4 ms·

Which is why DSLRs are for hobbyists and professionals. It's more work, for a reward. Or for people shooting at night. The sensors are too small on phones to g

Which is why DSLRs are for hobbyists and professionals. It's more work, for a reward. Or for people shooting at night. The sensors are too small on phones to gather enough light to look decent.

turbo_fart 4y ago
With google night sight you can basically take pictures in the dark.
speedgoose 4y ago
The sensors are small but the software is good. Night photography is easy on a recent smartphone and you don’t even need a tripod.
- sudosysgen 4y ago
  I've tried it with an iPhone 13 and an older camera with significantly worse low light performance than any camera from the past 7 years, and even if I disable the built-in image stacking, the mirrorless camera with an f/1.4 lens is incomparably better. I could properly expose my backyard with nothing but light pollution handheld. Newer cameras can even film video with nothing but moonlight.
  - speedgoose 4y ago
    Which camera is it? My old X100T is a complete mess in extreme low light conditions and I don’t remember things to have improved much in the following years.
    - sudosysgen 4y ago
      An A7ii with a Sigma EF 85mm f/1.4 (incidentally the whole set up used is about half the price of an iPhone 14 Pro). The X100T is a great camera for the experience, but it kinda sucks for low-light. If you want good low-light performance, then image stabilization is a must and full-frame with a lens faster than F2 makes a huge difference too. In the end I can hand-hold comfortably at 1/4th of a second, and the camera itself takes in 4x more light, so low light performance is much better than on an X100T. I can upload the pictures I'm talking about later today, if you want.
- appletrotter 4y ago
  Yeah as other commenters have pointed out, it’s night and day (no pun) between dark shots on DSLRs and phones.
  - Kye 4y ago
    The only catch is, at least on the iPhone 14 Pro, you can't do stuff like light trails with the included camera app. Its very smart, fancy processing carefully removes the trails as it combines exposures so you end up a very well-lit picture of traffic rather than pretty lines and no cars.
unethical_ban 4y ago
Clearly, many people enjoy taking /good/ photos that look great /quickly/. The point being made is, if Apple/Google can do that with a tiny sensor, why hasn't one of the remaining pro camera companies thrown money into similar work to be done on their cameras? I have an olympus e-om10 (I can't even remember the name format) and it has some filter settings, but nothing with the usability and quick results of Apple and Google regarding night shoots, etc.
- mkaic 4y ago
  This was exactly the point I was trying to make. If a "real camera" manufacturer like Canon, Nikon, BlackMagic, etc. stepped up and added Apple-tier processing as an option to their cameras, I'd choose that over an iPhone any day. It frustrates me that the best computational photography in the world is being done using small sensors and tiny lenses, but since no DSLR manufacturer has matched Apple's computational witchcraft, I'll (sadly) be sticking with my iPhone for shooting all my short films. For the price it's easily the best combo of quality and convenience.
  - appletrotter 4y ago
    That’s because the professionals do all this “computational photography” on a laptop or something. That way they get to have a little more creative input into it too. There’s like a billion desktop apps to get any sort of processing you want done on a shot. DSLRs aren’t good if you want “point and click,” and that’s okay.
    - unethical_ban 4y ago
      >DSLRs aren’t good if you want “point and click,” and that’s okay. I disagree, that's my point. I completely understand your point that most DSLR users are pros who have tools to make things pop. What I'm suggesting is that there is a market for people who want really high quality photos that are achievable through larger lenses and sensor sizes, with the simplicity and intelligence in realtime of a phone camera. Would it be a billion dollar market? Maybe not. But with "computational photography" being far from science fiction these days and with mobile chips being so powerful, it would seem like a strong way to stay relevant in a mainstream market to market a DSLR with phone-like usability.

Which is why DSLRs are for hobbyists and professionals. It's more work, for a reward. Or for people shooting at night. The sensors are too small on phones to gather enough light to look decent.

turbo_fart 4y ago

With google night sight you can basically take pictures in the dark.

speedgoose 4y ago

The sensors are small but the software is good. Night photography is easy on a recent smartphone and you don’t even need a tripod.

sudosysgen 4y ago
I've tried it with an iPhone 13 and an older camera with significantly worse low light performance than any camera from the past 7 years, and even if I disable the built-in image stacking, the mirrorless camera with an f/1.4 lens is incomparably better. I could properly expose my backyard with nothing but light pollution handheld. Newer cameras can even film video with nothing but moonlight.
- speedgoose 4y ago
  Which camera is it? My old X100T is a complete mess in extreme low light conditions and I don’t remember things to have improved much in the following years.
  - sudosysgen 4y ago
    An A7ii with a Sigma EF 85mm f/1.4 (incidentally the whole set up used is about half the price of an iPhone 14 Pro). The X100T is a great camera for the experience, but it kinda sucks for low-light. If you want good low-light performance, then image stabilization is a must and full-frame with a lens faster than F2 makes a huge difference too. In the end I can hand-hold comfortably at 1/4th of a second, and the camera itself takes in 4x more light, so low light performance is much better than on an X100T. I can upload the pictures I'm talking about later today, if you want.
appletrotter 4y ago
Yeah as other commenters have pointed out, it’s night and day (no pun) between dark shots on DSLRs and phones.
- Kye 4y ago
  The only catch is, at least on the iPhone 14 Pro, you can't do stuff like light trails with the included camera app. Its very smart, fancy processing carefully removes the trails as it combines exposures so you end up a very well-lit picture of traffic rather than pretty lines and no cars.

unethical_ban 4y ago

Clearly, many people enjoy taking /good/ photos that look great /quickly/. The point being made is, if Apple/Google can do that with a tiny sensor, why hasn't one of the remaining pro camera companies thrown money into similar work to be done on their cameras? I have an olympus e-om10 (I can't even remember the name format) and it has some filter settings, but nothing with the usability and quick results of Apple and Google regarding night shoots, etc.

mkaic 4y ago
This was exactly the point I was trying to make. If a "real camera" manufacturer like Canon, Nikon, BlackMagic, etc. stepped up and added Apple-tier processing as an option to their cameras, I'd choose that over an iPhone any day. It frustrates me that the best computational photography in the world is being done using small sensors and tiny lenses, but since no DSLR manufacturer has matched Apple's computational witchcraft, I'll (sadly) be sticking with my iPhone for shooting all my short films. For the price it's easily the best combo of quality and convenience.
- appletrotter 4y ago
  That’s because the professionals do all this “computational photography” on a laptop or something. That way they get to have a little more creative input into it too. There’s like a billion desktop apps to get any sort of processing you want done on a shot. DSLRs aren’t good if you want “point and click,” and that’s okay.
  - unethical_ban 4y ago
    >DSLRs aren’t good if you want “point and click,” and that’s okay. I disagree, that's my point. I completely understand your point that most DSLR users are pros who have tools to make things pop. What I'm suggesting is that there is a market for people who want really high quality photos that are achievable through larger lenses and sensor sizes, with the simplicity and intelligence in realtime of a phone camera. Would it be a billion dollar market? Maybe not. But with "computational photography" being far from science fiction these days and with mobile chips being so powerful, it would seem like a strong way to stay relevant in a mainstream market to market a DSLR with phone-like usability.