5 ms·

If I may sub-divert the thread to ask the experts in the field: Do you think Nikon/Canon will have to start going down the computational photography route to m

If I may sub-divert the thread to ask the experts in the field: Do you think Nikon/Canon will have to start going down the computational photography route to make themselves more appealing to camera buyers? Or as soon as someone in the DSLR world does, they will have to quickly go along? I.e. either downsize their cameras to be more attractive to carry hour by hour of your day, or make their features much better to compensate for the trouble of carrying a DSLR? Or is part of the appeal of the traditional camera that effects, manipulation, etc. of the photo is not done and you're in total control of the exposure? I have been a DSLR person at times, but honestly I am amazed at how good iPhone photos look sometimes... until I zoom in of course.

imbusy111 5y ago
Mirrorless cameras are already a thing that makes DSLR obsolete. But I assume that's not what you're asking. I constantly get asked if I took a specific photo on my phone and the answer is always "no". People notice the details and the amazing color reproduction even without zooming in.
- kybernetyk 5y ago
  Same, I recently took my Nikon to my son's crawling group (a meeting where babies are allowed to meet other babies and crawl around). I took a ton of photos of the kids there and shared them with the moms (who were usually shooting cell phone). They were amazed at the quality of the photos (Nikon Z6ii with a Z 50mm f1.8) and some even wanted to book me for paid shootings. I'm not a great photographer by any stretch (I myself think I'm terrible - I just like taking photos of my kid) but the difference of a full frame sensor with a modern top lens really blew away people who are used to cell phone cams.
kybernetyk 5y ago
Size: I have a Nikon Z6ii. It's pretty compact. With a Z 28mm f2.8 it's no problem carrying it around wherever you go. Computational: I have no idea. But as an """"advanced""" amateur photographer I don't really want computational photography in my gear. That's for the quick snapshot with your mobile phone imho.
NovaS1X 5y ago
I think it depends on the use case. Cameras are already downsizing, DSLRs are long dead and mirrorless are not just the future, they're now the present. I don't think size is the issue any longer. The purpose of using a "real" camera is quality and control. If you go on IG and look as all the top photography centric accounts they're using either film or mirrorless cameras, not iPhones. The ability to manipulate RAW photos, the outright quality of better sensors and lenses, and the ease of use of "real" cameras still makes them the top choice. When you then throw in professional use into the mix the choice becomes more obvious. Just the ergonomics alone make traditional cameras the obvious choice. I'm not going to be mounting expensive shotgun mics, matte boxes, and filters to an iPhone. As far as computational photography goes, it's the future and all manufacturers will need to start using it to get an edge on the competition. The thing with computational photography however is that it's a data driven process, just like anything else AI; data in is data out, so the better quality of dedicated cameras simply means better data for computational methods, thus better results in the end. There's no real substitution for better lenses and sensors, because any computational method applied to a phone can also be applied to a camera. I think there's something to be said for the lack of control with computational methods too. my iPhone for example applies a lot of processing that makes skin to me look plasticy, but it's baked into the ISP. My Fujifilm when shooting in RAW or F-Log for example doesn't have this issue. So any computational methods applied to traditional cameras need to not impede on creative control; noise reduction is an area where it would be pretty universally helpful.
waddlesworth 5y ago
I definitely could be absolutely wrong about this, but I don't think computational photography will be a huge way forward for these kinds of cameras. Smartphones have fully taken over the light/compact segment, they're better at it, you always have it with you and they've gotten good enough that for anything 'happy snap', a smartphone will do the job fine. The professional/high end hobbyist segment is still going strong, and I think is growing steadily. The appeal, for me at least, is a lot about the creative control. I'm the one creating the image, not the device I'm using. There are computational tools I can use, but I'd want to do anything like that after the fact, and Photoshop has added some tools pushing this forward, but I do think there's a lot of room for a more ML focused editing experience. There is a certain amount of push for computational features that help with taking a photo, like fast autofocus that can see a face and focus on the eyes. When it comes to actually generating or modifying the image, I think this is a line that most photographers don't want to cross.
jimnotgym 5y ago
Sort of in the industry...but not an expert in cameras, more the commercials DSLR is dead. Nikon and Canon were caught sleeping by Sony who stole their lunch with mirrorless. Now the pro camera brands are racing to add the kind of features your smartphone camera had a year ago. Smartphones have destroyed the camera market and now only pros and enthusiasts will suffer the "CCD glued into a 90's film camera" format.
