3 ms·

Viewfinder shows all that information in real time already, but after a certain point, you know what your camera gonna do with these settings: Hmm... It's

Viewfinder shows all that information in real time already, but after a certain point, you know what your camera gonna do with these settings: Hmm... It's a bit too bright and this thing gonna overexpose a bit so, let's compensate it with -0.7EV... Hmm... With this settings, it'll track the face automatically so I don't need to think about it now. This is how you instinctively think while taking a photo. It's automatic. I don't know what my metering says me for most of the time, because I already know from experience. Metering is always there though. If it says something contrary to you, it's worth paying attention (again a split second). If I can take this [0] with a single frame, why should I bother about multiple frames? Or, if I can take this [1] with a simple 7-shot bracket (which is overkill, 3 will already do, but why not) and simple compositing, why should I bother? Lastly, if I can take this [2] again with a single shot, with a bog standard lens and with a good tripod, why should I bother with tracked shots, etc. (You can always take better astros, but this is a great shot for a single frame and some post processing). In photography, sensor size is still the king. A mirrorless camera is much crisper than a phone camera, the comparison is still moot. Esp. when you compare full frame sensors to phone camera sensors, even the best ones (like Sony's 48/12 Quad-Bayer systems) fall way short of even an APS-C sensor. It's physics. A RAW image from a big sensor is 90% there. When taking a photo with a phone, you're adding much much more to make it look good. The joy of photography comes from capturing that fleeting moment and framing it to create something worth looking and remembering that moment. Not synthesizing artificial looking colors with extreme post processing which bends the truth in that moment. [0]: https://www.flickr.com/photos/zerocoder/33984196648/ https://www.flickr.com/photos/zerocoder/33984196648/ [1]: https://www.flickr.com/photos/zerocoder/47965142511/ https://www.flickr.com/photos/zerocoder/47965142511/ [2]: https://www.flickr.com/photos/zerocoder/46092337964/ https://www.flickr.com/photos/zerocoder/46092337964/

cyberax 2y ago
> Hmm... It's a bit too bright and this thing gonna overexpose a bit so, let's compensate it with -0.7EV... Why should _I_ do that instead of the camera? > If I can take this [0] with a single frame, why should I bother about multiple frames? You shouldn't. The camera should. It already knows the illumination level, and it can take multiple measurements from its CCD, until the total amount of transferred charge per pixel is enough to build a good picture. And while at it, just take a couple more pictures with intentionally over-exposed sensor to automatically offer the HDR version. You know, the thing that phone cameras have been doing for a decade or so. > In photography, sensor size is still the king. Yes, and that's why I want a mirrorless camera with changeable lenses. There's only so much software can do with a phone's optical system. However, the same software can do so much more when coupled with a big sensor and a good optical system.
- bayindirh 2y ago
  > Why should _I_ do that instead of the camera? First, every machine has its limits, second every photographer has a style. > You shouldn't. The camera should. No. The camera should do exactly as I say. It's an instrument, which shall allow footguns. Because one person's footgun is other person's style. Camera should be a blunt instrument, and should completely get out of the photographer's way, shall become transparent. It's not the camera's interpretation of the scene. It's the photographer's interpretation through the camera. > ...offer the HDR version. If you feel lazy, many mirrorless cameras do that, but the results are may not fit your taste. Sony A7III's Auto-HDR is nice, but it's not exactly what I want, so I merge mine manually. > You know, the thing that phone cameras have been doing for a decade or so. I have quite a few cameras: A Canonette 28, a Pentax MZ50, a Nikon D70s and a Sony A7-III. I also used Canon AE-1, etc. All of these cameras have metering, and all of them are excellent for their era. They are not infallible or perfect. For example, D70s freaks out in CFL and LED environments, because these indoor lighting was non-existent when it was designed. So a custom WB is a must in this case. A7-III sometimes struggles in colored LED (sodium yellow-ish) environments, so you again set custom WB. That machine was the most accurate camera in terms of color when it came out. As I said, every machine has its limits. > However, the same software can do so much more when coupled with a big sensor and a good optical system. The thing is, photographer's don't want the software. They want what they exactly see recorded in a file, and that's more of a dynamic range thing more than a color thing, and it's directly related to sensor hardware (regardless of its size), not software. From my understanding, you want a mirrorless (or full frame) point and shoot, and that's OK. What I want is total control over the camera hardware, regardless of its form factor.
  - cyberax 2y ago
    > First, every machine has its limits, second every photographer has a style. This is such a bullshit statement... > No. The camera should do exactly as I say. Well, time to throw your camera away, I guess. Unless you have a very old DSLR camera, of course. > It's not the camera's interpretation of the scene. It's the photographer's interpretation through the camera. The thing is, the camera can take multiple exposures at no cost, and then you can just discard the ones that you don't need. So you basically want to artificially limit the software and hardware to simulate the old-timey workflows. > For example, D70s freaks out in CFL and LED environments, because these indoor lighting was non-existent when it was designed. See: smartphones. > The thing is, photographer's don't want the software. This photographer wants it. And the market has clearly spoken in agreement with me. > From my understanding, you want a mirrorless (or full frame) point and shoot, and that's OK. Pretty much.

