kind of proper camera.

Well, even photography sites host even worst than this kind of quality. And it's not their fault, it's what people like. Look at the Dogs challenge, especially, see the #1 and #2. I wish they had used a cel phone for those ones.

New Day Rising
New Day Rising Senior Member • Posts: 3,254
Re: I think you're missing the point
4

Lee Jay wrote:

New Day Rising wrote:

Lee Jay wrote:

tcg550 wrote:

Lee Jay wrote:

tcg550 wrote:

Lee Jay wrote:

PhotoFactor wrote:

riveredger wrote:

nevada5 wrote:

My subtle distinction above "(many of) these daily threads" was to separate Marty from the herd. I agree he was admitting he has reversed his position, and that's good. It's almost always a matter of degrees for people. They buy a new phone and realize that it can take up more of the camera's job. Both devices have a place in my daily life.

My point in that paragraph was addressing those people you mentioned - the ones who can use their phone for all their needs and they get rid of the camera. Their posts often try to convince us that b/c the phone is now better for them we should all make the full switch.

Can you link to any thread where the poster tried to convince you to make the "full switch " to a smartphone camera?

Yes, I'd like to see that link, too. I don't recall any posts every trying to get everybody to switch, but I don't read all of them. Still, it would be surprising to find that kind of a post.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/63285023

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/63276063

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/63106251

Just to name a few.

I just read those posts, where specifically is anyone trying to convince you to switch from the way you currently take photos?

They seem to be declaring that they are switching but I don't see where they are trying to convince anyone to get rid of their current gear.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bandwagon_effect

So no one has really tried to get you to dump all your gear and go with your smartphone alone.

You mean, show up at my house or something? How would they "try to get me" to do that other than implying I'm a fool or behind the times or something for not doing it, as in the above?

As others have said, those posts are simply people talking about their choices and preferences.

If you don't read into that what I do, then I don't think you're being totally honest. Those people are saying, "hey folks, look what I've discovered - cell phone cameras can replace my cameras [and therefore probably yours too]".

Which, no matter how you look at it (other than through a lens of paranoia and narcissism) this is simply expressing a choice and a preference. It is open to you to have a different opinion, as you clearly do. I personally feel no more pressured or coerced by this than by any other opinion expressed on these forums, including yours.

You constantly talk about your fisheye lens and your telescope. Are you telling me I'm a fool or behind the times because I own neither of those?

Those extremes are choices for me based on the subjects I like to shoot. However, I am critical of people who don't use a variety of focal lengths because their images are boring.

You repeatedly write on here that you have no interest in anyone else's photos, yet clearly you take enough of an interest to criticise them. It seems you are not being honest with us or yourself.

Some of your photos are terrific. Some - like planes photographed from 20 miles away - are, frankly, dead boring. I find your habit of walking through museums as quickly as possible, pausing at each exhibit for (literally) two or three seconds to photograph it so you can look at the photos later rather than experiencing the actual object at the time, strange. I have no doubt the photos are thoroughly boring. You have, what, 700,000 photos in your archives? Absolutely guaranteed at least 695,000 of those are going to be thoroughly boring. Having every focal length from 8 to 2,000 mm covered is no guarantee against producing boring work. Most of my photos, I'm sure, are boring.

Yet I have seen many photos taken by people using a single focal length that are not at all boring.

Go figure.

 New Day Rising's gear list:New Day Rising's gear list
Fujifilm FinePix S1 Pro Nikon D50 Canon EOS 550D Fujifilm X-T1 Olympus OM-D E-M10 II +6 more
fferreres Veteran Member • Posts: 3,626
Re: I finally got it
1

Marty4650 wrote:

I am one of those grumpy old men who always said that smartphone photography was just a fad. Something that is only good enough for selfies and photos of your lunch to post on twitter or facebook. For anything else, you absolutely needed a real camera.

Well, it seems I was wrong.

I recently replaced my four year old Motorola Moto X Pure with a brand new Google Pixel 3a, and was shocked at how good the Pixel camera was. It seems there has been so much improvement in smartphone cameras, that they are now useful for more than just documenting where you parked your car.

