[thibs]

At this level - and given the nature of the forum/pictures the skill and talent of the photographer doesn't even need mentioned as it is assumed they are a master of their craft. No-one who buys a 645z is a clueless chump. Only people I know with this camera shoot at the highest levels in their field.

Oh, I think you're very, VERY wrong.

[repaap]

There is actual phone dedicated thread at this same forum. Just go through that and then go through Post your medium format photos and then go to K-3 or K-1 photos. You don’t have to go far when you see ’the best’ and also many ’day to day’ shots. Look at them honestly side to side. Each format has their strenghts . Some will suite others better. One can exell in each. Which is ’better’ is hard to say. Other than ’actual’ merits.

Key thing for phone is that it killed compact cameras.

It steers head to head with ILC. And even beoynd. M4/3 is also ’left behind’ . And is easy to use and quite customiseable. Be prepaired to loose controll to that phone.

I do believe it does come down to preferences as well as needs. This is hard subject. Especially when all options are not available fir everyone.

[biz-engineer]

Oh, I think you're very, VERY wrong.

I'd say, in general, the proportion of good photographers is much higher with medium format than it is with smartphones. This doesn't prevent anyone with no skills (but money) to buy a MF system, it happened. This doesn't prevent skillful photo to use a smartphone either.

---------- Post added 23-08-21 at 07:00 ----------

Smartphones still lag behind ILC for the optics. Some of the best phones have two different fixed focal length (and a small sensor), but still no match to the versatility of ILC systems in term of lens selection, optical zooms....

[thibs]

The whole point is: the camera is always with you with a smartphone so, why bother. Convenience, that's all.

I often have my GR with me but with the kid candids/portraits, it often isn't that appropriate. And I do not have time to fetch the K1, the kid moved 2 minutes before I can be back.

[Serkevan]

There is actual phone dedicated thread at this same forum. Just go through that and then go through Post your medium format photos and then go to K-3 or K-1 photos. You don’t have to go far when you see ’the best’ and also many ’day to day’ shots. Look at them honestly side to side. Each format has their strenghts . Some will suite others better. One can exell in each. Which is ’better’ is hard to say. Other than ’actual’ merits.

Key thing for phone is that it killed compact cameras.

It steers head to head with ILC. And even beoynd. M4/3 is also ’left behind’ . And is easy to use and quite customiseable. Be prepaired to loose controll to that phone.

I do believe it does come down to preferences as well as needs. This is hard subject. Especially when all options are not available fir everyone.

Yeah, the main point here is that phone photos are good enough within their intended use case. Like Bill said above, no one is trying to argue that they compete head to head with a proper ILC, at least not when the photographer knows what they are doing. It's just that most people aren't gonna be looking at photos on an Eizo screen that costs several paychecks, because that's frankly a dumb purchase for anyone who doesn't make money out of photography.

But seriously, I checked how SFT's photos look on the phone screen now. Guess what, they look out of focus and mushy because of the multiple compression stages and the overload of stuff in the frame at such a small size.
Those kinds of images *need* large size reproduction. Otherwise, you're shooting ten grand of gear for basically no gain over a 1" compact... Which is what a good phone is gonna be packing any of these days; Sharp already released one in Japan, in fact.

[biz-engineer]

The whole point is: the camera is always with you with a smartphone so, why bother. Convenience, that's all.

The scale of convenience spreads from zero effort to full time professional dedication. For some people, pulling out a smartphone to take a picture is too much effort, they just don't take pictures at all. Other folks are going to stay three weeks in Iceland to increase their odds to capture the landscape photographs of their life. Each of us has a convenience/inconvenience level he/she can afford, that depends from person to person.

---------- Post added 23-08-21 at 09:03 ----------

I often have my GR with me but with the kid candids/portraits, it often isn't that appropriate. And I do not have time to fetch the K1, the kid moved 2 minutes before I can be back.

Kids can be asked to stay in place, if that's the problem that prevents to take a photo.

[Dartmoor Dave]

Other folks are going to stay three weeks in Iceland to increase their odds to capture the landscape photographs of their life.

Where they will end up standing next to a dozen other middle aged blokes, each with thousands of dollars worth of high resolution gear of their own, all waiting to take their own identical version of that same waterfall that they've seen online a hundred times before. Then they'll all fly home and process their shots identically to get as close as possible to the way they know they scene is supposed to look because that's the way it always looks online. And maybe one of them will sell a print to a friend who wants to put it on his restaurant's wall, which makes him a "professional".

It's the sameness of most of the medium format landscape photography around these days that's so depressing -- actually the sameness of almost all the "professional" landscape photography (*) using any format. Same locations, same light, same processing, same absolute self-certainty that the sort of bland perfection that those guys enjoy is the pinnacle of the photographic craft. Give me a smartphone photo any day, if it's one where the photographer has captured something in their personal world in a way that tells me something meaningful about the wider world around us. Something I haven't seen before or thought about before.

