7 ms·

Is photography dead? Back like 20 years ago everyone was so into it. Nowadays our smartphones take fine photos. It’s kind of sad to see only one or two people

• qbasic_forever 4y ago
  Consumer point and shoot is totally dead and replaced by smartphones. But enthusiasts who wants to practice the craft of photography are thriving. Cameras have never been this good, especially for their price.
  • hef19898 4y ago
    I'd add especially when buying used in good condition. A D700 for example goes for around 300 bucks. And that is a truely professional DSLR, the smaller sensor actually doesn't matter if you don't plan to prind barn door sized and then brake out a microscope. Back the day, it was Nikon's low light king (obviously not anymore) and basically the same camera as a D3. So still plenty good for ethusiasts and amateurs. For difference to a Z6 you get a lot of good glass (always a better investment than camera bodies) and there should still be some money left over to go to exotic and beautiful places to actually take pictures. If you want more resolution, a D750 goes for a little over double a D700 and a D800 can be had for around 500. If you earn your living through photography, things are of course different.
    • skhr0680 4y ago
      D700 has a big sensor but less MP. It doesn't matter, I got a Zfc(20MP) for my studio when the photographer complained about our D8xx(36MP) cameras being too heavy and not having articulated screens, and it's been fine so far.
      • hef19898 4y ago
        That shows an interesting thing, doesn't it? Pro, people using cameras as tools to be used every day to earn a living, care about other things than amateurs. And I agree, a D700, especially with a battery grip, is heavy. It can be used as a hammer so, in a pinch, between shooting.
        • skhr0680 4y ago
          I love messing around with my bicycle's parts and adjustments to be 1% more efficient or whatever, so I understand where guys who take photos of test charts and use 2x heavier lenses because they have a little bit better corners or less aberrations wide open are coming from :-)
      • ValentineC 4y ago
        > I got a Zfc(20MP) for my studio when the photographer complained about our D8xx(36MP) cameras being too heavy and not having articulated screens As someone who used to lug around the D700 everywhere I went years ago (I stopped when I got my Olympus mirrorless), this complaint from someone about D8xx in studio use blows my mind.
• midoridensha 4y ago
  1970: "It's kind of sad to see only one or two people with large-format cameras at any "vista point" I visit because it brings back memories of talking with other amateur photographers. Nowadays everyone has these stupid SLRs that you can just hang around your neck."
  • ffhhj 4y ago
    Yeah, what we need now is x-ray photography, those smartphones won't catch up until the tech is miniaturized enough!
  • spoils19 4y ago
    It's kind of sad to see only one or two people with their brushes and easels at any "vista point" I visit because it brings back memories of talking with other amateur painters. Nowadays everyone has these stupid machines that you can just fold up and have it do the work for you.
• barkingcat 4y ago
  taking photos with cell phone cameras is still photography. Photography never went away. In fact, we share and post way way way more videos and images than before. No development time means you can get all 5000 photos that you snapped online with data everywhere!
• JohnJamesRambo 4y ago
  I sold my old beloved Fujifilm X100 digital rangefinder recently. It couldn’t hold a flame to my camera photos in direct tests. But that’s a good thing, because I’ve always got my phone.
• acchow 4y ago
  Many amateur photographers who used to carry SLRs around have switched to smartphones and written blog posts about it https://www.diyphotography.net/why-i-dont-use-dslr-cameras-anymore/ https://www.diyphotography.net/why-i-dont-use-dslr-cameras-a... https://www.dpreview.com/articles/4296660253/5-reasons-why-i-havent-used-my-dslr-for-months https://www.dpreview.com/articles/4296660253/5-reasons-why-i... https://photographylife.com/dslr-has-no-future https://photographylife.com/dslr-has-no-future
  • quorgs 4y ago
    All those are about dropping DSLR in favor of mirrorless / compact cameras, not phones. Phones get mentioned but the authors are still using dedicated cameras.
