7 ms·

There're compact cameras with decent quality and not overly big or heavy. I use Canon G9X Mark II. It produces photos of much better quality than the best smart

There're compact cameras with decent quality and not overly big or heavy. I use Canon G9X Mark II. It produces photos of much better quality than the best smartphone camera I had (without software tricks that could be applied to Canon photos afterwards anyway), and it is small enough to carry it with me all the time in the pocket.

photojosh 5y ago
the tricks with high dynamic range (software combine two shots), night photos (take loads of photos and pick the sharpest bits vs tripod) are way more work to do after the fact
dsego 5y ago
And then you want to apply a snazzy filter and instantly share your photo to all your friends via whatsapp or instagram.
- anticodon 5y ago
  When I have a feeling that I would like to share the picture with my friends instantly, I also take it on my phone. Also, Canon G9X has bluetooth and wifi interfaces and phone app that allows quick downloading and sharing of photos (although it is indeed slower and more cumbersome than sharing directly from the phone camera app).
zimpenfish 5y ago
I've got a Powershot and the problem I find, compared with my phone, is the time it takes from "oh there's something" to actually being able to take a photo - for my phone, it's maybe 2-3s (if the Camera app isn't already open; more like 1-2s if it is.) For the Powershot, it's always 10s+.
- exporectomy 5y ago
  Back in the olden days, cheap cameras had no latency at all. Just press the button and it takes the picture instantly. I've often tried to find something like that but things keep getting worse. Iphone tries to help with a camera on the lock screen but there's still a lot of tapping and swiping and waiting.
  - ehnto 5y ago
    I find my mirrorless Sony 6700 to be pretty rapid, it's pretty much ready in the time it takes me to flip the switch and move my head to the viewfinder.
    - jameshart 5y ago
      Get a lot of photos of the inside of my lens cap that way.
  - alanbernstein 5y ago
    IMO, phones should have a hardware shutter release button. Press it at any time to take a photo immediately, regardless of the software context. It's bizarre to me that our $1000 phones are still subject to the micro-optimization that leads to elimination of buttons as a primary design goal for very cheap devices.
    - phonon 5y ago
      https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4546583 https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4546583
      - alanbernstein 5y ago
        It's frustrating to me that these are the exception. That may not be my absolute top priority in choosing a phone, and if it isn't, chances are I won't get it.
        phonon 5y ago
        Vote with your wallet then.
    - zimpenfish 5y ago
      > Press it at any time to take a photo immediately, The internet three days after Apple do this: "APPLE PHONES CONSTANTLY VIDEOING SURROUNDINGS, 1984 IS HERE"
- bookofjoe 5y ago
  This reminds me of my wonderful 2013 Google Glass: 1) Say "OK Google, take a picture" 2) 2 seconds later, you see the picture it's taken in the little window
- alanbernstein 5y ago
  This is confusing to me. One of the main reasons I have a DSLR is because the time from "I want a photo" to pressing the shutter release button is still the shortest with a DSLR. Tactile buttons, very fast power-on, very fast shutter release response time.
  - zimpenfish 5y ago
    > One of the main reasons I have a DSLR I can't fit my DSLRs into my pockets though which means they don't get carried everywhere like a phone or compact would.
- colanderman 5y ago
