3 ms·
It boggles me how the big camera makers seem content to cede marketshare to smartphones. Obviously, they can't compete on pocketablity or ubiquity, but computat
by argomo 5y ago
It boggles me how the big camera makers seem content to cede marketshare to smartphones. Obviously, they can't compete on pocketablity or ubiquity, but computational photography is their home turf. I shouldn't have to reach for my phone to take panoramas, photo spheres, and "live photos", and I'm not interested in spending hours compositing stuff later on the PC.
The big camera makers do throw in a bunch of "modes" on their prosumer lines (which they toss out the window on their professional models) to pander to the consumer. Lame stuff, mostly. Give me some real stuff like auto-masking foreground subjects or out-of-camera photogrammetrly created 3D models.
I get that prosumers are a dwindling niche and pros are where the money come from, but you need a source for more pros in the future, right? How does the camera compete if--as an artifact--it's inspirational value is outclassed by the mundane cellphone?
- spaetzleesser 5y agoAgreed. They should go all in on computation. They would probably need different processors and more batteries but a “pro” camera should be better than a phone in absolutely every aspect. I just got an iPhone 13 and it’s interesting how it handles night shots better than my Fuji X-T3 with its much bigger sensor.
- photojosh 5y agoI've been harping on this for years. If Apple released a micro-43rds camera (as a starter) with a A-series CPU and it's image processor, they would clean up. The beauty would be that they already have all the APIs to support doing this, and you could run one of the existing 3rd-party camera apps too. (Hi, Halide!) I drop $2k+ for one in a heartbeat.