IPhone speculation. Hopeless?

[Jon Donahue]

Enjoying the posts about Best Pentax Ever and Is The K-5s II still good, I found myself realizing that I'm using my Apple iPhone 8 more, and my DSLRs less. Unconsciously, since the Pentax ergonomics make the iPhone look like a piece of... junk. But it is always there, in my pocket, and I can send any photo immediately to the editor of my local paper. And, many digital publications now don't need or want images larger than 1,000 px.



So as I write this, I'm studying the iPhone. A slick white trendy plastic surface, zero grip for your hands. Thinking maybe I could make a textured snap-on back grip... while still keeping the thing small enough to go in my shirt pocket, like my GR II. After that, it's software time... to have it boot up straight into to the iPhoto app, or another. There right away, as fast as the GR II boots up.

Why not just use the GR II? Because of the iPhone's seamless transition from being a 'camera' to being a communications device. That is incredibly important, for folks who need to immediately share their images. And the iPhone image quality is just fine... definitely in daylight, with the newer models actually producing decent pictures at twilight or in semi-darkness. Decent, not perfect... there's only so much you can get out of a sensor about the size of a grain of rice. Or maybe a pea, I haven't kept up.

So here's to the future, to many more uninterrupted years with our Pentaxes, hoping that nobody invents a decent grip and optimizes popular smartphones for photography or videography. Because when that happens, you can kiss the DSLR and MILC market goodbye.

 

[GossCTP]

Enjoying the posts about Best Pentax Ever and Is The K-5s II still good, I found myself realizing that I'm using my Apple iPhone 8 more, and my DSLRs less. Unconsciously, since the Pentax ergonomics make the iPhone look like a piece of... junk. But it is always there, in my pocket, and I can send any photo immediately to the editor of my local paper. And, many digital publications now don't need or want images larger than 1,000 px.

So as I write this, I'm studying the iPhone. A slick white trendy plastic surface, zero grip for your hands. Thinking maybe I could make a textured snap-on back grip...

This gets good reviews and is cheap...

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1564326-REG/ulanzi_1963_bluetooth_phone_shutter_hand.html/?ap=y&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIvKmR48OI-AIV6-bjBx3eiA_3EAQYAiABEgKVdvD_BwE&lsft=BI%3A514&smp=y

Why not just use the GR II? Because of the iPhone's seamless transition from being a 'camera' to being a communications device. That is incredibly important, for folks who need to immediately share their images. And the iPhone image quality is just fine... definitely in daylight, with the newer models actually producing decent pictures at twilight or in semi-darkness. Decent, not perfect... there's only so much you can get out of a sensor about the size of a grain of rice. Or maybe a pea, I haven't kept up.

So here's to the future, to many more uninterrupted years with our Pentaxes, hoping that nobody invents a decent grip and optimizes popular smartphones for photography or videography. Because when that happens, you can kiss the DSLR and MILC market goodbye.

They really aren't trying. Godox is the only one thats tried to integrate phones with off camera flash, and it doesn't seem to work that well from what I can gather.

 

[rmalbers]

Thanks for the grip product idea, just ordered one.

 

[Jon Donahue]

And I'm not sure that the tactile pleasure I get from my Pentax will be equally felt by younger people. The joy of a real viewfinder, great autofocus, excellent lenses. No, that all may become meaningless, if the primary use of an image is now to be seen on Facebook. The hi-res screens on newer phones render images at the limit of our perception... 250-300 ppi... but the screens are so small, so that a 1,000 px image is all you need these days. Like the 1080x1080 pix we make for Instagram.
Am not sure that image composition matters anymore either. It’s about getting likes and views on social media, which demands hi-impact humorous or disgusting content, generally close ups. Landscapes? Forget it. Not on the small smartphone screens!

 

[GossCTP]

And I'm not sure that the tactile pleasure I get from my Pentax will be equally felt by younger people. The joy of a real viewfinder, great autofocus, excellent lenses. No, that all may become meaningless, if the primary use of an image is now to be seen on Facebook. The hi-res screens on newer phones render images at the limit of our perception... 250-300 ppi... but the screens are so small, so that a 1,000 px image is all you need these days. Like the 1080x1080 pix we make for Instagram.
Am not sure that image composition matters anymore either. It’s about getting likes and views on social media, which demands hi-impact humorous or disgusting content, generally close ups. Landscapes? Forget it. Not on the small smartphone screens!

