4 ms·

"The best camera is the one you have with you." - Unknown Photographer here. Cell phones have become very capable cameras. I've seen whole segments of my cli

"The best camera is the one you have with you." - Unknown Photographer here. Cell phones have become very capable cameras. I've seen whole segments of my client list evaporate with the last generation of camera phones. The last straw was when the iPhone got portrait mode and could render bokeh/blur like lens physics. Two things though... 1. The phone cameras are really really good. In the right hands, professionally capable in many situations. You don't need to know the basics of photography/physics to operate a camera phone properly. It helps, but the average person can just point and shoot with solid results. 2. We mostly just publish to social media now. The need for extremely detailed, high quality media work is diminishing at the bottom line. The market is changing. The quality in which we document is shifting. 8K is a buzz word, not an archival format for future proofing. There isn't a cell phone in the world that could even touch the capabilities of a high end DSLR or Mirrorless camera, but that simply just doesn't matter now.

StavrosK 6y ago
Also photographer here, I disagree that it doesn't matter. There are some things that you can't do[0] with a phone, e.g. good low-light shots, astrophotography, different lenses, etc. Yes, I have a phone with me, and it's great for when I forgot my camera, but there is no comparison in the freedom that the 5D gives me in postprocessing compared to a phone sensor. Phones are great for 100% of the things the average user wants, but not enough for what many artists want. [0] It's not technically impossible, but it's a huge hassle and probably won't be near as good as with cameras.
- PuffinBlue 6y ago
  > Also photographer here, I disagree that it doesn't matter. It doesn't matter to the people who would previously have paid for a product. That's the point being made. Technical excellence will always matter to some, but the point the GP is making is that the quality of smartphones has reached a level where a larger and larger segment of 'people who would have paid' now rest within the smartphone circle on the Venn diagram.
  - StavrosK 6y ago
    "Phones have eaten some of the DSLR market" and "it simply doesn't matter now" are not remotely the same, though.
    - foobarian 6y ago
      I can sympathize with OP's post even if it was not precise. I feel like he was dejected about the fact that the mass market has previously subsidized the DSLR R&D and now that that evaporated the future of DSLRs is grim. But I don't think it's quite at the level of horse carriages :)
    - slantyyz 6y ago
      > "it simply doesn't matter now" If the OP is talking about the general public's perception, with most of them not being photography enthusiasts, I tend to think this rings true. If you're a photography enthusiast, then yeah, not true at all.
- ksec 6y ago
  Does it not depends on the level of photographers? Assuming there is level 1 to 10 in DSLR users, surely there would be some DSLR users that flagship cell phone has reached a point where it doesn't matter to them? I have been wonder at what point will Phones camera reached the law of diminishing return? I thought the iPhone 11 with night mode finally closed the gap for most consumers, we have a roadmap for another 5 years of Lens, Optical Zoom, and Sensors with better light sensitivity. Apple likes to hype up features, but they still haven't come out and claim they have a DSLR like Camera system. I wonder when they will do that.
  - StavrosK 6y ago
    > Does it not depends on the level of photographers? No, it depends on what you want to do. If you want to do street photography, for example, even as a novice, you're going to have a much easier time using a longer lens so you don't get near your subjects and ruin your shots by drawing attention.
