I agree. Funny original post. It doesn't matter, as long as its a Fuji??
You misread the statement. No one said a cell phone couldn't take interesting photos. That's not the same as saying the camera doesn't matter. Surely you would agree that if another camera take more interesting photos, under more difficult circumstances, with higher quality, that the camera does, indeed, matter? That applies to Fuji's and iPhones alike.
Amazingly blinkered.
Why resort to personal attack?
Your post SOLICITED response from the public
IMHO, your post was to publicize your blog. Your STUBBORNNESS INSISTING cell phones are NOT real camera is the issue.
Read the third to last paragraph of my post!
Cheers!
www.instagram.com
I couldn't agree more. My guess is the "real camera" manufacturers are looking very hard at computational stuff, and if somebody puts in into a real camera, there will soon be a technology avalanche. I think they might all be waiting for somebody else to introduce it first.Wrong - what you miss here is that phones are _almost_ there, and that with their tiny (not to say laughable) sensors. Just imagine what could be accomplished with the same technology _and_ "real" (as you called them, I`d say "dedicated") cameras?
If cameras wouldn`t need all the possible improvements, we wouldn`t be seeing constant additions of bigger/better/more stuff that eventually all goes into the same direction - allowing for even better and more creative results.
Just that camera makers are still sitting on their butts without being aware that if they don`t embrace the technology phones are rushing forward with, it will eat them, eventually making the whole "real" camera sector niche - which partially already is, unfortunately.
No they certainly can`t do it all - especially not without paying a huge price in the size and weight of the equipment in use. And no one mentioned apps, no need to twist it upside down.
And no, I don`t see your point, as whatever camera hardware is capable of now simply because it is much larger/heaver/you-name-it, it would be able to do much better with improved technology on top, which phones already use - thus providing even more quality/options, or being able to downsize, even, without any loss of current possibilities. That alone is worth it.
But we are discussing the claim you made on Auto on the other cameras vs what th cellphones do you saying it was the same. Which one is it then?
The real problem for camera manufacturers here is the vast amount of resources that are going into cell phone cameras vs their cameras. It's not remotely comparable. Which is why whoever doesn't get enough marketshare will start falling by the wayside.I couldn't agree more. My guess is the "real camera" manufacturers are looking very hard at computational stuff, and if somebody puts in into a real camera, there will soon be a technology avalanche. I think they might all be waiting for somebody else to introduce it first.Wrong - what you miss here is that phones are _almost_ there, and that with their tiny (not to say laughable) sensors. Just imagine what could be accomplished with the same technology _and_ "real" (as you called them, I`d say "dedicated") cameras?
If cameras wouldn`t need all the possible improvements, we wouldn`t be seeing constant additions of bigger/better/more stuff that eventually all goes into the same direction - allowing for even better and more creative results.
Just that camera makers are still sitting on their butts without being aware that if they don`t embrace the technology phones are rushing forward with, it will eat them, eventually making the whole "real" camera sector niche - which partially already is, unfortunately.
No they certainly can`t do it all - especially not without paying a huge price in the size and weight of the equipment in use. And no one mentioned apps, no need to twist it upside down.
And no, I don`t see your point, as whatever camera hardware is capable of now simply because it is much larger/heaver/you-name-it, it would be able to do much better with improved technology on top, which phones already use - thus providing even more quality/options, or being able to downsize, even, without any loss of current possibilities. That alone is worth it.
Like saying: Picasso? Well depends on which brush he used. Beatles? Who knows, they might not have used a proper Sennheiser microphone...
If Picasso was using a brush a foot wide...if the Beatles were recording to wax cylinders....