(*) The couple of professional landscape photographers that I know here on Dartmoor make their livings almost entirely from leading courses, on which they try to teach keen amateurs with thousands of pounds of worth of gear how to take landscape photos that look as much as possible like all those other landscape photos that they've seen online. Deep sigh. . .

[SFTphotography]

Where they will end up standing next to a dozen other middle aged blokes, each with thousands of dollars worth of high resolution gear of their own, all waiting to take their own identical version of that same waterfall that they've seen online a hundred times before. Then they'll all fly home and process their shots identically to get as close as possible to the way they know they scene is supposed to look because that's the way it always looks online. And maybe one of them will sell a print to a friend who wants to put it on his restaurant's wall, which makes him a "professional".

It's the sameness of most of the medium format landscape photography around these days that's so depressing -- actually the sameness of almost all the "professional" landscape photography (*) using any format. Same locations, same light, same processing, same absolute self-certainty that the sort of bland perfection that those guys enjoy is the pinnacle of the photographic craft. Give me a smartphone photo any day, if it's one where the photographer has captured something in their personal world in a way that tells me something meaningful about the wider world around us. Something I haven't seen before or thought about before.

(*) The couple of professional landscape photographers that I know here on Dartmoor make their livings almost entirely from leading courses, on which they try to teach keen amateurs with thousands of pounds of worth of gear how to take landscape photos that look as much as possible like all those other landscape photos that they've seen online. Deep sigh. . .

I've never read such tripe in all my life.

[repaap]

Yeah, the main point here is that phone photos are good enough within their intended use case. Like Bill said above, no one is trying to argue that they compete head to head with a proper ILC, at least not when the photographer knows what they are doing. It's just that most people aren't gonna be looking at photos on an Eizo screen that costs several paychecks, because that's frankly a dumb purchase for anyone who doesn't make money out of photography.

But seriously, I checked how SFT's photos look on the phone screen now. Guess what, they look out of focus and mushy because of the multiple compression stages and the overload of stuff in the frame at such a small size.
Those kinds of images *need* large size reproduction. Otherwise, you're shooting ten grand of gear for basically no gain over a 1" compact... Which is what a good phone is gonna be packing any of these days; Sharp already released one in Japan, in fact.

Each on their own. If one can afford it and it does make them happy, why not.

While I follow this Logic it is not fool proof yet. I’m dreaming of that kind of gear.

Question that niw remains is that should there be any pictures other than phone pictures posted to not upset anyone. Anyone can afford a phone, and resolution will not be too high and since it is mushy already, it wont matter if it is a bit more downgraded for fokes who look things through their phones.

I’m sad sometimes that when I post photo to Flickr/here, it is nowhere near what it does look on my retina display(laptop, so not really display(see why I’d love to have external monitor preferably a good one)).

I have a hunch what is going on at here, and it is not entirely about MF | phone debate. I get that too.

Last time I did check this was photography forum and friendly one too.

I hope as that MF guy also does, that there will be next 645Z as well as K-1. This whole thing steered to phone pictures, which is understandable but still silly.

[Serkevan]

It's the sameness of most of the medium format landscape photography around these days that's so depressing -- actually the sameness of almost all the "professional" landscape photography (*) using any format. Same locations, same light, same processing, same absolute self-certainty that the sort of bland perfection that those guys enjoy is the pinnacle of the photographic craft. Give me a smartphone photo any day, if it's one where the photographer has captured something in their personal world in a way that tells me something meaningful about the wider world around us. Something I haven't seen before or thought about before.

I'd think it's mostly because it's trendy, and what sells. Epic landscapes with impressive clouds under oblique light are kind of a safe bet.
And a lot of people (I'm not quite sure I'd say "most", but I'm young and if I already don't have any idealism left then it would be worrisome ) lugging thousands of pounds of gear either want to sell... or take photos like the ones that sell.

[Rondec]

Where they will end up standing next to a dozen other middle aged blokes, each with thousands of dollars worth of high resolution gear of their own, all waiting to take their own identical version of that same waterfall that they've seen online a hundred times before. Then they'll all fly home and process their shots identically to get as close as possible to the way they know they scene is supposed to look because that's the way it always looks online. And maybe one of them will sell a print to a friend who wants to put it on his restaurant's wall, which makes him a "professional".

It's the sameness of most of the medium format landscape photography around these days that's so depressing -- actually the sameness of almost all the "professional" landscape photography (*) using any format. Same locations, same light, same processing, same absolute self-certainty that the sort of bland perfection that those guys enjoy is the pinnacle of the photographic craft. Give me a smartphone photo any day, if it's one where the photographer has captured something in their personal world in a way that tells me something meaningful about the wider world around us. Something I haven't seen before or thought about before.