    - ksec 6y ago
      Thx. Makes Perfect Sense.
- cma 6y ago
  https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulmonckton/2019/11/30/google-pixel-4-astrophotography-mode-how-it-works/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulmonckton/2019/11/30/google-...
  - StavrosK 6y ago
    See the "it's not technically impossible" part of the comment, which was meant to preempt (unsuccessfully, it seems) such replies.
    - cma 6y ago
      Yes, but I assumed that meant without a lot of work or obscure settings and stuff. This is a headline promoted feature of the phone and its software.
      - StavrosK 6y ago
        No, I more meant that it's a huge hassle. For example, with the phone you can't compose very well because you have to wait for each frame to expose before you can make a correction. With the SLR viewfinder, you can just look and see what's going on. Then you have the issue of not being able to capture a specific area using a narrower lens (if your subject requires it), and just the experience is going to not be great.
        cma 6y ago
        I think with a phone in a tripod you can use an app like google sky to get it pointed at exactly what you want, and even use search functions and stuff. There are narrow lenses for phones as well.
- stan_rogers 6y ago
  Low light? WHen I was a shooting pro, ISO 800 was where colour went away, and P3200 - the new kid on the block - was where you went for B&W. If you took it over 6400, you were fooling yourself. (I remember David Brooks going on in one of the magazines about how he could shoot at 12800 if he metered differently, but anyone who actually knew what they were doing could see that he was finding a different way of metering for 6400, then giving a little extra push in development, which he should have been doing with his other 6400 images as well.) This whole "see colour in the dark" thing is new - arguably, it wasn't a thing before the Nikon D3/D700. And no, phones aren't great for sports or birding - but that's not what most people have ever done with cameras. The number of people who want a camera is vanishingly small. What almost everybody wants is a thing that takes pictures. These days, that doesn't have to be an extra thing; they're going to be carrying their phones for all sorts of other reasons. (BTW, lighting is far, far more important than the gear you use to capture the effects of the lighting. If I had to tell people to pay attention to only one thing, it would be the lighting - whether that's "found" lighting or something you deliberately set out to create. Get that right, and "fix it in post" becomes a whole lot less attractive.)
aikinai 6y ago
> The last straw was when the iPhone got portrait mode and could render bokeh/blur like lens physics. Have you looked at real "portrait mode" photos? They only really resemble narrow depth of field at thumbnail sizes, but as soon as you open them fullscreen, all of the mistakes jump out and make it look like a terrible Photoshop job. I'm sure it will get better, but I certainly wouldn't say it's anywhere near the last straw yet.
- wescarpenter 6y ago
  I think this was in regard to some of his clientele disappearing, due to a user looking at his portrait mode photos and saying "wow this looks like they were taking by a photographer!", potentially decreasing demand even though the absolute quality may not be comparable.
  - imagetic 6y ago
    Correct. Good enough to the average eye to escape hiring someone.
- imagetic 6y ago
  I have a 46MP DSLR as my primary camera. All small sensor camera photos look awful in comparison especially at full zoom. If nobody views anything larger than their phone screens and Instagram feeds, that level of detail is irrelevant. The end user can't tell.
taytus 6y ago
> Unknown. That quote belongs to Chase Jarvis.

