[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vm / vmg / vr / vrpg / vst / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / pw / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / vt / wsg / wsr / x / xs] [Settings] [Search] [Mobile] [Home]
Board
Settings Mobile Home
/p/ - Photography


Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.


[Advertise on 4chan]


How many years of innovation do we have left?
Will digital cameras become niche and then extinct?
How long until ai phones usurp so much of the camera market that we stop getting consumer models all together?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution216 dpi
Vertical Resolution216 dpi
Image Width1170
Image Height940
>>
>>4118393
>Film cameras : negligible
LMAO

anywho no i don't think so because phones are always gonna stick to over-processing things because normies like that look
>>
>>4118393
ILCs already have reached stability.

Smartphones will never replace ILCs for the same reason skullcandy never replaced Sennheiser and earbuds won't replave over-hear headphones: you get what you pay for, and smaller isn't necessarily better.

Even smartphones actually were equivilent to ILCs (which they are't and could never be, because physics), their ergonomics would still be shit for anything but basic occasional snapshots.
>>
>is the main purpose of the phones to take photos
>No
That chart is completely irrelevant
>>
>>4118414
this, who the fuck buys a smartphone to take pictures
>>
>>4118393
Everybody so far is commenting on the smart phones but look at the fall on digital cameras, that’s an absolutely massive drop in sales.
Digital cameras are headed the way of the guitar, massive massive drop out of popular culture, but will stay forever in niche fields and for the small amount of people who just enjoy them. The glory days are over though.
Doesn’t bother me because I am one of the people who enjoy shooting so don’t care if it becomes a niche thing, I’ll keep doing it.
>>
This chart is also making me wonder about how many people only do photography because they want to put pictures of themselves online for attention. Like for them they prob don’t even like or care about photography.
Compared to the population back in the day so few ppl brought cameras, vast majority must of just never taken photos.
We will never know but I wonder how many would actually take photos if social media didn’t exist, that chart suggests fuck all which is interesting.
>>
>>4118420
not quite accurate, most of those sold in the 2000's were compact cameras your aunt bought to photograph her trip to italy, so most of those sales were for people who didn't gave a shit about Photography, and just switched to mobiles when they became mainstream in 2011. People who bought dslrs in the 2000's are still there today.
>>
I just bought a 500USD mirrorless but the photos on my 300USD iPhone from 2 years ago has sharper and brighter photo than that brick

Fuck you /p for scamming me
>>
>>4118437

And that chart explains it perfectly, where would you invest your research money if you were a company?
All the tech is gonna be targeted at cellphones due to the 1000 times bigger market.
And in no suprise to anyone cellphones have made absolutely mssive gains over the last 10 years while dslr/mirrorless has barely made a single improvement. (gearfags will obviously deny this and claim their 50mp 3000% zoom slightly sharper is massive difference but lets be honest, its not).
>>
>>4118393
Did the prius replace semi trucks?
Did the glock replace rifles?
Did TV dinners replace dining out?

What’s dead is cheap and small cameras. Cameras and lenses will only get larger and more expensive because the people using them for pleasure basically won’t exist.
>>
>>4118437
I doubt that. The newest iPhone can’t even equal MFT shit. Did you buy some awful dated fuji meme or are you just bad at this?
>brighter
Oh yes I love phones making ape brained editing decisions for me.
>>
>>4118439
>its not
if you scale images down for instagram yes

real cameras are for making real photographs
>>
>>4118444

so the chart shows digital cameras falling off a cliff into obscurity because... ?

Until we get VR or something we are restricted by having to view photos of computer screens or phone screens. Any extra resolution is just pointless.

But muh printing, yeah na we all know you dont print your photos.
>>
>>4118443
Maybe I am just bad

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeCanon
Camera ModelCanon EOS M200
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Created2022:12:31 19:30:44
Exposure Time1/13 sec
F-Numberf/3.5
Exposure ProgramManual
Lens Aperturef/3.5
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
FlashNo Flash
Focal Length15.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width1280
Image Height1010
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
>>
>>4118463
Here is a picture taken in under 1 sec without the fuss, no editing

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width3286
Image Height2753
Scene Capture TypeStandard
>>
>>4118447
Because 99% of people don’t even own a screen larger than their palm anymore and before that they considered 1000x1000 high resolution. Real cameras are still made because larger screens and prints still exist.

