Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
07-08-2014, 11:30 AM   #496
Pentaxian




Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 2,609
QuoteOriginally posted by jogiba Quote
Do you really think most consumer have been using SLR/DSLR cameras to take their photos the last fifty years ? I bet the best cameras most people ever had in their life is in their smartphone.


https://www.flickr.com/search/?text=Nokia%20808&sort=interestingness-desc
https://www.flickr.com/search?sort=interestingness-desc&text=Nokia%201020
I really like quite a few of those, and there's no way I could have told they were not taken with a DSLR (except for DoF).


As for saturation... if you don't like it so saturated (they don't seem so for me, at least most of them) you can turn it down. I do like contrast and saturation at times.


Btw., the Nokia 808 has almost the sensor size of the Nikon 1 system. It's also not that far behind mFT (I didn't realize how close mFT and 1 are).



It's 1/1.2", the Nokia Lumia 1020 has 1/1.5". That's quite an improvement over most bridge cameras.


Btw., within 2 years I've taken 7500 photos with my smartphone... probably more, I haven't kept all of them. I also may use my smartphone when I carry my DSLR with me. Sometimes because that's faster, sometimes even because it allows me to get a photo I can't get with my DSLR.


Maybe Pentax should start making smartphones? Canon is doing lenses for smartphones now, IIRC.


Last edited by kadajawi; 07-08-2014 at 11:39 AM.
07-08-2014, 11:42 AM   #497
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Southern Indiana
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 14,933
QuoteOriginally posted by mecrox Quote
Lol, really lovely images that make the point. However, the question isn't whether a smartphone sensor is good enough to replace what you or I already have in a DSLR, given that we are sufficiently interested in photography to own a Pentax DSLR, multiple lenses and be on a specialist forum in the first place. The answer, I presume, is no both now and for the foreseeable future. It's whether a smartphone is or soon will be good enough to please the 95 per cent of folks who are not like us, or most of them. Much of the camera industry depends on large-volume sales. if they go, so does the industry in its present form.

FWIW, I am currently putting together a blurb.com book of our holiday photos. Many were taken on an iPhone, some on a Canon G11 and some on a Pentax DSLR. Yes, one can immediately see all the differences when the images are put up in Lightroom. But with a bit of touching up, which would not be necessary if they were not being printed, the iPhone ones are all perfectly OK for their intended use. They are hardly works of art like your images but they do the job of taking you there very well, imho.
That's fine and it is what camera executives are dealing with right now. How do you sell something "better" -- something that all the gear heads in the galaxy can see is better -- when people already own something that the perceive to be "good enough." And to top it all off, it is smaller and more portable than the "better" item. It is tough. This is the same issue that camera execs face when they try to sell full frame cameras to folks who are satisfied with APS-C. It's a tough sell.

What I usually see is that people get an SLR when they see something not adequate about their images. They need less shutter lag, more reach, better high iso -- something that their camera phone doesn't offer them.

I'm different from most people. I don't mind carrying an SLR just about everywhere I go and prefer the flexibility I get in processing the images after the fact. But clearly not everyone is like me (or like the folks who frequent the Pentax Forum, either).
07-08-2014, 11:55 AM   #498
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Romania
Posts: 8,406
QuoteOriginally posted by mecrox Quote
Lol, really lovely images that make the point. However, the question isn't whether a smartphone sensor is good enough to replace what you or I already have in a DSLR, given that we are sufficiently interested in photography to own a Pentax DSLR, multiple lenses and be on a specialist forum in the first place. The answer, I presume, is no both now and for the foreseeable future. It's whether a smartphone is or soon will be good enough to please the 95 per cent of folks who are not like us, or most of them. Much of the camera industry depends on large-volume sales. if they go, so does the industry in its present form.
It is a question we might ask, but is it a good question?
Do sports cars satisfy the 95% who don't care about driving (getting there is enough)? Do hi-fi systems satisfy the 95% for which mp3s are more than enough? Do cameras have to satisfy people only interesting in instagramming and posting selfies and images of their lunches on Facebook?
Clearly, smartphones are winning the masses, because they're conveniently there. Who cares?

P.S. Why are we even discussing smartphones in the "full frame" section?

Last edited by Kunzite; 07-08-2014 at 12:01 PM.
07-08-2014, 12:07 PM   #499
Pentaxian
ChristianRock's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Marietta, GA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 4,047
QuoteOriginally posted by Kunzite Quote
P.S. Why are we even discussing smartphones in the "full frame" section?
I've asked that question pages ago...

