5 ms·

Mirrorless cameras nowadays can push as much as 8k60 (twice the amount of data over 4k120), every frame at full quality. All that with better optics/sensors and

by jval43 2y ago

Mirrorless cameras nowadays can push as much as 8k60 (twice the amount of data over 4k120), every frame at full quality. All that with better optics/sensors and less "perceptual testing", thus less of an overprocessed look.

zuhsetaqi 2y ago
What do they cost and how big are they? Nobody is claiming a world record from Apple …
Almondsetat 2y ago
Heat dissipation
dylan604 2y ago
can that mirrorless camera make a phone call, send a text, edit the photo it takes, browse the web, upload the picture to an app, run other apps, or any of the many many other things a phone does that a single function dedicated camera cannot? what trade offs do you accept for that mirrorless camera to do all of the same functionality while still taking an above decent looking image for the vast majority of its users without all of those fancy lenses fixed or interchangeable? As the saying goes, the best came you have is the one you have on you. Only snooty photo/video types care about your comment. Most videos used by phone people are only ever viewed on that device or other similar devices of others viewing it on whatever app they shared it. To even consider them comparable is just not an honest take in the slightest. I say this as someone with several DSLRs and a couple of cinema camera bodies in the next room.
- gazchop 2y ago
  This is a silly take. I’ve got an iPhone 15 Pro and quite frankly the camera on it is pretty good. But it has severe limitations both on reach and quality which you can’t get around without actually putting some real glass in front of it. A lot of people I speak to when travelling are quite disappointed in what comes out of their phones but naively assume it’s the status quo. And we’re talking flagships with the best cameras there as well. The digital crutch kills a lot of memories. Show them one shot from a cheap modern mirrorless and the smartphone is over for them. You don’t even need a high end body. And yes you can do a lot on body and yes they integrate with the phone as well. So that doesn’t kill any of those use cases. They augment the situation. Currently using a Nikon Z50ii + 18-140mm zoom. I don’t change the lens for ref. I shoot JPEG and edit on my phone. Most of the stuff goes on facebook or gets looked at on my Mac. I don’t use LR or shoot raw. The thing literally tethers to my phone.
  - vladvasiliu 2y ago
    > Show them one shot from a cheap modern mirrorless and the smartphone is over for them IME this only lasts up to the point they have to lug that brick with them. Don't get me wrong, I'm firmly in the "my 8 yo m4/3 kit wipes the floor with any phone it's not even funny". Which is all the more the case for a modern FF kit. But even my tiny Olympus is huge compared to my iPhone. Only my winter coat with fat pockets can fit it. It otherwise needs an actual bag (might work with some women's purses, I don't usually carry anything at all). Guess which one I have 100% of the time with me? I've found that the iPhone in hand while outside takes 100% better pictures than the Olympus kit in the drawer at home. It's always a question of compromise. Before my Olympus gear, I used to love my FF Canon gear. Built like tanks. Until it got old carrying all that junk around, and it started gathering dust somewhere. Now I'm happy with m4/3 when I'm relatively serious about my photography, and I'm happy enough with what my iPhone produces when I only feel like having a pair of jeans and a shirt on. Would a new Sony something-or-other wipe the floor with the Olympus? Possibly. Enough for me to lug it around? No way.
    - gazchop 2y ago
      No one seems to care about carrying another brick around on top of the 11 pairs of shoes. The new stuff doesn't weigh a lot. It's not FF bricks any more. Nikon stuff is mostly magnesium and plastic.
      - rscrawfo 2y ago
        When you’re just running out the door with your kids it’s hard to pick up the full frame behemoth. I’ve been considering a m43 for that reason.