I still don't think anyone will be using a smartphone to shoot a wedding, for commercial photography, for sports/action photography, or for fashion photography, but this device is now the ideal choice for travel photography, vacation photography, family photography, or for casual snapshots. And lets be honest, those subjects are around 90% of what amateur photographers shoot.

Last week I drove 600 miles to NYC to visit family for Thanksgiving. Since I has my car I could bring all the luggage I wanted. This meant I brought 3 cameras and 12 lenses. You know, "just in case." But none of them were actually used, as the smartphone was good enough and much more convenient.

Three weeks from now my wife and I are flying 3000 miles to Seattle to visit our newest grandson, and luggage restrictions being what they are today, I just might not bring any camera with me. If I do, then it will just be my Panasonic LX100.

I think the real "revolution" here is that people stopped buying more camera than they really needed once the smartphone camera became good enough for most everyday uses.

The dedicated camera has left the mass market and become a specialty device. And a very good one at that, but one that most people don't need very often. And that is a problem that the camera makers may never be able to solve. And this also explains why the overall market for dedicated cameras keeps shrinking, despite the fact that they keep getting better. In some ways.... quite a bit better.

People really didn't want better. They just wanted more convenient, with sufficient image quality for the task. So much so that they were willing to sacrifice versatility, best image quality and ergonomics to get it.

You may not agree, but the fact remains... a lot of people are perfectly happy with their smartphone cameras, and new camera sales are feeling the pressure of that.

This post is very interesting, because it took so long to get it, and had to had one phone with a good camera. No amount of showing great photos from phones would have changed this view. One simply doesn't want to believe in what one has alredy made their opinion. It's Thinking Fast mode.

Those having a the latest Pixel or iPhone, and a camera, know they are not like the polaroids of before. They actually replace the mid market cameras. Same with GPS, it did not kill the map, it killed the separate GPS. Of course, for vessels and many other specialized uses a phone is a waste of money, or too imprecise. But for moving around? It's not just that the mapping features of phones improved enough, but that they actually can use the GPS sensor into a whole new range of use cases.

The cameras in phones can be used for a million things. The computer married with the sensor is here to stay, and will continue to expand. The "non wired camera" to get nice colors of landscapes and people, is largely and forever will be a super niche market. it's like carrying a portable GPS of sorts to drive around. Really, that's what it is.

Unless you are into something specialized (like Astro, ultra Macros,Infrared, Drones, etc) then much sooner than later, the phone will catch up. Right now the line is drawn into: 1) Bokeh 2) Long Tele. For wide angle, Panorama software is now amazing already and a phone can do it well and easy. And 1 and 2 are weak arguments because phones increasingly will feature tele, and better isolation as well.

So, the next stage in photography can only come from imaging needs, what's arond the camera (eg. why did drones explore in sales? In very very large part to take pictures from the skies) and the post processing needed to render the final "product" (making 3D landscapes, mapping static objects in 3D to do virtual tours "Inside the photograph", image what we could not image before (the inside of things without using X-rays? I am just inventing situations)?.

I don't think the market will "recover". It needs to evolve. And in the meantime, there will always be some need for more professional cameras and lenses, and just higher resolution displays will drive some need for better image quality.

What is also true is that anyone sticking to a M43 or small sensor format or pocketable, maybe not now, but soon, will have to confess they like it more mostly due to nostalgia or melancholy.

sybersitizen Forum Pro • Posts: 14,874
Re: I finally got it
2

fferreres wrote:

... anyone sticking to a M43 or small sensor format or pocketable, maybe not now, but soon, will have to confess they like it more mostly due to nostalgia or melancholy.

When smartphones routinely offer a wide range of lenses, eye-level viewfinders, articulating LCDs, bounceable Xenon flashes, real optical zooms, and real physical controls, and maybe even just built-in tripod sockets and sensible remote control capabilities ... then we can talk about reasons for buying a dedicated camera supposedly being 'mostly due to nostalgia or melancholy'.

fferreres Veteran Member • Posts: 3,626
Re: I finally got it

sybersitizen wrote:

fferreres wrote:

... anyone sticking to a M43 or small sensor format or pocketable, maybe not now, but soon, will have to confess they like it more mostly due to nostalgia or melancholy.