07-08-2014, 12:09 PM   #500
Site Supporter




Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,892
QuoteOriginally posted by kadajawi Quote
I also may use my smartphone when I carry my DSLR with me. Sometimes because that's faster
Sincere question - would you mind elaborating? What smartphone, what DSLR, what part of the smartphone is faster? If it's connectivity related I completely agree. If it's the picture-taking-itself, I've had completely the opposite conclusion.
07-08-2014, 12:24 PM   #501
Pentaxian
Fogel70's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,737
If you are out on lunch and want to snap a picture of the menu, it might take longer time to pull out your DSLR with DA 300/4 from your bag.
07-08-2014, 12:29 PM   #502
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Romania
Posts: 8,406
QuoteOriginally posted by ChristianRock Quote
I've asked that question pages ago...
I have a possible answer - this forum is preparing the switch from "Pentax doesn't have a FF, PentaxIsDoomed!" to "Pentax finally launched a FF, but now it's the smartphone era - PentaxIsDoomed!".
Which means... the FF is almost here! (but not too soon)
07-08-2014, 12:31 PM   #503
Pentaxian
ChristianRock's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Marietta, GA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 4,047
ahahah good point Kunzite!! One can but hope!!

Fogel70: I was going to say that - depending on what lens you have on your SLR, it might be quicker to just get your phone, if it's not a critical picture...

07-08-2014, 12:33 PM   #504
Senior Member




Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Hamburg
Posts: 287
QuoteOriginally posted by ElJamoquio Quote
Sincere question - would you mind elaborating? What smartphone, what DSLR, what part of the smartphone is faster? If it's connectivity related I completely agree. If it's the picture-taking-itself, I've had completely the opposite conclusion.
I find that during a get together with friends and family using a smartphone or p&s is in fact easier and less obtrusive. Let's face it, not everyone enjoys having a big dslr thrust in their face when they just want to have a good time with friends.
07-08-2014, 12:42 PM   #505
Site Supporter




Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,892
QuoteOriginally posted by eyeswideshut Quote
I find that during a get together with friends and family using a smartphone or p&s is in fact easier and less obtrusive. Let's face it, not everyone enjoys having a big dslr thrust in their face when they just want to have a good time with friends.
Completely agree. But that's 'less obtrusive' rather than 'faster'.
07-08-2014, 12:47 PM   #506
Pentaxian
mecrox's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Oxford, UK
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,910
QuoteOriginally posted by Kunzite Quote
It is a question we might ask, but is it a good question?
Do sports cars satisfy the 95% who don't care about driving (getting there is enough)? Do hi-fi systems satisfy the 95% for which mp3s are more than enough? Do cameras have to satisfy people only interesting in instagramming and posting selfies and images of their lunches on Facebook?
Clearly, smartphones are winning the masses, because they're conveniently there. Who cares?

P.S. Why are we even discussing smartphones in the "full frame" section?
Because, as pointed out, the extent to which smartphones do win over the masses - in fact they are already doing so - will greatly influence what happens to the conventional camera business and therefore the FF cameras you may or may not wish to purchase. Because not taking into account just what smartphones do and how they do it may condemn the conventional camera business to slow decline, since it may no longer produce what the majority of its now-former customers wish to buy. Nor will it any longer be able to produce these cameras at a price most folks can afford, most probably, if the volume market heads south. I don't see how these things can really be looked at in isolation from one another; they are all interlinked. Like most other threads in this section, imho this one is essentially a long riff based on personal preferences, rumours and wish-lists - all fine by me. I believe talk around Pentax and FF has been going for some years now, but alas with no conclusions so that is all a little unreal The topic of the thread is a question. Perhaps smartphones are one of the answers, or part of one? Still, if it makes you feel uncomfortable, let's let it all go

Last edited by mecrox; 07-08-2014 at 12:58 PM.
07-08-2014, 01:20 PM   #507
Veteran Member
Andi Lo's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Halifax, Nova Scotia
Posts: 2,925
QuoteOriginally posted by ElJamoquio Quote
I didn't say anything about other uses. I agree that smartphones are more versatile, but I'm glad my camera can't tell me where to get MSG.
I agree, that's why my favourite camera of all time is the ME super (it doesnt even tell time!! What doesnt do that these days?) I see that the masses are not like us though, as evidenced by iphone being the most popular camera in flickr. Clearly some people think it's an advantage to have their camera tell them in spoken english where to get msg, and that's fine.

QuoteQuote:
There are special cameras for mounting on a helmet, the GoPro series for example. Those were made for such purposes - rugged, with special mount systems, UI reduced to a minimum. Mentioning a heavy DSLR is nothing else than a strawman, as I never claimed there is only one type of camera.
I used that to illustrate my argument: there are many types of camera and there doesnt need to be only one best one, only the best one for your particular case. Every photographic tool serves a purpose. Just because the smartphone doesnt serve your particular purpose, doesnt mean it's a bad tool. Smartphone and ILCs can coexist; let the masses move to smartphones. We can use whatever is appropriate for our photography.

For myself, I dont really care much where the camera industry is going. What I see is improvements in technology and rate of invention (I couldn't imagine some of the things fuji and sony is inventing now even five years ago). That means better gear and more options for less and less money, that can only be a good thing. I'll use any tool whenever it suits my needs.