        gazchop 2y ago
        Yeah. I’ve got three kids.
      - vladvasiliu 2y ago
        I don't get the reference for the 11 pairs of shoes. I haven't handled new Nikon stuff (the last body I touched was a D80 a long time ago). But I doubt it's smaller and lighter than my olympus with a prime [0]. More power to you if you're OK carrying your kit, it means this works for you, which is absolutely great! But, be that is it may, take a look around you. How many people do you see on any given day taking pictures with actual cameras, whatever the format? I live in Paris, a city flooded with tourists, whom you'd expect to be more likely to put up with carrying a somewhat inconvenient camera in exchange for better pictures. I can count on the fingers of one hand the people I've seen taking pictures with actual cameras in the last few months. And I walk or bike to/from work, along one of the most picturesque parts of the city. However, you can see people taking pictures with their phones all day, everyday. --- [0] Some of the bodies are actually surprisingly small. A sony A7C2 is "only" twice as thick as my Pen-F, the other dimensions being similar. But the body itself is useless without a lens. And while wide-angle offerings seem somewhat similar (though there's no equivalent to the 8-25/4), the tele end is much larger, even comparing a variable aperture to a fixed f/4 offering from Olympus. And primes are an absolute joke if size matters.
Foobar8568 2y ago
And they cost at least double, and rarely all the time with you. I am a bit annoyed by the "AI/processing" part of cellphones, I would love to get back to camera but I can't justify it anymore.
- ghaff 2y ago
  We really are getting to a crossover point for a lot of things. I'll keep and sometimes use my increasingly old standalone cameras for some purposes but I rarely take them on trips these days. I was talking to a friend who is a very good photographer last fall who used to always have a camera on him and he says that, like myself, he only uses his cameras for specific purposes these days. Mostly his smartphone is fine.
- alistairSH 2y ago
  I would love to get back to camera but I can't justify it anymore. I started using iPhone Pros a few generations ago for the better camera, and it’s been great for random snapshots. The adage about the best camera is the one in your pocket is true. But, I still have a mirrorless (Olympus) and some vintage 35mm cameras. The mirrorless is great for photos that I want to look very good (portraits, landscapes, mixed lighting, etc). The film cameras are a pleasure to use, but I’ll freely admit that using them is a bit like preferring a nice Seiko to a smart watch or basic digital Casio. Anyways, with the prices of used cameras being so low, you can get a really nice, compact mirrorless setup for $500 or less. And fixed lens 35mm rangefinders from the 70s can be had for $200 or so. I won’t claim it’s a cheap hobby, but it’s no worse than golf or cycling.
- harrall 2y ago
  I like pocketable non-interchangeable lens mirrorless cameras. I rarely carry it because my cellphone is usually good enough but it’s good for travel and for lower light areas where cellphones struggle. It won’t fit in my pants pocket but it fits in my jacket fine. When I first got it, I didn’t know when I should carry it and when I shouldn’t but now I know and don’t even bat an eye about it.
  - throw-the-towel 2y ago
astrange 2y ago
There is plenty of perceptual testing involved in the color science for a standalone camera. And more in the lenses.
ls612 2y ago
iPhones have been able to shoot in RAW/ProRes for a while now if you really want that.
MaxikCZ 2y ago
Oh my god again the "but my rocket is faster than your car" comment, I hate this so much...
- jval43 2y ago
  Not my intention. >Doing 120 fps video at 4K so that any chosen frame looks amazing without artifacts is really quite an achievement. Apple silicon is extremely impressive. In this case however dedicated cameras can still do more, which I felt was a relevant observation.

