3 ms·

Genuine question: why give yourself the headache of coupling having a great camera to choosong a phone then, if it's important to you? Why not have a compact ca

by OJFord 3y ago

Genuine question: why give yourself the headache of coupling having a great camera to choosong a phone then, if it's important to you? Why not have a compact camera as well as whatever phone, and carry that when quality matters?

RankingMember 3y ago
Because carrying extra stuff is a pain in the butt and would be much more of a headache for me.
scarface_74 3y ago
You’re right, we should also carry around a separate GPS device, MP3 player, one of those portable TV players, and everything else like it’s 2005.
- MostlyStable 3y ago
  If "average quality" in everyone of those things was not acceptable to you and you actually needed the best of the best, and best quality could not be had in most phones....then yeah that might make sense. I doubt anyone actually cares to have absolutely top tier performance in every one of those categories though, and what most phones have is "good enough". Which is why/how phones ate all those functions. They do most of them "good enough" and "good enough" is all that most consumers care about. Caring about performance in at least one of those categories is not that uncommon and carrying a dedicated device for that isn't crazy. I have used stand alone GPS receivers before even when I had my phone, and deciding that you need a better camera seems not crazy at all.
  - scarface_74 3y ago
    > Genuine question: why give yourself the headache of coupling having a great camera to choosong a phone then But I can have a modern high end phone with a good camera. I can’t buy a camera that lets me take a picture, edit the picture on the device, and then the picture automatically gets backed up to iCloud, Google Photos, Microsoft’s One Drive and Amazon Photos and gets synced to all of my other devices. I don’t have to settle for a low end phone that won’t see any updates after two years where the operating system is created by an adTech company.
    - MostlyStable 3y ago
      While it's certainly not the mainstream set of priorities/preferences, it is possible for someone to have a set of priorities in a phone that precludes the high end cameras, while still wanting a very good camera. And depending on the weighting of those preferences, they might be willing to put up with the inconveniences you outline. It's obvious that you peronally don't share those preferences, which is completely fine. But it doesn't make sense to criticize someone else who does. There are sets of preferences where it is not possible to satisfy all of them and something must be sacrificed. Some people will choose to sacrifice convenience.
      - scarface_74 3y ago
        Those are also the stated preference of the original poster > How's the camera? For me, the camera is more important than anything else on a phone, and thus far I've been stuck with Pixels because, despite the shorter support period (and absolutely mind-bogglingly bad customer service), that software does amazing things with old camera hardware .
- sufficer 3y ago
  Although you jest, phone cameras are always not as good as a regular camera due to the physics of lenses, apertures etc being so much bigger in a camera vs a phone.
  - scarface_74 3y ago
    According to the original poster > … that software does amazing things with old camera hardware . This is what a good phone with a good camera can do better than a great camera with mediocre software
- OJFord 3y ago
  If you care deeply enough about any of those things that they're a major concern when choosing a phone, yes, I do make the same argument. A major audiophile won't be happy with a phone. Someone big into 'caching' isn't using Google or Apple maps. A home theatre -phile won't want to watch something good on a phone.
  - scarface_74 3y ago
    The poster specifically said > …that software does amazing things with old camera hardware . A “better camera” supported by worse software is not what the poster seems to want. Are you going to carry around your camera with you everywhere? And as far as audiophiles, it’s been repeatedly shown in blind studies that they can’t tell the difference as often as their snobbery would suggest. But I made good commissions in college selling overpriced Monster cables to them.
    - OJFord 3y ago
      No cameraphile uses on-camera software to.. do anything. That you can do better on a computer than a phone then goes without saying. I'm not going to carry it everywhere no, nor did I say that. (Actually I didn't even say it applied to me.) I carry my Panasonic TZ100 when on holiday or otherwise desirous of better-than-phone photos. It fits in my pocket. Not the same one as my phone granted, but nonetheless in a pocket while in a case and straddling a spare battery. There are audiophiles and audiophiles. A good chunk of them will laugh at Monster cables et al. as much as any of us. You can appreciate a better DAC than found in most/all phones without descending into gold-plated USB-C charging cables that maintain optimal audio nonsense. And even that assuming playback of some locally stored file. I'm not sure any of the mainstream streaming Services offer a format/bitrate that it's not possible objectively to do better than.
      - scarface_74 3y ago
        I’ve scoured the internet and I can’t find any study that shows people can reliably tell the the difference between 256Kb AAC and lossless.

by OJFord 3y ago

RankingMember 3y ago

Because carrying extra stuff is a pain in the butt and would be much more of a headache for me.

scarface_74 3y ago

You’re right, we should also carry around a separate GPS device, MP3 player, one of those portable TV players, and everything else like it’s 2005.

