4 ms·

>"I can't justify spending time manually tweaking every RAW file when smartphones do it well 99% of the time." As soon as one looks at photo on larger 4K monit

by FpUser 4y ago

>"I can't justify spending time manually tweaking every RAW file when smartphones do it well 99% of the time." As soon as one looks at photo on larger 4K monitor the difference is striking. And you do not even have to dick with raw files to see the difference. Plain JPEG coming out of my relatively ancient D800 puts best smartphone cam to shame. Size matters and full frame sensor vs one in smartphone are incomparable. That is not to say that smartphone can not take decent photos and in many cases what is being photographed matters way more than the picture quality as long as it is not atrocious.

ymolodtsov 4y ago
Well, I have some photos of Amsterdam I took on iPhone 5S and they look just fine on my display. And we've had a ton of progress since then. In general case, you're right, but modern smartphones have come a long way.
pornel 4y ago
I'd be nice to have normal-sized lens, but it's hard to justify lugging them when the rest of the camera is so primitive. Cameras usually take longer to start and get ready to take a shot (or run out of battery sooner if you keep them on all the time) and have slower autofocus. May screw up exposure. It's harder to check the photos. Extra steps are needed to get the photos out of the camera. And it annoys me to no end that my dumb camera can't automatically adjust its clock and the timezone.
- vladvasiliu 4y ago
  You don't have to cart around a big-ass DSLR with multi-pound lenses. My pen-f (2016) runs circles around an iphone pro, and it's pretty small and light for a "real" camera (it can fit in my coat pocket). > Cameras usually take longer to start and get ready to take a shot (or run out of battery sooner if you keep them on all the time) and have slower autofocus. This is not true, especially if we're talking about DSLRs (as opposed to mirrorless). I used to have a Canon 40D. I never turned it off. It would stay "on" in the bag for however long I didn't use it. It consumed next to nothing when in "sleep" mode, but came out of it ready to shoot at the touch of a button. Autofocus was plenty fast, too. Ditto for a friend's Sony A700 (same vintage APS-C DSLR). I understand current mirrorless cameras have much better autofocus, even the mid-range ones. Even my pen-f (mirrorless) wakes up or turns on much quicker than you can slide around your finger on an iphone. Autofocus isn't great in low-light, though.
- hef19898 4y ago
  You never touched a real camera, did you? AF speed depends on the lense, older ones with a screw drive AF are slower than newer ones where the AF motor is in the lens. Camera AF speed is incredible so, starting with mid-level cameras, let alone to speak of the more pro-grade stuff. And those cameras are ready to shoot faster from fully of than it takes to get them from holding them to your side to your eye. Definitely faster than getting a smartphone camera ready.
- radlad 4y ago
  > Cameras usually take longer to start and get ready to take a shot (or run out of battery sooner if you keep them on all the time) and have slower autofocus. This is definitely not true. Cameras may take slightly longer to start than a phone takes to turn its screen on, but the same amount of time (or quicker) to get to "shooting a photo." (Yes, even with shortcuts like double-tap the power button on a phone.) The Ricoh GR III is ready to shoot in 0.7 seconds, and that includes extending a retracted lens barrel. And this is a pocketable camera. Fast AF on a phone is mostly due to the fact that they usually use very wide-angle lenses. There's a wider range of acceptable focus. Newer lenses and cameras (i.e. the last 5-7 years) on a DSLR are still way faster.
- jjav 4y ago
  > Cameras usually take longer to start and get ready to take a shot What? If you set up a camera and a phone on the table and do a timed run from the moment of reaching out and grabbing it to having a well-focused image taken, the camera will win 100% of the time. Phones with their touch screen and laggy UI are incredibly slow in comparison. > or run out of battery sooner if you keep them on all the time The exact opposite. A camera will last for months on a single charge if not heavily used.
ZetaZero 4y ago
...my relatively ancient D800... Launched five years ago at $3000.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- hef19898 4y ago