When smartphones routinely offer a wide range of lenses, eye-level viewfinders, articulating LCDs, bounceable Xenon flashes, real optical zooms, and real physical controls, and maybe even just built-in tripod sockets and sensible remote control capabilities ... then we can talk about reasons for buying a dedicated camera supposedly being 'mostly due to nostalgia or melancholy'.

It's a prediction. In 3 years, M43 will be a dead format for photographs. Only for semi pro video will remain. Photograph oriented cameras will either collapse to mobiles or move up. No wonder Panasonic quickly reverse track and went FF.

sybersitizen Forum Pro • Posts: 14,874
Re: I finally got it
1

fferreres wrote:

sybersitizen wrote:

fferreres wrote:

... anyone sticking to a M43 or small sensor format or pocketable, maybe not now, but soon, will have to confess they like it more mostly due to nostalgia or melancholy.

When smartphones routinely offer a wide range of lenses, eye-level viewfinders, articulating LCDs, bounceable Xenon flashes, real optical zooms, and real physical controls, and maybe even just built-in tripod sockets and sensible remote control capabilities ... then we can talk about reasons for buying a dedicated camera supposedly being 'mostly due to nostalgia or melancholy'.

It's a prediction. In 3 years, M43 will be a dead format for photographs. Only for semi pro video will remain.

Let's check back in three years to see if smartphones have picked up any of the things I mentioned. (In the meantime, I personally use three different dead or dying systems for almost all of what I shoot because they can handle the work.)

Photograph oriented cameras will either collapse to mobiles or move up. No wonder Panasonic quickly reverse track and went FF.

What's a photograph oriented camera as opposed to some other type?

fferreres Veteran Member • Posts: 3,626
Re: I finally got it

sybersitizen wrote:

fferreres wrote:

sybersitizen wrote:

fferreres wrote:

... anyone sticking to a M43 or small sensor format or pocketable, maybe not now, but soon, will have to confess they like it more mostly due to nostalgia or melancholy.

When smartphones routinely offer a wide range of lenses, eye-level viewfinders, articulating LCDs, bounceable Xenon flashes, real optical zooms, and real physical controls, and maybe even just built-in tripod sockets and sensible remote control capabilities ... then we can talk about reasons for buying a dedicated camera supposedly being 'mostly due to nostalgia or melancholy'.

It's a prediction. In 3 years, M43 will be a dead format for photographs. Only for semi pro video will remain.

Let's check back in three years to see if smartphones have picked up any of the things I mentioned. (In the meantime, I personally use three different dead or dying systems for almost all of what I shoot because they can handle the work.)

I am not saying you will not use them, or that they will absolutely vanish. I think most will abandon them. I have seen in with friends and so many others, like the OP in this thread, I see more and more every day.

Photograph oriented cameras will either collapse to mobiles or move up. No wonder Panasonic quickly reverse track and went FF.

What's a photograph oriented camera as opposed to some other type?

One that just or primarily does photographs, like a GPS just did show you on a map.

absquatulate Forum Pro • Posts: 10,957
Re: I finally got it
5

Max Iso wrote:

absquatulate wrote:

Donald B wrote:

Im going to be perfectly honest , the image distortion is just terrible with phones shooting portraits/people/ family . so lets take another 80% off good enough images. that leaves you with 10% usable

Don

My smartphone has a 5x optical zoom, problem solved.

Fantastic, now you can zoom all the way in on your left eye. Problem solved !! For the other guy asking what Don meant, he's talking about hand holding your own cameras for selfies. It doesn't matter how good the camera is, when you hold a camera 2' from the subject, it will have distortion.

