5 ms·

I've been around photography for a while. This is sad news but not surprising. Mobile phones have gotten good enough that you don't need a DSLR anymore to take

I've been around photography for a while. This is sad news but not surprising. Mobile phones have gotten good enough that you don't need a DSLR anymore to take "nice pictures." All the computational photography to create fake bokeh, good low-light photos, etc. pretty much ate up all the demand for DSLR. If you look at the photos on a big monitor, you can spot the difference between a DSLR and smartphone. But on a smartphone screen, where 95% of the photos are viewed these days, the difference is negligible. Heck my wife recently printed out 4x6 prints of her smartphone photos and they looked pretty good too. I've recently got a iPhone 12 Pro, and it's good enough that I'm thinking of selling my Fuji X100V. DSLRs used to be accessible for amateurs. But unless you need specific capabilities (strobe usage, fast sport shooting, ultra-telephoto, etc), most people don't need to buy a DSLR if you have a decent smart phones these days.

vmception 6y ago
I said the same thing about the iphone 12 pro here a few days ago as predicted, enthusiasts wanted to argue the point instead of acknowledge what the market can bear photography enthusiasts have to realize that “the market” is more concerned about their shoes being in the photo than how the bokeh looks, and in that respect AI depth of field that comes with a nondestructive parallel full focus image, with smart HDR on by default, also available in a derivative of RAW format is more than good enough! All in a much more portable form factor. The potential for a 5-10% optimizations in a larger traditional form factor just isn't good enough of a distinction.
bee_rider 6y ago
It is pretty wild to think that, like, 20 years ago digital camera had relatively nice little screens on them and relatively good processing, while phones had those silly little green-and-black LCDs. I wonder if there's an alternate universe where people are saying "Nokia seems to be really doomed. This is sad but not surprising -- smartcamera antennas have gotten good enough that you can get reception almost anywhere that a cellphone can. If you play a smartcamera call through a high fidelity audiophile setup you can kinda tell the difference, but if you are just using the NokiaBuds that came with the thing, they are basically indistinguishable."
- bewareandaware 6y ago
  I read your comment and felt like I was doing magic mushrooms
- dsego 6y ago
  The camera manufacturers seem to be set in their ways. Wouldn't it be cool if you could load a sim card into your smart-camera & use android apps for cool features, like proper HDR (not the manual bracketing stuff), maybe apply some casual third-party filters, or instant streaming and sharing on social platforms. But maybe the target market, the professional photographers, are also the older generation that care more about a tiny amount of lens diffraction than the possibilities of new tech. There could also be the aspect of job security, since new tech could lower the barrier for newcomers.
  - bee_rider 6y ago
    I suspect another aspect to it is that camera manufacturers didn't even really want to go digital at all. They had a nice revenue stream in the form of "selling rolls of film" that would have kept them happy indefinitely. It isn't easy to obsolete your main lifeline.
    - schrijver 6y ago
      If I’m not mistaken Canon, Nikon, etc. only ever sold camera’s, not film. And photographers changed camera’s a lot less often in the analogue days. With digital the customers suddenly got on an upgrade schedule similar to that of computers. So from a commercial standpoint the move to digital must have been pretty attractive for the manufacturers.
      - bee_rider 6y ago
        Huh. Today I learned.
      - stan_rogers 6y ago
        Not only that, but the Big Three in film (Kodak, Fuji and AGFA) were at the forefront of digital photography when it was still barely a thing. Of them, only Fuji was making "serious" cameras for general photography (medium format rangefinders and the studio beast GX680, along with Fujinon optics for large format and enlargers).
jedimastert 6y ago
> I'm thinking of selling my Fuji X100V Didn't those just come out? Oddly enough, I just picked up an X100T from eBay and I haven't been using my phone nearly as much. I don't know if the novelty will wear off or not, but I've been really enjoying it
- meowzero 6y ago
  The X100 series is a cool camera. I had one since the first version of X100. But I found it more convenient to pull my phone out instead of carrying that camera. I do have a X-T2 if I want to take more "serious" photos.
  - dsego 6y ago
    I have an x-t30 and my phone can't even compare. It's an entry level Samsung and those have really bad and slow cameras, esp in low light. A flagship might be a different story. Tbh, I wasn't that impressed with the fuji camera with the included 15-45 kit lens, which is rather mediocre. But after getting the 35mm f2 I can really appreciate the difference in the quality of photos. The other part is doing a course on photography and learning the manual settings. Without that, there is really no reason to use anything but a smartphone.