- hughrr 5y ago
  That sort of nailed it from my understanding as well. Also, and apologies for the cynicism, a lot of the current DSLR following is another rich person's hobby which never produces anything other than 4TB of stuff in a Lightroom DB that no one ever sees or is interested in because it's basically crap. The one actual professional (as in paid as main income) photographer I know doesn't talk about the technology or the brand of camera they use at all because it's mostly moot: it's the picture and getting paid that matters. They don't carry their camera anywhere either; just an iPhone 12 mini. I attended their photography course at a local college and about 90% of the attendees turned up with their £3k+ DSLR set up and were disappointed that it was mostly theoretical and composition related rather than how to use their toy. I had an entry level Nikon D3100 at the time and was sneered at by the rest of the folk. I now use an iPhone only. Subject matter is more interesting than the technology for me.
  - NovaS1X 5y ago
    >The one actual professional (as in paid as main income) photographer I know doesn't talk about the technology or the brand of camera they use at all because it's mostly moot: it's the picture and getting paid that matters. They don't carry their camera anywhere either; just an iPhone 12 mini. >Subject matter is more interesting than the technology for me. This has always been the case though. Amateurs and people who suffer from GAS place far too much reliance on the tool. They want to purchase the ability to create good works and become defeated when they learn they can't and quit. This has been true ever since the introduction of mass market film cameras. Many pros back in the film days carried around point and shoots or fixed lens cameras for personal use and left their F3s and 80-200mms at home. This is just a reality of the consumer society we live in; people are advertised to incessantly and are conditioned to expect purchasing things to make them better. Thankfully art is a cathartic form of protest to this in many ways; you can't buy and compute photographic skill. I'm semi-pro and my main gear stays at home unless I'm working on a project, personal or professional, and I carry my iPhone and a Fuji X100 for daily/personal stuff.
eneeigriega 5y ago
Not an expert. A Canon noob. They're already downsizing cameras with technology that allows removing the mirror component [1] on new models. I don't know if downsizing was the main intent or if removing the mirror was. I think the appeal is that photographers need quality equipment. Phones can achieve good photography but they're stuck with one lens setup, for example. There's different types of photography and it's great how one can have the same camera body as another photographer and use completely different lenses and viceversa. So I think it comes to what photographers want improved. Digital improved on film photography, phones improved on Point-and-shoot cameras [2], and so on. What comes next for photographers? I think computational photography can be used on entry-level cameras to improve the experience of a certain market segment while still allowing an "authentic" photography experience. Size in technology is important and it will definitely keep going down throughout most fields; the main focus on the next technological advancement is probably placed elsewhere. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirrorless_camera https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirrorless_camera [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point-and-shoot_camera https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point-and-shoot_camera
0xffff2 5y ago
Canon is very likely done producing new DSLRs: https://petapixel.com/2021/12/28/canon-confirms-weve-seen-its-last-flagship-dslr/ https://petapixel.com/2021/12/28/canon-confirms-weve-seen-it...
snowwrestler 5y ago
There’s no substitute for physics. A bigger lens in front of a bigger sensor, made to at least the same tolerances as a smartphone camera, is going to provide much better information as the base for a digital photo. So there will always be a role for bigger, dedicated systems when quality is paramount. Just like most professional movies are still shot on dedicated cameras with cine lenses. Some of what you might call computational techniques are already available for DSLR/mirrorless cameras. You just apply them in a post processing step on a computer, some time after the initial capture. Others are being built into some cameras. For example some mirrorless cameras can use their image-stabilization motors to shift the sensor during capture; the shifted images are then combined in-body to produce an image with more pixels than the raw photosites on the sensor.
SAI_Peregrinus 5y ago
They're both already shifting from DSLR to Mirrorless (though Nikon hasn't been as quick as Cannon). Raw mode with manual aperture/iso/shutter speed is certainly an appeal, but even some smartphones have that. The big appeal of interchangeable lens cameras is the interchangeable lenses. Camera lenses are still vastly superior for many uses. Not all, but for things like sports and nature photography there's just no way to get equivalent image quality out of a smartphone. Likewise for macro photography.

