9 ms·

The lack of vision at DSLR companies is mind boggling. Why can't I do light editing and post to Instagram directly from the camera? Why can't download the phot

The lack of vision at DSLR companies is mind boggling. Why can't I do light editing and post to Instagram directly from the camera? Why can't download the photos directly to a phone? Why can't I charge from a micro-USB/USB-C cable? I get it that pros don't need these features, but how hard are they to implement? The camera is already $1000+ dollars, how much more could adding a touch screen, a SIM card and a beefier CPU cost, when you have $100 phones with these features? A lot of influencers would buy these cameras if they had a simple auto-mode (which disables most buttons and hides advanced menus) and upload to instagram feature. The workflow for using a DSLR to post to instagram is terrible, SD-cards, WiFi adapters, laptops, ... Not to mention that you need a lot of technical knowledge to hook everything up. No wonder few bother with the pain. It's ridiculous that the most expensive cameras in the world can't connect to the number one place in the world where pictures are posted.

fetus8 7y ago
Most DSLR/Mirrorless cameras have functionality to send photos directly to an iOS or Android device. They've had features like that going back a couple of years tbh. annd pretty much every camera has an Auto-mode...
AlexandrB 7y ago
> Why can't download the photos directly to a phone? You can on some cameras (e.g. Canon 80D), but it’s somewhat cumbersome and eats batteries at a fantastic rate because the camera hosts its own WiFi access point.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- AWildC182 7y ago
  Z6/7 does this with ease. Also, it has a touchscreen and can edit files on the camera but I don't know of anyone who bothers.
  - petepete 7y ago
    My D500 also has no problem doing this via SnapBridge. It was total crap when it launched (the app, the D500 was stellar from the offset) but has been gradually improving.
AWildC182 7y ago
If people just want auto upload to instagram, they'll use a phone. The advantage of a proper mirrorless/DSLR is the insane power you get with RAW file editing in post.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- tomatocracy 7y ago
  I'd say very high quality optics (bigger sensor and better lenses) is an even better reason.
jdietrich 7y ago
It's a huge investment in software and hardware for an almost non-existent user base. Most current DSLRs already have Wifi or a Wifi option; those that don't can be fitted with a Wifi SD card. It turns out that hardly anyone actually uses that feature, because Wifi transfer rates are generally a more problematic bottleneck than the inconvenience of pulling the SD card and putting it into a card reader. The main users of Wifi tethering appear to be sports and news photographers, who do sometimes need to upload a photo right now. Adding what amounts to an entire smartphone to every DSLR is simply madness - the kind of person who spends >$1000 on a bulky and complex camera is almost certainly the kind of person who has an Adobe Creative Cloud account; they're not going to post-process an image on the back of their camera through choice.
- zazaraka 7y ago
  > for an almost non-existent user base > the kind of person who spends >$1000 on a bulky and complex camera I'm talking about opening up a new market - instagrammers, who already spend money on ring lights, tripods for their phones, but who don't want to learn all the intricacies of using a DSLR camera + adapters + laptop. The DSLR camera makers focus on a constant/shrinking market of pros, while totally ignoring a booming Instagram market.
  - ilikehurdles 7y ago
    After all the resizing, compression, and filtering artifacts are applied, I imagine the high price and inconvenience of the additional gadget would be a difficult obstacle to overcome for almost negligible difference in picture quality. DSLRs, even those from the mid 2000s take gorgeous pictures compared to even the best smartphones today, but that difference barely shows on an Instagram feed.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - jdietrich 7y ago
    >I'm talking about opening up a new market - instagrammers, who already spend money on ring lights, tripods for their phones, but who don't want to learn all the intricacies of using a DSLR camera + adapters + laptop. The people who don't want to learn the intricacies of photography just use their phone. Unless you learn those intricacies, your phone will reliably take better images, because Apple have spent stupid amounts of R&D money on optimising their image post-processing. The better lens and sensor on a DSLR is essentially irrelevant to Instagrammers, because the limitations of phone camera hardware are barely visible on a 6" phone screen in typical shooting scenarios. The point of using a DSLR-type camera is to gain more control over the imagemaking process. Unless you actually learn something about photography, that extra control is just an array of footguns. Faffing about with cables and cards is utterly trivial compared to pretty much any aspect of serious photography.
BeetleB 7y ago
