For the average person, is there really a need for a dedicated camera anymore?

[FeuerFrei]

So that's why it gets pixelated. Thought it was digital zoom. (as a non-owner)

 

[CuriousMike]

So that's why it gets pixelated. Thought it was digital zoom. (as a non-owner)

What you call "pixelated", photographers call "noise."

In good daylight, the iPhone exposure and colors arguably look better than the A6500. But even at base ISO, you can tell it's a bit smeary.

Anything over base ISO and ... I didn't think the iPhone would fall apart so bad.

Is that the full image, or is that a cropped portion? My suspicion is it has to be cropped.

 

[bfun_x1]

What you call "pixelated", photographers call "noise."

In good daylight, the iPhone exposure and colors arguably look better than the A6500. But even at base ISO, you can tell it's a bit smeary.

Anything over base ISO and ... I didn't think the iPhone would fall apart so bad.

Is that the full image, or is that a cropped portion? My suspicion is it has to be cropped.

It's a tool on the dpreview website. It kind of gives you an idea of what a camera's sensor can do.

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/im...tr16_3=32&normalization=full&widget=1&x=0&y=0

 

[smitbret]

What you call "pixelated", photographers call "noise."

In good daylight, the iPhone exposure and colors arguably look better than the A6500. But even at base ISO, you can tell it's a bit smeary.

Anything over base ISO and ... I didn't think the iPhone would fall apart so bad.

Is that the full image, or is that a cropped portion? My suspicion is it has to be cropped.

Even, the "better colors" aren't real. Most cameras on phones use post processing to touch-up the photos so they are more pleasing to the average person. Usually means that colors are oversaturated and everything is moved into the warm tones by default. The goal of most photographers with a dedicated SLR is to get a perfectly neutral shot that can be touched-up post processing.

 

[CuriousMike]

Even, the "better colors" aren't real. Most cameras on phones use post processing to touch-up the photos so they are more pleasing to the average person. Usually means that colors are oversaturated and everything is moved into the warm tones by default. The goal of most photographers with a dedicated SLR is to get a perfectly neutral shot that can be touched-up post processing.

I understand that - but for smartphone users, the post-processing is warranted because those users don't want to do touch-up. They want it to work out of the box.

DSLR companies are getting curb stomped by smartphone choices.

Out of the box, smartphones
(1) produce poppy color,
(2) add sharpening,
(3) auto HDR your images in relevant scenes,
(4) default to auto-ISO.

A DSLR, out of the box, does none of these things, leaving the average DSLR purchaser who probably bought their camera from a big box store and "just wanted better photos of their kids" are left with drab, unsharp, blurry photos because their camera is defaulted to "what photographers want."

What DSLR manufacturers should do is set their cameras up out of the box to match what smartphones do; it's far easier for "real photographers" to turn off auto-ISO (and they're shooting in RAW , so none of the other options matter to them.)

 

[FeuerFrei]

Japanese manufacturers tend to overlook firmware rewrites. Unfortch. I guess software isn't their forte.

What you call "pixelated", photographers call "noise."

In good daylight, the iPhone exposure and colors arguably look better than the A6500. But even at base ISO, you can tell it's a bit smeary.

Anything over base ISO and ... I didn't think the iPhone would fall apart so bad.

Is that the full image, or is that a cropped portion? My suspicion is it has to be cropped.

Seriously, as I was saying. Digital zoom = crop.
Such blotchiness ... (which I almost labelled "noise" but not being sure of proper term, stuck with "pixelated.")

 

[radhak]

I understand that - but for smartphone users, the post-processing is warranted because those users don't want to do touch-up. They want it to work out of the box.

DSLR companies are getting curb stomped by smartphone choices.

Out of the box, smartphones
(1) produce poppy color,
(2) add sharpening,
(3) auto HDR your images in relevant scenes,
(4) default to auto-ISO.

