>Smartphones with powerful cameras have begun to take a toll on sales of expensive, dSLR cameras. But are they really good enough to replace them for most users?
Yes my iPhone has a good camera but it won't replace my D300s. However I can see that smartphones will replace the need for entry level DSLRs Nikon D3200 & D5300.
The Nikon D800e's full-frame sensor is approximately eight times the size of the 2/3 sensor in the Lumia 1020. So how is it possible that the Lumia would produce better pictures?
The answer is: it's not possible, at least not fairly. The blog posting (the proper link is http://evan-theelectricalengineer.blogspot.in/2013/10/nikon-...) seems to have purposely hobbled the D800e with an absurd old macro lens, and then used it at its very widest to maximize distortion. And to top it off, the lens in question has an almost two stop disadvantage, not including the roughly 3/4 stop disadvantage for the Nikon having a mirror.
Smartphones are certainly cutting into dedicated camera sales, and work well for a lot of uses, but they are not competitors with DSLRs and mirrorless cameras.
There are limits to physics that smartphones aren't overcoming anytime soon. Smartphone makers naturally want to make phones thinner and smaller, but this affects how good the cameras ever will be.
One of the issues that you almost see never talked about is how smartphone lenses degrade over time. Because people are putting cameras into pockets and bags, the lenses get smudged and damaged. Compare that to a normal camera lens that is always protected when not in use.
Instead, I eventually got a EOS M mirrorless camera to supplement my DSLR. It's small, fits in a jacket pocket and takes photos substantially better than any smartphone.
If you can't get much better photos out of a DSLR or mirrorless, then, yes, stick with a smartphone. It's convenient, always with you and allows for quick Web uploads. But if you want to get more into photography, having better sensors, better lenses and more manual controls will allow you to take shots that you simply can't get with a smartphone.
It seems very similar to smartphone and tablets replacing the desktop/laptop computers - Eventually computers would only be used by the prosumers who care about the additional benefits.
There were times when people started buying high-end digital cameras, not because they know/want to learn/interested in photography. They bought those digital cameras because they thought that the cameras would automatically take great photos. Thus the sales of high-end cameras were booming.
For the past 5 years I’ve seen a lot of people who bought D-SLR cameras and used the automatic settings, exclusively.
They didn’t even bother buying lenses that are better than the ones they bought with the camera. For example, Costco and Sam’s Club often bundled the second lens with the camera kit.
Now that a lot of smartphones have decent to great cameras, a large portion of consumers no longer care buying dedicated cameras, let alone the high-end ones.
Unfortunately huge portion of consumers still believed that Megapixel determins the qualoty of the cameras/photos. Many manufacturers and tech “journalists” are still touting the Megapixel as a measure of quality.
I’m assuming that HN crowd knows that optic and sensor are important components to determine the quality of digital cameras.
To me megapixel is a downside. After a certain point it just makes photos too big to share.
I'm surprised that most people buy any cameras nowadays. I used to love carrying a digital camera around to take mediocre photos. I haven't bought a new one in 9 years. And I was a slower adopter of smartphones than the average HN reader.
So true. Great lens with a big aperture strapped facing a 35mm sensor blows away every point and shoot inc phone cameras. Try taking great pics indoor with a phone camera. Even if technology improves on the lens & sensor side you will still need a good light source for indoor shots. I don't think a 580EX will strap onto your phone camera.
13 comments
[ 1.9 ms ] story [ 43.5 ms ] threadYes.
The answer is: it's not possible, at least not fairly. The blog posting (the proper link is http://evan-theelectricalengineer.blogspot.in/2013/10/nikon-...) seems to have purposely hobbled the D800e with an absurd old macro lens, and then used it at its very widest to maximize distortion. And to top it off, the lens in question has an almost two stop disadvantage, not including the roughly 3/4 stop disadvantage for the Nikon having a mirror.
There are limits to physics that smartphones aren't overcoming anytime soon. Smartphone makers naturally want to make phones thinner and smaller, but this affects how good the cameras ever will be.
One of the issues that you almost see never talked about is how smartphone lenses degrade over time. Because people are putting cameras into pockets and bags, the lenses get smudged and damaged. Compare that to a normal camera lens that is always protected when not in use.
I started a photo of the day project and early on I decided not use my iPhone 5 for my photos because they stood out so much: http://patthorntonfiles.com/blog/2013/08/21/why-i-am-so-happ...
Instead, I eventually got a EOS M mirrorless camera to supplement my DSLR. It's small, fits in a jacket pocket and takes photos substantially better than any smartphone.
If you can't get much better photos out of a DSLR or mirrorless, then, yes, stick with a smartphone. It's convenient, always with you and allows for quick Web uploads. But if you want to get more into photography, having better sensors, better lenses and more manual controls will allow you to take shots that you simply can't get with a smartphone.
For the past 5 years I’ve seen a lot of people who bought D-SLR cameras and used the automatic settings, exclusively. They didn’t even bother buying lenses that are better than the ones they bought with the camera. For example, Costco and Sam’s Club often bundled the second lens with the camera kit.
Now that a lot of smartphones have decent to great cameras, a large portion of consumers no longer care buying dedicated cameras, let alone the high-end ones.
Unfortunately huge portion of consumers still believed that Megapixel determins the qualoty of the cameras/photos. Many manufacturers and tech “journalists” are still touting the Megapixel as a measure of quality.
I’m assuming that HN crowd knows that optic and sensor are important components to determine the quality of digital cameras.
I'm surprised that most people buy any cameras nowadays. I used to love carrying a digital camera around to take mediocre photos. I haven't bought a new one in 9 years. And I was a slower adopter of smartphones than the average HN reader.