  And being sold used for 700-ish. Heck, an ancient D700 beats any smartphone whatsoever at larger prints and screens. You do have to do some post-processing yourself, true. And you need proper optics, there is only so much you can crop out of 12 MP. Smartphones take great pictures, and I love the fact that it gets a lot more people into photography than back during the film days. making art more accessible can only be good. But let's not kid ourselves, the reason why smartphone photos do look so great is a ton of heavy automated post-processing in device. I'd prefer to have that same functionalities available as stand-alone post-processing software. Or not, I'm fine with darktable.
  - radlad 4y ago
    I think the problem is less about the number of megapixels and more about the size of the pixels (i.e. sensor) personally. Smartphones simply cannot resolve the same level of detail that a proper camera can, regardless of how many MP of resolution they provide. Computational AI helps a bit, but...
- gsu2 4y ago
  Launched ten years ago: https://www.dpreview.com/products/nikon/slrs/nikon_d800 https://www.dpreview.com/products/nikon/slrs/nikon_d800 Currently available for ~$600: https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?&_nkw=nikon+d800&LH_Sold=1&LH_Complete=1 https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?&_nkw=nikon+d800&LH_Sold=1&L...
- jiggawatts 4y ago
  I’ve had mine since 2012.
jve 4y ago
> As soon as one looks at photo on larger 4K monitor the difference is striking I hope I'll view photos on 4K someday...
MSFT_Edging 4y ago
I've noticed recently that a lot of smartphone cameras are doing a lot of heavy software upscaling and smoothing that erases details worse than simply low resolution. Everything is starting to look airbrushed. Having a real lens to do a lot of the optical heavy lifting and letting the sensor sense makes a huge difference if you really care about detail.
- twoWhlsGud 4y ago
  Yes, and this means that everything you shoot with (say) an iPhone tends to look the same. The camera has a very well curated set of opinions on color science etc that works really well for most people, but it enforces a look and once you try and wander out of that it stops being an effective instrument for looking at the world. (Yes, ProRAW helps a bit, but nothing beats real lenses on a big sensor for having your own control over image creation.) That said, if you're just taking snaps to share with friends I don't see why you'd care about any of that : )
8f2ab37a-ed6c 4y ago
The issue is that the average person doesn't consume photos and videos on their large 4k monitors. That's an enthusiast niche at best. That alone a market sustaining a large multinational co does not make. Sensibly, workflows optimize for the smartphone consumption use case. And yes, that hurts as photographers who obsessed over sharpness and pixel-level fidelity since the invention of digital cameras, but that just doesn't seem to be where the zeitgeist is at anymore. People never really cared in the first place. It's similar to how music producers obsess over whether a particular synth sound was made with analog gear or was a "cheap digital knockoff". The listener never cared in the first place. They just want to be moved wherever it is that they are, which happens to be on the phone 99% of the time in photography.
- FpUser 4y ago
  >The issue is that the average person doesn't consume photos and videos on their large 4k monitors. That's an enthusiast niche at best." Maybe. I do not care. I only use phone as to call, GPS, controlling some gadgets, take a pic and that is it. I do the rest on PC on big screens.
- mejutoco 4y ago
  > The issue is that the average person doesn't consume photos and videos on their large 4k monitors. If you want to further process the image you want the best quality input you can get. Think digitally zooming/reframing, or choosing from a bigger dynamic range to use the colors you prefer. In a lower quality input you might be stuck with whatever photo you took, while the high-quality input gives you more information to correct the picture, even if the end resolution ends up being the same. P.S. Good printed photos also have more definition that most monitors (idk if 4k, but I believe comparable), for products like printed wedding photos.
- LorenPechtel 4y ago
  When you edit or crop you lose information. It's good to start with extra.
jjav 4y ago
> As soon as one looks at photo on larger 4K monitor the difference is striking. Exactly. Or when you print them out. On the wall here I have a printed photo about 4ft wide, taken from a cropped section of a photo (not even the full frame) and it looks stunning. And this isn't even from a newer pro camera, it was taken with a ~15 year old Nikon D40.
- ymolodtsov 4y ago
  A 4ft printed photo isn't exactly a popular use case. A 10x15 would look great.