I think you are overestimating your generations commitment to quality. All of my childhood photos were taken on Polaroid. A sharp smartphone image would be a big improvement. Especially with zooming.

 

[Jon Donahue]

Very true, even though I remember the miracle of large b/w 3200 ASA Polaroid film... I was able to take pictures under candlelight with it. If I remember right, it also was fine grained, almost like Kodak b/w Panatomic. The magic of Polaroid! I'll bet there is still a niche market for it...

 

[Jon Donahue]

Thanks Goss — just ordered one. Might work... a shirt pocket is my form factor sweet spot... and I have a few work shirts with large pockets. We'll see!

 

[Rod Herdman]

Camera phones are great for taking a snap if you're in the right place at the right time. I don't know who said it first, but it's true that the best camera is the one you have with you. However, so far I'm unimpressed with camera phone image quality when you look close. They look OK at normal viewing but zooming in shows all the sharpening and smoothing artefacts, whereas a DSLR image zoomed in just shows a bit of grain. I don't have an iphone, so maybe my view is too limited.

Cheers

 

[John_A_G]

Hi Rod,

Phones will never be for pixel peeping.

But, I think people tend to forget that cameras went through a golden age spike when digital came along. It's not like most people had SLRs back in the 70s,80s,90s.. But, when digital came along, suddenly there were millions more people buying cameras - and that boiled over to DSLRs.

The truth is, it was a fad for millions. And, that fad is over. Their phones help them take much better photos - especially with the latest AI than they were taking when they had to control things but didn't know how (and didn't care to learn).

A serious hobbyist will absolutely be able to get better images out of an ILC - but the casual user may not - and certainly won't when the ILC is gathering dust on a shelf because they don't want to carry it.

Phones have gotten to the point where I include phone shots in my photo books for vacations. Especially on social outings where I simply don't want to carry a camera/flash around anymore. For hobby work, my ILC is still king. But, the phone does take a much more prominent role now in capturing family memories. Which, to me, are still infinitely more important than my hobby photos.

 

[Kirnbichler]

Phones do not have viewfinders. Phones do not have interchangeable lenses.

Phones are good for snapshots. For instagram or whatever fad of the moment you want to destroy your photographic imagination with.

A phone might be the better tool for proud parents to produce yet another shot of their offspring. Or of their dogs, or cats, or other pets.

Besides that? No. "Computational photography" is just moving the moment the image gets translated into a lie from post-processing to shooting.

 

[rmalbers]

Phones do not have viewfinders. Phones do not have interchangeable lenses.

The high end phones now have multiple lenses with optical zoom, no need for interchangeable lenses when you have a phone with multiple sensors, each with their own lens and optical zoom. The s21u I have has five sensors, with a different lens for each sensor. I've compared a few shots to my k50 and, while, I'm not going to say how much pixel peeping zoom you have to use to start to find differences. The viewfinder is missing for sure.

 

[Jon Donahue]

You know, you could create a small simulated EVF viewfinder on the iPhone screen, on the back, behind the frontside lens, with a control to adjust for your eyesight. Do it in software, as an app enhancing the Camera app...

 

[Jon Donahue]

John, that's exactly what I was trying to express in the original post. Thanks! Of course an iPhone will never equal my DSLR for ergonomics or image quality. But like a shark coming up to take a bite out of a healthy swimmer, new technology often wins the fight... adding something new that users want, even though quality decreases. On the road, I'm expecting a flood of self-driving convenient electric cars, speed-limited to whatever signs are posted... cheaper to build than our gasoline chariots, because you can ‘ design down' to a top speed of 75 mph instead of our current 125 or higher. Changes are happening. My granddaughter leaves the keys in her stick-shift car at college, since none of the kids there know what a clutch is!

 

[Kirnbichler]

No, they do not have optical zoom. This is an illusion created by computational photography. They do have several cameras with different focal lengths, and the algorithm generates an "in-between" image.

This is only a wee bit better than "digital zoom", that is, cropping for "zooming" in.