Completely agree. Why don't they provide APIs so people can customize the behavior and processing? Take a look at this: https://ai.googleblog.com/2017/04/experimental-nighttime-photography-with.html https://ai.googleblog.com/2017/04/experimental-nighttime-pho... Using a relatively crappy camera on a phone, they were able to get great results merely because they can program it. As a simple example: I want to reduce high ISO noise by taking N photos and taking the median. This is an established technique in photo editing. Why do I have to manually tell the camera to take those N photos (and make sure autofocus and autoexposure is not enabled), and then transfer N images, and then load a program to do the median calculation for me? Why can't I create a plugin/app for my camera where I just input the number of photos and it does it all for me? I think any camera manufacturer that makes an API available for their cameras could see a serious boost. People no longer have to rely on the company deciding what cool features to add. There's really not been any serious innovation in DSLRs in over a decade. Pentax occasionally comes up with something neat, but that's about it.
- brokenmachine 7y ago
  Casio had some cool features on their "High Speed" cameras. eg the EX-100 and before it the FH-100. It can buffer photos at 40fps while you half-hold the shutter, and then when you fully press the shutter, it will save a certain number of those frames from even before you fully depressed it. Great for catching, eg a bird taking off, or a sporting event. It was an amazing feature but Casio has sadly exited the camera market now, and I haven't seen another camera with the same kind of feature.
- throwanem 7y ago
  You can't do that because no one is building general-purpose computers into DSLRs - or, for that matter, MILCs - because no one cares about that use case, and the resources wasted on making it possible are better spent on supporting the things that photographers expect cameras to do. That said, you probably could do something like that with sufficient effort invested in CHDK or Magic Lantern or whatever the current homebrew Canon firmware project is lately. I'll be fascinated to see what you come up with!
  - 7y ago
throwanem 7y ago
"Why can't I do light editing and post to Instagram directly from the camera?" Because the computing resource, battery power, and physical volume spent on hardware Instagram integration detracts from what can be devoted to making the camera as good as possible at being a camera. You'd have to cram a smartphone in there, and everyone already has smartphones anyway. And you can do light editing in-camera, if you want. "Why can't download the photos directly to a phone? Why can't I charge from a micro-USB/USB-C cable?" You can. Modern bodies have touchscreens, too. And I don't want Nikon and Canon worrying about marketing to influencers, because influencers are a terrible market! I want them worrying about making and selling excellent cameras for the use of people who do need more than a phone camera or maybe a cheap camcorder can provide.
- zazaraka 7y ago
  By catering to influencers in SOME models, they would be in a much better financial shape to continue R&D for the pros.
  - throwanem 7y ago
    They already do, with their prosumer lines. Mommy bloggers, for example, have a surprising amount to say about how to get the most out of a Nikon D3300 or similar; I actually got some useful tips from them back when I was just starting out with my first D5300. Granted, the camera makers haven't gone to the extent of just building a smartphone into a DSLR so you can post to Instagram with two taps, or whatever. IMO that's because they know where their strengths lie, and also understand that such a hybrid device would need a few generations to evolve into really solid usability - generations which it would not receive, because the same market at which it'd be aimed would consider the v1.0 difficulties a deal breaker for exactly the ease-of-use reasons you're arguing it would be a good idea for the camera makers to do this in the first place.
xster 7y ago
Another department I doubt these traditional Japanese companies can catch up on is computational photography. I can take 5s handheld night time photos with adequate quality on a bunch of phones these days. There's still no way of getting anything useful out of DSLRs longer than 1/15s without tripods.
- brokenmachine 7y ago
  I'm not smart enough to do exact calculations with aperture, etc, but I think the amount of light taken in with a 1/15s exposure with a DSLR would be more than a 5s cameraphone image. Just taking the area of the lens, say a 5mm diameter cameraphone lens is pi x 5^2=79mm^2 vs a DSLR, conservatively 60mm diameter is pi x 60^2=11309mm^2. So 143 times the lens area, while your example exposure time is only 75 times more. So your example of a 5s exposure would be similar to a 1/30s DSLR exposure only based on lens area. With the advantage of bigger sensor pixels and thus much better sensitivity, larger aperture, usually stabilization in the lens, and much, much less motion of the subject during that exposure as well, the DSLR still wins on absolutely everything except weight to lug around.
  - xster 7y ago
    Ummm that's a really good point. Though numerically, the numbers are probably debatable. Taking for instance a full-frame Canon 5D II and something like a Huawei P30 Pro on the back of a napkin. A full-frame sensor is 864mm2 and a 1/1.7in sensor is 43mm2. Huawei with a RYYB sensor has an ISO of 409,600 vs 6,400. The phone aperture is /1.6. Realistically, /1.6 glass would be too heavy, so let's call it /2.8. The ratio would then be 20 (sensor size) * 0.0156 (ISO) * 0.57 (aperture) = 0.178x before AI kicks in for, say, another 75x more exposure time ~= 421x more usable light on the phone. Based on super unscientific anecdotal experience between the 2 (since the human eye is logarithmic), it seems about right.