A DSLR, out of the box, does none of these things, leaving the average DSLR purchaser who probably bought their camera from a big box store and "just wanted better photos of their kids" are left with drab, unsharp, blurry photos because their camera is defaulted to "what photographers want."

What DSLR manufacturers should do is set their cameras up out of the box to match what smartphones do; it's far easier for "real photographers" to turn off auto-ISO (and they're shooting in RAW , so none of the other options matter to them.)

They have tried that for a while - the D750 has the Effects mode and the Scene mode: between these two, you can as many 'auto' shots as you need; but guess what, it'll still take some understanding to pick one of the many scenes/effects, and some twiddling to get to it.

As you suggest, maybe the 'auto' mode should do what phone-cameras do: add to the default setting all the extra twang you listed, and allow a power-user to turn all that off in setup.

 

[MrSquished]

I'm a semi pro photographer (real estate) and I use a m43 Oly OMD setup for work - and I used to have a compact digital camera for carrying around with me for candid shots but cell phone cameras have gotten pretty impressive (Pixel 2 XL) that I don't feel the need to anymore. But in many shootings situations a dedicated camera will do better. If I had kids and I wanted to print and frame shots I'd probably always use my m43 setup I use for my job with them, for example.

But, as they say, the best camera you have is the one you have with you. And we always have our phones now don't we.

Plus as brought up in the thread, smartphone cameras are the best at sharing them quickly, and we are an instant gratification society.

 

[ElFenix]

wonder how long before one of the camera companies partners with google to get AI into superzooms/mirrorless/SLRs?

 

[John Carmack]

Images from even high end phone cameras simply do not stand up to any sort of critical inspection. The phone captures always have the look of a mottled watercolor painting where fine details like hair and grass get lost to noise reduction even under decent conditions.

 

[turtile]

wonder how long before one of the camera companies partners with google to get AI into superzooms/mirrorless/SLRs?

The chips aren't good enough given the price/power draw. The Google Visual Core in the Pixel 2 still takes a while to process one image and has powerful ARM cores of course. When you are doing 10-20FPS at 40+ MP, that isn't going to work.

 

[jtvang125]

The chips aren't good enough given the price/power draw. The Google Visual Core in the Pixel 2 still takes a while to process one image and has powerful ARM cores of course. When you are doing 10-20FPS at 40+ MP, that isn't going to work.

Yep, as you increase in price you start attracting the enthusiasts and they tend to avoid letting the camera do a lot of altering anyways. They're more concern with sharpness, DR, etc. Many existing cameras already have these Scene modes but go unused because again, they want precise control of the settings than letting the camera decide.

 

[jhansman]

My criteria is, if the shot is getting emailed or posted online, I use my phone; if it might make it up on my wall, framed and matted, I use my dSLR. The process of using a quality, dedicated camera is nothing at all like using your phone, even with the great apps now available for phones that can even shoot RAW. Like others, the convenience of having my phone in hand often becomes the camera of choice. That said, I just bought a 70-300mm lens for my Nikon D7000, and can't wait to take it out to the field.

 

[Fir]

Yes because even the f 1.5 on the GS9+ can't touch my Leica f 0.95 prime!

 

[CuriousMike]

f/1.4 on a cell phone is "equivalent" to f/10 on a Full Frame sensor.
https://www.pointsinfocus.com/tools/depth-of-field-and-equivalent-lens-calculator/#{%22c%22:[{%22f%22:0,%22av%22:%221.4%22,%22fl%22:35,%22d%22:3048,%22cm%22:%220%22}],%22m%22:0}

 

[bigi]

Short answer - NO. Average Joe does not need dedicated DSLR to make a shot. Phones are just great for that.

Long answer - It Depends. If you want to photograph your kid's soccer game, you would greatly benefit from dedicated rig. 10 fps body, real viewfinder, 500mm lens.

Same with astrophotography - to get the perfect picture of Orion Nebula, one needs astro tracker, proper lens and multiple exposures. Avg Joe does not apply.



