ArchiveTeam are starting a project to put this on archive.org, I expect they will welcome help. https://wiki.archiveteam.org/index.php/DPReview
What does help look like?
DPReview.com to close
351–360 of 387 posts
Re: DPReview.com to close
#352Earlier quoted context omitted.
It isn't a boom. It is just a transition from DSRL/video cameras to mirrorless. Market is consolidating around mirrorless for everything from photography to video. Hire a wedding photography and a wedding videographer today, they may have the same equipment.
I believe that TLRs are going to make a resurgence and wipe out this mirrorless fad
I have yet to see a TLR in real life.
Re: DPReview.com to close
#353Earlier quoted context omitted.
> SLRs don't take "better" photos, they take more detailed photos. The best photo is the one you actually took because you had the camera on you and didn't miss the shot. At this point I want to go back to using a pocket camera. I can turn it on and take a picture without having to look at the screen. There's no automatic cloud uploads. I don't have to worry about someone logging metrics or scanning the pictures or A…
If you take a picture without looking at the screen I hope you checked the lens cap is off first.
[deleted]
Re: DPReview.com to close
#354This is so ffffing sad to read. I've only recently become an active user of the forum, as it's the last island of active Samsung NX mirrorless camera users (some of which run Linux), and it was really great to have a polite and civil discourse with other nerds sharing the hobby.
That reminds me of another great loss. I wish Samsung hadn’t ended the NX line. The NX1 was an amazing camera and Tizen was adapted perfectly for it IMO.
Re: DPReview.com to close
#355will that be archived somewhere?
Re: DPReview.com to close
#356Earlier quoted context omitted.
The thing about this is that the manual tweaking allows you to take the picture you're envisioning. Whereas the processing on the phone provides a clear picture in poor conditions, but it's not necessarily the picture I want . For instance a phone can do a great job in a backlit scenario by intelligently cutting the highlights and boosting the shadows. The resulting image shows both the subject and background clearly…
>For instance a phone can do a great job in a backlit scenario by intelligently cutting the highlights and boosting the shadows. The resulting image shows both the subject and background clearly but it doesn't represent the real-word lighting conditions. As a result it's great for a quick snapshot but is less useful in an artistic sense. This seems completely backwards to me. Artistic photography isn't about represen…
I guess I didn't really word this clearly, my intent was to state that the manual camera generally captures real-world conditions as a baseline. Then the photographer could in camera or in post manipulate the image to fulfill his artistic vision. While there are certain cameras which have inherent distortion for artistic purposes (e.g. Lomo camera) the majority of them are designed to realistically capture the scene in front of them.
In contrast the phone produces a specific artistic decision influence by the software. For instance in the backlit scenario the phone purposely boosts the highlights and cuts the shadows to create what it perceives as a more balanced image.
Re: DPReview.com to close
#357Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm guessing you don't record videos then. In terms of video capabilities, Canon 5D Mk II is limited to 8-bit 4:2:0 1080p H.264 recording at 30fps, maxing out at 12 minutes of recording. That is a far cry from 10-bit (or 12-bit) 4:2:2 4K, 6K or even 8K RAW or ProRes at 120fps or higher with unlimited recording from a similarly priced camera in today's money. (It's also limited in terms of RAW photo as well though: th…
10bit and 4:2:2 is only for editing in post, majority of consumers don't need that.
If you read the last sentence of the post that you're replying to, I already said that it won't matter to most people.
That being said, "is only for editing in post" (which is not really true, banding is an issue in scenes with high dynamic range with 8-bit, not limited to sky but also with strong lights or deep shadows) doesn't mean people won't want it. Around 10-15 years ago, in the age of single-digit-GB slow SD cards and weaker camera/phone processors, that's what people used to say about RAW photos repeatedly. Now it is mainstream in even in phones, with built-in editing apps and easy to use desktop programs with few knobs. This means editing itself in post isn't a barrier for mainstream adoption, the issue is video editing currently has a high barrier as it is essentially impossible on portable devices, the programs have their learning curves, and the whole stack requires some financial investment.
Re: DPReview.com to close
#358Earlier quoted context omitted.