The last print i made was cropped to 20x10
>>
>>4118467
It was taken with a 300USD iPhone
>>
>>4118463
>>4118467
The first one looks better and i’m even viewing it on an iPhone. There’s a reason snoy is still selling 24mp cameras to vloggers and “influencers”.
>>
>>4118468
99% people never gave a shit about image quality in any way and just wanted proof they went to paris
>>
>>4118470
But the digicam loses so much detail while the iPhone is sharper
The bottom plush is out of focus
Even in focus the plush details esp black colour are all gone
I get a larger 24mp file but what do I get back in return? Less details? Is this what photographers want to achieve?
Or purely maybe my camera or skills are just terrible?
>>
>>4118472
You just suck. The phone is shooting at a small aperture and high ISO and then running automated noise reduction and post sharpening. Cameras afford more creative control.
>>
File: 308F4203.jpg (2.1 MB, 2464x1648)
2.1 MB
2.1 MB JPG
>>4118472
>The bottom plush is out of focus
Then focus, nigguh.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeCanon
Camera ModelCanon EOS-1D
Firmware VersionFirmware Version 1.4.0
Serial Number0000021256
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Created2017:04:17 15:31:45
Exposure Time1/500 sec
F-Numberf/22.0
Exposure ProgramManual
ISO Speed Rating200
Lens Aperturef/22.6
Exposure Bias0 EV
FlashFlash
Focal Length100.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width2464
Image Height1648
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
Scene Capture TypeStandard
Exposure ModeManual
Focus TypeAuto
Metering ModeEvaluative
SharpnessUnknown
SaturationUnknown
ContrastUnknown
Shooting ModeManual
Image SizeLarge
Focus ModeManual
Drive ModeSingle
Flash ModeExternal Flash
Compression SettingFine
Macro ModeNormal
White BalanceFlash
Exposure Compensation3
Sensor ISO Speed192
Camera Actuations4573
Color Matrix3
>>
>>4118478
Camera is autofocus, is it something about focus bracketing?

>>4118473
> creative control
Like what? Less details?
>>
File: 308F5676.jpg (1.96 MB, 2464x1648)
1.96 MB
1.96 MB JPG
>>4118480
>is it something about focus bracketing?
I've never used focus bracketing.
Try a lower f/ value if you want greater DoF.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeCanon
Camera ModelCanon EOS-1D
Firmware VersionFirmware Version 1.4.0
Serial Number0000021256
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Created2019:07:09 14:13:26
Exposure Time1/16000 sec
F-Numberf/2.0
Exposure ProgramAperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating200
Lens Aperturef/2.0
Exposure Bias-1/3 EV
FlashNo Flash
Focal Length50.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width2464
Image Height1648
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
Exposure ModeAv-Priority
Focus TypeAuto
Metering ModeEvaluative
SharpnessUnknown
SaturationUnknown
ContrastUnknown
Shooting ModeManual
Image SizeLarge
Focus ModeOne-Shot
Drive ModeUnknown
Flash ModeOff
Compression SettingFine
Macro ModeNormal
White BalanceAuto
Exposure Compensation2
Sensor ISO Speed192
Camera Actuations6068
Color Matrix2
>>
>>4118484
Lower f value means going smaller aperture right?
My limited photography knowledge tells me that going small aperture gives you less bokeh

I was also practising shooting in a low light room that forced me either to push up the iso or open up the aperture
>>
File: 308F5570.jpg (1.84 MB, 2464x1648)
1.84 MB
1.84 MB JPG
>>4118493
>My limited photography knowledge tells me that going small aperture gives you less bokeh
Yes

>I was also practising shooting in a low light room that forced me either to push up the iso or open up the aperture
That's the compromise of low light.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeCanon
Camera ModelCanon EOS-1D
Firmware VersionFirmware Version 1.4.0
Serial Number0000021256
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Created2019:06:11 10:20:45
Exposure Time1/2000 sec
F-Numberf/4.0
Exposure ProgramAperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating200
Lens Aperturef/4.0
Exposure Bias0 EV
FlashNo Flash
Focal Length20.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width2464
Image Height1648
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
Exposure ModeAv-Priority
Focus TypeAuto
Metering ModeEvaluative
SharpnessUnknown
SaturationUnknown
ContrastUnknown
Shooting ModeManual
Image SizeLarge
Focus ModeOne-Shot
Drive ModeUnknown
Flash ModeOff
Compression SettingFine
Macro ModeNormal
Sequence Number1
White BalanceAuto
Exposure Compensation3
Sensor ISO Speed192
Camera Actuations5962
Color Matrix2
>>
>>4118393
More does not mean better. I have yet to see a phone picture that has turned out better than an actual camera taking the same image. They are convenient for sure but if you have an actual camera, it'll turn out better.
>>
>>4118480
Do you know what a smaller aperture does?

