3 ms·

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

by 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.

by pornel 4y ago

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.