There are still laws of optics and physics that small lens and sensor even combined with "AI" can't overcome.

 

[SamQuint]

I have a few more reasons to use a dedicated camera. One is battery life. You can carry extra batteries and continue taking photos and videos all day long. Another reason of course is better optical zoom. Even a 10X optical zoom on a point and shoot, to me, looks better than anything a phone camera can do. The flash on most cameras is far more powerful than a cell phone allowing for better pictures in low light. I like having the ability to use removable media. I can easily swap SD cards in and out and never run out of space like on my phone. (I don't need to have internet connectivity to offload files) If I plan on taking many photos I always carry a dedicated camera. I have a point and shoot (underwater capable) and a DSLR that I take with me.

 

[Midwayman]

If all you want is photos to post on facebook a phone camera is fine. I think the biggest issue with using a phone for those sort of shots is just ergonomics. Its hard to hold a phone well. I was kinda hoping those add on lenses would take off. Sony made a couple wifi ones and I know Olympus had a 4/3rds one. Reviews seems to be mixed as best. In any case I can't see myself bothering toting around a camera unless its at least a 4/3 sensor or better. The smaller sensor mega zooms aren't worth the trouble imho, and the normal P&S just aren't a big enough just to justify carrying another device. I still keep an ancient APS-C dslr body around for studio work when I want a lot of control though. Its nice to have all sorts of wheels and buttons.

 

[spacejamz]

I always wonder if people who take pictures and videos with their phones at concerts and sporting events ever go back and look at (much less keep) the pics they took...especially if they are not very close to the action...

 

[nOOky]

I doubt I'll ever be able to zoom or capture as much light with a cell phone camera, so I'll always have a dedicated camera for vacations and taking images of things that I want really good IQ. I'm waiting to see how LG's V 40 does with it's 5 cameras this fall though before I purchase a new phone.

 

[gradoman]

Nah, not really. Photography or video at night (the reason for me being interested in an actual camera), or interesting long exposures and all the other, more complicated shots, requires a proper camera and an understanding.

What really kills me is that even with a simple cellphone camera, people can't figure out how to use is properly. Getting everything in the frame is a challenge for said people. I've seen restaurants post their own pics of food for social media -- vertical pictures, sides of the plates cut off. My partner went to do proper shots and the owner said she felt like her pics were fine, lolol. Group shots, hahaha, vertically, with 10 people in the shot. Shooter backs up several feet to get everyone in the vertical shot. I facepalm every time.

 

[spacejamz]

Does the average person who takes vertical pictures at a concert or sports event ever actually go back and look at their pictures or videos?

I take pretty decent pictures with my Note 9 and unless I am a few rows from the stage, I pretty much give up at concerts...even when it looks good from the shoot preview, when I go back and look at the actual image, it is not a good image. I adjust the shutter speeds and ISO which come out better than the AUTO mode but I still don't care for them...

 

[Charlie22911]

The best camera is the one you have on your person, and for many people that is their phone.
In the car world, there is a saying “there’s no replacement for displacement”. With cameras it is sensor surface area, which phones lack. In very well lit scenes a phone will compete well, but as soon as the scene dims the better light gathering ability of a large sense will win.

 

[jsalpha2]

I'm not an average person. Is anyone? I don't have or want a cell phone. (Occasionally I'd like to have the driving directions app) I want a camera with an optical viewfinder that uses double A batteries and costs less than $200. 8 megapixels is/are plenty. The best options I can find are old used cameras on Ebay

 

[IronWing]

I'm not an average person. Is anyone? I don't have or want a cell phone. (Occasionally I'd like to have the driving directions app) I want a camera with an optical viewfinder that uses double A batteries and costs less than $200. 8 megapixels is/are plenty. The best options I can find are old used cameras on Ebay

That optical viewfinder requirement is probably the biggest challenge. I was surprised how many AA powered cameras are still available but I guess if one is going to travel far afield, it makes a lot of sense.