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-HandHorizontal Resolution216 dpiVertical Resolution216 dpiImage Width1170Image Height940
>>4118393>Film cameras : negligible LMAOanywho no i don't think so because phones are always gonna stick to over-processing things because normies like that look
>>4118393ILCs 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>NoThat chart is completely irrelevant
>>4118414this, who the fuck buys a smartphone to take pictures
>>4118393Everybody 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.
>>4118420not 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 brickFuck you /p for scamming me
>>4118437And 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).
>>4118393Did 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.
>>4118437I 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 notif you scale images down for instagram yesreal cameras are for making real photographs
>>4118444so 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.
>>4118443Maybe I am just bad[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS M200Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2022:12:31 19:30:44Exposure Time1/13 secF-Numberf/3.5Exposure ProgramManualLens Aperturef/3.5Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternFlashNo FlashFocal Length15.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width1280Image Height1010RenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandard
>>4118463Here 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-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width3286Image Height2753Scene Capture TypeStandard
>>4118447Because 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
>>4118467It was taken with a 300USD iPhone
>>4118463>>4118467The 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”.
>>411846899% people never gave a shit about image quality in any way and just wanted proof they went to paris
>>4118470But 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?
>>4118472You 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.
>>4118472>The bottom plush is out of focusThen focus, nigguh.[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS-1DFirmware VersionFirmware Version 1.4.0Serial Number0000021256Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2017:04:17 15:31:45Exposure Time1/500 secF-Numberf/22.0Exposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating200Lens Aperturef/22.6Exposure Bias0 EVFlashFlashFocal Length100.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width2464Image Height1648RenderingNormalExposure ModeManualScene Capture TypeStandardExposure ModeManualFocus TypeAutoMetering ModeEvaluativeSharpnessUnknownSaturationUnknownContrastUnknownShooting ModeManualImage SizeLargeFocus ModeManualDrive ModeSingleFlash ModeExternal FlashCompression SettingFineMacro ModeNormalWhite BalanceFlashExposure Compensation3Sensor ISO Speed192Camera Actuations4573Color Matrix3
>>4118478Camera is autofocus, is it something about focus bracketing? >>4118473> creative control Like what? Less details?
>>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 MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS-1DFirmware VersionFirmware Version 1.4.0Serial Number0000021256Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2019:07:09 14:13:26Exposure Time1/16000 secF-Numberf/2.0Exposure ProgramAperture PriorityISO Speed Rating200Lens Aperturef/2.0Exposure Bias-1/3 EVFlashNo FlashFocal Length50.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width2464Image Height1648RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoScene Capture TypeStandardExposure ModeAv-PriorityFocus TypeAutoMetering ModeEvaluativeSharpnessUnknownSaturationUnknownContrastUnknownShooting ModeManualImage SizeLargeFocus ModeOne-ShotDrive ModeUnknownFlash ModeOffCompression SettingFineMacro ModeNormalWhite BalanceAutoExposure Compensation2Sensor ISO Speed192Camera Actuations6068Color Matrix2
>>4118484Lower f value means going smaller aperture right? My limited photography knowledge tells me that going small aperture gives you less bokehI was also practising shooting in a low light room that forced me either to push up the iso or open up the aperture
>>4118493>My limited photography knowledge tells me that going small aperture gives you less bokehYes>I was also practising shooting in a low light room that forced me either to push up the iso or open up the apertureThat's the compromise of low light.[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS-1DFirmware VersionFirmware Version 1.4.0Serial Number0000021256Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2019:06:11 10:20:45Exposure Time1/2000 secF-Numberf/4.0Exposure ProgramAperture PriorityISO Speed Rating200Lens Aperturef/4.0Exposure Bias0 EVFlashNo FlashFocal Length20.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width2464Image Height1648RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoScene Capture TypeStandardExposure ModeAv-PriorityFocus TypeAutoMetering ModeEvaluativeSharpnessUnknownSaturationUnknownContrastUnknownShooting ModeManualImage SizeLargeFocus ModeOne-ShotDrive ModeUnknownFlash ModeOffCompression SettingFineMacro ModeNormalSequence Number1White BalanceAutoExposure Compensation3Sensor ISO Speed192Camera Actuations5962Color Matrix2
>>4118393More 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.