    - jedimastert 6y ago
      > The other part is doing a course on photography and learning the manual settings. I will concede that I'm not the average consumer and already had "manual mode" camera experience > Without that, there is really no reason to use anything but a smartphone. I would disagree with that sentiment, but I'm on the other side of the fence of knowledge, so it's hard for me to say
      - dsego 6y ago
        This was an introduction course for digital photography with practical training, so we would get out once a week to shoot with our cameras. A lot of my colleagues had either older second-hand or borrowed cameras. Of course, we would hang around before and after the lessons to chitchat. And I could notice a sentiment from some that they couldn't see the benefits of these cameras, since they could get better results with their phones thanks to built-in processing algorithms (at least what you could see on the little screens). Their cameras were complicated and the automatic settings wouldn't return great results without post-processing. And none of them were really excited by the idea of sitting in front of the computer, editing raw files. But this seems like a must for getting the most out of the camera's sensor, since most cameras aren't doing much or any processing by themselves.
varispeed 6y ago
Oh I wish this AI photo craze died out. I see that it may appeal to some people as a kind of "nicerising" effect, but without the context a casual viewer may take the picture as unaltered snapshot of the world. Of course the alterations are rather minute in the grand scheme of things, but if we continue looking at these taking them without context, I wonder how our perception of the world will get detached from reality? I think pictures computed by AI should be specially marked to let viewer know they don't look at the real thing.
- ngokevin 6y ago
  There's no "real thing". All photos are processed, through the lens, by the software on the device, and by the photographers' workflows. When you shoot JPG, there's already a lot of processing that happens, and when you shoot RAW, you need to process that yourself from a dull, flat image. Photographers rarely post un-processed images. Even before all of that, settings are chosen which alter the exposure, depth of field, focus point, color temperature of the image which alter the "real thing". It's common to think "editing" a photo is some cheating magic, but it should be considered the norm, and how people share their vision of what they want it to look like. The AI can just automate a lot of the workflow or need to buy extra equipment, still up the human to decide how they want the image to come out.
  - varispeed 6y ago
    I understand that all images are processed, but AI for me is crossing the line as it is adding things that come from the trained model rather than derived from the image itself - these elements otherwise wouldn't be there regardless of lens, colour grading and so on.
ksk 6y ago
You hit the nail on the head, the set of images that can only be taken with a DSLR/MILC is getting smaller and smaller. To counter that a bit I'd like to add that there is a rise of video/youtuber folks wanting smooth 4k video with tracking auto-focus, and real bokeh which is making cameras, or hybrid cameras relevant again. I don't think phones do fake bokeh in video mode or do low-light video w/o looking like ass.
- vmception 6y ago
  not yet. The Lidar and infrared and AI will help with the low light. They fill in colors instead of take the result of the lens and sensor physical limitations. There are apps that do what the default cameras don’t do yet, and we’ll continue to see rapid optimizations on this front. what you mentioned is not outside of the realm of what can be done. If there is a need, making an app that does it will give you a brief advantage.
Solvitieg 6y ago
Strong disagree here. I'm not sure what's going on, but this craze about computational photography is ruining cellphone photography for me. Try to take a selfie with the iPhone 12 Pro. It's awful. If you use the regular camera, it generates an HDR selfie exaggerating every imperfection on your face. And if you use portrait, it applies a fake looking blur and softness to your skin and is incredibly strict on framing. Camera photography is moving further from realism and I don't want a part of it. Turn the camera around and you get similar problems. From detail-less low-light images, to sun-saturated indoor shots. It's like everyone took the Samsung model and ran with it. My DSLR is the only lens I have that can produce a realistic photo nowadays and give me access to the raw sensor data.
- kalleboo 6y ago
  > My DSLR is the only lens I have that can produce a realistic photo nowadays and give me access to the raw sensor data. Every iPhone currently for sale and I presume most high-end Androids support shooting in RAW, you just have to use a third-party app.