imbusy111 5y ago

Mirrorless cameras are already a thing that makes DSLR obsolete. But I assume that's not what you're asking. I constantly get asked if I took a specific photo on my phone and the answer is always "no". People notice the details and the amazing color reproduction even without zooming in.

kybernetyk 5y ago
Same, I recently took my Nikon to my son's crawling group (a meeting where babies are allowed to meet other babies and crawl around). I took a ton of photos of the kids there and shared them with the moms (who were usually shooting cell phone). They were amazed at the quality of the photos (Nikon Z6ii with a Z 50mm f1.8) and some even wanted to book me for paid shootings. I'm not a great photographer by any stretch (I myself think I'm terrible - I just like taking photos of my kid) but the difference of a full frame sensor with a modern top lens really blew away people who are used to cell phone cams.

kybernetyk 5y ago

Size: I have a Nikon Z6ii. It's pretty compact. With a Z 28mm f2.8 it's no problem carrying it around wherever you go. Computational: I have no idea. But as an """"advanced""" amateur photographer I don't really want computational photography in my gear. That's for the quick snapshot with your mobile phone imho.

NovaS1X 5y ago

I think it depends on the use case. Cameras are already downsizing, DSLRs are long dead and mirrorless are not just the future, they're now the present. I don't think size is the issue any longer. The purpose of using a "real" camera is quality and control. If you go on IG and look as all the top photography centric accounts they're using either film or mirrorless cameras, not iPhones. The ability to manipulate RAW photos, the outright quality of better sensors and lenses, and the ease of use of "real" cameras still makes them the top choice. When you then throw in professional use into the mix the choice becomes more obvious. Just the ergonomics alone make traditional cameras the obvious choice. I'm not going to be mounting expensive shotgun mics, matte boxes, and filters to an iPhone. As far as computational photography goes, it's the future and all manufacturers will need to start using it to get an edge on the competition. The thing with computational photography however is that it's a data driven process, just like anything else AI; data in is data out, so the better quality of dedicated cameras simply means better data for computational methods, thus better results in the end. There's no real substitution for better lenses and sensors, because any computational method applied to a phone can also be applied to a camera. I think there's something to be said for the lack of control with computational methods too. my iPhone for example applies a lot of processing that makes skin to me look plasticy, but it's baked into the ISP. My Fujifilm when shooting in RAW or F-Log for example doesn't have this issue. So any computational methods applied to traditional cameras need to not impede on creative control; noise reduction is an area where it would be pretty universally helpful.

waddlesworth 5y ago

I definitely could be absolutely wrong about this, but I don't think computational photography will be a huge way forward for these kinds of cameras. Smartphones have fully taken over the light/compact segment, they're better at it, you always have it with you and they've gotten good enough that for anything 'happy snap', a smartphone will do the job fine. The professional/high end hobbyist segment is still going strong, and I think is growing steadily. The appeal, for me at least, is a lot about the creative control. I'm the one creating the image, not the device I'm using. There are computational tools I can use, but I'd want to do anything like that after the fact, and Photoshop has added some tools pushing this forward, but I do think there's a lot of room for a more ML focused editing experience. There is a certain amount of push for computational features that help with taking a photo, like fast autofocus that can see a face and focus on the eyes. When it comes to actually generating or modifying the image, I think this is a line that most photographers don't want to cross.

jimnotgym 5y ago

Sort of in the industry...but not an expert in cameras, more the commercials DSLR is dead. Nikon and Canon were caught sleeping by Sony who stole their lunch with mirrorless. Now the pro camera brands are racing to add the kind of features your smartphone camera had a year ago. Smartphones have destroyed the camera market and now only pros and enthusiasts will suffer the "CCD glued into a 90's film camera" format.

