4 ms·

> In what aspect ? Artistically a 2010 dslr would shit on any single phone on the market I can 100% guarantee that it won't when I'm holding it. Sure, you can

> In what aspect ? Artistically a 2010 dslr would shit on any single phone on the market I can 100% guarantee that it won't when I'm holding it. Sure, you can invest time to get good at it and the money into the tools to apply those skills. I have other priorities so I don't and the very best option is a smartphone camera. It makes no sense that point and shoots aren't attacking this. Even "cheap" ones have a massive edge in terms of (imaging) hardware over phones. Someone like Apple or Google should create a dedicated camera and just knock that entire segment out from under the dinosaurs.

copperx 5y ago
I would have expected that by now Nikon/Canon/Fuji would employ hundreds of ML engineers. Does anybody know whether that's going to happen, eventually? Or are they going to sit on their laurels?
- numpad0 5y ago
  Sony don’t make a multi-lens parallel processing computational camera. I think that’s telling.
lupire 5y ago
DSLRs take amazing pictures easily. they collect a lot of light, which obviates the need for a lot of comluter magix, they have autofocus and autoexposure and simple basic adjustments you can play with. what they won't do is pre apply filters to make the colors super poppy and generically "artsy" like the phone will.
- Griffinsauce 5y ago
  I am not at all talking about filters or "artsy" output. Look at the discussions about low light below. Why the heck should I know about f stops when my camera could just measure and adjust accordingly (including giving instructions to hold) like the phone does?
- kaba0 5y ago
  Do they also take good pictures in low-light with shaky hands? Surely there is a point where work smarter not harder actually pays off - your own eyes likely has better capabilities than any camera, yet hardware-wise the latter is surely better than your slightly incorrect bio-lenses. It just has a huge NN attached to it
  - kenneth 5y ago
    You're definitely going to get a better shot from a f/1.8 lens in low light than a cellphone camera, even vs night mode on iPhone. If you just set it on a stable surface you can take exposures >10" and have it come out crystal clear. (Or carry a gorrilapod)
    - Griffinsauce 5y ago
      This is amazingly far away from the point that point-and-shoots are terrible at their job compared to smartphones.
      - alistairSH 5y ago
        That statement is completely dependent on what you think the job of the camera is. A high-quality P&S (like the Sony RX, Fuji X100, or Ricoh GR) is going to outperform a phone camera in just about any edge-case (low light, motion, natural bokeh). Even more so if you shoot raw. Somebody said it best in a sibling comment - a high-end camera is a tool, like canvas and brush, and you need to know how to use it, practice with it, and get in the zone when using it. Nobody is arguing that cell phone cameras aren't amazing. They are, no question. And they're almost always in your pocket/purse, so even better. They're great for generic snaps of life. But there are things they simply can't do - wildlife photography and outdoor sports (not enough zoom), low light - toddlers playing inside or indoor sports (sensor too small, stacking exposures with night mode doesn't work with fast moving subjects), natural feeling bokeh (portrait mode has some odd edge cases). If you don't care about any of those, then a cell phone camera is likely all you need. If you do care about those, then a high-end super zoom, mirrorless, or DSLR is going to make a massive difference.
- alistairSH 5y ago
  what they won't do is pre apply filters to make the colors super poppy and generically "artsy" like the phone will. Of course they do. Fuji’s X100 line has a whole slate of film simulations (mimicking old 35mm film). My Olympus bodies have 10-15 art filters built in. They just don’t have fancy names like Instagram - they tend to be more descriptive.
Derbasti 5y ago
Smartphones rely on stacking multiple exposures in very quick succession. They can do that because a smartphone sensor can scans extremely quickly. In a smartphone, it doesn't make a difference whether you take one long exposure, or several short ones and add them up. But the bigger the sensor, the slower it scans. Scan & stack is not yet feasible for bigger sensors. Besides, smartphone sensors need to do this to overcome their limited dynamic range. Bigger sensors are not typically limited by dynamic range, and hence don't need this.
- Griffinsauce 5y ago
  You're talking about the technical implementation. I'm talking about the experience of "point at thing, click button" There is a massive gulf between smartphones and standalone cameras there in the outcome. My point is that there is literally a product segment called "point and click" that is terrible (relatively speaking) at doing that thing. All the replies here are focusing on how cameras can produce better results. The difference is my phone will in my unskilled hands.