by jval43 2y ago

zuhsetaqi 2y ago

What do they cost and how big are they? Nobody is claiming a world record from Apple …

Almondsetat 2y ago

Heat dissipation

dylan604 2y ago

can that mirrorless camera make a phone call, send a text, edit the photo it takes, browse the web, upload the picture to an app, run other apps, or any of the many many other things a phone does that a single function dedicated camera cannot? what trade offs do you accept for that mirrorless camera to do all of the same functionality while still taking an above decent looking image for the vast majority of its users without all of those fancy lenses fixed or interchangeable? As the saying goes, the best came you have is the one you have on you. Only snooty photo/video types care about your comment. Most videos used by phone people are only ever viewed on that device or other similar devices of others viewing it on whatever app they shared it. To even consider them comparable is just not an honest take in the slightest. I say this as someone with several DSLRs and a couple of cinema camera bodies in the next room.

gazchop 2y ago
This is a silly take. I’ve got an iPhone 15 Pro and quite frankly the camera on it is pretty good. But it has severe limitations both on reach and quality which you can’t get around without actually putting some real glass in front of it. A lot of people I speak to when travelling are quite disappointed in what comes out of their phones but naively assume it’s the status quo. And we’re talking flagships with the best cameras there as well. The digital crutch kills a lot of memories. Show them one shot from a cheap modern mirrorless and the smartphone is over for them. You don’t even need a high end body. And yes you can do a lot on body and yes they integrate with the phone as well. So that doesn’t kill any of those use cases. They augment the situation. Currently using a Nikon Z50ii + 18-140mm zoom. I don’t change the lens for ref. I shoot JPEG and edit on my phone. Most of the stuff goes on facebook or gets looked at on my Mac. I don’t use LR or shoot raw. The thing literally tethers to my phone.
- vladvasiliu 2y ago
  > Show them one shot from a cheap modern mirrorless and the smartphone is over for them IME this only lasts up to the point they have to lug that brick with them. Don't get me wrong, I'm firmly in the "my 8 yo m4/3 kit wipes the floor with any phone it's not even funny". Which is all the more the case for a modern FF kit. But even my tiny Olympus is huge compared to my iPhone. Only my winter coat with fat pockets can fit it. It otherwise needs an actual bag (might work with some women's purses, I don't usually carry anything at all). Guess which one I have 100% of the time with me? I've found that the iPhone in hand while outside takes 100% better pictures than the Olympus kit in the drawer at home. It's always a question of compromise. Before my Olympus gear, I used to love my FF Canon gear. Built like tanks. Until it got old carrying all that junk around, and it started gathering dust somewhere. Now I'm happy with m4/3 when I'm relatively serious about my photography, and I'm happy enough with what my iPhone produces when I only feel like having a pair of jeans and a shirt on. Would a new Sony something-or-other wipe the floor with the Olympus? Possibly. Enough for me to lug it around? No way.
  - gazchop 2y ago
    No one seems to care about carrying another brick around on top of the 11 pairs of shoes. The new stuff doesn't weigh a lot. It's not FF bricks any more. Nikon stuff is mostly magnesium and plastic.
    - rscrawfo 2y ago
      When you’re just running out the door with your kids it’s hard to pick up the full frame behemoth. I’ve been considering a m43 for that reason.
      - gazchop 2y ago
        Yeah. I’ve got three kids.
    - vladvasiliu 2y ago
      I don't get the reference for the 11 pairs of shoes. I haven't handled new Nikon stuff (the last body I touched was a D80 a long time ago). But I doubt it's smaller and lighter than my olympus with a prime [0]. More power to you if you're OK carrying your kit, it means this works for you, which is absolutely great! But, be that is it may, take a look around you. How many people do you see on any given day taking pictures with actual cameras, whatever the format? I live in Paris, a city flooded with tourists, whom you'd expect to be more likely to put up with carrying a somewhat inconvenient camera in exchange for better pictures. I can count on the fingers of one hand the people I've seen taking pictures with actual cameras in the last few months. And I walk or bike to/from work, along one of the most picturesque parts of the city. However, you can see people taking pictures with their phones all day, everyday. --- [0] Some of the bodies are actually surprisingly small. A sony A7C2 is "only" twice as thick as my Pen-F, the other dimensions being similar. But the body itself is useless without a lens. And while wide-angle offerings seem somewhat similar (though there's no equivalent to the 8-25/4), the tele end is much larger, even comparing a variable aperture to a fixed f/4 offering from Olympus. And primes are an absolute joke if size matters.

Foobar8568 2y ago

And they cost at least double, and rarely all the time with you. I am a bit annoyed by the "AI/processing" part of cellphones, I would love to get back to camera but I can't justify it anymore.

ghaff 2y ago
We really are getting to a crossover point for a lot of things. I'll keep and sometimes use my increasingly old standalone cameras for some purposes but I rarely take them on trips these days. I was talking to a friend who is a very good photographer last fall who used to always have a camera on him and he says that, like myself, he only uses his cameras for specific purposes these days. Mostly his smartphone is fine.
alistairSH 2y ago
I would love to get back to camera but I can't justify it anymore. I started using iPhone Pros a few generations ago for the better camera, and it’s been great for random snapshots. The adage about the best camera is the one in your pocket is true. But, I still have a mirrorless (Olympus) and some vintage 35mm cameras. The mirrorless is great for photos that I want to look very good (portraits, landscapes, mixed lighting, etc). The film cameras are a pleasure to use, but I’ll freely admit that using them is a bit like preferring a nice Seiko to a smart watch or basic digital Casio. Anyways, with the prices of used cameras being so low, you can get a really nice, compact mirrorless setup for $500 or less. And fixed lens 35mm rangefinders from the 70s can be had for $200 or so. I won’t claim it’s a cheap hobby, but it’s no worse than golf or cycling.
harrall 2y ago
I like pocketable non-interchangeable lens mirrorless cameras. I rarely carry it because my cellphone is usually good enough but it’s good for travel and for lower light areas where cellphones struggle. It won’t fit in my pants pocket but it fits in my jacket fine. When I first got it, I didn’t know when I should carry it and when I shouldn’t but now I know and don’t even bat an eye about it.
- throw-the-towel 2y ago

astrange 2y ago

There is plenty of perceptual testing involved in the color science for a standalone camera. And more in the lenses.

ls612 2y ago

iPhones have been able to shoot in RAW/ProRes for a while now if you really want that.

MaxikCZ 2y ago

Oh my god again the "but my rocket is faster than your car" comment, I hate this so much...

jval43 2y ago
Not my intention. >Doing 120 fps video at 4K so that any chosen frame looks amazing without artifacts is really quite an achievement. Apple silicon is extremely impressive. In this case however dedicated cameras can still do more, which I felt was a relevant observation.