doctorpangloss 7y ago
An artmaking tool like the DSLR will still outlive Instagram. There will be a reaction against oversharing, ad-adjacency and other social media that leads to its demise, but nobody will oppose the mechanical, mirror viewfinder for any political reason.
- hestipod 7y ago
  I don't know...reading around it seems the mirrorless fans that dominate photography discussions REALLY hate mechanical shutters and optical viewfinders with some passionate fury. I feel like an old man shouting at clouds when saying I prefer DSLR.
ulfw 7y ago
Most of the stuff you wrote can be done with modern cameras. Canon, Nikon, Sony, Fuji et al have mobile apps with a variety of functionality depending on model. But all basically allow you to connect via bluetooth to GPS tag pictures and download them via Wifi to your phone, where you can 'directly post them to Instagram'. You can charge most modern cameras (Canon EOS R, Sony A7(R)III, Nikon Z6/Z7, Fuji XT-3(0) etc) with USB-C. Canon and Nikon have great touch screen support, Fuji so-so, Sony horrible. I am not saying everything is perfect. But it seems you haven't done research on modern cameras. Trying to put a whole phone stack in there isn't the core competency of any of those manufacturers (except barely Sony, though a different division). It's not just "slap a SIM and a beefier CPU" in there. Camera CPUs are highly specialised. So you'd have to essentially put another phone in there. That adds BOM cost plus reasearch and development of folks without core competency. Issues with software updates, compatibility, let alone battery life. All so you can edit a picture on a tiny 3" screen to post a 4megapixel version of a 24-45Megapixel original image directly to instagram? Zeiss is coming out with a phone just with everything you've described. They're late. It will be huge. It will be incredibly expensive. Not sure I'd want to go that route.
souprock 7y ago
I would like that "simple auto-mode" to be enabled with the power switch. When I turn the camera on, I might not have time to mess with settings. That mode should turn off bit by bit as I make manual adjustments. If I adjust ISO and exposure, then the camera is left with aperture and shutter speed under auto control. If I turn the focus ring, then the camera stops doing autofocus.
- hestipod 7y ago
  Unless I am misunderstanding your wants you can already do that. Leave the camera's main control dial on Auto for the instant shot or P(rogram)...with appropriate auto ISO settings if so desired...to meet the requirements of your second sentence. When you power on you will be in the chosen mode. Some cameras/lenses do allow AF override but its a simple flick of a switch to turn MF on if not. This stuff is where buttons, switches, and dials outshine menus any day.
  - souprock 7y ago
    I don't want to have a main control dial or equivalent menu. It could be in the wrong position at power-on when I am in a hurry. I want the camera to always be fully auto at power-on, and I don't want to have to touch a main control dial to go into manual mode. Moving the settings should be enough. Aside from focus, there are 4 user settings (ISO,shutter,exposure,aperture) to control 3 physical settings (ISO,shutter,aperture). It is thus overspecified. On power-on, the camera should control all of that. As soon as I have changed 3 user settings, the 4th is also determined and there is nothing left for automatic control. If I change less than 3 user settings, the camera should automatically adjust the remaining settings. If I change 3 user settings, then the camera is in manual mode and the 4th user setting is determined by the other 3. If I then change a 4th user setting, there is a conflict which might be resolved by using the most recently adjusted 3 user settings. Going back to auto mode is rare enough that it can be done by flipping the power switch twice, off then on. A menu item is also fine for this, but not needed.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
spookthesunset 7y ago
It’s amazing how many replies are poo-pooing your thoughts yet the financial reports demonstrate they are wrong. I have a good expensive DSLR that I haven’t touched in more than a year. Why? Cause the workflow stinks compared to my phones camera. - I have to remove the SD card - I have to bring out my computer and pop in the card - I have to sync it into Lightroom, which keeps all the photos in a totally different bin than all my smartphone pictures. - once I’m done dinking with the photos, I have to export the ones I like and import them back into the Photos app, which ensures it shows up on my TV - I’ve got to post it to FB/instagram. - I’ve got to nuke the card to free up the space - put it back into the camera That is just enough of a hurdle that it keeps me from lugging the damn thing with me on trips. Seriously. I’d love to use my DSLR more. It takes way better pictures. It just doesn’t integrate worth a damn into my computing infrastructure anymore. I think there is a untapped market for some higher end camera with interchangeable lenses that can seamlessly integrate with a modern workflow.
- detaro 7y ago