cyberax 2y ago

> Hmm... It's a bit too bright and this thing gonna overexpose a bit so, let's compensate it with -0.7EV... Why should _I_ do that instead of the camera? > If I can take this [0] with a single frame, why should I bother about multiple frames? You shouldn't. The camera should. It already knows the illumination level, and it can take multiple measurements from its CCD, until the total amount of transferred charge per pixel is enough to build a good picture. And while at it, just take a couple more pictures with intentionally over-exposed sensor to automatically offer the HDR version. You know, the thing that phone cameras have been doing for a decade or so. > In photography, sensor size is still the king. Yes, and that's why I want a mirrorless camera with changeable lenses. There's only so much software can do with a phone's optical system. However, the same software can do so much more when coupled with a big sensor and a good optical system.

bayindirh 2y ago
> Why should _I_ do that instead of the camera? First, every machine has its limits, second every photographer has a style. > You shouldn't. The camera should. No. The camera should do exactly as I say. It's an instrument, which shall allow footguns. Because one person's footgun is other person's style. Camera should be a blunt instrument, and should completely get out of the photographer's way, shall become transparent. It's not the camera's interpretation of the scene. It's the photographer's interpretation through the camera. > ...offer the HDR version. If you feel lazy, many mirrorless cameras do that, but the results are may not fit your taste. Sony A7III's Auto-HDR is nice, but it's not exactly what I want, so I merge mine manually. > You know, the thing that phone cameras have been doing for a decade or so. I have quite a few cameras: A Canonette 28, a Pentax MZ50, a Nikon D70s and a Sony A7-III. I also used Canon AE-1, etc. All of these cameras have metering, and all of them are excellent for their era. They are not infallible or perfect. For example, D70s freaks out in CFL and LED environments, because these indoor lighting was non-existent when it was designed. So a custom WB is a must in this case. A7-III sometimes struggles in colored LED (sodium yellow-ish) environments, so you again set custom WB. That machine was the most accurate camera in terms of color when it came out. As I said, every machine has its limits. > However, the same software can do so much more when coupled with a big sensor and a good optical system. The thing is, photographer's don't want the software. They want what they exactly see recorded in a file, and that's more of a dynamic range thing more than a color thing, and it's directly related to sensor hardware (regardless of its size), not software. From my understanding, you want a mirrorless (or full frame) point and shoot, and that's OK. What I want is total control over the camera hardware, regardless of its form factor.
- cyberax 2y ago
  > First, every machine has its limits, second every photographer has a style. This is such a bullshit statement... > No. The camera should do exactly as I say. Well, time to throw your camera away, I guess. Unless you have a very old DSLR camera, of course. > It's not the camera's interpretation of the scene. It's the photographer's interpretation through the camera. The thing is, the camera can take multiple exposures at no cost, and then you can just discard the ones that you don't need. So you basically want to artificially limit the software and hardware to simulate the old-timey workflows. > For example, D70s freaks out in CFL and LED environments, because these indoor lighting was non-existent when it was designed. See: smartphones. > The thing is, photographer's don't want the software. This photographer wants it. And the market has clearly spoken in agreement with me. > From my understanding, you want a mirrorless (or full frame) point and shoot, and that's OK. Pretty much.