4 ms·

It seems like the consumer market was completely destroyed by smartphones, used by people who don't particularly care about image quality, and the professional

by ge0rg 2y ago

It seems like the consumer market was completely destroyed by smartphones, used by people who don't particularly care about image quality, and the professional market is people who do RAW shooting with image file sizes of 40..90MB, with post-processing on a PC. Seems like the niche between those markets never was large enough to warrant this functionality, given that both mobile standards and cloud service APIs change multiple times over the lifetime of a camera.

BobaFloutist 2y ago
Also given that phone cameras have absurdly high image quality at this point.
- ge0rg 2y ago
  They only have absurdly high resolution. The optical quality is rather mediocre if you need to zoom or shoot in low light.
- chillfox 2y ago
  I can pull out my decade old Sony and it absolutely beats a new iPhone on image quality. Zero contest. Phone images only look ok because they are mostly viewed on a small screen.
- cmrdporcupine 2y ago
  As sibling says... they have high resolution, but terrible optics. Fixed aperture, bad in low light, and all the photos get a similar.. flat... quality to them that they then alter heavily in software with various computational photography / "AI" techniques that ... well, they're fine, and good for the market they're after, but it's limiting. Even a 15 year old interchangeable lens camera with a lower MP sensor can produce better pictures than a phone, esp if you want to do things like background blur / bokeh which is not possible at all with a phone (though they emulate it in software). Hell lately I've dug up an old Canon Powershot 12MP CCD digicam out of a box, and put a hacked firmware on it (that can shoot RAW and let you do proper manual control of the lens), and gotten really interesting results. That thing has a tiny sensor, but having actual aperture control makes a big diff.
estebank 2y ago
The niche between those two market segments is currently catered to by the used market of older pro gear.
- giobox 2y ago
  The used ILC market is insanely good over the past few years, I'd strongly argue most interchangeable lens cameras passed the "good enough" point for most types of photography circa 2013. This has meant there is basically a decades worth of "good enough" used gear out there to buy. It's a similar story for video folks; lots of old Black Magic m43 cams available for ridiculous prices on eBay etc etc. The gains from 2013 to today in the ILC market are much less interesting than 2003-2013 was, where we saw a pretty wild rate of improvement from the Canon 300D/Nikon D70 beginnings of a consumer market through to the modern era of digital SLRs. My "daily driver" camera (olympus EM-1 MK II) dates from 2013, as one example of this, and still produces great results. The latest iteration of this model is not a quantum leap for most types of photography.
spike021 2y ago
I think the RAW photo size is the constraint here. If I'm out shooting an event or something it's not uncommon for me to get 500-1000 frames. Multiply that by say 50MB each and that's a huge chunk of data at least for some cell plans. I'm an amateur photographer though so it's not a requirement for me. Maybe a professional wouldn't mind writing the expense of mobile data off as a cost of business.

by ge0rg 2y ago

BobaFloutist 2y ago

Also given that phone cameras have absurdly high image quality at this point.

ge0rg 2y ago
They only have absurdly high resolution. The optical quality is rather mediocre if you need to zoom or shoot in low light.
chillfox 2y ago
I can pull out my decade old Sony and it absolutely beats a new iPhone on image quality. Zero contest. Phone images only look ok because they are mostly viewed on a small screen.
cmrdporcupine 2y ago
As sibling says... they have high resolution, but terrible optics. Fixed aperture, bad in low light, and all the photos get a similar.. flat... quality to them that they then alter heavily in software with various computational photography / "AI" techniques that ... well, they're fine, and good for the market they're after, but it's limiting. Even a 15 year old interchangeable lens camera with a lower MP sensor can produce better pictures than a phone, esp if you want to do things like background blur / bokeh which is not possible at all with a phone (though they emulate it in software). Hell lately I've dug up an old Canon Powershot 12MP CCD digicam out of a box, and put a hacked firmware on it (that can shoot RAW and let you do proper manual control of the lens), and gotten really interesting results. That thing has a tiny sensor, but having actual aperture control makes a big diff.

estebank 2y ago

The niche between those two market segments is currently catered to by the used market of older pro gear.

giobox 2y ago
The used ILC market is insanely good over the past few years, I'd strongly argue most interchangeable lens cameras passed the "good enough" point for most types of photography circa 2013. This has meant there is basically a decades worth of "good enough" used gear out there to buy. It's a similar story for video folks; lots of old Black Magic m43 cams available for ridiculous prices on eBay etc etc. The gains from 2013 to today in the ILC market are much less interesting than 2003-2013 was, where we saw a pretty wild rate of improvement from the Canon 300D/Nikon D70 beginnings of a consumer market through to the modern era of digital SLRs. My "daily driver" camera (olympus EM-1 MK II) dates from 2013, as one example of this, and still produces great results. The latest iteration of this model is not a quantum leap for most types of photography.

spike021 2y ago

I think the RAW photo size is the constraint here. If I'm out shooting an event or something it's not uncommon for me to get 500-1000 frames. Multiply that by say 50MB each and that's a huge chunk of data at least for some cell plans. I'm an amateur photographer though so it's not a requirement for me. Maybe a professional wouldn't mind writing the expense of mobile data off as a cost of business.