[Mistral75]

(...) they are dealing with much larger RAW images (...)

Are they? The latest smartphones include three sensors, of which a 48MP sensor, and combine their output.

[Trickortreat]

I think they are trying to. A lot of new cameras are wifi capable and can transfer files fairly easily to your phone. The issue is that the size of files means that you are best converting them to 2 star jpegs before you transfer them to save time.

Yeh but the last time i tried it with a wireless capable camera, it felt really slow, like bluetooth speed. But anyways, for social media nad such i usually save at 1 star XS JPGS and it seems more than enough when viewing on smartphone/tablet screens.

When you say computational photography, do you mean things like dynamic pixel shift, where the camera takes four photos and then combines them in camera to reduce noise and increase sharpness? Because camera makers are doing that as well, but they don't have the processing power that a phone has and they are dealing with much larger RAW images and the end result is that it takes more time to do these sorts of things. Or are you talking about fixing lens distortion and vignetting in camera? Either way, I'm not totally clear that any of those things will move the dial much with respect to camera sales.

Yeh, something like that but more like multiple exposures with a bit of more horsepower underneath the hood dedicated to pixel processing. Would decrease noise and increase dynamic range drastically as it did for the phones. Todays cameras just dont have the speed and raw power to do those tricks seamlessly like phones do.
Dunno if that all would increase camera sales by a great amount, but i bet my last cent it wouldnt hurt them either

[Rondec]

Are they? The latest smartphones include three sensors, of which a 48MP sensor, and combine their output.

Clearly there is a huge difference in processor in a smarphone versus one in a camera. Not saying you couldn't do that with a camera, but it would be costly.

---------- Post added 06-12-19 at 12:35 PM ----------

Yeh but the last time i tried it with a wireless capable camera, it felt really slow, like bluetooth speed. But anyways, for social media nad such i usually save at 1 star XS JPGS and it seems more than enough when viewing on smartphone/tablet screens.



Yeh, something like that but more like multiple exposures with a bit of more horsepower underneath the hood dedicated to pixel processing. Would decrease noise and increase dynamic range drastically as it did for the phones. Todays cameras just dont have the speed and raw power to do those tricks seamlessly like phones do.
Dunno if that all would increase camera sales by a great amount, but i bet my last cent it wouldnt hurt them either

2 star jpegs on a K-1 II take about 15 seconds to go to my phone. I wouldn't want to do a bunch of them, but it works.

As far as all of these "tricks" I really prefer to get good raw images, as clear as possible, and then process them myself. It is why I like traditional pixel shift -- gives me excellent sharpness and very low noise levels. Phones are hamstrung by the fact that they don't even give particularly clean images at base iso, much less at 400 or 800.

[Merv-O]

As far as all of these "tricks" I really prefer to get good raw images, as clear as possible, and then process them myself. It is why I like traditional pixel shift -- gives me excellent sharpness and very low noise levels. Phones are hamstrung by the fact that they don't even give particularly clean images at base iso, much less at 400 or 800.

So tired of the smartphone v. DSLR/Mirrorless debate. Bottom Line: A camera is a image capturing device especially designed for that purpose. Its sensor and features allow flexibility, creativity and requires some skill from the photographer. In contrast, A smartphone is a communications device with an add on camera of mediocre to average quality. It's pinhead sensor relies on electronic capture and is unusable at anything more than a pocket sized photograph.
Let's just kill this argument once and for all.....

[Kunzite]

But... but... have you heard about the upcoming smartphone with 6 cameras?

[Trickortreat]

As far as all of these "tricks" I really prefer to get good raw images, as clear as possible, and then process them myself. It is why I like traditional pixel shift -- gives me excellent sharpness and very low noise levels. Phones are hamstrung by the fact that they don't even give particularly clean images at base iso, much less at 400 or 800.

Yes, pixelshift works pretty well for static images but its an overkill for socal media and small screens. Andriods HDR+ works good for most of situations (not only static). At base ISO my phone images are perfectly clean for its screen size. Even on tablet sized screens or poscardsize prints i did phone photos look more than fine to me. But i dont want to make this post DSLR vs phone. I'm just saying that some of the smartphone technologies would complement cameras pretty well...

[normhead]

Let's just kill this argument once and for all.....

Unless you can find a way to drive a Silver stake through it's heart, it's not going to happen.

[monochrome]

The phone sycophants are, if possible, worse than the MILC sycophants.

When all you have is a hammer all you see is nails.

[normhead]

The phone sycophants are, if possible, worse than the MILC sycophants.

When all you have is a hammer all you see is nails.

When a pickpocket sees a saint, all he sees is pockets.

[photoptimist]

The phone sycophants are, if possible, worse than the MILC sycophants.

When all you have is a hammer all you see is nails.

Exactly! But it's worse than that.

At least a hammer has a nice ergonomic handle and an overall shape optimized for the task of hammering.

Smartphones have no handle at all and seem to have an overall shape optimized for sitting in a pocket.

[Kunzite]

Smartphones have no handle at all and seem to have an overall shape optimized for sitting in a pocket.

Incorrect. Smartphones' shape is carefully and thoroughly optimized for being dropped on the floor.

[larryaustin3]

Rather than an expensive phone with a shitty camera built in, I would rather have an expensive camera with a shitty phone.

[Mistral75]

The phone sycophants are, if possible, worse than the MILC sycophants.

(...)

Until now I hadn't realised that the meaning of the word had changed between ancient Greek, modern Greek and French on the one hand, contemporaneous English on the other hand: from private litigant who brings unjustified prosecutions (= false accuser, slanderer) to insincere flatterer, flattering parasite.

[RGlasel]

Until now I hadn't realised that the meaning of the word had changed between ancient Greek, modern Greek and French on the one hand, contemporaneous English on the other hand

I see that you found this Wikipedia article. I like the italicized note at the top, "Not to be confused with Psychopath." I dare say there isn't a single one of us who can't be diagnosed with at least one mental disorder listed in the APA's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders or the WHO's Classification of Mental and Behavioural Disorders. Crazy is the new normal and leading the stampede to insanity are those who connect their sense of self-worth to inanimate electronic devices. The Internet is the gateway to psychosis.

[Mistral75]

I see that you found this Wikipedia article. (...)

Indeed. I knew the meaning in Greek (five years of ancient Greek in junior high and high school) and in French and couldn't understand why monochrome used 'sycophant' in his sentence, therefore I made some web research.