  Opposite experience for me. I can turn on my DSLR, zoom, focus on the subject, and get a shot in under two seconds, with no noticeable latency between pressing the shutter and taking the photo, and without having to take my eyes off the subject. Subsequent photos a half second or less. (I used to own a Canon G11. It was not as fast as a DSLR, but I don't recall it being nearly as slow as you describe.) Meanwhile on Android, I'm lucky if the stock camera app loads in that time. Plus another three seconds to muck with the focus circle, and another two seconds of latency while it actually takes the photo. The whole time I'll be starting at the screen trying to find the tiny circles for my fingers to tap. If I managed not to actually miss the moment (unlikely), I later get to go back and crop the photo, because pinch zoom while shooting is too slow to even consider using while shooting. I have missed a lot of good shots when all I had was my cell phone. (Yes, I could get an iPhone and it will probably perform better, and buy some contraption to give it physical buttons.)
  - zimpenfish 5y ago
    > I can turn on my DSLR, zoom, focus on the subject, and get a shot in under two seconds To be fair, I can probably do that on my DSLRs as well if they're left in standby mode -but- there's a certain amount of weight and bulkiness inherent here that moves it out of "why is a phone better than a compact" territory because I damn sure can't fit any of my DSLRs into my pockets.
    - foobarian 5y ago
      I don't know if DSLRs changed while I wasn't looking, but my old Nikon D5100 turns on and takes photos without delay, i.e. as fast as my fingers can actuate the levers. My phone takes 5s to wake up, 5-15s for the camera app to wake up. It is actually kind of a travesty how slow it works (Android on Nexus 6P) given how modern the hardware and software is. Clearly you could run a lean BeOS style system on it that would rival the DSLR.
      - jmiserez 5y ago
        It's slightly slower with the mirrorless systems because you have to wait until the viewfinder is ready before looking through it. It's fast enough, but the viewfinder is black while the camera is off.
nradov 5y ago
Unfortunately the compact camera market is dying. We probably won't see many new models from Canon and their competitors. It's a classic case of disruptive innovation, where cell phone cameras are still technically worse than dedicated compact cameras, but still good enough for most people. Olympus just sold off their camera division.
- oblio 5y ago
  Smartphone cameras are getting better at an incredible pace, though. And they're probably a few generations (5, maybe 10 years?) of hardware and software away from being indistinguishable from pro photos for casual users, it seems.
  - mnw21cam 5y ago
    They are still only collecting a limited number of photons. That's a fundamental limit to how good a camera can be, and size helps massively. They are also diffraction-limited, meaning that at the size of the lens they cannot be any more sharp. These are hard physical limits that we're getting really close to. A DSLR with a much bigger lens and much bigger sensor is always going to produce better pictures.
    - oblio 5y ago
      Yeah, but as Apple used to say: "it's not about speeds and feeds". At some point for the average human eye the "speeds and feeds" provided by smartphones, when coupled with smart combined lens usage and machine learning, will be enough. Pixel peeping is really rare and photo accuracy doesn't matter as much for the average person seeing a photo on a small device. They're not going to print that photo on glossy paper for a posh magazine or put it on a huge billboard.
    - pjmlp 5y ago
      True, however they are making use of machine learning to add the missing pixels. How much of a real photo that actually is, is debatable, however many users will probably be happy with the result.