  • freetime2 4y ago
    Even when I carry my camera (Sony a7iii) around, I still take a lot of photos with my iPhone. The iPhone often gives better out-of-camera results than the Sony in high dynamic range situations. And other times it's just easier to grab my iPhone and take a quick snap than to swap the lens on the Sony for something wider. Of course there are also a lot of situations where big-sensor, interchangeable lens cameras still excel, such as low light, telephoto, shallow depth of field, and resolution. So my Sony also gets a lot of use. Photography isn't dead. Smartphones have just become serious photography tools.
    • hyperbovine 4y ago
      Weird to be arguing that photography is dead when the number of pictures taken every day is experiencing super exponential growth. Lugging a 10lb chunk of glass and magnesium around on your neck otoh … _that’s_ dying.
    • ehnto 4y ago
      Same. There is a difference in the photos I take with both but the outcome is clear, I take way more interesting photos with my phone because it is always at hand.
  • 4y ago
• alistairSH 4y ago
  Is photography dead? Far from it, it’s just that phone cameras are good enough to replace DSLRs or full-featured P&S for most users. DSLRs are pretty much dead. The handful of pros I know either have or plan to transition to mirrorless. Or, a few shoot medium format. Most of my friends have at least one mirrorless. Sometimes several. Along with a stack of both current and vintage lenses. But, they’re a well-to-do crowd with hipster tendencies, so YMMV. My parents had several film SLRs over the decades. But when their Pentax was stolen on a vacation in the late-90s or early-00s, they didn’t replace it. They got a compact P&S and now rely on their phones. The SLR was only ever used for snapshots, not photograhpy as a hobby. Personally, I grew up using their SLR plus a pile of cheap or disposable P&S. Then a few compact digitals. Bought my first DSLR in my mid-20s to get better family shots. Transitioned to a mirrorless about 10 years ago, have two bodies and a pile of lenses, but 90% of the time just use my phone. The cameras only come out for events, vacation, or on the odd occasion the mood hits.
  • asdff 4y ago
    I don't know why pros who already have gear would move to mirrorless. Its a step back for them. Battery life gets slashed by 2/3rds at least. AF is probably worse. Plus now you need to buy into a new lens ecosystem for the first time in 40 years.
    • fomine3 4y ago
      Isn't AF significantly improved since the sensor always receives signals?
      • ehnto 4y ago
        I think this is true, in my experience it is. Only difference might be speed of acquiring focus but that could have just been lens and general camera differences, not because the core concept is slower.
      • etrautmann 4y ago
        I'm (somewhat sure) the DSLR allowed for a separate light path to a separate AF sensor, so now it has to be integrated into the same sensor which has some cost in terms of sensor area and resources devoted to AF vs. regular imaging? Not an expert so please someone correct me.
• SAI_Peregrinus 4y ago
  Phone cameras got good enough that for quite a lot of pictures there's no need for an interchangeable lens camera. Particularly if it's around the same focal lengths that phone cameras can get (reasonably wide angles). I use my phone for landscapes quite often, it's quite decent. I use my mirrorless camera and a supertelephoto lens for things my phone just can't capture: birds and many distant animals.
• tuatoru 4y ago
  Photography is perhaps becoming niche. My wife learned in the digital era, but has recently got into film with a couple of 35mm cameras and now a Rolleiflex 120-format twin-lens reflex from family friends. She struggles with, but likes, the ideas that you have to think much harder about your shots with film (especially 120: 12 shots per roll!), and that you have to keep records of your shots in a notebook or similar, because you won't see them for a while. She loves the different effects of the different film types. The result has been moving from a 1:15 keeper ratio to closer to a 1:6 or 1:4 ratio. Film cameras are heavy, though. Something in carbon composite would be nice. And possibly a dual-media camera: take a preview on digital, then if you want, take the shot on film.
  • petre 4y ago
    Try the Goodman Zone camera, a 3d printed medium format plastic camera. Also the Rolleicord or Rolleiflex T and earlier 3.5 models and the Minolta Autocord are light enough (~1 kg). I have a 3.5 MX-EVS and a 'cord IV. https://doragoodman.com/goodlab-project/goodman-zone-medium-format-film-camera/ https://doragoodman.com/goodlab-project/goodman-zone-medium-...