Last edited by Andi Lo; 07-08-2014 at 01:37 PM.
07-08-2014, 02:25 PM   #508
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Romania
Posts: 8,406
QuoteOriginally posted by mecrox Quote
Because, as pointed out, the extent to which smartphones do win over the masses - in fact they are already doing so - will greatly influence what happens to the conventional camera business and therefore the FF cameras you may or may not wish to purchase. Because not taking into account just what smartphones do and how they do it may condemn the conventional camera business to slow decline, since it may no longer produce what the majority of its now-former customers wish to buy. Nor will it any longer be able to produce these cameras at a price most folks can afford, most probably, if the volume market heads south. I don't see how these things can really be looked at in isolation from one another; they are all interlinked. Like most other threads in this section, imho this one is essentially a long riff based on personal preferences, rumours and wish-lists - all fine by me. I believe talk around Pentax and FF has been going for some years now, but alas with no conclusions so that is all a little unreal The topic of the thread is a question. Perhaps smartphones are one of the answers, or part of one? Still, if it makes you feel uncomfortable, let's let it all go
Some things are changing, but others are not. Our hands remains the same, there's no way they will evolve into phone holders. Our eyes remains the same, and they will continue to see light within a certain spectrum. The Universe will remain the same, oblivious of claims that iPhone is ruling the photographic world.
So while the smartphone is winning the masses, the need for real cameras cannot disappear. Unless we'll all give up on photography.

And, it has nothing to do with "full frame" cameras. You cannot stick a "full frame" sensor, and the appropriate optics, into a smartphone. A smartphone cannot challenge the image quality of a "full frame" camera. No one can say "oh well, if I won't have a full frame I'll have a smartphone because they're so similar". And last - but not least - there will never be a Pentax smartphone.
So, why are we discussing about them? Why not about cormorants and beer, or other myriads of interesting things?

Andi Lo, I think I explained clearly why the smartphone is a bad photographic tool. My points were based on things like shape, sensor size and optics which can be put into such a shape - i.e. not things that can be improved (while remaining what we recognize as a smartphone). On every of these points any half-decent camera is doing better. On image quality a large sensor camera is doing better. One of my point was also that it's "always there", which matters more for many people.
I never said the smartphones would disappear; please, no more strawmen.
07-08-2014, 03:12 PM   #509
Veteran Member
Andi Lo's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Halifax, Nova Scotia
Posts: 2,925
QuoteOriginally posted by Kunzite Quote
Andi Lo, I think I explained clearly why the smartphone is a bad photographic tool. My points were based on things like shape, sensor size and optics which can be put into such a shape - i.e. not things that can be improved (while remaining what we recognize as a smartphone). On every of these points any half-decent camera is doing better. On image quality a large sensor camera is doing better. One of my point was also that it's "always there", which matters more for many people.
I never said the smartphones would disappear; please, no more strawmen.
I don't understand how a camera with decent IQ that allows people to practice photography that they otherwise wouldnt is a bad photographic tool. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Last edited by Andi Lo; 07-08-2014 at 03:22 PM.
07-08-2014, 04:00 PM   #510
Pentaxian
Uluru's Avatar

Join Date: May 2010
Location: Back to my Walkabout Creek
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,400
QuoteOriginally posted by Andi Lo Quote
I don't understand how a camera with decent IQ that allows people to practice photography that they otherwise wouldnt is a bad photographic tool. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.
Mobile phone is not a photographic tool — it is a snap tool. Because you cannot make a photograph through it, only take a digital negative as the device sees it fit.

Photography is defined by the level control of capture of characteristics of reflected light; the size of the aperture, the shutter speed, the sensitivity of the medium used for capture, and how that reality is recreated again in the reflected light of a print. If you cannot control willingly all of those parameters, or any of them in any combination, it is not making of any sort.

So in fact one cannot learn a thing about photography using a smartphone. Furthermore, if the picture made is not printed, it is not a photograph. It is only a negative or a positive, but not a photograph. When you look at the output on the phone screen, or a computer screen, that image you are looking at is not a photograph.

Print it out, and it becomes a photograph.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
24x36mm, adapter, af, aps-c, bodies, body, cameras, ergonomics, film, frame, full frame camera, full-frame, k-01, lcd, lenses, market, micro four thirds, mirroless camera, mirrorless, pentax, people, ricoh, sensor, shutter, size, struggle, time
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The Full Frame NEX is going to be announced in October ! jogiba Non-Pentax Cameras: Canon, Nikon, etc. 30 09-15-2013 03:23 PM
Pentax does not care about Full Frame Watson Pentax Full Frame 88 08-19-2013 04:53 AM
Are Any of The 17-50 (or in that range) Lenses Full Frame? reivax Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 12 02-04-2013 07:38 PM
Do you think in the long run, DA lenses are a bad buy? Size of CCDs in the future Capslock118 Pentax DSLR Discussion 28 11-07-2010 06:46 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:07 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top