photojosh 5y ago

the tricks with high dynamic range (software combine two shots), night photos (take loads of photos and pick the sharpest bits vs tripod) are way more work to do after the fact

dsego 5y ago

And then you want to apply a snazzy filter and instantly share your photo to all your friends via whatsapp or instagram.

anticodon 5y ago
When I have a feeling that I would like to share the picture with my friends instantly, I also take it on my phone. Also, Canon G9X has bluetooth and wifi interfaces and phone app that allows quick downloading and sharing of photos (although it is indeed slower and more cumbersome than sharing directly from the phone camera app).

zimpenfish 5y ago

I've got a Powershot and the problem I find, compared with my phone, is the time it takes from "oh there's something" to actually being able to take a photo - for my phone, it's maybe 2-3s (if the Camera app isn't already open; more like 1-2s if it is.) For the Powershot, it's always 10s+.

exporectomy 5y ago
Back in the olden days, cheap cameras had no latency at all. Just press the button and it takes the picture instantly. I've often tried to find something like that but things keep getting worse. Iphone tries to help with a camera on the lock screen but there's still a lot of tapping and swiping and waiting.
- ehnto 5y ago
  I find my mirrorless Sony 6700 to be pretty rapid, it's pretty much ready in the time it takes me to flip the switch and move my head to the viewfinder.
  - jameshart 5y ago
    Get a lot of photos of the inside of my lens cap that way.
- alanbernstein 5y ago
  IMO, phones should have a hardware shutter release button. Press it at any time to take a photo immediately, regardless of the software context. It's bizarre to me that our $1000 phones are still subject to the micro-optimization that leads to elimination of buttons as a primary design goal for very cheap devices.
  - phonon 5y ago
    https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4546583 https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4546583
    - alanbernstein 5y ago
      It's frustrating to me that these are the exception. That may not be my absolute top priority in choosing a phone, and if it isn't, chances are I won't get it.
      - phonon 5y ago
        Vote with your wallet then.
  - zimpenfish 5y ago
    > Press it at any time to take a photo immediately, The internet three days after Apple do this: "APPLE PHONES CONSTANTLY VIDEOING SURROUNDINGS, 1984 IS HERE"
bookofjoe 5y ago
This reminds me of my wonderful 2013 Google Glass: 1) Say "OK Google, take a picture" 2) 2 seconds later, you see the picture it's taken in the little window
alanbernstein 5y ago
This is confusing to me. One of the main reasons I have a DSLR is because the time from "I want a photo" to pressing the shutter release button is still the shortest with a DSLR. Tactile buttons, very fast power-on, very fast shutter release response time.
- zimpenfish 5y ago
  > One of the main reasons I have a DSLR I can't fit my DSLRs into my pockets though which means they don't get carried everywhere like a phone or compact would.
colanderman 5y ago
Opposite experience for me. I can turn on my DSLR, zoom, focus on the subject, and get a shot in under two seconds, with no noticeable latency between pressing the shutter and taking the photo, and without having to take my eyes off the subject. Subsequent photos a half second or less. (I used to own a Canon G11. It was not as fast as a DSLR, but I don't recall it being nearly as slow as you describe.) Meanwhile on Android, I'm lucky if the stock camera app loads in that time. Plus another three seconds to muck with the focus circle, and another two seconds of latency while it actually takes the photo. The whole time I'll be starting at the screen trying to find the tiny circles for my fingers to tap. If I managed not to actually miss the moment (unlikely), I later get to go back and crop the photo, because pinch zoom while shooting is too slow to even consider using while shooting. I have missed a lot of good shots when all I had was my cell phone. (Yes, I could get an iPhone and it will probably perform better, and buy some contraption to give it physical buttons.)
- zimpenfish 5y ago
  > I can turn on my DSLR, zoom, focus on the subject, and get a shot in under two seconds To be fair, I can probably do that on my DSLRs as well if they're left in standby mode -but- there's a certain amount of weight and bulkiness inherent here that moves it out of "why is a phone better than a compact" territory because I damn sure can't fit any of my DSLRs into my pockets.
  - foobarian 5y ago
    I don't know if DSLRs changed while I wasn't looking, but my old Nikon D5100 turns on and takes photos without delay, i.e. as fast as my fingers can actuate the levers. My phone takes 5s to wake up, 5-15s for the camera app to wake up. It is actually kind of a travesty how slow it works (Android on Nexus 6P) given how modern the hardware and software is. Clearly you could run a lean BeOS style system on it that would rival the DSLR.
    - jmiserez 5y ago
      It's slightly slower with the mirrorless systems because you have to wait until the viewfinder is ready before looking through it. It's fast enough, but the viewfinder is black while the camera is off.

nradov 5y ago

Unfortunately the compact camera market is dying. We probably won't see many new models from Canon and their competitors. It's a classic case of disruptive innovation, where cell phone cameras are still technically worse than dedicated compact cameras, but still good enough for most people. Olympus just sold off their camera division.

oblio 5y ago
Smartphone cameras are getting better at an incredible pace, though. And they're probably a few generations (5, maybe 10 years?) of hardware and software away from being indistinguishable from pro photos for casual users, it seems.
- mnw21cam 5y ago
  They are still only collecting a limited number of photons. That's a fundamental limit to how good a camera can be, and size helps massively. They are also diffraction-limited, meaning that at the size of the lens they cannot be any more sharp. These are hard physical limits that we're getting really close to. A DSLR with a much bigger lens and much bigger sensor is always going to produce better pictures.
  - oblio 5y ago
    Yeah, but as Apple used to say: "it's not about speeds and feeds". At some point for the average human eye the "speeds and feeds" provided by smartphones, when coupled with smart combined lens usage and machine learning, will be enough. Pixel peeping is really rare and photo accuracy doesn't matter as much for the average person seeing a photo on a small device. They're not going to print that photo on glossy paper for a posh magazine or put it on a huge billboard.
  - pjmlp 5y ago
    True, however they are making use of machine learning to add the missing pixels. How much of a real photo that actually is, is debatable, however many users will probably be happy with the result.