Where did he say he was talking about selfies in his post? Does he use some kind of invisible text that only you can see?

 absquatulate's gear list:absquatulate's gear list
Sony Cyber-shot DSC-R1 Fujifilm FinePix X100 Nikon Coolpix P7800 Sigma sd Quattro Panasonic Lumix DC-G9 +4 more
mamallama
mamallama Forum Pro • Posts: 56,714
Re: I finally got it

sybersitizen wrote:

fferreres wrote:

sybersitizen wrote:

fferreres wrote:

... anyone sticking to a M43 or small sensor format or pocketable, maybe not now, but soon, will have to confess they like it more mostly due to nostalgia or melancholy.

When smartphones routinely offer a wide range of lenses, eye-level viewfinders, articulating LCDs, bounceable Xenon flashes, real optical zooms, and real physical controls, and maybe even just built-in tripod sockets and sensible remote control capabilities ... then we can talk about reasons for buying a dedicated camera supposedly being 'mostly due to nostalgia or melancholy'.

It's a prediction. In 3 years, M43 will be a dead format for photographs. Only for semi pro video will remain.

Let's check back in three years to see if smartphones have picked up any of the things I mentioned. (In the meantime, I personally use three different dead or dying systems for almost all of what I shoot because they can handle the work.)

Smartphones are leapfrogging some of the things you mentioned. The customers that  smartphones are targeting are not concerned or interested with other things you mentioned. The targeted customer groups are large enough to severely cripple the regular camera companies if they are swayed from buying regular cameras.

What you use or want will not affect that.

Photograph oriented cameras will either collapse to mobiles or move up. No wonder Panasonic quickly reverse track and went FF.

What's a photograph oriented camera as opposed to some other type?

 mamallama's gear list:mamallama's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX85 +1 more
biza43 Forum Pro • Posts: 11,297
Re: I finally got it

Better late then never...

-- hide signature --

www.paulobizarro.com
http://blog.paulobizarro.com/

 biza43's gear list:biza43's gear list
Fujifilm X-T2 Fujifilm X-H1 Fujifilm XF 35mm F1.4 R Fujifilm XF 16mm F1.4 R WR XF 90mm +1 more
Lee Jay Forum Pro • Posts: 55,144
Re: I finally got it
1

fferreres wrote:

I am not saying you will not use them, or that they will absolutely vanish. I think most will abandon them.

Most never bought them in the first place.  It was the same in the film era - fixed lens compacts out-sold SLRs.

So what?  Do we care about what people who don't care about photography use?

-- hide signature --

Lee Jay

 Lee Jay's gear list:Lee Jay's gear list
Canon IXUS 310 HS Canon PowerShot SX50 HS Canon EOS 7D Mark II Canon EF 70-200mm F2.8L IS II USM Canon EF 8-15mm f/4L Fisheye USM +23 more
Lee Jay Forum Pro • Posts: 55,144
Re: I think you're missing the point
1

New Day Rising wrote:

You repeatedly write on here that you have no interest in anyone else's photos, yet clearly you take enough of an interest to criticise them.

If they are posted here, sometimes.  I almost never go in search of other people's "galleries" of photos.

Some of your photos are terrific. Some - like planes photographed from 20 miles away - are, frankly, dead boring.

To you.  Since you aren't the target audience (I am) I don't care what's boring to you.  My photos are for me, my family, or for specific clients if shooting professionally.  Other people's wedding photos are probably boring if you don't know them or weren't at the wedding.

I find your habit of walking through museums as quickly as possible, pausing at each exhibit for (literally) two or three seconds to photograph it so you can look at the photos later rather than experiencing the actual object at the time, strange.

Well, I've been to museums with literally thousands of exhibits (i.e. the USAF airplane museum in Dayton Ohio).  If I were to spend a few minutes at each one, that could add up to weeks of time spent, even if I were there 8-10 hours a day.

I have no doubt the photos are thoroughly boring.

To you.  Good thing I don't post them online so you don't have the opportunity to look at them.

You have, what, 700,000 photos in your archives?

480,000.

Absolutely guaranteed at least 695,000 of those are going to be thoroughly boring.

To you.  Since their primary purpose was to document the things I saw and did in my life, they aren't supposed to be interesting to anyone else.  Likewise, almost no one else's images are interesting to me.