by FpUser 4y ago

ymolodtsov 4y ago

Well, I have some photos of Amsterdam I took on iPhone 5S and they look just fine on my display. And we've had a ton of progress since then. In general case, you're right, but modern smartphones have come a long way.

pornel 4y ago

I'd be nice to have normal-sized lens, but it's hard to justify lugging them when the rest of the camera is so primitive. Cameras usually take longer to start and get ready to take a shot (or run out of battery sooner if you keep them on all the time) and have slower autofocus. May screw up exposure. It's harder to check the photos. Extra steps are needed to get the photos out of the camera. And it annoys me to no end that my dumb camera can't automatically adjust its clock and the timezone.

vladvasiliu 4y ago
You don't have to cart around a big-ass DSLR with multi-pound lenses. My pen-f (2016) runs circles around an iphone pro, and it's pretty small and light for a "real" camera (it can fit in my coat pocket). > Cameras usually take longer to start and get ready to take a shot (or run out of battery sooner if you keep them on all the time) and have slower autofocus. This is not true, especially if we're talking about DSLRs (as opposed to mirrorless). I used to have a Canon 40D. I never turned it off. It would stay "on" in the bag for however long I didn't use it. It consumed next to nothing when in "sleep" mode, but came out of it ready to shoot at the touch of a button. Autofocus was plenty fast, too. Ditto for a friend's Sony A700 (same vintage APS-C DSLR). I understand current mirrorless cameras have much better autofocus, even the mid-range ones. Even my pen-f (mirrorless) wakes up or turns on much quicker than you can slide around your finger on an iphone. Autofocus isn't great in low-light, though.
hef19898 4y ago
You never touched a real camera, did you? AF speed depends on the lense, older ones with a screw drive AF are slower than newer ones where the AF motor is in the lens. Camera AF speed is incredible so, starting with mid-level cameras, let alone to speak of the more pro-grade stuff. And those cameras are ready to shoot faster from fully of than it takes to get them from holding them to your side to your eye. Definitely faster than getting a smartphone camera ready.
radlad 4y ago
> Cameras usually take longer to start and get ready to take a shot (or run out of battery sooner if you keep them on all the time) and have slower autofocus. This is definitely not true. Cameras may take slightly longer to start than a phone takes to turn its screen on, but the same amount of time (or quicker) to get to "shooting a photo." (Yes, even with shortcuts like double-tap the power button on a phone.) The Ricoh GR III is ready to shoot in 0.7 seconds, and that includes extending a retracted lens barrel. And this is a pocketable camera. Fast AF on a phone is mostly due to the fact that they usually use very wide-angle lenses. There's a wider range of acceptable focus. Newer lenses and cameras (i.e. the last 5-7 years) on a DSLR are still way faster.
jjav 4y ago
> Cameras usually take longer to start and get ready to take a shot What? If you set up a camera and a phone on the table and do a timed run from the moment of reaching out and grabbing it to having a well-focused image taken, the camera will win 100% of the time. Phones with their touch screen and laggy UI are incredibly slow in comparison. > or run out of battery sooner if you keep them on all the time The exact opposite. A camera will last for months on a single charge if not heavily used.