StavrosK 6y ago

Also photographer here, I disagree that it doesn't matter. There are some things that you can't do[0] with a phone, e.g. good low-light shots, astrophotography, different lenses, etc. Yes, I have a phone with me, and it's great for when I forgot my camera, but there is no comparison in the freedom that the 5D gives me in postprocessing compared to a phone sensor. Phones are great for 100% of the things the average user wants, but not enough for what many artists want. [0] It's not technically impossible, but it's a huge hassle and probably won't be near as good as with cameras.

PuffinBlue 6y ago
> Also photographer here, I disagree that it doesn't matter. It doesn't matter to the people who would previously have paid for a product. That's the point being made. Technical excellence will always matter to some, but the point the GP is making is that the quality of smartphones has reached a level where a larger and larger segment of 'people who would have paid' now rest within the smartphone circle on the Venn diagram.
- StavrosK 6y ago
  "Phones have eaten some of the DSLR market" and "it simply doesn't matter now" are not remotely the same, though.
  - foobarian 6y ago
    I can sympathize with OP's post even if it was not precise. I feel like he was dejected about the fact that the mass market has previously subsidized the DSLR R&D and now that that evaporated the future of DSLRs is grim. But I don't think it's quite at the level of horse carriages :)
  - slantyyz 6y ago
    > "it simply doesn't matter now" If the OP is talking about the general public's perception, with most of them not being photography enthusiasts, I tend to think this rings true. If you're a photography enthusiast, then yeah, not true at all.
ksec 6y ago
Does it not depends on the level of photographers? Assuming there is level 1 to 10 in DSLR users, surely there would be some DSLR users that flagship cell phone has reached a point where it doesn't matter to them? I have been wonder at what point will Phones camera reached the law of diminishing return? I thought the iPhone 11 with night mode finally closed the gap for most consumers, we have a roadmap for another 5 years of Lens, Optical Zoom, and Sensors with better light sensitivity. Apple likes to hype up features, but they still haven't come out and claim they have a DSLR like Camera system. I wonder when they will do that.
- StavrosK 6y ago
  > Does it not depends on the level of photographers? No, it depends on what you want to do. If you want to do street photography, for example, even as a novice, you're going to have a much easier time using a longer lens so you don't get near your subjects and ruin your shots by drawing attention.
  - ksec 6y ago
    Thx. Makes Perfect Sense.
cma 6y ago
https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulmonckton/2019/11/30/google-pixel-4-astrophotography-mode-how-it-works/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulmonckton/2019/11/30/google-...
- StavrosK 6y ago
  See the "it's not technically impossible" part of the comment, which was meant to preempt (unsuccessfully, it seems) such replies.
  - cma 6y ago
    Yes, but I assumed that meant without a lot of work or obscure settings and stuff. This is a headline promoted feature of the phone and its software.
    - StavrosK 6y ago
      No, I more meant that it's a huge hassle. For example, with the phone you can't compose very well because you have to wait for each frame to expose before you can make a correction. With the SLR viewfinder, you can just look and see what's going on. Then you have the issue of not being able to capture a specific area using a narrower lens (if your subject requires it), and just the experience is going to not be great.
      - cma 6y ago
        I think with a phone in a tripod you can use an app like google sky to get it pointed at exactly what you want, and even use search functions and stuff. There are narrow lenses for phones as well.
stan_rogers 6y ago
Low light? WHen I was a shooting pro, ISO 800 was where colour went away, and P3200 - the new kid on the block - was where you went for B&W. If you took it over 6400, you were fooling yourself. (I remember David Brooks going on in one of the magazines about how he could shoot at 12800 if he metered differently, but anyone who actually knew what they were doing could see that he was finding a different way of metering for 6400, then giving a little extra push in development, which he should have been doing with his other 6400 images as well.) This whole "see colour in the dark" thing is new - arguably, it wasn't a thing before the Nikon D3/D700. And no, phones aren't great for sports or birding - but that's not what most people have ever done with cameras. The number of people who want a camera is vanishingly small. What almost everybody wants is a thing that takes pictures. These days, that doesn't have to be an extra thing; they're going to be carrying their phones for all sorts of other reasons. (BTW, lighting is far, far more important than the gear you use to capture the effects of the lighting. If I had to tell people to pay attention to only one thing, it would be the lighting - whether that's "found" lighting or something you deliberately set out to create. Get that right, and "fix it in post" becomes a whole lot less attractive.)

aikinai 6y ago

> The last straw was when the iPhone got portrait mode and could render bokeh/blur like lens physics. Have you looked at real "portrait mode" photos? They only really resemble narrow depth of field at thumbnail sizes, but as soon as you open them fullscreen, all of the mistakes jump out and make it look like a terrible Photoshop job. I'm sure it will get better, but I certainly wouldn't say it's anywhere near the last straw yet.

wescarpenter 6y ago
I think this was in regard to some of his clientele disappearing, due to a user looking at his portrait mode photos and saying "wow this looks like they were taking by a photographer!", potentially decreasing demand even though the absolute quality may not be comparable.
- imagetic 6y ago
  Correct. Good enough to the average eye to escape hiring someone.
imagetic 6y ago
I have a 46MP DSLR as my primary camera. All small sensor camera photos look awful in comparison especially at full zoom. If nobody views anything larger than their phone screens and Instagram feeds, that level of detail is irrelevant. The end user can't tell.

taytus 6y ago

> Unknown. That quote belongs to Chase Jarvis.