>>4118480Do 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.
>>4118498Thank you I will try harder with the setting, it seems that there are certain value settings that I should stick to for better resultsI notice your pictures are all sharper and used much faster shutter speeds, is it the limitation of my camera?
>>4118393What about analogue cameras.
>>4118525Just crank ISO until you can't bear the noise. Noisy photos will always be better than blurred ones.
>>4118463>Exposure Time 1/13 sechere'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.
>>4118463>>4118467LookThe canon keeps more detail even if it has less pixels
>>4118418Every 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,
>>4118566What 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.
>>4118444But 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-HandHorizontal Resolution216 dpiVertical Resolution216 dpiImage Width1170Image 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.
>>4118567A 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.
>>4118444CheckedJust 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.
>>4118575I 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.
>>4118575Yes, 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.
>>4118420I 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...
>>4118583There'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.
>>4118531I 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 >>4118529Thanks, 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 MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS M200Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2023:01:02 00:04:20Exposure Time1/8 secF-Numberf/3.5Exposure ProgramAperture PriorityLens Aperturef/3.5Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternFlashNo FlashFocal Length22.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width1280Image Height992RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandard
>>4118589>photos are barely useable over iso3200Whatthe fuck is CANON doing?
>>4118590Part and parcel of shooting APS-C.FF isn't much better, it starts falling apart at 6400 instead.
>>4118589it's 100% more your lack of experience than the gearwhat ISO was that image at?
>>4118593Iso320 but I suspect my shutter speed was too slow so it got blurry, but this camera and lens don’t have stabilisation
>>4118594better exposure settings you could have done, which is the lack of experience>but this camera and lens don’t have stabilisationmost of mine don't either
>>4118592>Part and parcel of shooting APS-C.I know this one is a very uninteresting photoBut I wouldn't call it barely usable[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakePanasonicCamera ModelDC-GH5M2Camera SoftwareSILKYPIX Developer Studio 8 SEMaximum Lens Aperturef/1.4Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaFocal Length (35mm Equiv)50 mmImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiImage Created2023:01:01 17:18:27Exposure Time1/30 secF-Numberf/1.4Exposure ProgramAperture PriorityISO Speed Rating6400Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceUnknownFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length25.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width1166Image Height1555RenderingCustomExposure ModeAutoScene Capture TypeStandard
>>4118598Thanks, I could have pushed up the exposure balance
>>4118594Every phone has at least optical stabilization now. Since about the same time every camera had in-body stabilization.
>>4118430>your aunt bought to photograph her trip to italyI'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
>>4118439At the end of the day a smartphone and ILC serve different purposes so there will always be ILCsAny 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.
>>4118641lol, here's an image taken from the Canon 10D I bought.[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS 10DCamera SoftwareMicrosoft Windows Photo Viewer 6.1.7600.16385Maximum Lens Aperturef/4.0Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution180 dpiVertical Resolution180 dpiImage Created2017:05:27 14:38:59Exposure Time1/60 secF-Numberf/4.0ISO Speed Rating400Lens Aperturef/4.0Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternFlashFlash, Auto, Red-Eye ReduceFocal Length35.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width2048Image Height3072RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandard
>>4118641>>4118652*On the card of the 10D I bought.
>>4118463>>4118467Even 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.
>>4118430see 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 NRI don't even know why I get the option to raise it to 3200.
>>4118667I 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.
>>4118699You 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.
>>4118711I am talking about the phone
>>4118437I have an iPhone 13 Pro myself but the photos are dogshit in comparison to a proper camera.
>>4118723Phone sensors are fucking tiny so they have significantly worse noise performance vs actual sensors.
>>4118665Thank 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 MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS M200Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2023:01:02 12:00:37Exposure Time1/40 secF-Numberf/11.0Exposure ProgramManualLens Aperturef/11.3Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternFlashNo FlashFocal Length22.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width1280Image Height1060RenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandard
>>4118820With larger aperture[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS M200Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2023:01:02 11:57:59Exposure Time1/100 secF-Numberf/2.8Exposure ProgramNormal ProgramLens Aperturef/2.8Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternFlashNo FlashFocal Length22.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width1280Image Height1060RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandard
>>4118820Add 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.