You don’t have less details. You have a thinner depth of field. Your phone uses a small aperture for a lot of depth and field. Then it raises the ISO, and reduces noise and tries to pretty it up in post, automatically. It forces this for every photo.
>>
>>4118498
Thank you I will try harder with the setting, it seems that there are certain value settings that I should stick to for better results
I notice your pictures are all sharper and used much faster shutter speeds, is it the limitation of my camera?
>>
>>4118393
What about analogue cameras.
>>
File: DSCF4024_1.jpg (1004 KB, 1365x2048)
1004 KB
1004 KB JPG
>>4118525
Just crank ISO until you can't bear the noise. Noisy photos will always be better than blurred ones.
>>
>>4118463
>Exposure Time 1/13 sec
here's your problem, bruv. raise ISO (as another anon already said), ISO3200 will still give you good results.

if you are serious about photography, I would suggest picking up the ef-m 22mm or 32mm - both are superb lenses and will let you use lower apertures and will give you sharper pictures than the 15-45mm kit lens.
>>
zoomers have a funny perception of the world.
>>
File: comparison.jpg (113 KB, 709x766)
113 KB
113 KB JPG
>>4118463
>>4118467
Look
The canon keeps more detail even if it has less pixels
>>
>>4118418
Every woman I know asks which phone has the best camera before they buy a new phone. I definitely don’t look at things that way but women certainly do,
>>
>>4118566
What you don't realize is that they were already going to buy a phone, photos/video are secondary there.
People who buy cameras, buy them because photography/video is their primary reason.
>>
>>4118444
But social media is where 99.99% of photos taken end up. That’s how we share. I bought a Sony A7IV with 24-105F4 lens. When we are out taking photos my wife is connecting the camera to her phone with Imaging Edge app and sending photos to Instagram.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution216 dpi
Vertical Resolution216 dpi
Image Width1170
Image Height773
>>
>>4118393
"average" people only bought cameras to use maybe half a dozen times a year, not "actively shooting" pictures. Now something they already have on them all the time can do that, there's no reason to have The Camera in the closest anymore. People who fancied themselves photographers in any sense will always use a proper camera, but 90% of people who just want a quick picture aren't going to ever need one again.
>>
>>4118567
A better camera is actually a good draw to a product, people do consider buying a new phone by virtue of said model having a better camera. They don't have the need first and choose the phone based on the camera, they get the craving from seeing the improvement. I've seen the quality of the camera being brought up as an exciting point in many discussions about X's newest model or whatever.
>>
>>4118444
Checked

Just want to recognize how civil and productive this discussion has been you /p/hags.
Really made me think about some stuff and activated my almonds.
>>
>>4118575
I bought my fiance a Samsung s20 and the low light performance was 9999x better than iPhone pro at the time. She was at a birthday party with 10 girls and was the only one at the table that could get really good photos in the dark restaurant. She was ecstatic and everyone was asking her to send them the photos of the evening. I don’t think I’ll ever get her to use an iPhone for the rest of her life.
>>
>>4118575
Yes, it's a draw to a product she will buy anyway, they're different markets.
Or do you expect FIFA to nibble on the sales of Gran Turismo? They're two completely different circles with the tinyest overlap between them.
The same thing happens with cameras, there's that tiny overlap of "i can take photos" but anyone seriously interested in photography will always go for a specialized system.
>>
>>4118420
I like the comparison to guitar. I know absolutely nothing about music, but actual instruments have a tactile feel and ergonomics like proper cameras should have.
Instruments have a personal sound to them like different lenses have their own look, those can be emulated to a point though.
Psychologically, digital and AI assisted workflow makes the end product seem less valuable. "It's the time you spent on your rose that makes your rose so important". If we have an easy access to everything we end up not having the time to stop to appreciate it...
>>
>>4118583
There's a difference from the markets not overlapping that much and photos being secondary to such consumers. They weren't necessarily going to buy a phone if not for the upgrade in the camera features. They definitely weren't going to buy a camera though, sure.
Also, while what you said about specialized systems might be true for more seasoned photographers, I do think that it's much easier to justify the purchase of a good phone than a good camera for an amateur photographer. Ironically, the "they already were gonna buy a phone" does apply here. There's a cost benefit ratio between both platforms and, as phones improve, the enthusiasm for photography a consumer with limited money has needs to be greater and greater to justify a dedicated tool.
Given amateurs often sustain a field due to their sheer number, this might be a problem, as specialized cameras might become too expensive or abandon the prosumer/amateur niche. To be clear, I'm mostly talking out of my ass on the last part, I don't understand the camera market well enough to give an informed opinion on the likelihood of that happening.
>>
>>4118531
I do have the 22mm, here is an example in moderate lighting, still need to get the hang of the autofocus and settings, it is still hit or miss sometimes

