Take your photography to the next level and beyond...

  • NEWS
  • REVIEWS
  • INSPIRATION
  • COMMUNITY
  • COMPETITIONS

Why not join for free today?

Join for Free

Your total photography experience starts here


Are proper cameras doomed?


23 Aug 2012 1:30AM
For me, a picture is a picture, whatever device it may have been taken.

I realise that the modern image taking devices are becoming more advanced and almost foolproof.
It is up to the user's eye to "see" a picture, or a potential and create a nice image with good composition and attention to detail.

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

randomrubble
10 3.0k 12 United Kingdom
23 Aug 2012 7:57AM
I use a DSLR with a set of very good lenses, but it's pretty clear to me that my current phone's cameras is, at least, 'good enough' for the majority of photographs taken at social occasions or that I need to take on building sites for work. I'll drag out the SLR, TS-E lenses and tripod for the brochure shots though. From that standpoint, I think cameras will continue to exist where lens auality and flexibility matters.

The P&S is dead, regardless of the addition of Android & Wi-Fi. Personally, I don't think it's very likely that I will ever buy a digital compact again, even with apps, for a couple of reasons. Firstly I tend to find the complexity gets on the way making the results less satisfactory than those from my iPhone. Secondly, unless I know that i'll need the long end of the zoom, I'll never carry the compact.
keith selmes
11 7.1k 1 United Kingdom
23 Aug 2012 9:07AM

Quote:I'm sure that's what stagecoach manufacturers said about motor cars, when they first appeared. Lol!
I don't think there were any, they were wiped out in the railway boom
lemmy e2
7 2.1k United Kingdom
23 Aug 2012 9:39AM

Quote:The tests seem to suggest it will beat an entry-level DSLR for image quality, never mind other camera phones!


I'm sure it is very good but a camera with fixed focal length lens and digital zoom will not replace my GH2. If you think only technically, I'm sure camera phones will reach high standards.

But I use a camera for more than just to get sharp pictures and I require quickly accessed controls, fine control over focus for macro, use of telephoto lens and so on as will most people using this forum. Camera phones may well replace compact cameras but they will not replace specialist tools like CSC and DSLR.

There is much more to photography than image quality (although that is what seems to preoccupy many photographers, more than the pictures they take).

The 808 works by digitally oversampling and then pixel-binning but still has a much smaller sensor than a CSC and, of course DSLR. Nokia have not changed the laws of physics. A bigger sensor means better quality.
23 Aug 2012 9:52AM
When it comes down to it, it's the final image that is important, not how it was created. A top of the range camera lets you change more settings to get images in difficult situations. Better aperture range maybe. If then lens is OK, camera phones can take a good image.
KenTaylor e2
10 3.0k 2 United Kingdom
23 Aug 2012 10:20AM

Quote:When it comes down to it, it's the final image that is important, not how it was created.


Indeed it is but try and explain that to those that trade in for the latest each year.
lemmy e2
7 2.1k United Kingdom
23 Aug 2012 10:31AM

Quote:Indeed it is but try and explain that to those that trade in for the latest each year.


Cameras are fascinating technology though, aren't they? On an assignment once for the Mail, I had to photograph an eminent woman psychiatrist. I did the pix and packed away my Hasselblad outift and Elinchroms and as I was leaving she remarked, with a smile, 'you are a very lucky man'. ' Why do you say that', I asked.

'Tax allowable toys', she said.
llareggub e2
4 758 United Kingdom
23 Aug 2012 10:33AM

Quote:SLRs have stood the test of time, phones which can take equivalent quality pictures are yet to be produced and I doubt if they will be in our lifetimes.

Phones such as the Nokia 808 can give entry-level DSLRs a run for their money in terms of image quality. It's already happened. Sorry. Smile



Are you high??? The 808 has some interesting technical wizardry to get round the inherent limitations of phone "form" cameras and sure if it operates in its own environment then it indeed produces great images however that is in its own environment. Most small form compacts and mirrorless and naturally DSLRs will lay waste to the 808 if you wish to shoot at any other aperture than its fixed f2.4 setting. The exposure triangle for photography is a blend of shutter speed, Aperture and ISO by fixing any single one of those points you are inevitably designing a device that is useless to any enthusiastic photographer in most circumstances.

I think someone else mentioned that all cameras are a compromise in one way shape or form and the compromises with the 808 are huge, technologically interesting and signs of massive improvement but the compromises will be massive for many years to come. It is doubtful that these products will be of any use to any commercial photographer unless a newspaper is writing another tedious advertisement masquerading as an article about how some pro has used an iphone at a sports event.
Carabosse e2
11 39.7k 269 England
23 Aug 2012 10:46AM

Quote:Personally, I don't think it's very likely that I will ever buy a digital compact again


This is my feeling also. My next phone (I don't change very often) will very likely be something on the lines of the Nokia 808 although probably not that model.


Quote:A top of the range camera lets you change more settings to get images in difficult situations. Better aperture range maybe.


A top of the range camera does not allow you to take any photos at all - if it has been left at home! You may miss that 'money shot', or even a great family moment, if you are not carrying a competent imaging device with you............ at all times.
keith selmes
11 7.1k 1 United Kingdom
23 Aug 2012 12:19PM

Quote:explain that to those that trade in for the latest each year
neither does a phone, but the photos you missed through not have the top range camera would have been really good. The good thing about the phone is, you don't wish you'd brought it with you Wink
keith selmes
11 7.1k 1 United Kingdom
23 Aug 2012 5:25PM
Please ignore last comment.
It would have made more sense if I'd done this


Quote:A top of the range camera does not allow you to take any photos at all - if it has been left at home!

neither does a phone, but the photos you missed through not have the top range camera would have been really good. The good thing about the phone is, you don't wish you'd brought it with you
mdpontin e2
10 6.0k Scotland
23 Aug 2012 8:05PM

Quote:The good thing about the phone is, you don't wish you'd brought it with you

*scratches head, puzzled*

Okay, I think I see what you mean. But surely the point is that most people carry their phone with them even when they don't lug a ton-and-a-half of camera gear along. So a phone with a decent quality camera is in many cases the best camera, i.e. the one you have with you. I doubt if anybody disputes that it may be possible to get much better/bigger photos with a good dedicated camera system.
Carabosse e2
11 39.7k 269 England
23 Aug 2012 11:48PM

Quote:I doubt if anybody disputes that it may be possible to get much better/bigger photos with a good dedicated camera system.


Nobody will dispute that - generally speaking - you will get better quality with a dedicated camera.

However.............. you may miss many photo opportunities because you do not have that camera with you. Mobile phones tend to be carried everywhere by most owners (not 100%, I know).

With a decent camera on the phone you may get photos that you would never have obtained in the first place. The price of that may be some compromise on quality but (and this is one the points of this thread) that compromise is diminishing.
Focus_Man 4 481 631 United Kingdom
24 Aug 2012 1:49PM

Quote:Lol! The vast majority of people who take photos have never even heard of "bokeh".


Before 1997ish is was known as 'differential focussing'. we all did it when required but didn't bother to find such a crazy name. What was wrong with what we called it originally?

Had the guy who invented the word 'bokeh' never heard of differential focussing?
Carabosse e2
11 39.7k 269 England
24 Aug 2012 1:51PM
In the 'good old days' maximum depth of field used to be the goal, not minimum DoF.

Sign In

You must be a member to leave a comment.

ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.

Join For Free

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.