  The workflow you describe is not as unavoidable as you make it seem. I can plug my phone into my almost-decade-old DSLR, copy the photos over (and use the phone or even nicer a tablet as a larger extended screen), edit them in an app and directly share them through other apps if I want. If I didn't want the cable, I could get a WLAN-enabled SD card - or if I were to buy a current model camera, pick one with WLAN integrated, all major manufacturers have those now. I would not want to edit photos on the camera, a phone or tablet is way more comfortable to hold for that.
- la_barba 7y ago
  Financial reports don't demonstrate anything. You're providing an explanation without actually demonstrating that the provided explanation is the real reason. A shrinking DSLR market has been predicted by analysts (and manufacturers too) for ages now. The primary reason that keeps coming up is that people simply don't want to carry yet another device when their smartphone does more than an adequate job for general purpose photography. More and more the advantage of a larger sensor and better optics is only realized in a small range of professional usecases - Sports/action/wildlife photography, low-light events/astro photography, printing massive billboards, etc, etc. >I think there is a untapped market for some higher end camera with interchangeable lenses that can seamlessly integrate with a modern workflow. Sure, maybe there is. The real question is.. is it a tiny $1-2 million market or a larger 100+ million dollar market.
FireBeyond 7y ago
> Why can't download the photos directly to a phone? I have Canon and Leica cameras, mid and high end, that do this. > Why can't I charge from a micro-USB/USB-C cable? There are cameras that will. > how much more could adding a touch screen Notably Sony stands alone in being the only major manufacturer _without_ touch. > a simple auto-mode (which disables most buttons and hides advanced menus) Not sure about other manufacturers, but this would be Canon's "creative" mode, available on (at least) entry levels) to the $3,000 body only 5D IV. > and upload to instagram feature > It's ridiculous that the most expensive cameras in the world can't connect to the number one place in the world where pictures are posted. Agreed. And it's Instagram's fault. You can't upload to IG from your computer (without your browser pretending to be mobile). APIs for third party app-based uploads are near non-existent, and the people who _do_ try to maintain plugins to export to IG from Lightroom, etc., are constantly playing cat and mouse. Not sure how this correlates to a "lack of vision from DSLR companies" - IG is actively hostile to uploading to IG from anywhere but its own apps.
- zazaraka 7y ago
  > Not sure how this correlates to a "lack of vision from DSLR companies" Where there is a will, there is a way. Just turn the camera into an android phone. https://www.thephoblographer.com/2019/03/10/the-new-yongnuo-yn450-is-unfortunately-one-giant-mess-of-a-camera/ https://www.thephoblographer.com/2019/03/10/the-new-yongnuo-...
- throwaway9d0291 7y ago
  > Notably Sony stands alone in being the only major manufacturer _without_ touch. Sony has touch screens on their cameras. It's of limited usefulness though, mainly limited to focus points.
la_barba 7y ago
You forgot one qualifier, the most expensive -professional- cameras. Different professionals have different needs. Every camera is designed with a usecase in mind. Off the top of my head professionals photographers need: * rugged tank-like construction - 1D, 5D series mag-alloy bodies check, weather sealing - check * reliable AF - check * awesome battery life - check * professional support services that can service/repair/loan products with a super-fast turnaround time for when you have a gig.. - check * high quality optics - Canon L glass, check * high res sensor for billboards - 5DSR check * huge library of lenses - check, check and check In all of those things Canon and Nikon (and even Sony to some extent) excel. I don't think the features you want are useless or provide no value, but you have to look at the bigger picture and take the entire market into consideration. People are using smartphones not just because DSLRs don't have certain features, its that they don't want to carry yet another device when their smartphone does an adequate job.
londons_explore 7y ago
There is lack of vision/innovation in the actual photo-taking too. All high-end phones take tens or sometimes hundreds of raw frames for every photograph, and then combine them to reduce noise and get more dynamic range than the tiny lens and sensor would otherwise provide. The combining process involves using a gyro to remove camera shake and optical-flow to undo the effect of anything moving in the scene. As far as I know, no DSLR camera does this. You need to be able to take ~100 frames at 120fps or more, and either store it as RAW (ie. 10's of gigabytes of data), or process it realtime. Phones process it realtime on the GPU or with dedicated silicon.
jinushaun 7y ago
When was the last time you bought a DSLR? My 2 year old low end camera (Canon T7i) has touch, HDR and send to phone. I shoot and send the photo to my camera then upload to Instagram all the time. Photos no longer collect dust on SD cards. I agree, they aren’t innovating fast enough. I would love getting rid of the mini USB charger. Why can’t cameras use micro usb like every other non-Apple usb accessory? Different power specs? The HDR feature is so aggressive that it’s not really usable compared to my phone’s HDR. There should be a slider to pick how much HDR you want for each picture.

