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

181–190 of 196 posts

Re: The Smartphone vs. the Camera Industry

#181

Post by virtualritz »

floatboth wrote: post #117
geerlingguy wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But the software and connection process are terrible, and have been for years.

Pretty seamless on Sony. Just select "upload to smartphone", enter the password that's displayed on the camera into the Android app, done.

But you can only get JPEGs that way. No way to grab RAWs from the camera. But most android apps I use to finalize images do support RAW now. Google Photos supports RAW etc., etc.

Also, I almost always seem have to restart the app once or twice until my camera shows up. This is on three different android phones that I've gone through since I bought my a7II.

Re: The Smartphone vs. the Camera Industry

#182

Post by pkolaczk »

fma wrote: post #138
sealthedeal wrote: post #109

Seems to me, the biggest argument is iPhone camera is 12MP baseline DSLR is 24. If you are 100% certain you need that additional clarity in your photos (maybe landscape) then you go with DSLR. Otherwise the smartphone is the way to go for all your family photos and videos, etc. I would be VVV nervous if I was a camera manufacturer...

Megapixel is not the only thing that determines how good a photo will look. That was a game played by manufacturers, just like how back in the day with CPU people tried to measure a computer quality based on Mhz and Ghz.

All other things being equal, megapixels do count. DSLRs have both better quality in terms of dynamic range and noise AND more MP. More MP means more details, less grainy, nicer noise patterns, more cropping flexibility. 12 MP is good for internet, but not for high quality prints to hang on the wall. 12 MP from a Bayer filter is not even true 12 MP, but interpolated, much closer to 6-8 real MP.

Re: The Smartphone vs. the Camera Industry

#183

Post by xyzzy_plugh »

jiggawatts wrote: post #50
xyzzy_plugh wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Even their key features, like video recording are reduced to a 29 minute limit due to an old expired regulation That's not entirely true. The usual excuse is that transcoding generates significant heat and without sufficient cooling the cameras will be damaged. To some extent this is true. It tends to depend on the bitrate; 4k will get hotter faster than 1080, and 480 will go for long enough to not be a problem gen…

That's entirely true. There was a tax regulation that said that any camera that could record over 30 minutes was a "video" camera and was taxed higher. For an example of idiocy that's not government-enforced, see the arbitrary 30 second limit exposures on a lot of cameras. If you want to take a 5 minute long exposure, most companies will make you go buy a shutter release cable, which is just the most idiotic thing I'…

I bought a brand new mirrorless in California last month and it records indefinitely and infinite duration exposures ("bulb") out of the box. Maybe the camera was taxed higher but I seriously doubt it. A major selling point of many mirrorless bodies these days is recording and streaming video. Even if there is a tax, it's insignificant to me as a consumer.

Re: The Smartphone vs. the Camera Industry

#184

Post by scotty79 »

Half of the camera should be on your smartphone. Lens, sensor, power, some buffer and some hardware gimmicks may stay on the camera, rest should be moved to smartphone. Whole UI, image processing, nn processing, storage, editing, basically all of software and computing power necessary should all be on smartphone.

From the point of view of the camera user, smartphone should be detachable lcd viewfinder. Or from the point of smartphone user, camera should be beefy detachable lens and flash you can put on a tripod nearby when composing the shot. People want better lenses and lightning for their smartphones. If they are wireless it's even better.

Re: The Smartphone vs. the Camera Industry

#186

Post by dredmorbius »

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…

Tyranny of the Minimum Viable User.

My treatment largely focuses on software, but if you consider SW a mechanism for delivering interface and output, it applies to a physical + controls system such as cameras. Previous iterations of this phenomenon include audio equipment and bicycles.

https://old.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/69wk8y/the_tyr...

Re: The Smartphone vs. the Camera Industry

#187

Post by dredmorbius »

weinzierl wrote: post #84
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…

> 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…

The best cameras is the one you have with you

Also expressed as "F/8 and be there".

Numerous online references, one at random:

https://www.lightstalking.com/quick-look-philosophy-f8/

Re: The Smartphone vs. the Camera Industry

#188

Post by ekianjo »

floatboth wrote: post #122
ekianjo wrote: post #102

> But that’s just the start of the problem. Once beginners get their first camera system, they quickly realize that their expenses and time commitment do not stop there. All of a sudden, their computers are not fast enough to post-process those high-resolution images and video. Their storage is insufficient. Their computer screens that used to handle web browsing and occasional gaming just fine, are no longer good en…

> my smartphones pics are for instant consumption only ehh, I have a photo from the iPhone 4 printed out and hanging on the wall, still very happy with some shots I took with it :) > too much noise when it gets darker To be fair, many older DSLRs (Canon 600D) have horrendous performance at high ISO too, while smartphones have Night Sight type stitching of multiple exposures, but these require steady hands and non-mov…

DSLRs have also got better with time as smartphones improved too. Their dynamic range for one has improved dramatically in the past 5 years.

Re: The Smartphone vs. the Camera Industry

#189

Post by cthalupa »

BeetleB wrote: post #176
cthalupa wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The first is the complete lack of innovation. Without any meaningful APIs, end users cannot do much with their DSLR. There's no app store where I can buy apps to enhance my DSLR. I disagree here entirely. The DSLR "app" market predates and has been the inspiration for all of these apps we see on phones. Photoshop filters, lightroom presets and actions, etc. All of the stuff that that inspired things like instagram f…

> You don't run them on camera, but... you wouldn't want to! I'm talking about APIs that control focus, aperture, shutter etc - not post processing. Phone companies have performed more innovation on this front than camera manufacturers. I want to write a program that will focus stack for me. As in I want to tell my camera to take N photos, each with a slightly different focal point. I want to specify the boundaries (…

>Bonus points if it stacks all the photos in the body as well. Photoshop cannot do this for you. >You already see it in some phones - great nice shots with low noise because the camera is taking N pictures and taking the median of all the pictures. Why can't I program my DSLR to do this?

I've been doing this in photoshop and lightroom for more than a decade now. I'm not sure how this isn't doable in them?

Re: The Smartphone vs. the Camera Industry

#190

Post by cthalupa »

coldtea wrote: post #177
cthalupa wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've got some complaints when it comes to my a7r 3s interface, and I assume the 4 hasn't changed much, so I'm probably in the group you're talking about, but... Having better autofocus, automatic HDR and bracketing, etc., to me, has nothing to do with having a smartphone like interface or computational photography. I do want those things (or, kind of - I want better autofocus across the board, and I want the option o…

> I've got some complaints when it comes to my a7r 3s interface, and I assume the 4 hasn't changed much, so I'm probably in the group you're talking about, but... A7R III is already another crowd, there are tons of people like simpler DSLR (e.g. Nikon D3500), simpler mirroless (e.g. Olympus PEN) and compacts (tons of models). Those could all use a "smartphone like interface" and "computational photography". Now, for…

>I mean more like the ability to download/write apps, advanced functionality made simple, things to automatically update/sync/post images, etc.

I guess? I dunno. Perhaps it's my lack of ability, but it's only a small fraction of my shots that I want to do anything with, and I usually do at least some post processing on them before I do anything with them. I can't imagine wanting to do much of anything with any photo I take without doing at least some basic work in lightroom first.

Post reply on HN