Yet I have seen many photos taken by people using a single focal length that are not at all boring.

I haven't.

-- hide signature --

Lee Jay

 Lee Jay's gear list:Lee Jay's gear list
Canon IXUS 310 HS Canon PowerShot SX50 HS Canon EOS 7D Mark II Canon EF 70-200mm F2.8L IS II USM Canon EF 8-15mm f/4L Fisheye USM +23 more
sybersitizen Forum Pro • Posts: 14,874
Re: I finally got it
1

mamallama wrote:

sybersitizen wrote:

fferreres wrote:

sybersitizen wrote:

fferreres wrote:

... anyone sticking to a M43 or small sensor format or pocketable, maybe not now, but soon, will have to confess they like it more mostly due to nostalgia or melancholy.

When smartphones routinely offer a wide range of lenses, eye-level viewfinders, articulating LCDs, bounceable Xenon flashes, real optical zooms, and real physical controls, and maybe even just built-in tripod sockets and sensible remote control capabilities ... then we can talk about reasons for buying a dedicated camera supposedly being 'mostly due to nostalgia or melancholy'.

It's a prediction. In 3 years, M43 will be a dead format for photographs. Only for semi pro video will remain.

Let's check back in three years to see if smartphones have picked up any of the things I mentioned. (In the meantime, I personally use three different dead or dying systems for almost all of what I shoot because they can handle the work.)

Smartphones are leapfrogging some of the things you mentioned.

The things I mentioned are not leapfroggable to me.

The customers that smartphones are targeting are not concerned or interested with other things you mentioned.

Do tell.

The targeted customer groups are large enough to severely cripple the regular camera companies if they are swayed from buying regular cameras.

Do tell.

What you use or want will not affect that.

Do tell.

For your future reference, consider it understood by me and everyone else that I as a person am not the universe of potential customer groups.

Recall that my comments were in direct response to this one: "... anyone sticking to a M43 or small sensor format or pocketable, maybe not now, but soon, will have to confess they like it more mostly due to nostalgia or melancholy."

That is a prediction that I consider erroneous due to misuse of the pronoun anyone.

Photograph oriented cameras will either collapse to mobiles or move up. No wonder Panasonic quickly reverse track and went FF.

What's a photograph oriented camera as opposed to some other type?

Mon Mendoza Junior Member • Posts: 42
Re: I finally got it

Unless you are into something specialized (like Astro, ultra Macros,Infrared, Drones, etc) then much sooner than later, the phone will catch up. Right now the line is drawn into: 1) Bokeh 2) Long Tele. For wide angle, Panorama software is now amazing already and a phone can do it well and easy. And 1 and 2 are weak arguments because phones increasingly will feature tele, and better isolation as well

There is still one area where area where smartphones need to improve aside from what you mentioned. It is in studio lighting or artificial lighting . Not unless you want to bring 600watts LED Continous lights that is bulkier than a 600WS Xenon Flash.

tbcass
tbcass Forum Pro • Posts: 44,604
Re: I finally got it

Marty4650 wrote:

I still don't think anyone will be using a smartphone to shoot a wedding, for commercial photography, for sports/action photography, or for fashion photography, but this device is now the ideal choice for travel photography, vacation photography, family photography, or for casual snapshots. And let's be honest, those subjects are around 90% of what amateur photographers shoot.

My problem is I have the same high standards for travel, vacation, family photography so a smartphone just won't cut it for me. I do realize they are good enough for most people but I am not most people.

You may not agree, but the fact remains... a lot of people are perfectly happy with their smartphone cameras, and new camera sales are feeling the pressure of that.

Nobody, and I mean nobody disagrees with that statement but if you don't fit in that group it is irrelevant.

-- hide signature --

Tom

 tbcass's gear list:tbcass's gear list
Sony RX100 Sony RX10 IV Sony a99 II Tamron SP AF 90mm F/2.8 Di Macro Tamron SP 70-300mm F/4-5.6 Di USD +7 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads