3 ms·

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 camer

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
  Mind sharing the model name?
zeagle 2y ago
I look at it a bit directly. I shoot with a canon d6 mark 2 dslr regularly on trips up north and hiking and have spent way too much money on this stuff. While the dslr with a 200-400mm lens is superior for stuff like polar bears (yellowish white on usually low contrast backgrounds) at a safe distance, my iPhone 16 can in a single shot get a great family photo or wide angle nature shot thanks to whatever optics and processing magic it has. For similar I’d have to expend a lot of effort with the dslr and raw editing after.

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
Mind sharing the model name?

zeagle 2y ago

I look at it a bit directly. I shoot with a canon d6 mark 2 dslr regularly on trips up north and hiking and have spent way too much money on this stuff. While the dslr with a 200-400mm lens is superior for stuff like polar bears (yellowish white on usually low contrast backgrounds) at a safe distance, my iPhone 16 can in a single shot get a great family photo or wide angle nature shot thanks to whatever optics and processing magic it has. For similar I’d have to expend a lot of effort with the dslr and raw editing after.