ZetaZero 4y ago

...my relatively ancient D800... Launched five years ago at $3000.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
hef19898 4y ago
And being sold used for 700-ish. Heck, an ancient D700 beats any smartphone whatsoever at larger prints and screens. You do have to do some post-processing yourself, true. And you need proper optics, there is only so much you can crop out of 12 MP. Smartphones take great pictures, and I love the fact that it gets a lot more people into photography than back during the film days. making art more accessible can only be good. But let's not kid ourselves, the reason why smartphone photos do look so great is a ton of heavy automated post-processing in device. I'd prefer to have that same functionalities available as stand-alone post-processing software. Or not, I'm fine with darktable.
- radlad 4y ago
  I think the problem is less about the number of megapixels and more about the size of the pixels (i.e. sensor) personally. Smartphones simply cannot resolve the same level of detail that a proper camera can, regardless of how many MP of resolution they provide. Computational AI helps a bit, but...
gsu2 4y ago
Launched ten years ago: https://www.dpreview.com/products/nikon/slrs/nikon_d800 https://www.dpreview.com/products/nikon/slrs/nikon_d800 Currently available for ~$600: https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?&_nkw=nikon+d800&LH_Sold=1&LH_Complete=1 https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?&_nkw=nikon+d800&LH_Sold=1&L...
jiggawatts 4y ago
I’ve had mine since 2012.

jve 4y ago

> As soon as one looks at photo on larger 4K monitor the difference is striking I hope I'll view photos on 4K someday...

MSFT_Edging 4y ago

I've noticed recently that a lot of smartphone cameras are doing a lot of heavy software upscaling and smoothing that erases details worse than simply low resolution. Everything is starting to look airbrushed. Having a real lens to do a lot of the optical heavy lifting and letting the sensor sense makes a huge difference if you really care about detail.

twoWhlsGud 4y ago
Yes, and this means that everything you shoot with (say) an iPhone tends to look the same. The camera has a very well curated set of opinions on color science etc that works really well for most people, but it enforces a look and once you try and wander out of that it stops being an effective instrument for looking at the world. (Yes, ProRAW helps a bit, but nothing beats real lenses on a big sensor for having your own control over image creation.) That said, if you're just taking snaps to share with friends I don't see why you'd care about any of that : )

8f2ab37a-ed6c 4y ago

The issue is that the average person doesn't consume photos and videos on their large 4k monitors. That's an enthusiast niche at best. That alone a market sustaining a large multinational co does not make. Sensibly, workflows optimize for the smartphone consumption use case. And yes, that hurts as photographers who obsessed over sharpness and pixel-level fidelity since the invention of digital cameras, but that just doesn't seem to be where the zeitgeist is at anymore. People never really cared in the first place. It's similar to how music producers obsess over whether a particular synth sound was made with analog gear or was a "cheap digital knockoff". The listener never cared in the first place. They just want to be moved wherever it is that they are, which happens to be on the phone 99% of the time in photography.

FpUser 4y ago
>The issue is that the average person doesn't consume photos and videos on their large 4k monitors. That's an enthusiast niche at best." Maybe. I do not care. I only use phone as to call, GPS, controlling some gadgets, take a pic and that is it. I do the rest on PC on big screens.
mejutoco 4y ago
> The issue is that the average person doesn't consume photos and videos on their large 4k monitors. If you want to further process the image you want the best quality input you can get. Think digitally zooming/reframing, or choosing from a bigger dynamic range to use the colors you prefer. In a lower quality input you might be stuck with whatever photo you took, while the high-quality input gives you more information to correct the picture, even if the end resolution ends up being the same. P.S. Good printed photos also have more definition that most monitors (idk if 4k, but I believe comparable), for products like printed wedding photos.
LorenPechtel 4y ago
When you edit or crop you lose information. It's good to start with extra.

jjav 4y ago

> As soon as one looks at photo on larger 4K monitor the difference is striking. Exactly. Or when you print them out. On the wall here I have a printed photo about 4ft wide, taken from a cropped section of a photo (not even the full frame) and it looks stunning. And this isn't even from a newer pro camera, it was taken with a ~15 year old Nikon D40.

ymolodtsov 4y ago
A 4ft printed photo isn't exactly a popular use case. A 10x15 would look great.