>>4118529
Thanks, I will keep that in mind, but the photos are barely useable over iso3200

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeCanon
Camera ModelCanon EOS M200
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Created2023:01:02 00:04:20
Exposure Time1/8 sec
F-Numberf/3.5
Exposure ProgramAperture Priority
Lens Aperturef/3.5
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
FlashNo Flash
Focal Length22.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width1280
Image Height992
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeAuto
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
>>
>>4118589
>photos are barely useable over iso3200
Whatthe fuck is CANON doing?
>>
>>4118590
Part and parcel of shooting APS-C.
FF isn't much better, it starts falling apart at 6400 instead.
>>
>>4118589
it's 100% more your lack of experience than the gear
what ISO was that image at?
>>
>>4118593
Iso320 but I suspect my shutter speed was too slow so it got blurry, but this camera and lens don’t have stabilisation
>>
>>4118594
better exposure settings you could have done, which is the lack of experience
>but this camera and lens don’t have stabilisation
most of mine don't either
>>
File: P1011319.jpg (1.01 MB, 1166x1555)
1.01 MB
1.01 MB JPG
>>4118592
>Part and parcel of shooting APS-C.
I know this one is a very uninteresting photo
But I wouldn't call it barely usable

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakePanasonic
Camera ModelDC-GH5M2
Camera SoftwareSILKYPIX Developer Studio 8 SE
Maximum Lens Aperturef/1.4
Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)50 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Image Created2023:01:01 17:18:27
Exposure Time1/30 sec
F-Numberf/1.4
Exposure ProgramAperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating6400
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceUnknown
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length25.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width1166
Image Height1555
RenderingCustom
Exposure ModeAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
>>
>>4118598
Thanks, I could have pushed up the exposure balance
>>
>>4118594
Every phone has at least optical stabilization now. Since about the same time every camera had in-body stabilization.
>>
>>4118418
females
>>
>>4118430
>your aunt bought to photograph her trip to italy


I've bought quite a few digishit point and shoots that have a few pics taken in someones kitchen of the floor, garbage can, and newly opened camera box immediately followed by 300 pics of europe
>>
>>4118439
At the end of the day a smartphone and ILC serve different purposes so there will always be ILCs

Any tech that benefits a smartphone will benefit an ILC and the smartphone will forever be at a disadvantage of the necessity for being small and sacrificing its photographic ability to other feature sets, while the ILC will forever be at the disadvantage of necessity of being large and being a one trick pony.

anyone who isnt a retarded child understands that a widget that does one thing extremely well will always be better at that thing than a jack of all trades device is at that thing, especially when the physics dictates so.
>>
File: IMG_3041.jpg (1.96 MB, 2048x3072)
1.96 MB
1.96 MB JPG
>>4118641
lol, here's an image taken from the Canon 10D I bought.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeCanon
Camera ModelCanon EOS 10D
Camera SoftwareMicrosoft Windows Photo Viewer 6.1.7600.16385
Maximum Lens Aperturef/4.0
Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color Area
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution180 dpi
Vertical Resolution180 dpi
Image Created2017:05:27 14:38:59
Exposure Time1/60 sec
F-Numberf/4.0
ISO Speed Rating400
Lens Aperturef/4.0
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
FlashFlash, Auto, Red-Eye Reduce
Focal Length35.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width2048
Image Height3072
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeAuto
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
>>
>>4118641
>>4118652
*On the card of the 10D I bought.
>>
>>4118463
>>4118467
Even though you bought one of the worst cameras you possibly could the canon has more details for what you got in focus and a richer image. The iphone has the signature look of high ISO + noise reduction and sharpening in post where details get misshapen and kind of waxy. Look at koishi's hair and the fuzz on yuuka's face and how the iphone photo is pale, it has less dynamic range so the shadows are brighter and the highlights are not as striking and all the colors are closer to gray. It just goes to show that megapixels aren't everything.