fetus8 7y ago

Most DSLR/Mirrorless cameras have functionality to send photos directly to an iOS or Android device. They've had features like that going back a couple of years tbh. annd pretty much every camera has an Auto-mode...

AlexandrB 7y ago

> Why can't download the photos directly to a phone? You can on some cameras (e.g. Canon 80D), but it’s somewhat cumbersome and eats batteries at a fantastic rate because the camera hosts its own WiFi access point.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
AWildC182 7y ago
Z6/7 does this with ease. Also, it has a touchscreen and can edit files on the camera but I don't know of anyone who bothers.
- petepete 7y ago
  My D500 also has no problem doing this via SnapBridge. It was total crap when it launched (the app, the D500 was stellar from the offset) but has been gradually improving.

AWildC182 7y ago

If people just want auto upload to instagram, they'll use a phone. The advantage of a proper mirrorless/DSLR is the insane power you get with RAW file editing in post.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
tomatocracy 7y ago
I'd say very high quality optics (bigger sensor and better lenses) is an even better reason.

jdietrich 7y ago

It's a huge investment in software and hardware for an almost non-existent user base. Most current DSLRs already have Wifi or a Wifi option; those that don't can be fitted with a Wifi SD card. It turns out that hardly anyone actually uses that feature, because Wifi transfer rates are generally a more problematic bottleneck than the inconvenience of pulling the SD card and putting it into a card reader. The main users of Wifi tethering appear to be sports and news photographers, who do sometimes need to upload a photo right now. Adding what amounts to an entire smartphone to every DSLR is simply madness - the kind of person who spends >$1000 on a bulky and complex camera is almost certainly the kind of person who has an Adobe Creative Cloud account; they're not going to post-process an image on the back of their camera through choice.

zazaraka 7y ago
> for an almost non-existent user base > the kind of person who spends >$1000 on a bulky and complex camera I'm talking about opening up a new market - instagrammers, who already spend money on ring lights, tripods for their phones, but who don't want to learn all the intricacies of using a DSLR camera + adapters + laptop. The DSLR camera makers focus on a constant/shrinking market of pros, while totally ignoring a booming Instagram market.
- ilikehurdles 7y ago
  After all the resizing, compression, and filtering artifacts are applied, I imagine the high price and inconvenience of the additional gadget would be a difficult obstacle to overcome for almost negligible difference in picture quality. DSLRs, even those from the mid 2000s take gorgeous pictures compared to even the best smartphones today, but that difference barely shows on an Instagram feed.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- jdietrich 7y ago
  >I'm talking about opening up a new market - instagrammers, who already spend money on ring lights, tripods for their phones, but who don't want to learn all the intricacies of using a DSLR camera + adapters + laptop. The people who don't want to learn the intricacies of photography just use their phone. Unless you learn those intricacies, your phone will reliably take better images, because Apple have spent stupid amounts of R&D money on optimising their image post-processing. The better lens and sensor on a DSLR is essentially irrelevant to Instagrammers, because the limitations of phone camera hardware are barely visible on a 6" phone screen in typical shooting scenarios. The point of using a DSLR-type camera is to gain more control over the imagemaking process. Unless you actually learn something about photography, that extra control is just an array of footguns. Faffing about with cables and cards is utterly trivial compared to pretty much any aspect of serious photography.

BeetleB 7y ago

Completely agree. Why don't they provide APIs so people can customize the behavior and processing? Take a look at this: https://ai.googleblog.com/2017/04/experimental-nighttime-photography-with.html https://ai.googleblog.com/2017/04/experimental-nighttime-pho... Using a relatively crappy camera on a phone, they were able to get great results merely because they can program it. As a simple example: I want to reduce high ISO noise by taking N photos and taking the median. This is an established technique in photo editing. Why do I have to manually tell the camera to take those N photos (and make sure autofocus and autoexposure is not enabled), and then transfer N images, and then load a program to do the median calculation for me? Why can't I create a plugin/app for my camera where I just input the number of photos and it does it all for me? I think any camera manufacturer that makes an API available for their cameras could see a serious boost. People no longer have to rely on the company deciding what cool features to add. There's really not been any serious innovation in DSLRs in over a decade. Pentax occasionally comes up with something neat, but that's about it.

