3 ms·

Not so. It's easy to make a really good small lens - the article mentions that the modern smartphone lenses are dirt cheap and diffraction limited. It's really

Not so. It's easy to make a really good small lens - the article mentions that the modern smartphone lenses are dirt cheap and diffraction limited. It's really hard to make a large lens diffraction limited. The advantage of the DSLR is the sensor.

pmlnr 10y ago
I wasn't suggesting a debate, rather stating a fact. Any sensor these days beats the sensor, for example, in a Nikon D100, yet the photos made with those machines with professional lens are still better than most the "really good" mini lens. Yes, you can mimic bits and pieces with software, sometimes, but in most cases there are decades of engineering behind the more expensive lens which will take a long while to be beaten. Diffraction is not the only issue you need to address in a lens, and not everything is easier to deal with when it's miniaturized. Besides, most "legendary" lens are actually loved for their mistakes and flaws in their optics.
- StavrosK 10y ago
  How does any sensor beat the Nikon sensor? They clearly don't, since they are so small.
  - lorenzhs 10y ago
    Not GP, but the D100 was introduced in 2002. Sensor technology has progressed a lot since that day - noise reduction has become much better, so has autofocus, etc etc.
TeMPOraL 10y ago
I think GP is referring to the ton of lenses you can buy and attach to your DSLR yourself. As for the sensor, if it's really that good, why nobody put one on a smartphone?
- throwanem 10y ago
  Because it's 36x24mm in size and needs an optics bench (aka "lens") in front of it to produce a worthwhile image. You could put all that into a smartphone and have it work, but what you'd end up with would be a smartphone the size of a DSLR.