Here's how to take photos like your phone:
Set aperture priority mode. Use f/11 or maybe even f/16 if f/11 isn't doing it. This will get as much as possible in focus without diffraction bringing background blur back.
Never use an ISO setting under 6400. 12800 will probably be the norm and is the lowest FF equivalent ISO most phones use.
If your camera has built in noise reduction for jpegs, set it to save files as jpeg and put all the processing aids like noise reduction and dynamic range corrections to max.
>>
>>4118430
see that blue that says "film cameras: negligible"? that is all the actual photographers. phone aren't camera sales because most people are not buying them as cameras. this chart is also missing non-smartphones which had cameras in the fucking 90s. EVERY cell phone had a camera shortly after 1999. as usual giving apple credit for inventions and innovations that had already occurred.
>>
Did the film graph take into account disposables?
because I saw those everywhere
>>
>>4118665
>set phone iso to 100
>it's already noisy
>set it to 200
>photo useless without NR
I don't even know why I get the option to raise it to 3200.
>>
>>4118667
I think the point of showing smart phone adoption on the same graph as digital cameras is to show the impact they have had on digital camera sales. Nearly the entire point and shoot market of the 2000’s was erased by smart phones. ILC’s is mostly all that is left. Some point and shoot vlogger models are making a resurgence.
>>
>>4118393
>How many years of innovation do we have left?
There are still people innovating photographic film, the same way there are still people innovating canvas and oil. There will always be a small market making small steps for the niche audiences. The concern you should have is whether or not the knowledge will stay around. There may be people still doing 2D art, but the majority of the skills are lost now. People don't know how to draw anymore, for instance, because what people wanted to make and what sold had little to do with drawing skills. People can't animate walks in 2D worth shit. The knowledge is largely lost, and it would likely take a generation to get it back. That's the more likely thing to be lost to history by the cultural shift that's pushing the change of technology. It is not hard to imagine that, in 20 years, the only sort of filmography anyone understands is how to shoot a selfie or a dinner plate.
>>
>>4118699
You bought the worst possible camera but the results you’re seeing are better than the raw output of your phone. Run a denoise AI. I regularly take photos at ISO 12800 on full frame and it still looks better than phone snaps.
>>
>>4118711
I am talking about the phone
>>
>>4118437
I have an iPhone 13 Pro myself but the photos are dogshit in comparison to a proper camera.
>>
>>4118723
Phone sensors are fucking tiny so they have significantly worse noise performance vs actual sensors.
>>
>>4118665
Thank you for this new tip, I am sticking to around the 3000-6400 range because anything higher just creates too much noise and details go missing after editing

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeCanon
Camera ModelCanon EOS M200
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Created2023:01:02 12:00:37
Exposure Time1/40 sec
F-Numberf/11.0
Exposure ProgramManual
Lens Aperturef/11.3
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
FlashNo Flash
Focal Length22.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width1280
Image Height1060
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
>>
>>4118820
With larger aperture

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeCanon
Camera ModelCanon EOS M200
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Created2023:01:02 11:57:59
Exposure Time1/100 sec
F-Numberf/2.8
Exposure ProgramNormal Program
Lens Aperturef/2.8
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
FlashNo Flash
Focal Length22.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width1280
Image Height1060
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeAuto
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
>>
>>4118820
Add more light or use a tripod and slow shutter speed instead of turning up the sensitivity. Even a fucking lamp will work. Taking photos like your phone will reduce quality. Sharpness and dynamic range go down as ISO goes up.
>>
>>4118825
Thanks, I found 1/30 shutter speed is the best I can do for handheld shooting
>>
>>4118820

how dark is the area you are shooting in???????????

how are you possibly on such a high iso?

I shoot film indoors and use iso 400. I can still shoot in most places as long as the room has a window.

