Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Smartphone vs. the Camera Industry

photographylife.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 196 posts

Re: The Smartphone vs. the Camera Industry

#151

Post by inferiorhuman »

kenhwang wrote: post #42
i_am_proteus wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The camera makers would be wise to just implement an API over Bluetooth or adhoc WiFi to pair with phones/tablets/laptops and offload RAWs and JPEGs. Lightroom mobile, etc., could then have the images swiftly processed and uploaded, and could probably be implemented with minimal changes to the newest models of camera.

Canon and Nikon and I'm sure others already have a WiFi adapter you can plug into the SD card slot that does exactly this.

Canon and Nikon and I'm sure others already have a WiFi adapter you can plug into the SD card slot that does exactly this.

You're probably thinking of an EyeFi, which is a third party product. First party WiFi support is typically either baked into the body itself or a dongle you'd clip to the side of the camera or flash shoe.

Re: The Smartphone vs. the Camera Industry

#152

Post by dekhn »

reaperducer wrote: post #11
jseliger wrote: post #2

The strangest thing is the camera industry's non-response to smartphones. There's a fellow named Tom Hogan who writes in extreme detail about the camera industry and noticed years ago that camera makers should open up their APIs and work much harder to integrate with smartphones. Here's one recent example of that message: http://dslrbodies.com/newsviews/are-customers-asking-for.htm... Still, Apple discovered a user p…

Not to mention how every phone camera geotags every image automatically, but that's still a bulky $500 add-on for DSLRs, if it's even available for your model.

Hmm, I paid $50 for one (Canon DSLR, which is one of the most common). It fits in the hot shoe and is 70mmx50mmx30mm. I don't consider that extremely bulky (I'm sure there are smaller ones that cost a bit more).

Re: The Smartphone vs. the Camera Industry

#153

Post by bsdubernerd »

bsdubernerd wrote: post #136
starky wrote: post #25

Maybe because this is something very close to my wheelhouse, but this article seems to be overly wordy for something obvious. Smartphones are simply more convenient than a standalone camera can ever be. Add on top of that the incredible computational imaging capabilities that have been developed over the past few years and the quality of images you can get from the size of optics and pixels that these devices have is…

Sony is clearly listening. Their range of mirrorless cameras (NEX before, and A6??? now) seem to cater exactly this segment. I shot Sony since the NEX series came out, starting with the 5000R. Paired with a fixed Zeiss 24mm this camera took absolutely astounding images. Pair a Sony with a smartphone and you get easy upload to social media. What's missing, exactly? Incidentally I sold all my Sony gear last year. The U…

To continue, as the smartphone market will erode the middle segment, I see the Sony line of compact cameras (A* and RX100 in detail) to become _less_ smartphone like, instead of the opposite.

This has been certainly true in the alpha series. The A6300 handles definitely more like a DSLR than it's predecessors.

Re: The Smartphone vs. the Camera Industry

#154

Post by subpixel »

guidoism wrote: post #144
foldr wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Modern smartphones take much better photos than 35mm compact cameras ever did. People have way more family photos of way better quality than they ever used to.

I completely agree. But there was a period of several years, maybe 2010-2016 when they didn't. And especially at the beginning of that time, oh, I remember cringing when I saw friends' baby pictures they took at the time with their phones. I'm culpable of jumping ship to the new but worse technology too early myself, but in this instance I didn't stop carrying my "real" camera until the iPhone 6s.

I am taking photos of my small child with a new iPhone and a Fuji X-series and the latter is so far superior it is no contest. I expected the new iPhone to be a big improvement over my 6s but in most of my use-cases it is not - low light, interior shots.

Re: The Smartphone vs. the Camera Industry

#155

Post by coldtea »

CarVac wrote: post #29
starky wrote: post #25

Maybe because this is something very close to my wheelhouse, but this article seems to be overly wordy for something obvious. Smartphones are simply more convenient than a standalone camera can ever be. Add on top of that the incredible computational imaging capabilities that have been developed over the past few years and the quality of images you can get from the size of optics and pixels that these devices have is…

I think the problem is that there are two nearly polar opposite desires for UI and processing, that require totally different approaches to a camera. One is the smartphone user who desires good quality for whatever the situation, who just wants a photo uploaded to Instagram or whatever, NOW. They don't want to learn how to adjust exposure compensation to expose-to-the-right for optimal raw image quality. This user wa…

>This user wants all the control, all of the time: they've invested time and effort into nailing exposure, mastering autofocus, all while composing beautiful shots. A smartphone interface is not what you want: the best images are often captured in difficult environments where a touchscreen just gets in the way and you must have hard control points.

You'd be surprised.

Enthusiast users clamor for good autofocus, want automatic HDR and bracketing, and lots of other things...