>>4118825Thanks, I found 1/30 shutter speed is the best I can do for handheld shooting
>>4118820how 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
>>4118835It's like asking the difference between a Hostee's Cupcake vs. a German Chocolate Cake.
>>4118832This one is 3200 but I am purposely shooting in poor light to test the cameraI can use 400 indoors in better light
>>4118838if 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.
>>4118842You 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
>>4118845I 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
>>4118418W*men>>4118420Who 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 guitarA brief boom in popularity that was actually bad for them followed by going back to exactly where they always were and always belonged?
>>4119255Modern smartphones don't even come close to the dynamic range of real cameras from 18 years ago
>>4119255Yeah, 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.
>>4119338Also 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
>>4118393who cares https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vzjOwi0aaP4
>>4118393Everything 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?
>>4119821It'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 featuresSays who?Most of the time it's either "My phone is broken" or "My phone is old and slow"
>>4118418>who the fuck buys a smartphone to take picturesWhen 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 takesEmbarrassing take incels.
>>4119848Not 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. >>4120023You'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 freeHow’s this for a night shoot?[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS M200Image-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2023:01:08 18:05:13Exposure Time1/5 secF-Numberf/3.5Exposure ProgramManualLens Aperturef/3.5Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternFlashNo FlashFocal Length15.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width1280Image Height853RenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandard
>>411841890% 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.
>>4122365Sub $1000 camera that mog smartphones extremely hard, in descending orderSony A7RIISony A6500Nikon D850Nikon D810Lots of worse ones (pencraps, canon) but they’re still better than the newest crapple/samshit scan>inb4 but lensesEven with a cheap/slow/old $100 lens it’ll do a better job than a phone
>>4122427>Sub $1000>Nikon D850WHERE
>>4122705this, I'd buy 2 at that price
>>4121947Shit you gave me an idea!
>>4121947>I've taken the same photo a hundred times or moreit'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.
>>4118437Lol try the zoom feature on your crappie product and get back to us about how much better quality the photos are
>>4122784Don’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!)
>>4118820Usually 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.
>>4124272Thank 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 MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS M200Image-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2023:01:14 17:39:59Exposure Time1/25 secF-Numberf/8.0Exposure ProgramManualLens Aperturef/8.0Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternFlashNo FlashFocal Length22.00 mmImage Width2304Image Height1536RenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandard
>>4123413>KB without numpadsI wish this meme never happened
>>4118403>you get what you pay for, and smaller isn't necessarily betterI can carry these 4 different focal lengths in my pocket to every place I go. There's really no way to beat such convenience.
>>4123413Damn, that image describes a person I know too well.
>>4124458AE1 and portra included?
>>4118418I 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.
>>4123413Rick and Morty is too violent, for my liking.
Need some option Got a second hand 28-80mm usm lens just for fun and practiceThe lens feel dark even in good light and I have to increase the shutter just for a properly exposed imageIs 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 MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS M200Image-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2023:01:20 12:17:41Exposure Time1/10 secF-Numberf/5.0Exposure ProgramManualLens Aperturef/5.0Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModeCenter Weighted AverageFlashNo FlashFocal Length58.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width1280Image Height853RenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandard
>>4127065Zooms 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.
>>4127071This 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 MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS M200Image-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2023:01:20 13:09:14Exposure Time1/10 secF-Numberf/5.0Exposure ProgramManualLens Aperturef/5.0Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternFlashNo FlashFocal Length35.00 mmColor Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width2304Image Height1536RenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandard
>>4127072First pic is second hand 28-80mmSecond pic is kit zoom 15-45mmBoth shot at 1/10 and at around 100iso
>>4118393infinitethat 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.
>>4127071Cleaned 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
>>4118467wow this is shit
>>4118393Ironically 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
>>4129729iPhones had some of the worst flagship cameras in the industry when the iphone 5 came outThey still do!