brokenmachine 7y ago
Casio had some cool features on their "High Speed" cameras. eg the EX-100 and before it the FH-100. It can buffer photos at 40fps while you half-hold the shutter, and then when you fully press the shutter, it will save a certain number of those frames from even before you fully depressed it. Great for catching, eg a bird taking off, or a sporting event. It was an amazing feature but Casio has sadly exited the camera market now, and I haven't seen another camera with the same kind of feature.
throwanem 7y ago
You can't do that because no one is building general-purpose computers into DSLRs - or, for that matter, MILCs - because no one cares about that use case, and the resources wasted on making it possible are better spent on supporting the things that photographers expect cameras to do. That said, you probably could do something like that with sufficient effort invested in CHDK or Magic Lantern or whatever the current homebrew Canon firmware project is lately. I'll be fascinated to see what you come up with!
- 7y ago

throwanem 7y ago

"Why can't I do light editing and post to Instagram directly from the camera?" Because the computing resource, battery power, and physical volume spent on hardware Instagram integration detracts from what can be devoted to making the camera as good as possible at being a camera. You'd have to cram a smartphone in there, and everyone already has smartphones anyway. And you can do light editing in-camera, if you want. "Why can't download the photos directly to a phone? Why can't I charge from a micro-USB/USB-C cable?" You can. Modern bodies have touchscreens, too. And I don't want Nikon and Canon worrying about marketing to influencers, because influencers are a terrible market! I want them worrying about making and selling excellent cameras for the use of people who do need more than a phone camera or maybe a cheap camcorder can provide.

zazaraka 7y ago
By catering to influencers in SOME models, they would be in a much better financial shape to continue R&D for the pros.
- throwanem 7y ago
  They already do, with their prosumer lines. Mommy bloggers, for example, have a surprising amount to say about how to get the most out of a Nikon D3300 or similar; I actually got some useful tips from them back when I was just starting out with my first D5300. Granted, the camera makers haven't gone to the extent of just building a smartphone into a DSLR so you can post to Instagram with two taps, or whatever. IMO that's because they know where their strengths lie, and also understand that such a hybrid device would need a few generations to evolve into really solid usability - generations which it would not receive, because the same market at which it'd be aimed would consider the v1.0 difficulties a deal breaker for exactly the ease-of-use reasons you're arguing it would be a good idea for the camera makers to do this in the first place.

xster 7y ago

Another department I doubt these traditional Japanese companies can catch up on is computational photography. I can take 5s handheld night time photos with adequate quality on a bunch of phones these days. There's still no way of getting anything useful out of DSLRs longer than 1/15s without tripods.

brokenmachine 7y ago
I'm not smart enough to do exact calculations with aperture, etc, but I think the amount of light taken in with a 1/15s exposure with a DSLR would be more than a 5s cameraphone image. Just taking the area of the lens, say a 5mm diameter cameraphone lens is pi x 5^2=79mm^2 vs a DSLR, conservatively 60mm diameter is pi x 60^2=11309mm^2. So 143 times the lens area, while your example exposure time is only 75 times more. So your example of a 5s exposure would be similar to a 1/30s DSLR exposure only based on lens area. With the advantage of bigger sensor pixels and thus much better sensitivity, larger aperture, usually stabilization in the lens, and much, much less motion of the subject during that exposure as well, the DSLR still wins on absolutely everything except weight to lug around.
- xster 7y ago
  Ummm that's a really good point. Though numerically, the numbers are probably debatable. Taking for instance a full-frame Canon 5D II and something like a Huawei P30 Pro on the back of a napkin. A full-frame sensor is 864mm2 and a 1/1.7in sensor is 43mm2. Huawei with a RYYB sensor has an ISO of 409,600 vs 6,400. The phone aperture is /1.6. Realistically, /1.6 glass would be too heavy, so let's call it /2.8. The ratio would then be 20 (sensor size) * 0.0156 (ISO) * 0.57 (aperture) = 0.178x before AI kicks in for, say, another 75x more exposure time ~= 421x more usable light on the phone. Based on super unscientific anecdotal experience between the 2 (since the human eye is logarithmic), it seems about right.

doctorpangloss 7y ago

An artmaking tool like the DSLR will still outlive Instagram. There will be a reaction against oversharing, ad-adjacency and other social media that leads to its demise, but nobody will oppose the mechanical, mirror viewfinder for any political reason.