Re: The Smartphone vs. the Camera Industry

#156

Post by kalleboo »

fock wrote: post #114

Was to a birthday of a person just having his first child. There were photos of his childhood/life, not stellar, but just sentimental, physical pictures of his life. Judging from what is sold in all the crap decoration stores around, people have a real longing for this kind of sentimental stuff. I think a lot of them will awake horrified in 10-20 years, when they notice that all this sentimental stuff is basically ho…

The crappy 110 and APS film photos of my childhood look horrible compared to even pretty old cell phone cameras, I think people will be fine. And who knows, Google might invent a machine learning algorithm to fix the photos.

A decade ago I printed a bunch of photos taken on my 2006 Sony Ericsson K800 (one in a line of cell phones to come with a real Xenon flash instead of the LED rubbish we suffered with after) and they looked fine as prints - it's on a bright, high-res computer screen that they look horrid.

Re: The Smartphone vs. the Camera Industry

#157

Post by frosted-flakes »

fock wrote: post #124
weinzierl wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Smartphones are simply more convenient than a standalone camera can ever be. This, and as the old adage goes: "The best cameras is the one you have with you" . I, for one, have taken technically superior photos with my camera - unsurprisingly - but certainly the more interesting photos with my smartphone. Now you can argue what is better, but I'd say interesting beats technical superior any day. > Sony and Fuji are…

and how many people did you show your interesting photos too? are they of any interest of anyone else? would they standout in one of the imageboards available everywhere? Most certain the answer is no, which leads to the question why you felt the necessity to take this picture at all? Given the abundance of photographic material available today, I came to the conclusion that I'd prefer quality over quantity (your old…

> and how many people did you show your interesting photos too? are they of any interest of anyone else? would they standout in one of the imageboards available everywhere?

I take photos to capture memories, not to post on social media. I greatly value being able to look back at my old photos, because they trigger memories that I'd long forgotten. Sometimes I share my photos, but most of the time I keep them to myself. In this case, smartphone-quality is fine.

I also take photos because the process is enjoyable. I enjoy the technical side of it, finding that perfect angle, then editing it to use as a perfect desktop background. That's what I use my standalone Sony for. I don't bring my standalone camera with me wherever I go, so my phone gets taken out a lot more often.

Re: The Smartphone vs. the Camera Industry

#158

Post by frosted-flakes »

Youden wrote: post #104
starky wrote: post #25

Maybe because this is something very close to my wheelhouse, but this article seems to be overly wordy for something obvious. Smartphones are simply more convenient than a standalone camera can ever be. Add on top of that the incredible computational imaging capabilities that have been developed over the past few years and the quality of images you can get from the size of optics and pixels that these devices have is…

> Why do we still have to mess about with camera tethering when it should be seamless to have photos transfer to a device for professional shoots, or to your smartphone for posting to social media? I think this is the real answer for the standalone cameras: treat it as an extension of the smartphone. It's embarassing that in 2019 it's _still_ not possible to wirelessly transfer RAW files from a camera to a phone. I h…

I can transfer RAW photos from my camera to my phone (either through Wi-Fi or by plugging in a USB cable), then edit them in Adobe Lightroom. But I don't do it very often because the files transfer very slowly, and editing on a phone is cumbersome.

Re: The Smartphone vs. the Camera Industry

#159

Post by ghaff »

fock wrote: post #126
ghaff wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’ve been a Canon user forever and have a 5Diii that I use mostly when I want the lenses and/or am doing real action photography. But I don’t use it a lot (also have a smaller Fujifilm system) and I doubt I’d make the investment if I were starting from scratch today. It’s a good camera but it’s frustrating in some ways. No GPS. No easy way to transfer pics to my phone. I probably care less about in camera processing…

no GPS is relative. Most phones have AGPS - while this works fine in a city, have fun finding, where you took that picture in a remote forest. Actual, independent GPS devices still cost a lot of money (and need power).

I have a rugged point and shoot that has just GPS. It takes a bit to find a lock and does run down it’s smoothly with no cellular. But there’s definitely GPS in cheap devices. For that matter you can get $100 standalone GPS receivers.

Re: The Smartphone vs. the Camera Industry

#160

Post by ghaff »

NickNameNick wrote: post #141
fock wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

no GPS is relative. Most phones have AGPS - while this works fine in a city, have fun finding, where you took that picture in a remote forest. Actual, independent GPS devices still cost a lot of money (and need power).

AGPS devices are still GPS devices. They just fast-load the ephemera/almanac data from the cell network instead of waiting to get it from the GPS signal. I know there are options for offloading the GPS signal analysis to other devices, but I wasn't aware of any main-stream cellphones that can't use GPS without the network.

I’ve definitely used my iPhones at any rate as GOS receivers where no cell signal was available. It just takes longer to get a lock.
Post reply on HN