5 ms·

I don't want to be glib here, but I think that the fact that you refer to your camera as a mirrorless DSLR (dslRs by definition have mirrors) is part of the rea

I don't want to be glib here, but I think that the fact that you refer to your camera as a mirrorless DSLR (dslRs by definition have mirrors) is part of the reason why you can replace it with a somewhat better phone sensor. There is nothing wrong with doing that, but it's possible because you have limited needs.

girvo 9y ago
So because of communication error, you can dismiss your parent commenter as having “limited” needs? Seems a bit needlessly smug, don’t you think? I also shoot with a EVIL system, specifically Fujifilm’s X system, and while my friends iPhone X I borrowed for a week won’t replace it entirely, it’s on a completely new level for smartphone photography and for the bulk of my photos it really can replace my camera! Glibly saying “oh but it’s not a real camera and will never replace it” is missing the forest for the trees. Not only can it replace it in a lot of circumstances, it’s also an excellent addition to! Using the amazing screen with my cameras built in wifi makes processing and uploading images out in the field super simple.
- 2muchcoffeeman 9y ago
  Maybe this just goes to show how many people buy gadgets they don’t really need or know how to use.
- ekianjo 9y ago
  You wont get anything close to the bokeh provided by larger sensors. It is fine as long as you know what your tradeoffs are.
  - dpark 9y ago
    Bokeh is the quality of blur, not the quantity, and it’s determined mostly by the lens, not the sensor.
    - rrauenza 9y ago
      I was about to join this debate and then ran the numbers and realized I still don't get this right. I was going to say it's about sensor size and bigger sensors have shallower DOF. Here's where I go when I need a refresher - Tony Northrup's explanations: https://petapixel.com/2014/05/27/tony-northrup-makes-corrections-replies-critics-part-3-camera-spec-debate/ https://petapixel.com/2014/05/27/tony-northrup-makes-correct... There's a lot of criticisms of his series, but they're often shallow (they don't seem to watch his whole video) and actually end up agreeing with him.
      - dpark 9y ago
        I'm not saying anything about sensor size or depth of field. I'm pointing out the misuse of the term "bokeh". Bokeh is not depth of field. It's the quality of out of focus areas. You want good bokeh when you have a shallow depth of field but bokeh is itself a subjective measure of quality, not quantity. Calling depth of field "bokeh" is like calling focal length "framing". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bokeh https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bokeh
        frostburg 9y ago
        He's sorta right in the sense that most people like a "relaxed" character in the out of focus areas which is very hard to achieve with tiny sensors and lenses (while for example basically every modern large format lens is extremely "creamy").
        dpark 9y ago
        If the statement was that it’s hard to make a tiny lens for a tiny sensor with good bokeh, then I guess that could be correct (I actually don’t know if small lenses can produce pleasing bokeh). I read the comment as the common “bokeh=shallow depth of field” misunderstanding, though, because the focus was on sensor size rather than the lens.
    - ekianjo 9y ago
      OK let's talk about depth of field. DOF is both a function of sensor size and lens aperture. That's why small sensors even with 1.8 aperture have no bokeh comparable to 35mm at 1.8. And anyway with very small sensors you can only get blurriness if you are extremely close to the subject, while 35mm and higher sensor formats allow for MUCH more creativity.
- frostburg 9y ago
  It think that it's an insignificant mistake that nevertheless correlated with the user being somebody who probably doesn't look very hard at MTF graphs. I don't shoot Fuji, but I have friends that do and I wouldn't use a phone for processing the results (for software reasons, the best raw converters for x-trans sensors are Capture One and Iridient, neither of which exists for iOS - it would be nice to be able to run a good converter on an iPad pro).

girvo 9y ago

So because of communication error, you can dismiss your parent commenter as having “limited” needs? Seems a bit needlessly smug, don’t you think? I also shoot with a EVIL system, specifically Fujifilm’s X system, and while my friends iPhone X I borrowed for a week won’t replace it entirely, it’s on a completely new level for smartphone photography and for the bulk of my photos it really can replace my camera! Glibly saying “oh but it’s not a real camera and will never replace it” is missing the forest for the trees. Not only can it replace it in a lot of circumstances, it’s also an excellent addition to! Using the amazing screen with my cameras built in wifi makes processing and uploading images out in the field super simple.

2muchcoffeeman 9y ago
Maybe this just goes to show how many people buy gadgets they don’t really need or know how to use.
ekianjo 9y ago
You wont get anything close to the bokeh provided by larger sensors. It is fine as long as you know what your tradeoffs are.
- dpark 9y ago
  Bokeh is the quality of blur, not the quantity, and it’s determined mostly by the lens, not the sensor.
  - rrauenza 9y ago
    I was about to join this debate and then ran the numbers and realized I still don't get this right. I was going to say it's about sensor size and bigger sensors have shallower DOF. Here's where I go when I need a refresher - Tony Northrup's explanations: https://petapixel.com/2014/05/27/tony-northrup-makes-corrections-replies-critics-part-3-camera-spec-debate/ https://petapixel.com/2014/05/27/tony-northrup-makes-correct... There's a lot of criticisms of his series, but they're often shallow (they don't seem to watch his whole video) and actually end up agreeing with him.
    - dpark 9y ago
      I'm not saying anything about sensor size or depth of field. I'm pointing out the misuse of the term "bokeh". Bokeh is not depth of field. It's the quality of out of focus areas. You want good bokeh when you have a shallow depth of field but bokeh is itself a subjective measure of quality, not quantity. Calling depth of field "bokeh" is like calling focal length "framing". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bokeh https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bokeh
      - frostburg 9y ago
        He's sorta right in the sense that most people like a "relaxed" character in the out of focus areas which is very hard to achieve with tiny sensors and lenses (while for example basically every modern large format lens is extremely "creamy").
        dpark 9y ago
        If the statement was that it’s hard to make a tiny lens for a tiny sensor with good bokeh, then I guess that could be correct (I actually don’t know if small lenses can produce pleasing bokeh). I read the comment as the common “bokeh=shallow depth of field” misunderstanding, though, because the focus was on sensor size rather than the lens.
  - ekianjo 9y ago
    OK let's talk about depth of field. DOF is both a function of sensor size and lens aperture. That's why small sensors even with 1.8 aperture have no bokeh comparable to 35mm at 1.8. And anyway with very small sensors you can only get blurriness if you are extremely close to the subject, while 35mm and higher sensor formats allow for MUCH more creativity.
frostburg 9y ago
It think that it's an insignificant mistake that nevertheless correlated with the user being somebody who probably doesn't look very hard at MTF graphs. I don't shoot Fuji, but I have friends that do and I wouldn't use a phone for processing the results (for software reasons, the best raw converters for x-trans sensors are Capture One and Iridient, neither of which exists for iOS - it would be nice to be able to run a good converter on an iPad pro).