What fstop are you using? if you go beside the window what iso can you use then?
>>
If nothing is going to replace supercomputers, then nothing is going to replace digital cameras likewise. You might as well ask that for game consoles and computers. Maybe even books.
>>
>>4118832
>touhou plushies
>thinking this is happening anywhere near a window
>>
>>4118835
It's like asking the difference between a Hostee's Cupcake vs. a German Chocolate Cake.
>>
>>4118832
This one is 3200 but I am purposely shooting in poor light to test the camera
I can use 400 indoors in better light
>>
>>4118838

if you are doing that you should go take your plushie outdoors at night. Night photography is a more fun and cooler way to test this.
>>
>>4118842

You will get far more varied and challenging lighting this way which is a better test. Try with some nightsky, try with buildings at night etc
>>
>>4118845
I have already taken some photos at night and the result was terrible, either the hand was shaky or the settings were wrong
>>
>>4118566
>"which phone has the best camera anon?"
>"either google pixel or sony phones"
>"thanks, i'm gonna buy an iphone"
every time. if people really cared about camera quality no one would buy apple
>>
>>4118418
W*men
>>4118420
Who cares? I’ll always keep taking my snap shit photos because it is fun.
>>
I have a £200 Canon EOS M (first gen, older model than the other anon posting his plushies in this thread) that I bought nearly a decade ago at this point.

Is there an upgrade worth it if I'm on a budget, e.g. £200-£500? Or do modern smartphones take better pictures?

The image quality of my current camera is fine (though I wish the dynamic range was better) and I like how portable it is. But I do wish I had an actual viewfinder. Is there anything worth upgrading to at such a budget?
>>
>>4118420
>Digital cameras are headed the way of the guitar
A brief boom in popularity that was actually bad for them followed by going back to exactly where they always were and always belonged?
>>
>>4119255
Modern smartphones don't even come close to the dynamic range of real cameras from 18 years ago
>>
>>4119255
Yeah, you could probably get a sony A6000-A6500 something with a kit lens for that price or a micro four thirds shitter. It would still be better than your phone. Even the meme 48mp applel and 100mp snoy - because phone lenses can't resolve enough detail so fancier sensor just resolve more blur to smooth out noise reduction and demosaicing.
>>
>>4119338
Also poor signal to noise ratio from a tiny sensor means you aren't actually going to see 48 megapixels worth of resolution even if the lens was good enough
>>
>>4118393
who cares

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vzjOwi0aaP4
>>
>>4118393
Everything except for high end pro gear and prosumer gear will be eaten up by cell phones. Digital cameras already are niche, how many do you see out in about?
>>
>>4119821
It's not because they're better, it's because people only share photos on social media and view them on 3x6 screens.
>>
>>4118588
>They weren't necessarily going to buy a phone if not for the upgrade in the camera features
Says who?
Most of the time it's either "My phone is broken" or "My phone is old and slow"
>>
File: 1020.png (3.31 MB, 1404x1107)
3.31 MB
3.31 MB PNG
>>4118418
>who the fuck buys a smartphone to take pictures
When the opportunity to purchase a nice camera in a smartphone happens quite a few people buy them including pro photographers who simply enjoy carrying a nice camera and smartphone in the same device. Very few phones have ever had nice cameras though. As such is the case few buy smartphones for the camera.
>>4118566
>>4118640
>>4119244
>only women care about the quality of photos a phone takes
Embarrassing take incels.
>>
>>4119848
Not at all! It's bc its more convenient. If I take a shot on my p and s, I have to get it off the SD card, possibly edit, then send it to my phone to post online. With my phone, I just hit the button and then post.
>>4120023
You'd be surprised. Most people don't know/care enough to try and get good results from standalone cameras, so they just want the best phone for the job.
>>
Took some night photos tripod free
How’s this for a night shoot?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeCanon
Camera ModelCanon EOS M200
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Created2023:01:08 18:05:13
Exposure Time1/5 sec
F-Numberf/3.5
Exposure ProgramManual
Lens Aperturef/3.5
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
FlashNo Flash
Focal Length15.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width1280
Image Height853
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
>>
>>4118418
90% of normal people, what pisses me off is that consumer grade cameras or camcorders, despite becoming dated and therefore obsolete after many years, do not drop in price, it's ridiculous.
In the sub-$1000 range, smartphones are absolutely the winners; it is absurd that cameras offer worse performance for the same price.
If you want to beat the smartphone, you have to spend a lot more money, but at that point you are either a rich consumer or a professional.
>>
>>4122365
Sub $1000 camera that mog smartphones extremely hard, in descending order
Sony A7RII
Sony A6500
Nikon D850
Nikon D810
Lots of worse ones (pencraps, canon) but they’re still better than the newest crapple/samshit scan
>inb4 but lenses
Even with a cheap/slow/old $100 lens it’ll do a better job than a phone
>>
>>4122427
>Sub $1000
>Nikon D850
WHERE
>>
>>4122705
this, I'd buy 2 at that price
>>
>>4121947
Shit you gave me an idea!
>>
>>4121947
>I've taken the same photo a hundred times or more
it's awfully derivative, DMCA request incoming
>>
>>4118705
>There are still people innovating photographic film, the same way there are still people innovating canvas and oil.
Man, try fountain pens and mechanical watches. It blew my mind when I got into these a couple of years ago. Some old stuff just works too damn well.
>>
>>4118437
Lol try the zoom feature on your crappie product and get back to us about how much better quality the photos are
>>
>>4122784
Don’t remind me.