 

[Kirnbichler]

There is no way to adapt a display to varying eyesights by software only. That is a feat even computational photography doesn't manage.

If the distance between eye and display is too short, it is too short, completely regardless of what magic the software tries to achieve.

You cannot sinulate an EVF with a display, not without an external loupe (as those usually found in waist level viewfinders of medium format cameras).

 

[GossCTP]

No, they do not have optical zoom. This is an illusion created by computational photography. They do have several cameras with different focal lengths, and the algorithm generates an "in-between" image.

This is only a wee bit better than "digital zoom", that is, cropping for "zooming" in.

There have been a few phones with zoom lenses. They are bulky, with small sensors and slow glass. I would think the mechanism would be vulnerable to drops as well. The multi-prime approach seems sensible, even if compromised. I'd rather have the option to switch from prime to prime instead of the zoom fakery.

 

[Kirnbichler]

Yes, those things existed, but were mediocre at best and have since been replaced by multi-camera phones using several primes of different focal lengths.

And as phones are considered "bulky" or even "fat" even when only 1/3" thick, this'll likely not change.



Snapshots, Snapchat, Instagram. Cute puppies, oh look!

But not more.

 

[Jon Donahue]

The real value of Instagram and TikTok is to be a place for normally insecure teenage girls to compare their figures and clothing to those of equally young, but 'perfect', influencers. This is a tough ballgame, you can never be good enough. Am sad that at 78, I am too old to tell a kid that she is drop-dead beautiful, not like a plastic influencer. Any young guys out there, help me out. The girls will listen to you. Way too many suicides these days from girls who feel hopeless that they will never measure up. And too young to know that an adult woman's attractiveness really comes from a spark, a love of life, a sensual ... energy that she somehow puts out. Tell the girls that their time will come, in just a few years... and in the meantime, play sports!

 

[Rod Herdman]

Hi Rod,

Phones will never be for pixel peeping.

But, I think people tend to forget that cameras went through a golden age spike when digital came along. It's not like most people had SLRs back in the 70s,80s,90s.. But, when digital came along, suddenly there were millions more people buying cameras - and that boiled over to DSLRs.

The truth is, it was a fad for millions. And, that fad is over. Their phones help them take much better photos - especially with the latest AI than they were taking when they had to control things but didn't know how (and didn't care to learn).

A serious hobbyist will absolutely be able to get better images out of an ILC - but the casual user may not - and certainly won't when the ILC is gathering dust on a shelf because they don't want to carry it.

Phones have gotten to the point where I include phone shots in my photo books for vacations. Especially on social outings where I simply don't want to carry a camera/flash around anymore. For hobby work, my ILC is still king. But, the phone does take a much more prominent role now in capturing family memories. Which, to me, are still infinitely more important than my hobby photos.

You are right, SLR's were less common 'back in the day' and the digital SLR (coupled with ease of use in terms of AF and AE) boomed especially when output quality began to surpass film.

But don't get me wrong, I am also using my phone a lot of the time; it's small and convenient to carry and for sure phones have a place in the photographers toolbag.

 

[The Squirrel Mafia]

As much as we think that images from smartphones are quite mediocre, in the end, the consumer will dictate what is good enough for them. For the sake of "convinience", the grand majority of smartphone users are perfectly happy with the images & videos that they get out of their smartphones. They almost always have their phone on them & they can share the photos and/or videos instantly with everyone.

Some of those smartphone users do get a DSLR or MILC to get "better pictures" on special occasions, but they usually never get any additional lenses or accessories after that. Many of them eventually get fed up with the whole "attach the camera/SD card to the PC & download pictures" thing, so they end up putting the camera away almost permanently.

I'm seeing far less cameras out in the wild now. Last Saturday I went to Foodie Land that was being held at the Rose Bowl in Pasadena & besides me, I saw about 3 other people using some kind of DSLR/MILC. One of them was taking video with some kind of Sony a7 body & a gimbal. Everyone else was on their smartphone vlogging with a gimbal & microphone setup or just taking pictures. Basically, thousands of people were using some kind of smartphone to take photos and/or videos, while the rest of us 4 weirdos were using a DSLR/MILC. The camera companies have a major "convince the public that they need a camera" battle.