hughrr 5y ago
That sort of nailed it from my understanding as well. Also, and apologies for the cynicism, a lot of the current DSLR following is another rich person's hobby which never produces anything other than 4TB of stuff in a Lightroom DB that no one ever sees or is interested in because it's basically crap. The one actual professional (as in paid as main income) photographer I know doesn't talk about the technology or the brand of camera they use at all because it's mostly moot: it's the picture and getting paid that matters. They don't carry their camera anywhere either; just an iPhone 12 mini. I attended their photography course at a local college and about 90% of the attendees turned up with their £3k+ DSLR set up and were disappointed that it was mostly theoretical and composition related rather than how to use their toy. I had an entry level Nikon D3100 at the time and was sneered at by the rest of the folk. I now use an iPhone only. Subject matter is more interesting than the technology for me.
- NovaS1X 5y ago
  >The one actual professional (as in paid as main income) photographer I know doesn't talk about the technology or the brand of camera they use at all because it's mostly moot: it's the picture and getting paid that matters. They don't carry their camera anywhere either; just an iPhone 12 mini. >Subject matter is more interesting than the technology for me. This has always been the case though. Amateurs and people who suffer from GAS place far too much reliance on the tool. They want to purchase the ability to create good works and become defeated when they learn they can't and quit. This has been true ever since the introduction of mass market film cameras. Many pros back in the film days carried around point and shoots or fixed lens cameras for personal use and left their F3s and 80-200mms at home. This is just a reality of the consumer society we live in; people are advertised to incessantly and are conditioned to expect purchasing things to make them better. Thankfully art is a cathartic form of protest to this in many ways; you can't buy and compute photographic skill. I'm semi-pro and my main gear stays at home unless I'm working on a project, personal or professional, and I carry my iPhone and a Fuji X100 for daily/personal stuff.

eneeigriega 5y ago

Not an expert. A Canon noob. They're already downsizing cameras with technology that allows removing the mirror component [1] on new models. I don't know if downsizing was the main intent or if removing the mirror was. I think the appeal is that photographers need quality equipment. Phones can achieve good photography but they're stuck with one lens setup, for example. There's different types of photography and it's great how one can have the same camera body as another photographer and use completely different lenses and viceversa. So I think it comes to what photographers want improved. Digital improved on film photography, phones improved on Point-and-shoot cameras [2], and so on. What comes next for photographers? I think computational photography can be used on entry-level cameras to improve the experience of a certain market segment while still allowing an "authentic" photography experience. Size in technology is important and it will definitely keep going down throughout most fields; the main focus on the next technological advancement is probably placed elsewhere. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirrorless_camera https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirrorless_camera [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point-and-shoot_camera https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point-and-shoot_camera

0xffff2 5y ago

Canon is very likely done producing new DSLRs: https://petapixel.com/2021/12/28/canon-confirms-weve-seen-its-last-flagship-dslr/ https://petapixel.com/2021/12/28/canon-confirms-weve-seen-it...

snowwrestler 5y ago

There’s no substitute for physics. A bigger lens in front of a bigger sensor, made to at least the same tolerances as a smartphone camera, is going to provide much better information as the base for a digital photo. So there will always be a role for bigger, dedicated systems when quality is paramount. Just like most professional movies are still shot on dedicated cameras with cine lenses. Some of what you might call computational techniques are already available for DSLR/mirrorless cameras. You just apply them in a post processing step on a computer, some time after the initial capture. Others are being built into some cameras. For example some mirrorless cameras can use their image-stabilization motors to shift the sensor during capture; the shifted images are then combined in-body to produce an image with more pixels than the raw photosites on the sensor.

SAI_Peregrinus 5y ago

They're both already shifting from DSLR to Mirrorless (though Nikon hasn't been as quick as Cannon). Raw mode with manual aperture/iso/shutter speed is certainly an appeal, but even some smartphones have that. The big appeal of interchangeable lens cameras is the interchangeable lenses. Camera lenses are still vastly superior for many uses. Not all, but for things like sports and nature photography there's just no way to get equivalent image quality out of a smartphone. Likewise for macro photography.