In Asia I see more people with cameras year after year. It is now at a point where striking a convo about a camera someone has is tired because the next person over also has a cool camera. I mean I saw a guy with TWO Leicas yesterday. Fuji's mirrorless are huge and medium format is now as frequent as those Fujis were 6-8 years ago. It's not only about features, in which I still think cameras best phones any day. It's…
> Same reason film is big lately. Also Instax / Polaroid. AFAIK, Fuji makes the majority (or at least a very significant chunk) of their consumer camera sales with Instax cameras and Instax film.
Also cheap digital compacts are popular, which are smaller than those instant film ones but also have the nostalgic look and cost a fraction of a phone. And a number of niche hobbies like astrophotography, wildlife, extreme macro, all requiring digital cameras. Saying if the phone can take nice photos (for some values of nice because physics make it impossible to rival the quality) then cameras should be obsolete is like saying your phone can zoom so microscopes are obsolete.
Re: DPReview.com to close
#359Earlier quoted context omitted.
I used to shoot only medium and large format film. Maybe 3-4 years ago, I realized I can do everything I want with my phone camera.
> I used to shoot only medium and large format film. Maybe 3-4 years ago, I realized I can do everything I want with my phone camera. Only you can judge what is "everything I want", but that's a surprising statement. Phone cameras can't come close to the quality of even a full frame DSLR, anything medium or large format is light years ahead of phone quality. So I can only think that quality wasn't what you needed/wan…
>Phone cameras can't come close to the quality of even a full frame DSLR, anything medium or large format is light years ahead of phone quality.
This is true for medium format if you're doing a drum scan of the medium format negative. Realistically, however, most medium format negatives are never going to be drum scanned.
If you're scanning with a flatbed or via a DLSR, then the difference in quality vs. a modern cell phone camera is not huge. With a typical flatbed you'll get less resolution than a modern cell phone camera; if you scan with a DSLR and macro lens you'll get a bit more (but it's laborious, especially for color negatives).
It's possibly a bit counterintuitive just how bad a job flatbed scanners do in the case of medium format negatives. Years ago I was very excited to make my first scans of some 6x6 negatives with a consumer Epson flatbed scanner. The resulting photos showed about the same amount of detail as roughly equivalent photos taken using my iPhone 4S. There was far more detail on the negatives, as I easily confirmed with a loupe. Extracting that detail via practical scanning methods is far from trivial.
The other point to consider is exposure, color and dynamic range. Modern phones do a fantastic job here.
Re: DPReview.com to close
#360Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Of course it's a stylistic choice, but camera choice often is. OK, I guess I mean to exclude this kind of work which is done because the cameras are of much worse technical quality — these are by definition not applications for which traditional dedicated cameras are used. In other words, the toys are not replacements for more capable equipment. Yes, you can shoot with a Barbie camera ( https://www.youtube.com/watc…
Not the grand parent. > The Pixel, though, in my opinion, produces pretty bad photos. I've had the opportunity to play with iPhone 14, it has 12 megapixel cameras, but I find that the image quality is no difference to 8 megapixels of detail, and if you use third party applications that can take pictures without post processing, it's often closer to 6 megapixels and the grain in the image is not great. Smart phones do…
Yeah, the iPhone doesn't have the best camera by any means. But having received some RAW photos from one, I feel like they at least don't look super shitty before you push them. Now, they do not compare to RAWs from my actual cameras (whether the R5 or 5Diii). But they at least might be worth looking at.
The iPhone does shoot RAW, by the way: 12-bit DNG, but apparently perhaps only on the Pro models. Also, the 48MP camera of the iPhone 14 Pro (this is the model whose RAWs I viewed, but I don't own one) can produce 48MP DNGs. In good light they can look decent enough for what they are.
The Pixel 6 Pro just takes smeary photos. Their NR and compression makes them look blocky like screencaps from a video.
I also have used the Sony Xperia 1ii (used to own this phone for a while). This was supposedly a phone with a focus on the camera. In my experience, it looked pretty bad.
The fake bokeh will get better, I'm sure, but it can never beat the real deal. Real shallow DOF already exists; sure, faking it will get closer, and that's probably enough for the average Joe, but it's not like we can't just keep using the real thing, which doesn't have the potential flaws.
The thing about larger sensors, of course, is that they require lenses that project a larger image circle — and phone lenses can't really be like ILC lenses because, well, the form factors conflict. You can't stuff a 135/1.8 in your pocket; the laws of optics are what makes those lenses as big as they are.