3 ms·

Yes. I still don’t get why none of the camera makers outfits their camera with something on the level of the iPhone. Maybe there is less to be gained in dSLR be

by spockz 4y ago

Yes. I still don’t get why none of the camera makers outfits their camera with something on the level of the iPhone. Maybe there is less to be gained in dSLR because of the mirror. But mirrorless with the constant exposure should be a ready match.

Arcanum-XIII 4y ago
I think mostly because they don't need to have that much processing power compare to a smartphone, due to their bigger lens/sensor - so they don't need to use higher end processing unit. You can delay the postprocessing to a dedicated (external) software so to say. One big advantage you have with dedicated hardware also is the reduced need to have a virtual interface (though UX is quite often in dire need to be improved on them, especially for advance configuration). A bit like knob are better in a car in a general way. But to be honest, at the end, it's clearly a difference of philosophy. I'd wager that the smartphone maker have better understood the market than the camera maker for a while.
jillesvangurp 4y ago
I have a pixel 6 with the same kind of 50 mega pixel sensor that the new iphone has (might even be the same sensor?). It's good. I also have a Fuji x-t30, which is a 26 megapixel camera from a few years ago. The Fuji is what I grab if I want to take a nice photo. The 12.5 megapixel photos that Apple and Google take by combining pixels in a 4:1 ratio from the 50 mega pixel sensor are alright and the resulting raw files that I can get from my phone are quite OK. But the Fuji raw files are way nicer. Just way more detail and dynamic range. People confuse the post processing that Apple and Google do in the phone with the quality of the camera. It's impressive what they do and the quality of the raw images is actually not as bad as it used to be on most phones. But it's still a noisy mess compared to any decent pro-sumer camera of the last ten years or so. You don't need the same trickery to make those photos look good. It's amazing what Apple and Google can do with the relatively limited form factor, sensor, lenses, etc. that phones have but when it comes to sensors, bigger is simply better and bigger requires more distance between the lens and the sensor. It's not the number of pixels that counts but their size and noise level. My Fuji is fine as an entry level camera but the real deal here is full frame sensors and expensive lenses. It makes all the difference. Some of the lenses on the market today are so good that it's pointless owning them unless you can pair them with a very high end camera and sensor. Phone lenses are comparatively not really worth talking about. Owning such a lens almost automatically means you probably want to have full creative control. So, typical owners of such cameras and lenses are not looking for point and click cameras but are deeply into controlling all aspects of their photography. Most manufacturers have put dslr development on halt or at least on the back-burner. The high end stuff is almost exclusively mirror less at this point.
- lostlogin 4y ago
  This is all true, but having a camera that’s even vaguely comparable which is in your pocket most the time, with functional software and near seamless upload/offload/sharing makes it vastly more desirable.
  - randomdata 4y ago
    In the same way a tractor is vastly more desirable than a sports car. Which is to say that, while they may share a passing resemblance, they are different tools that don't compare well.
  - actionfromafar 4y ago
    For most people. I carry an SLR almost everywhere.
- spockz 4y ago
  Indeed. So what we are asking for is to get the hardware quality of a full frame with the interface and processing capabilities of an iPhone.
Derbasti 4y ago
Because of sensor readout speed. Phones do what they do by shooting dozens or hundreds of very fast frames, then combining them into the finished picture. Cameras can't do that, because their bigger sensors take longer to read out. There'd be too few frames, and too much gap between frames. Big sensors are slowly getting faster, too, with stacked sensors and the like. But they're not quite fast enough yet for phone-style computational shenanigans.

by spockz 4y ago

Arcanum-XIII 4y ago

I think mostly because they don't need to have that much processing power compare to a smartphone, due to their bigger lens/sensor - so they don't need to use higher end processing unit. You can delay the postprocessing to a dedicated (external) software so to say. One big advantage you have with dedicated hardware also is the reduced need to have a virtual interface (though UX is quite often in dire need to be improved on them, especially for advance configuration). A bit like knob are better in a car in a general way. But to be honest, at the end, it's clearly a difference of philosophy. I'd wager that the smartphone maker have better understood the market than the camera maker for a while.

jillesvangurp 4y ago

I have a pixel 6 with the same kind of 50 mega pixel sensor that the new iphone has (might even be the same sensor?). It's good. I also have a Fuji x-t30, which is a 26 megapixel camera from a few years ago. The Fuji is what I grab if I want to take a nice photo. The 12.5 megapixel photos that Apple and Google take by combining pixels in a 4:1 ratio from the 50 mega pixel sensor are alright and the resulting raw files that I can get from my phone are quite OK. But the Fuji raw files are way nicer. Just way more detail and dynamic range. People confuse the post processing that Apple and Google do in the phone with the quality of the camera. It's impressive what they do and the quality of the raw images is actually not as bad as it used to be on most phones. But it's still a noisy mess compared to any decent pro-sumer camera of the last ten years or so. You don't need the same trickery to make those photos look good. It's amazing what Apple and Google can do with the relatively limited form factor, sensor, lenses, etc. that phones have but when it comes to sensors, bigger is simply better and bigger requires more distance between the lens and the sensor. It's not the number of pixels that counts but their size and noise level. My Fuji is fine as an entry level camera but the real deal here is full frame sensors and expensive lenses. It makes all the difference. Some of the lenses on the market today are so good that it's pointless owning them unless you can pair them with a very high end camera and sensor. Phone lenses are comparatively not really worth talking about. Owning such a lens almost automatically means you probably want to have full creative control. So, typical owners of such cameras and lenses are not looking for point and click cameras but are deeply into controlling all aspects of their photography. Most manufacturers have put dslr development on halt or at least on the back-burner. The high end stuff is almost exclusively mirror less at this point.

lostlogin 4y ago
This is all true, but having a camera that’s even vaguely comparable which is in your pocket most the time, with functional software and near seamless upload/offload/sharing makes it vastly more desirable.
- randomdata 4y ago
  In the same way a tractor is vastly more desirable than a sports car. Which is to say that, while they may share a passing resemblance, they are different tools that don't compare well.
- actionfromafar 4y ago
  For most people. I carry an SLR almost everywhere.
spockz 4y ago
Indeed. So what we are asking for is to get the hardware quality of a full frame with the interface and processing capabilities of an iPhone.

Derbasti 4y ago

Because of sensor readout speed. Phones do what they do by shooting dozens or hundreds of very fast frames, then combining them into the finished picture. Cameras can't do that, because their bigger sensors take longer to read out. There'd be too few frames, and too much gap between frames. Big sensors are slowly getting faster, too, with stacked sensors and the like. But they're not quite fast enough yet for phone-style computational shenanigans.