3 ms·

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

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.

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.