(*) The couple of professional landscape photographers that I know here on Dartmoor make their livings almost entirely from leading courses, on which they try to teach keen amateurs with thousands of pounds of worth of gear how to take landscape photos that look as much as possible like all those other landscape photos that they've seen online. Deep sigh. . .

You paint with a very broad brush. I think many of us tend to get into a shooting rut, but the idea that smart phone photos are the answer, with their over saturated, over sharpened tendencies, doesn't really fit well with me either. I happen to love Ansel Adams' images, but I suppose they too, are "bland perfection" that ought to gotten rid of.

I know that for me personally, I am not creating great art and my focus is more on the journey -- the experience of going somewhere and taking photos (although I don't usually see dozens of others taking photos where I am at). I know as well that my issue with smart phones for photography has much to do with ergonomics (it really is uncomfortable to hold for any length of time and take images) as it does with quality, but I do see a difference and so if I am going to wake up early and take some landscape photos at sunrise, I am going to make the effort to take along an ILC with me.

[Serkevan]

Each on their own. If one can afford it and it does make them happy, why not.

Sure. Like I said, I don't even use my phone for pictures beyond a documenting snap. I'm not going to buy a phone with a multi-sensor array any time soon, because I don't enjoy using it.
I just don't have the sheer pretentiousness of thinking that my way is the one and only way to make photos, or the only way of looking at them.

Question that niw remains is that should there be any pictures other than phone pictures posted to not upset anyone. Anyone can afford a phone, and resolution will not be too high and since it is mushy already, it wont matter if it is a bit more downgraded for fokes who look things through their phones.

This is really not the point and I don't know how you got that. I used the Eizo example because a 4K, 27" one goes for over 1000€; that IS a lot of money for many people, and it's not this huge upgrade over a 250€ monitor for most people's user.
The point is that ILC users are few and far between, most people who take photos don't give a rat's behind about better, because they don't feel the need for better that most of us here do, and gear snobbism does not do the hobby any favours.

---------- Post added 08-23-21 at 02:58 AM ----------

You paint with a very broad brush. I think many of us tend to get into a shooting rut, but the idea that smart phone photos are the answer, with their over saturated, over sharpened tendencies, doesn't really fit well with me either. I happen to love Ansel Adams' images, but I suppose they too, are "bland perfection" that ought to gotten rid of.

I know that for me personally, I am not creating great art and my focus is more on the journey -- the experience of going somewhere and taking photos (although I don't usually see dozens of others taking photos where I am at). I know as well that my issue with smart phones for photography has much to do with ergonomics (it really is uncomfortable to hold for any length of time and take images) as it does with quality, but I do see a difference and so if I am going to wake up early and take some landscape photos at sunrise, I am going to make the effort to take along an ILC with me.

I think the issue is that there's a deluge of "me too" images of specific points. Adams' images were groundbreaking. The 25th same view of the half dome from the exact same point at the exact same light angle is somewhat less inspiring .
We actually experienced this in Antelope Canyon and, more specifically, at the Horseshoe Bend nearby. For Antelope, lots of looking for small parts, trying to get a new perspective on a small area that has literally millions of photos online. For Horseshoe, neither of my friends even bothered editing a single photo because, and I quote, "it isn't going to be better than any of the first two pages of Google images. It's just more of the same, I have so many other photos of the trip I want to show".

Absolutely agreed on the ergonomics. For me, getting behind the finder has become one of those few activities where I can blank out the world around me - the other ones are running and swimming. I'm at peace while taking photos, even I look at the SD card and I see nothing but forgettable shots

[bxf]

Three shots from it.

You are good. I can never get my car to look like that.

[Serkevan]

You are good. I can never get my car to look like that.

Have you tried using a circular Porschlerizer filter?

[biz-engineer]

It's the sameness of most of the medium format landscape photography around these days that's so depressing -- actually the sameness of almost all the "professional" landscape photography (*) using any format.

You are killing off the pleasure here. The sameness of now (digital) is the same sameness as in the film era (say, 20 years ago), the difference is sharing on the internet didn't exist back then, so everyone was more or less convinced about the uniqueness of their photographs. What's has changed is the awareness. A lot of young people are convinced that what they are doing is unique since they haven't done it before, them are motivated, they are excited, old people could smile thinking "I've been there already, remember's me when I was a kid", but it's wise to play the game and encourage the young in their discovery of life journey.

---------- Post added 23-08-21 at 13:06 ----------

Epic landscapes with impressive clouds under oblique light are kind of a safe bet.

Oh yeah. To get that picture isn't as easy as writing it's trial. It takes dedication to drive there, be at the right place, at the right time and in the right weather conditions (not fully predictable), such that I hope not using a phone.

I don't know what to think of the opinion that smartphones are good enough, reading such opinion in a camera forum. If I was Ricoh-Pentax, I'd be concerned about that line of thinking from my customers . It's disappointing.