vmception 6y ago

I said the same thing about the iphone 12 pro here a few days ago as predicted, enthusiasts wanted to argue the point instead of acknowledge what the market can bear photography enthusiasts have to realize that “the market” is more concerned about their shoes being in the photo than how the bokeh looks, and in that respect AI depth of field that comes with a nondestructive parallel full focus image, with smart HDR on by default, also available in a derivative of RAW format is more than good enough! All in a much more portable form factor. The potential for a 5-10% optimizations in a larger traditional form factor just isn't good enough of a distinction.

bee_rider 6y ago

It is pretty wild to think that, like, 20 years ago digital camera had relatively nice little screens on them and relatively good processing, while phones had those silly little green-and-black LCDs. I wonder if there's an alternate universe where people are saying "Nokia seems to be really doomed. This is sad but not surprising -- smartcamera antennas have gotten good enough that you can get reception almost anywhere that a cellphone can. If you play a smartcamera call through a high fidelity audiophile setup you can kinda tell the difference, but if you are just using the NokiaBuds that came with the thing, they are basically indistinguishable."

bewareandaware 6y ago
I read your comment and felt like I was doing magic mushrooms
dsego 6y ago
The camera manufacturers seem to be set in their ways. Wouldn't it be cool if you could load a sim card into your smart-camera & use android apps for cool features, like proper HDR (not the manual bracketing stuff), maybe apply some casual third-party filters, or instant streaming and sharing on social platforms. But maybe the target market, the professional photographers, are also the older generation that care more about a tiny amount of lens diffraction than the possibilities of new tech. There could also be the aspect of job security, since new tech could lower the barrier for newcomers.
- bee_rider 6y ago
  I suspect another aspect to it is that camera manufacturers didn't even really want to go digital at all. They had a nice revenue stream in the form of "selling rolls of film" that would have kept them happy indefinitely. It isn't easy to obsolete your main lifeline.
  - schrijver 6y ago
    If I’m not mistaken Canon, Nikon, etc. only ever sold camera’s, not film. And photographers changed camera’s a lot less often in the analogue days. With digital the customers suddenly got on an upgrade schedule similar to that of computers. So from a commercial standpoint the move to digital must have been pretty attractive for the manufacturers.
    - bee_rider 6y ago
      Huh. Today I learned.
    - stan_rogers 6y ago
      Not only that, but the Big Three in film (Kodak, Fuji and AGFA) were at the forefront of digital photography when it was still barely a thing. Of them, only Fuji was making "serious" cameras for general photography (medium format rangefinders and the studio beast GX680, along with Fujinon optics for large format and enlargers).

jedimastert 6y ago

> I'm thinking of selling my Fuji X100V Didn't those just come out? Oddly enough, I just picked up an X100T from eBay and I haven't been using my phone nearly as much. I don't know if the novelty will wear off or not, but I've been really enjoying it

