4 ms·

> Cameras are not in a death spiral. Sales numbers tell a different story. > Artistically speaking, phones can't do what even a low end slr/mirrorless can do,

> Cameras are not in a death spiral. Sales numbers tell a different story. > Artistically speaking, phones can't do what even a low end slr/mirrorless can do, its just that phones are good enough for the low-effort content 95% of people are interested in producing. This is not correct. A Pixel Pro has a 50 MP, f/1.7, 1/1.31" sensor. This is equivalent to f/4.6 in u43, f/6.6 in APS, and f/9.5 in FF. This is slightly slower than a kit lens on paper, but this is more than made up for by more advanced sensor technology, and especially the ability to do things like fast sensor readout, which can read out many frames and combine exposures. Side-by-side, shooting with a phone and a Panasonic u43 camera with a kit lens, I was getting perfectly good photos with the phone, and useless photos with the u43. > I don't know about the manufacturing or drone stuff, but for video conferencing and remote education, the point of the video really isn't image quality or "art" but just good enough picture to not get in the way of the real purpose of the interaction, so a whole camera kit is just added complexity/annoyance for no benefit. It depends on the context. People buy $100k Cisco remote conference rooms for a reason. I've definitely spent >$10k on equipment in remote presentation / education contexts myself, and know many other people who have done likewise. You should, at some point, figure out what popular education Youtubers, twitch streamers, etc. spend :) But there are similar contexts in scalable education, various kinds of sales, etc. One of the core issues -- in context I've worked in -- is that reliability is king. I don't want interruptions. I'm happy to have three cameras feeding into OBS and a set of fixed setups, and I've even done custom plug-ins, but something like a mirrorless adds layers of complexity which can lead to bugs: - Mirrorless -> HDMI out -> Elgato -> USB -> OBS -> Virtual camera A direct USB connection would remove a cable and an adapter.

tristor 2y ago
> A direct USB connection would remove a cable and an adapter. Most modern mirrorless cameras can be connected to a computer via USB and used as a video source. Some are nerfed to only run for 30 minutes or some other arbitrary number consistently, but most are not. f/9.5 in Full Frame is abysmal and generally past the point where scene sharpness suffers from stopping down. Even when doing street photography or landscapes, I rarely stop down past f/8. Running something like my Nikkor 50mm f/1.2 S Z-mount lens at f/4 is sharper edge-to-edge than most other lenses at f/8, and gathers enough light to operate a pleasingly fast shutter speed for handheld work even in low-light. A phone does not compare. My wife has the latest Samsung Galaxy S, I have an iPhone 16 Pro, we both also have cameras (her a Fuji APS-C body, me the Nikon Z8 FF body), and we walk around and take photos composed correctly within each camera. We can see it, even without cropping. A camera body is much better than a phone if you care about the quality of your work, and especially if you ever intend to print.
- frognumber 1y ago
  #confidentlywrong Most modern cameras can stream video to a computer through a proprietary protocol. These are implemented under Linux in gphoto2, and in other OSes, through some proprietary tool. During the great webcam shortage of covid, many companies made special, flaky Windows utilities to allow those to be used for web conferencing. Very few can natively as a USB Video Class (UVC) device. This is Canon's version: https://www.dpreview.com/news/4796043082/canon-s-new-software-will-turn-select-eos-powershot-cameras-into-webcams-for-windows-pcs https://www.dpreview.com/news/4796043082/canon-s-new-softwar... Now, for Canon, it's a monthly subscription: https://www.usa.canon.com/cameras/eos-webcam-utility https://www.usa.canon.com/cameras/eos-webcam-utility As a footnote: The general rule-of-thumb is about f/11 is where you start to notice diffraction limiting sharpness on full frame. That's a rule-of-thumb, and you're welcome to not step down below f/8, but calling f/9.5 "abysmal" is more than a little over-the-top. But no, a phone will not compare to a full frame with a $2000 f/1.2 lens. But it's quite competitive with a kit lens.
  - tristor 1y ago
    Video features are manufacturer and model dependent. Nowhere in my comment did I say that they use UVC vs requiring software. My Nikon Z8 as an example can be used with OBS over USB very easily, but you must install a driver and utility. Regarding Canon, true enough, they gimp their products to be greedy. That's why https://www.magiclantern.fm/ https://www.magiclantern.fm/ exists. Your general rule of thumb is irrelevant. There are many optics tests done of available modern cameras, including phones. Phones get nowhere close to the photographic quality of a proper camera, but are totally fine for viewing on another small screen or small prints. My wife has had prints of photos taken with her phone hanging in galleries, but even she (who prefers a phone as an artistic style preference) would never dream of printing anything larger than a 5x8 from a phone. My photography prints on the small side tend to be 12x18, and I often print as large as 40x60. A photo from a phone is simply unusable for me.
    - frognumber 1y ago
      Then you have issue with reading comprehension. The whole point of the discussion was this: "The time to do this was about a decade ago. Apps, open formats, open USB protocols, open wifi / bluetooth protocols, and semi-open firmware (with a few proprietary blobs for color processing, likely) would have led things down a very different trajectory." And the rest of your posts also misquote what I said and, ironically, just as often, what you said. There are also minor technical errors: diffraction limits are basic physics. It's a simple relationship between (a) the radius of the circle of confusion (in units of angle); (2) the frequency of light (in linear units, typically nanometers); and (3) the radius of the aperture (in linear units, typically mm). There is no voodoo with "sensor size, pixel pitch, and the lens optics." Most of your post is taking statements like a basic rule-of-thumb of what you need for decent photos and exaggerating to statements like "diffraction doesn't affect sharpness." Of course it's easy to beat up a statement if you misquote it. That's called a strawman. So I think I'm done here. Give me your downvote, and I'll argue somewhere else.

