3 ms·
Phones and DLs are apples and oranges. You can't get the same shots on a phone that you can on a DL.
by monksy 10y ago
Phones and DLs are apples and oranges. You can't get the same shots on a phone that you can on a DL.
- monk_e_boy 10y agoNo but that shot on the DL has to be AMAZING compared to the phone. Otherwise people will just use their phones... another bit of equipment to worry about, to figure out how to crop a photo and upload it to facebook. It's too much effort for most people.
- monksy 10y agoRight, however.. Most of those high-end cameras have Wifi on the device that can transfer to the phone. I would still argue that they're for different use cases.
- dpark 10y agoMost people who care about taking really good photos are probably looking at DSLR or mirrorless. The DL line seems to occupy a middle ground that's neither convenient nor significantly better than a phone.
- monk_e_boy 10y agoI picked up a 35mm rangefinder with a f1.7 lens for about £20 off ebay. You still can't get a digital camera that good for under £1,000. Digital is still a long way behind 1960s technology / price point
- rangibaby 10y agoI doubt that camera was $20 when it was new. Not ripping on old equipment (I am a vintage lens enthusiast) but it's I don't agree with your comparison.
- petepete 10y agoI agree. But that doesn't mean that modern phones aren't eating into the DL's market; a camera that takes decent enough pictures for Facebook and fits in your pocket.
- slantyyz 10y ago>> But that doesn't mean that modern phones aren't eating into the DL's market; No more than any other camera. Most of the target buyers for the DL tend to be more serious photographers. The DL is on the high end of the point and shoot market, up there with Sony's RX100 series. The core market for the DL are SLR shooters who need a small camera that's better than a phone. Phones are fine for most stuff, but they're not particularly good with fast moving action or low light.