MostlyStable 3y ago
If "average quality" in everyone of those things was not acceptable to you and you actually needed the best of the best, and best quality could not be had in most phones....then yeah that might make sense. I doubt anyone actually cares to have absolutely top tier performance in every one of those categories though, and what most phones have is "good enough". Which is why/how phones ate all those functions. They do most of them "good enough" and "good enough" is all that most consumers care about. Caring about performance in at least one of those categories is not that uncommon and carrying a dedicated device for that isn't crazy. I have used stand alone GPS receivers before even when I had my phone, and deciding that you need a better camera seems not crazy at all.
- scarface_74 3y ago
  > Genuine question: why give yourself the headache of coupling having a great camera to choosong a phone then But I can have a modern high end phone with a good camera. I can’t buy a camera that lets me take a picture, edit the picture on the device, and then the picture automatically gets backed up to iCloud, Google Photos, Microsoft’s One Drive and Amazon Photos and gets synced to all of my other devices. I don’t have to settle for a low end phone that won’t see any updates after two years where the operating system is created by an adTech company.
  - MostlyStable 3y ago
    While it's certainly not the mainstream set of priorities/preferences, it is possible for someone to have a set of priorities in a phone that precludes the high end cameras, while still wanting a very good camera. And depending on the weighting of those preferences, they might be willing to put up with the inconveniences you outline. It's obvious that you peronally don't share those preferences, which is completely fine. But it doesn't make sense to criticize someone else who does. There are sets of preferences where it is not possible to satisfy all of them and something must be sacrificed. Some people will choose to sacrifice convenience.
    - scarface_74 3y ago
      Those are also the stated preference of the original poster > How's the camera? For me, the camera is more important than anything else on a phone, and thus far I've been stuck with Pixels because, despite the shorter support period (and absolutely mind-bogglingly bad customer service), that software does amazing things with old camera hardware .
sufficer 3y ago
Although you jest, phone cameras are always not as good as a regular camera due to the physics of lenses, apertures etc being so much bigger in a camera vs a phone.
- scarface_74 3y ago
  According to the original poster > … that software does amazing things with old camera hardware . This is what a good phone with a good camera can do better than a great camera with mediocre software
OJFord 3y ago
If you care deeply enough about any of those things that they're a major concern when choosing a phone, yes, I do make the same argument. A major audiophile won't be happy with a phone. Someone big into 'caching' isn't using Google or Apple maps. A home theatre -phile won't want to watch something good on a phone.
- scarface_74 3y ago
  The poster specifically said > …that software does amazing things with old camera hardware . A “better camera” supported by worse software is not what the poster seems to want. Are you going to carry around your camera with you everywhere? And as far as audiophiles, it’s been repeatedly shown in blind studies that they can’t tell the difference as often as their snobbery would suggest. But I made good commissions in college selling overpriced Monster cables to them.
  - OJFord 3y ago
    No cameraphile uses on-camera software to.. do anything. That you can do better on a computer than a phone then goes without saying. I'm not going to carry it everywhere no, nor did I say that. (Actually I didn't even say it applied to me.) I carry my Panasonic TZ100 when on holiday or otherwise desirous of better-than-phone photos. It fits in my pocket. Not the same one as my phone granted, but nonetheless in a pocket while in a case and straddling a spare battery. There are audiophiles and audiophiles. A good chunk of them will laugh at Monster cables et al. as much as any of us. You can appreciate a better DAC than found in most/all phones without descending into gold-plated USB-C charging cables that maintain optimal audio nonsense. And even that assuming playback of some locally stored file. I'm not sure any of the mainstream streaming Services offer a format/bitrate that it's not possible objectively to do better than.
    - scarface_74 3y ago
      I’ve scoured the internet and I can’t find any study that shows people can reliably tell the the difference between 256Kb AAC and lossless.