tristor 2y ago

> A direct USB connection would remove a cable and an adapter. Most modern mirrorless cameras can be connected to a computer via USB and used as a video source. Some are nerfed to only run for 30 minutes or some other arbitrary number consistently, but most are not. f/9.5 in Full Frame is abysmal and generally past the point where scene sharpness suffers from stopping down. Even when doing street photography or landscapes, I rarely stop down past f/8. Running something like my Nikkor 50mm f/1.2 S Z-mount lens at f/4 is sharper edge-to-edge than most other lenses at f/8, and gathers enough light to operate a pleasingly fast shutter speed for handheld work even in low-light. A phone does not compare. My wife has the latest Samsung Galaxy S, I have an iPhone 16 Pro, we both also have cameras (her a Fuji APS-C body, me the Nikon Z8 FF body), and we walk around and take photos composed correctly within each camera. We can see it, even without cropping. A camera body is much better than a phone if you care about the quality of your work, and especially if you ever intend to print.

frognumber 1y ago
#confidentlywrong Most modern cameras can stream video to a computer through a proprietary protocol. These are implemented under Linux in gphoto2, and in other OSes, through some proprietary tool. During the great webcam shortage of covid, many companies made special, flaky Windows utilities to allow those to be used for web conferencing. Very few can natively as a USB Video Class (UVC) device. This is Canon's version: https://www.dpreview.com/news/4796043082/canon-s-new-software-will-turn-select-eos-powershot-cameras-into-webcams-for-windows-pcs https://www.dpreview.com/news/4796043082/canon-s-new-softwar... Now, for Canon, it's a monthly subscription: https://www.usa.canon.com/cameras/eos-webcam-utility https://www.usa.canon.com/cameras/eos-webcam-utility As a footnote: The general rule-of-thumb is about f/11 is where you start to notice diffraction limiting sharpness on full frame. That's a rule-of-thumb, and you're welcome to not step down below f/8, but calling f/9.5 "abysmal" is more than a little over-the-top. But no, a phone will not compare to a full frame with a $2000 f/1.2 lens. But it's quite competitive with a kit lens.
- tristor 1y ago
  Video features are manufacturer and model dependent. Nowhere in my comment did I say that they use UVC vs requiring software. My Nikon Z8 as an example can be used with OBS over USB very easily, but you must install a driver and utility. Regarding Canon, true enough, they gimp their products to be greedy. That's why https://www.magiclantern.fm/ https://www.magiclantern.fm/ exists. Your general rule of thumb is irrelevant. There are many optics tests done of available modern cameras, including phones. Phones get nowhere close to the photographic quality of a proper camera, but are totally fine for viewing on another small screen or small prints. My wife has had prints of photos taken with her phone hanging in galleries, but even she (who prefers a phone as an artistic style preference) would never dream of printing anything larger than a 5x8 from a phone. My photography prints on the small side tend to be 12x18, and I often print as large as 40x60. A photo from a phone is simply unusable for me.
  - frognumber 1y ago
    Then you have issue with reading comprehension. The whole point of the discussion was this: "The time to do this was about a decade ago. Apps, open formats, open USB protocols, open wifi / bluetooth protocols, and semi-open firmware (with a few proprietary blobs for color processing, likely) would have led things down a very different trajectory." And the rest of your posts also misquote what I said and, ironically, just as often, what you said. There are also minor technical errors: diffraction limits are basic physics. It's a simple relationship between (a) the radius of the circle of confusion (in units of angle); (2) the frequency of light (in linear units, typically nanometers); and (3) the radius of the aperture (in linear units, typically mm). There is no voodoo with "sensor size, pixel pitch, and the lens optics." Most of your post is taking statements like a basic rule-of-thumb of what you need for decent photos and exaggerating to statements like "diffraction doesn't affect sharpness." Of course it's easy to beat up a statement if you misquote it. That's called a strawman. So I think I'm done here. Give me your downvote, and I'll argue somewhere else.