3 ms·

I like how the article talks about the price and the specs but has no real shots. Maybe price and specs are what makes it appealing to people but not shots? ;-)

I like how the article talks about the price and the specs but has no real shots. Maybe price and specs are what makes it appealing to people but not shots? ;-) Crazy high price, full frame, interchangeable lenses, BIONZ, megapixel, yada yada, no sample shots. Although cameras with interchangeable lenses are not obsolete yet, I think innovations through software has been so phenomenal. The economy of scale has never worked so well. In many cases, the iPhone/Pixel with that tiny cheap camera sensors could do a good of a job as the bulky lenses and sensors of the $2k one. It's so ridiculous to me that cool stuff such as the bokeh effect or different lighting conditions or green screen effects can be computed/simulated to a believable degree in software. It still absolutely boggles my mind that my pixel in 2016 blew my Sony 2012 mirrorless camera away in terms of performance when shooting at nights (and in daylight when compared to using the kit lens). I think if this trend continues, it's not long before interchangeable lenses cameras become in the same bin as tube amps, hi-def lossless mp3 players, handmade watches, film cameras, and nice turntables. These niches appealing to a very few and demand a crazy price (and maybe they have real merits), but you know that ship has sailed.

raspasov 9y ago
I used to think pretty much the same but now that I own one of Sony’s high end models I realize that’s quite naive. There’s no comparison in quality, photo noise or pretty much anything in terms of possible results between my Sony A99 II and say, an iPhone X. The only place where iPhone X comes out ahead the ridiculous easiness in achieving decent (but not stunning) results due to its impressive camera software. In anything but a simple photo in perfect light the Sony can produce a photo that’s easily a magnitude better than the iPhone X. I’m not an expert in optics/physics but I think the reason for this difference is simply how much light aka photons enter the tiny camera of an iPhone compared to a big lens. The difference there’s probably 1-2 orders of magnitude in terms of surface area of the lens.
meowzero 9y ago
I'm not sure about that. Smart phones still can't match APSC sized sensors in low light (and probably not even M43 either). They also can't change lenses if you need a different perspective. Also, for studio work, they need a way to trigger the lights. Right now, it's using hotshoe trigger. You also need a way to save to SD cards, not just to the internal HD, and a way to import the raws to a computer. And no, snapseed isn't usable for a professional that shoots 1000's of photos per session. If you add all that up, it basically becomes a bulky, mirrorless camera.
- packetslave 9y ago
  While I agree with everything you said, there are companies like Moment that are doing some very interesting things with add-on lenses for smartphones. I've been having a LOT of fun with their macro and wide-rectilinear lenses on my iPhone X. Their 60mm tele is nice too when you add it to the iPhone's tele lens, giving you 4x optical zoom. It won't replace my 5Dmark4 any time soon, but you can get some really nice photos.
matwood 9y ago
For P&S cameras you're right. They are already done. People who use their DSLRs as a P&S also may be better served by the phones of the world. As someone who is trying not carry my D7100 + lenses all over, I am constantly looking for ways to move to something lighter/smaller. While my iPhoneX does a good job in snapshot situations, it still doesn't compare to my D7100 + 35mm. And, if we get into 'bulky' lenses like my 70-300mm I don't see how a phone lens + software can ever be a stand in because of physics. I'm not a phone camera hater, and in fact I'm routinely amazed how great many shots come off the phone with little effort. I just don't see how the physics problems can be solved with software anytime soon though. As an aside, when will one of these camera manufactures partner with an Apple or Google and take their amazing image processing software and put it on a high quality body/lens?
brokenmachine 9y ago
I'm guessing you're not a wedding or news photographer... You can't get around physics. Nobody is going to prefer fake bokeh to a real lens. So far nothing in a cellphone that I've seen has been comparable to anything from a DSLR with a real lens, and that's also ignoring all the extra usability features found on a DSLR as well.

raspasov 9y ago

I used to think pretty much the same but now that I own one of Sony’s high end models I realize that’s quite naive. There’s no comparison in quality, photo noise or pretty much anything in terms of possible results between my Sony A99 II and say, an iPhone X. The only place where iPhone X comes out ahead the ridiculous easiness in achieving decent (but not stunning) results due to its impressive camera software. In anything but a simple photo in perfect light the Sony can produce a photo that’s easily a magnitude better than the iPhone X. I’m not an expert in optics/physics but I think the reason for this difference is simply how much light aka photons enter the tiny camera of an iPhone compared to a big lens. The difference there’s probably 1-2 orders of magnitude in terms of surface area of the lens.

meowzero 9y ago

I'm not sure about that. Smart phones still can't match APSC sized sensors in low light (and probably not even M43 either). They also can't change lenses if you need a different perspective. Also, for studio work, they need a way to trigger the lights. Right now, it's using hotshoe trigger. You also need a way to save to SD cards, not just to the internal HD, and a way to import the raws to a computer. And no, snapseed isn't usable for a professional that shoots 1000's of photos per session. If you add all that up, it basically becomes a bulky, mirrorless camera.

packetslave 9y ago
While I agree with everything you said, there are companies like Moment that are doing some very interesting things with add-on lenses for smartphones. I've been having a LOT of fun with their macro and wide-rectilinear lenses on my iPhone X. Their 60mm tele is nice too when you add it to the iPhone's tele lens, giving you 4x optical zoom. It won't replace my 5Dmark4 any time soon, but you can get some really nice photos.

matwood 9y ago

For P&S cameras you're right. They are already done. People who use their DSLRs as a P&S also may be better served by the phones of the world. As someone who is trying not carry my D7100 + lenses all over, I am constantly looking for ways to move to something lighter/smaller. While my iPhoneX does a good job in snapshot situations, it still doesn't compare to my D7100 + 35mm. And, if we get into 'bulky' lenses like my 70-300mm I don't see how a phone lens + software can ever be a stand in because of physics. I'm not a phone camera hater, and in fact I'm routinely amazed how great many shots come off the phone with little effort. I just don't see how the physics problems can be solved with software anytime soon though. As an aside, when will one of these camera manufactures partner with an Apple or Google and take their amazing image processing software and put it on a high quality body/lens?

brokenmachine 9y ago

I'm guessing you're not a wedding or news photographer... You can't get around physics. Nobody is going to prefer fake bokeh to a real lens. So far nothing in a cellphone that I've seen has been comparable to anything from a DSLR with a real lens, and that's also ignoring all the extra usability features found on a DSLR as well.