Go ahead and replace reddit with 4chan and it’s the same, just with more cheapskate cults and people who define themselves by not buying (aggressively!)
>>
>>4118820
Usually the lenses are sharpest at f5-8.
At 2.8 you can see some bokeh is starting to happen and the rear dolls are blurry.

Also set your camera white balance to auto warm if possible, makes nice warm pictures.

Just set the camera to A mode and mess with aperture and it'll set the other stuff automatically.
>>
>>4124272
Thank you, i found I need to push the warmth up in most post editing, the auto warm setting will help a lot

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeCanon
Camera ModelCanon EOS M200
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Created2023:01:14 17:39:59
Exposure Time1/25 sec
F-Numberf/8.0
Exposure ProgramManual
Lens Aperturef/8.0
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
FlashNo Flash
Focal Length22.00 mm
Image Width2304
Image Height1536
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
>>
>>4123413
>KB without numpads
I wish this meme never happened
>>
File: file.png (14 KB, 568x118)
14 KB
14 KB PNG
>>4118403
>you get what you pay for, and smaller isn't necessarily better
I can carry these 4 different focal lengths in my pocket to every place I go. There's really no way to beat such convenience.
>>
>>4123413
Damn, that image describes a person I know too well.
>>
>>4124458
AE1 and portra included?
>>
>>4118418
I do. I like my mirrorless but I don't want to carry the camera and lenses everywhere. My Pixel is enough in most situations (kids, some walks in the nature, etc). Not the usual, but I've also sold photos of demonstrations I made with my phone.
>>
>>4123413
Rick and Morty is too violent, for my liking.
>>
Need some option

Got a second hand 28-80mm usm lens just for fun and practice

The lens feel dark even in good light and I have to increase the shutter just for a properly exposed image

Is it the property of the lens or are there ways to fix it?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeCanon
Camera ModelCanon EOS M200
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Created2023:01:20 12:17:41
Exposure Time1/10 sec
F-Numberf/5.0
Exposure ProgramManual
Lens Aperturef/5.0
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModeCenter Weighted Average
FlashNo Flash
Focal Length58.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width1280
Image Height853
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
>>
>>4127065
Zooms usually have smaller apertures and gather less light than primes and more expensive lenses. Check the aperture numbers and compare it to the brighter lenses you have.
>>
>>4127071
This one is f3.5-5.6 and my kit zoom too is around f3.6-6 but 15-45mm

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeCanon
Camera ModelCanon EOS M200
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Created2023:01:20 13:09:14
Exposure Time1/10 sec
F-Numberf/5.0
Exposure ProgramManual
Lens Aperturef/5.0
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
FlashNo Flash
Focal Length35.00 mm
Color Space InformationUncalibrated
Image Width2304
Image Height1536
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
>>
>>4127072
First pic is second hand 28-80mm
Second pic is kit zoom 15-45mm
Both shot at 1/10 and at around 100iso
>>
>>4118393
infinite

that blue hump represents the demand for actual cameras. smartphones don’t really belong on that chart and cameraphones predate apple by 7 years. the compact digital thing was an oddity most likely fueled by how cheap and fragile they were, and normies who couldn’t have ever afforded or figured out film.
>>
>>4127071
Cleaned the electronics connector part of the lens, I suspect it may be that which is creating all the noise in my pictures
>>
Even if phones catch up in terms of image quality to iclc (they wont) The experience of taking a picture will never rival that of a real camera
>>
>>4118467
wow this is shit
>>
>>4118393
Ironically early iphone models had dogshit camera quality. Mine K800i took much better despite being released a year earlier

i'd argue that iphone camera only started to become good when iphone 5 came out
>>
>>4129729
iPhones had some of the worst flagship cameras in the industry when the iphone 5 came out

They still do!



[Advertise on 4chan]

Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.