meowzero 6y ago
The X100 series is a cool camera. I had one since the first version of X100. But I found it more convenient to pull my phone out instead of carrying that camera. I do have a X-T2 if I want to take more "serious" photos.
- dsego 6y ago
  I have an x-t30 and my phone can't even compare. It's an entry level Samsung and those have really bad and slow cameras, esp in low light. A flagship might be a different story. Tbh, I wasn't that impressed with the fuji camera with the included 15-45 kit lens, which is rather mediocre. But after getting the 35mm f2 I can really appreciate the difference in the quality of photos. The other part is doing a course on photography and learning the manual settings. Without that, there is really no reason to use anything but a smartphone.
  - jedimastert 6y ago
    > The other part is doing a course on photography and learning the manual settings. I will concede that I'm not the average consumer and already had "manual mode" camera experience > Without that, there is really no reason to use anything but a smartphone. I would disagree with that sentiment, but I'm on the other side of the fence of knowledge, so it's hard for me to say
    - dsego 6y ago
      This was an introduction course for digital photography with practical training, so we would get out once a week to shoot with our cameras. A lot of my colleagues had either older second-hand or borrowed cameras. Of course, we would hang around before and after the lessons to chitchat. And I could notice a sentiment from some that they couldn't see the benefits of these cameras, since they could get better results with their phones thanks to built-in processing algorithms (at least what you could see on the little screens). Their cameras were complicated and the automatic settings wouldn't return great results without post-processing. And none of them were really excited by the idea of sitting in front of the computer, editing raw files. But this seems like a must for getting the most out of the camera's sensor, since most cameras aren't doing much or any processing by themselves.

varispeed 6y ago

Oh I wish this AI photo craze died out. I see that it may appeal to some people as a kind of "nicerising" effect, but without the context a casual viewer may take the picture as unaltered snapshot of the world. Of course the alterations are rather minute in the grand scheme of things, but if we continue looking at these taking them without context, I wonder how our perception of the world will get detached from reality? I think pictures computed by AI should be specially marked to let viewer know they don't look at the real thing.

ngokevin 6y ago
There's no "real thing". All photos are processed, through the lens, by the software on the device, and by the photographers' workflows. When you shoot JPG, there's already a lot of processing that happens, and when you shoot RAW, you need to process that yourself from a dull, flat image. Photographers rarely post un-processed images. Even before all of that, settings are chosen which alter the exposure, depth of field, focus point, color temperature of the image which alter the "real thing". It's common to think "editing" a photo is some cheating magic, but it should be considered the norm, and how people share their vision of what they want it to look like. The AI can just automate a lot of the workflow or need to buy extra equipment, still up the human to decide how they want the image to come out.
- varispeed 6y ago
  I understand that all images are processed, but AI for me is crossing the line as it is adding things that come from the trained model rather than derived from the image itself - these elements otherwise wouldn't be there regardless of lens, colour grading and so on.

ksk 6y ago

You hit the nail on the head, the set of images that can only be taken with a DSLR/MILC is getting smaller and smaller. To counter that a bit I'd like to add that there is a rise of video/youtuber folks wanting smooth 4k video with tracking auto-focus, and real bokeh which is making cameras, or hybrid cameras relevant again. I don't think phones do fake bokeh in video mode or do low-light video w/o looking like ass.

vmception 6y ago
not yet. The Lidar and infrared and AI will help with the low light. They fill in colors instead of take the result of the lens and sensor physical limitations. There are apps that do what the default cameras don’t do yet, and we’ll continue to see rapid optimizations on this front. what you mentioned is not outside of the realm of what can be done. If there is a need, making an app that does it will give you a brief advantage.

Solvitieg 6y ago

Strong disagree here. I'm not sure what's going on, but this craze about computational photography is ruining cellphone photography for me. Try to take a selfie with the iPhone 12 Pro. It's awful. If you use the regular camera, it generates an HDR selfie exaggerating every imperfection on your face. And if you use portrait, it applies a fake looking blur and softness to your skin and is incredibly strict on framing. Camera photography is moving further from realism and I don't want a part of it. Turn the camera around and you get similar problems. From detail-less low-light images, to sun-saturated indoor shots. It's like everyone took the Samsung model and ran with it. My DSLR is the only lens I have that can produce a realistic photo nowadays and give me access to the raw sensor data.

kalleboo 6y ago
> My DSLR is the only lens I have that can produce a realistic photo nowadays and give me access to the raw sensor data. Every iPhone currently for sale and I presume most high-end Androids support shooting in RAW, you just have to use a third-party app.