hestipod 7y ago
I don't know...reading around it seems the mirrorless fans that dominate photography discussions REALLY hate mechanical shutters and optical viewfinders with some passionate fury. I feel like an old man shouting at clouds when saying I prefer DSLR.

ulfw 7y ago

Most of the stuff you wrote can be done with modern cameras. Canon, Nikon, Sony, Fuji et al have mobile apps with a variety of functionality depending on model. But all basically allow you to connect via bluetooth to GPS tag pictures and download them via Wifi to your phone, where you can 'directly post them to Instagram'. You can charge most modern cameras (Canon EOS R, Sony A7(R)III, Nikon Z6/Z7, Fuji XT-3(0) etc) with USB-C. Canon and Nikon have great touch screen support, Fuji so-so, Sony horrible. I am not saying everything is perfect. But it seems you haven't done research on modern cameras. Trying to put a whole phone stack in there isn't the core competency of any of those manufacturers (except barely Sony, though a different division). It's not just "slap a SIM and a beefier CPU" in there. Camera CPUs are highly specialised. So you'd have to essentially put another phone in there. That adds BOM cost plus reasearch and development of folks without core competency. Issues with software updates, compatibility, let alone battery life. All so you can edit a picture on a tiny 3" screen to post a 4megapixel version of a 24-45Megapixel original image directly to instagram? Zeiss is coming out with a phone just with everything you've described. They're late. It will be huge. It will be incredibly expensive. Not sure I'd want to go that route.

souprock 7y ago

I would like that "simple auto-mode" to be enabled with the power switch. When I turn the camera on, I might not have time to mess with settings. That mode should turn off bit by bit as I make manual adjustments. If I adjust ISO and exposure, then the camera is left with aperture and shutter speed under auto control. If I turn the focus ring, then the camera stops doing autofocus.

hestipod 7y ago
Unless I am misunderstanding your wants you can already do that. Leave the camera's main control dial on Auto for the instant shot or P(rogram)...with appropriate auto ISO settings if so desired...to meet the requirements of your second sentence. When you power on you will be in the chosen mode. Some cameras/lenses do allow AF override but its a simple flick of a switch to turn MF on if not. This stuff is where buttons, switches, and dials outshine menus any day.
- souprock 7y ago
  I don't want to have a main control dial or equivalent menu. It could be in the wrong position at power-on when I am in a hurry. I want the camera to always be fully auto at power-on, and I don't want to have to touch a main control dial to go into manual mode. Moving the settings should be enough. Aside from focus, there are 4 user settings (ISO,shutter,exposure,aperture) to control 3 physical settings (ISO,shutter,aperture). It is thus overspecified. On power-on, the camera should control all of that. As soon as I have changed 3 user settings, the 4th is also determined and there is nothing left for automatic control. If I change less than 3 user settings, the camera should automatically adjust the remaining settings. If I change 3 user settings, then the camera is in manual mode and the 4th user setting is determined by the other 3. If I then change a 4th user setting, there is a conflict which might be resolved by using the most recently adjusted 3 user settings. Going back to auto mode is rare enough that it can be done by flipping the power switch twice, off then on. A menu item is also fine for this, but not needed.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]

spookthesunset 7y ago

It’s amazing how many replies are poo-pooing your thoughts yet the financial reports demonstrate they are wrong. I have a good expensive DSLR that I haven’t touched in more than a year. Why? Cause the workflow stinks compared to my phones camera. - I have to remove the SD card - I have to bring out my computer and pop in the card - I have to sync it into Lightroom, which keeps all the photos in a totally different bin than all my smartphone pictures. - once I’m done dinking with the photos, I have to export the ones I like and import them back into the Photos app, which ensures it shows up on my TV - I’ve got to post it to FB/instagram. - I’ve got to nuke the card to free up the space - put it back into the camera That is just enough of a hurdle that it keeps me from lugging the damn thing with me on trips. Seriously. I’d love to use my DSLR more. It takes way better pictures. It just doesn’t integrate worth a damn into my computing infrastructure anymore. I think there is a untapped market for some higher end camera with interchangeable lenses that can seamlessly integrate with a modern workflow.