copperx 5y ago

I would have expected that by now Nikon/Canon/Fuji would employ hundreds of ML engineers. Does anybody know whether that's going to happen, eventually? Or are they going to sit on their laurels?

numpad0 5y ago
Sony don’t make a multi-lens parallel processing computational camera. I think that’s telling.

lupire 5y ago

DSLRs take amazing pictures easily. they collect a lot of light, which obviates the need for a lot of comluter magix, they have autofocus and autoexposure and simple basic adjustments you can play with. what they won't do is pre apply filters to make the colors super poppy and generically "artsy" like the phone will.

Griffinsauce 5y ago
I am not at all talking about filters or "artsy" output. Look at the discussions about low light below. Why the heck should I know about f stops when my camera could just measure and adjust accordingly (including giving instructions to hold) like the phone does?
kaba0 5y ago
Do they also take good pictures in low-light with shaky hands? Surely there is a point where work smarter not harder actually pays off - your own eyes likely has better capabilities than any camera, yet hardware-wise the latter is surely better than your slightly incorrect bio-lenses. It just has a huge NN attached to it
- kenneth 5y ago
  You're definitely going to get a better shot from a f/1.8 lens in low light than a cellphone camera, even vs night mode on iPhone. If you just set it on a stable surface you can take exposures >10" and have it come out crystal clear. (Or carry a gorrilapod)
  - Griffinsauce 5y ago
    This is amazingly far away from the point that point-and-shoots are terrible at their job compared to smartphones.
    - alistairSH 5y ago
      That statement is completely dependent on what you think the job of the camera is. A high-quality P&S (like the Sony RX, Fuji X100, or Ricoh GR) is going to outperform a phone camera in just about any edge-case (low light, motion, natural bokeh). Even more so if you shoot raw. Somebody said it best in a sibling comment - a high-end camera is a tool, like canvas and brush, and you need to know how to use it, practice with it, and get in the zone when using it. Nobody is arguing that cell phone cameras aren't amazing. They are, no question. And they're almost always in your pocket/purse, so even better. They're great for generic snaps of life. But there are things they simply can't do - wildlife photography and outdoor sports (not enough zoom), low light - toddlers playing inside or indoor sports (sensor too small, stacking exposures with night mode doesn't work with fast moving subjects), natural feeling bokeh (portrait mode has some odd edge cases). If you don't care about any of those, then a cell phone camera is likely all you need. If you do care about those, then a high-end super zoom, mirrorless, or DSLR is going to make a massive difference.
alistairSH 5y ago
what they won't do is pre apply filters to make the colors super poppy and generically "artsy" like the phone will. Of course they do. Fuji’s X100 line has a whole slate of film simulations (mimicking old 35mm film). My Olympus bodies have 10-15 art filters built in. They just don’t have fancy names like Instagram - they tend to be more descriptive.

Derbasti 5y ago

Smartphones rely on stacking multiple exposures in very quick succession. They can do that because a smartphone sensor can scans extremely quickly. In a smartphone, it doesn't make a difference whether you take one long exposure, or several short ones and add them up. But the bigger the sensor, the slower it scans. Scan & stack is not yet feasible for bigger sensors. Besides, smartphone sensors need to do this to overcome their limited dynamic range. Bigger sensors are not typically limited by dynamic range, and hence don't need this.

Griffinsauce 5y ago
You're talking about the technical implementation. I'm talking about the experience of "point at thing, click button" There is a massive gulf between smartphones and standalone cameras there in the outcome. My point is that there is literally a product segment called "point and click" that is terrible (relatively speaking) at doing that thing. All the replies here are focusing on how cameras can produce better results. The difference is my phone will in my unskilled hands.