    • tuatoru 4y ago
      We have a Rolleiflex T, which we love for its mechanical qualities (so clever!) but still find heavy. My wife uses Olympus (micro four-thirds) digital, which is much lighter. Olympus make (made?) some great lenses.
      • alistairSH 4y ago
        Made - they sold their camera business to another conglomerate. Marketed as "OM System" now, but with mostly the same product line (there's one new body so far).
      • petre 4y ago
        Well, the only lighter medium format camera which isn't an ancient folder is the Fuji GS645S and it's not much lighter than the T, only 200 grams or so. There is a wide angle version, the GS645W which is even lighter at 680 grams. But it has its quirks: you frame it in portrait mode and the shutter has issues and makes a loud noise as well. You'd be lucky if you find one without fault. The Rollei T is great but I was fed up with the crank issues on my 3.5 MX-EVS and bought an inexpensive 'cord. What kept me away from the T was the >1 kg weight and also the price. The 'cord is 830 grams but the viewfinder is qiute dim and not usable in weak light. I too use a digital micro four thirds camera, but a Panasonic with the Leica 15 mm f1.4 and the first edition 20 mm Lumix lens. It's not much lughter than the 'cord
• FpUser 4y ago
  >"It’s kind of sad to see only one or two people with SLRs at any “vista point” I visit" For contrast Toronto is choke full of people with SLR and mirrorless cams. Not that there are not enough people taking pics with smartphones either. What is virtually gone (from my perspective) are those small point and shoot cameras,
• grecy 4y ago
  I make my living from photos , video and writing. I’ve got $5k of Sony mirrorless and gear, my gf has an iPhone 11. For quick snaps of moving wildlife, or tricky light, or a quick snap, the iPhone is incredible, and often she has a very sharp shot before I have the lens cap off and start thinking about shutter speed, etc. The iPhone photos are great for fb or insta or anything on small screen. The immense difference comes when I load photos into Lightroom and get to work, upping shadows, cropping or reducing highlights. They’re not even remotely the same. And all of that is just with one all purpose lens on the Sony. Throw a BIG zoom on the front and the comparison is a thousands times different... or a nice wide fast lens and again, whole different ball game . Of the many hundreds of My photos That have run in print magazines, maybe two or three have been from a phone. I don’t think a print worthy shot like this comes off phones (yet) https://www.instagram.com/p/CersLuLBfCz/?igshid=YmMyMTA2M2Y= https://www.instagram.com/p/CersLuLBfCz/?igshid=YmMyMTA2M2Y=
• sho 4y ago
  Obviously photography as a whole has never been bigger and still growing. The vast majority of it on smartphones, which the industry, especially Apple, has pushed to incredible levels of quality. But I'd say "serious photography" is about where it's always been, maybe a little reduced. It's always been expensive to have a proper setup. The huge difference is that the new consumer stuff (phones) are just much much better than it used to be (point and shoots). There's still a big difference though between what you can get out of a phone and what you can do with a "real" camera. I have never seen anything out of a phone that can match what you can do with a full frame and a fast 55 or whatever. Sure you can add fake depth of field in software but I'm not sure it will ever be possible to really duplicate in a phone. Especially the interface - phones just don't have the physical controls you need to play some of the tricks "real" cameras can do, like grabbing focus or white balance from somewhere else then holding it as you compose your real shot. At some point just the lack of dedicated buttons is holding you back. I know there's apps that can give you more control than the default apps but with a physical body I can set up that shot in 1 second. I actually felt this acutely just last night. One of my friends went all out with halloween makeup and wanted me to take some pictures, but I only had my phone on me. They came out OK, pretty good even, but I know for a fact I would have been able to do much better with my half-broken old a7sii and a decent lens. Much, much better. But it's the camera you have with you...
  • LightG 4y ago
    100% this I have a very basic Sony mirrorless camera gathering dust somewhere. I used to much better photos even on just that.