detaro 7y ago
The workflow you describe is not as unavoidable as you make it seem. I can plug my phone into my almost-decade-old DSLR, copy the photos over (and use the phone or even nicer a tablet as a larger extended screen), edit them in an app and directly share them through other apps if I want. If I didn't want the cable, I could get a WLAN-enabled SD card - or if I were to buy a current model camera, pick one with WLAN integrated, all major manufacturers have those now. I would not want to edit photos on the camera, a phone or tablet is way more comfortable to hold for that.
la_barba 7y ago
Financial reports don't demonstrate anything. You're providing an explanation without actually demonstrating that the provided explanation is the real reason. A shrinking DSLR market has been predicted by analysts (and manufacturers too) for ages now. The primary reason that keeps coming up is that people simply don't want to carry yet another device when their smartphone does more than an adequate job for general purpose photography. More and more the advantage of a larger sensor and better optics is only realized in a small range of professional usecases - Sports/action/wildlife photography, low-light events/astro photography, printing massive billboards, etc, etc. >I think there is a untapped market for some higher end camera with interchangeable lenses that can seamlessly integrate with a modern workflow. Sure, maybe there is. The real question is.. is it a tiny $1-2 million market or a larger 100+ million dollar market.

FireBeyond 7y ago

> Why can't download the photos directly to a phone? I have Canon and Leica cameras, mid and high end, that do this. > Why can't I charge from a micro-USB/USB-C cable? There are cameras that will. > how much more could adding a touch screen Notably Sony stands alone in being the only major manufacturer _without_ touch. > a simple auto-mode (which disables most buttons and hides advanced menus) Not sure about other manufacturers, but this would be Canon's "creative" mode, available on (at least) entry levels) to the $3,000 body only 5D IV. > and upload to instagram feature > It's ridiculous that the most expensive cameras in the world can't connect to the number one place in the world where pictures are posted. Agreed. And it's Instagram's fault. You can't upload to IG from your computer (without your browser pretending to be mobile). APIs for third party app-based uploads are near non-existent, and the people who _do_ try to maintain plugins to export to IG from Lightroom, etc., are constantly playing cat and mouse. Not sure how this correlates to a "lack of vision from DSLR companies" - IG is actively hostile to uploading to IG from anywhere but its own apps.

zazaraka 7y ago
> Not sure how this correlates to a "lack of vision from DSLR companies" Where there is a will, there is a way. Just turn the camera into an android phone. https://www.thephoblographer.com/2019/03/10/the-new-yongnuo-yn450-is-unfortunately-one-giant-mess-of-a-camera/ https://www.thephoblographer.com/2019/03/10/the-new-yongnuo-...
throwaway9d0291 7y ago
> Notably Sony stands alone in being the only major manufacturer _without_ touch. Sony has touch screens on their cameras. It's of limited usefulness though, mainly limited to focus points.

la_barba 7y ago

You forgot one qualifier, the most expensive -professional- cameras. Different professionals have different needs. Every camera is designed with a usecase in mind. Off the top of my head professionals photographers need: * rugged tank-like construction - 1D, 5D series mag-alloy bodies check, weather sealing - check * reliable AF - check * awesome battery life - check * professional support services that can service/repair/loan products with a super-fast turnaround time for when you have a gig.. - check * high quality optics - Canon L glass, check * high res sensor for billboards - 5DSR check * huge library of lenses - check, check and check In all of those things Canon and Nikon (and even Sony to some extent) excel. I don't think the features you want are useless or provide no value, but you have to look at the bigger picture and take the entire market into consideration. People are using smartphones not just because DSLRs don't have certain features, its that they don't want to carry yet another device when their smartphone does an adequate job.

londons_explore 7y ago

There is lack of vision/innovation in the actual photo-taking too. All high-end phones take tens or sometimes hundreds of raw frames for every photograph, and then combine them to reduce noise and get more dynamic range than the tiny lens and sensor would otherwise provide. The combining process involves using a gyro to remove camera shake and optical-flow to undo the effect of anything moving in the scene. As far as I know, no DSLR camera does this. You need to be able to take ~100 frames at 120fps or more, and either store it as RAW (ie. 10's of gigabytes of data), or process it realtime. Phones process it realtime on the GPU or with dedicated silicon.

jinushaun 7y ago

When was the last time you bought a DSLR? My 2 year old low end camera (Canon T7i) has touch, HDR and send to phone. I shoot and send the photo to my camera then upload to Instagram all the time. Photos no longer collect dust on SD cards. I agree, they aren’t innovating fast enough. I would love getting rid of the mini USB charger. Why can’t cameras use micro usb like every other non-Apple usb accessory? Different power specs? The HDR feature is so aggressive that it’s not really usable compared to my phone’s HDR. There should be a slider to pick how much HDR you want for each picture.