[normhead]

Maybe that will happen, but I think people who are into photography will likely use their cell phones as an adjunct to their SLR/mirrorless cameras rather than instead of them.

Having more choice means better images. It gives you the opportunity to select the right tool for the job, which sometimes will be a phone. It's not rocket science.

---------- Post added 10-09-17 at 07:59 AM ----------

This is not true at all. I haven't done this with the FA 31 (my closest lens to the i phone's focal length, but I absolutely have done it with the DA 15 -- set it to f8 and hyper focal distance and shoot away. The results are excellent and the shutter speed is generally not an issue until you get to dusk (which my cell phone struggles).


This is handheld -- f8 iso 100, 70mm and 1/50 second shutter speed. I brightened it a couple of stops in Lightroom, but certainly it was pretty dark and I could have gone up on my iso quite a bit to get the photo if needed. My cell phone would have done terribly with this sort of image.

You forgot the part about the moving subject.

---

Last edited by normhead; 10-09-2017 at 05:02 AM.

[Lord Lucan]

auto exposure in various forms, then auto film loading, auto I SO setting, and finally auto focus ... All this was designed to democratize photography

Photography was democratised by the Kodak Box Brownie of 1900. Long after that my parents' and grandparents' generatons had cheap P&S cameras in 35mm and bigger earlier formats (I seem to remember 126 and 127 films), and they never seemed to worry about exposure or focussing (they had no choice). As they only took pictures on bright days at middle and far distances, and used negative film so exposure correction was applied by the processing lab, they got away with it.

Most of the other facilities you mention were to add feature boxes to be ticked by the marketing people - to out-tick their rivals and to get people to trash their previous cameras and buy new. The democratisation was done already.

35mm took over from medium format which indicated that consumers had less interest in quality and more interest in convenience.
The original Kodak camera was all about convenience. I think it was the 1920s when you could drop your entire camera off at the pharmacy and pick it up a few days later with fresh film and prints from the last roll.

No, it was from 1888 with the Kodak No 1, but the Box Brownie 12 years later made the concept more affordable, as I have mentioned.

I'm not sure what you are covering by "convenience", but in the next breath you seem to bracket it with the Kodak Brownie type. But they were completely different markets at that time and the buyers had completely different motives. 35mm was expensive and the cameras were made for quality (think Leica), perhaps to try to compenate for the loss of resolution due to the film grain. 35mm users before around 1950 were enthusuiasts, rich kids, and professionals such as Cartier Bresson and Ansel Adams (he did not use 16"x20" the whole time). They adopted them for street and other non-intrusive photography, where technical quality was not the overriding concern.

[Rondec]

Having more choice means better images. It gives you the opportunity to select the right tool for the job, which sometimes will be a phone. It's not rocket science.

---------- Post added 10-09-17 at 07:59 AM ----------



You forgot the part about the moving subject.

Have you taken images of subjects in motion with a cell phone in anything but great light without a flash? You get all kinds of subject blur. It may be artistic, but it certainly isn't sharp.

[ccc_]

why get so exercised about what other people use to do a thing?

firstly...it really isn't any concern of ours
lastly...it really isn't any concern of ours

the original comment was an accurate observation and six pages later it still is

[Lord Lucan]

the original comment was an accurate observation and six pages later it still is

I don't think people are denying it, they are discussing it. This is a discussion thread.

[Wheatfield]

I can't be bothered writing a long response when apparently you've come to the forums today with the aim of starting arguments, denying reality, or both.

So...

It's not condescending in the slightest.
It's absolutely right.
Fabulous, not so sure, but pretty good if everything else comes together.
Why don't you define it yourself (no-one in the history of photography has ever managed this but I'm sure you will), enlighten the rest of us with your wisdom, and then cut your own definition to ribbons and continue arguing with yourself (thus leaving the rest of us out of it).
Not true, I didn't state that at all.

If you can’t be bothered to try to back up your claims, that’s fine. I note you are taking the same condecending attitude with me that you take with users of cell phone cameras, a display of intellectual laziness at it’s finest.

[normhead]

Have you taken images of subjects in motion with a cell phone in anything but great light without a flash? You get all kinds of subject blur. It may be artistic, but it certainly isn't sharp.

Part of the equation for using smaller sensors is great light.....

Do I have to explain everything?

Here we have some photographers with choice, camera or phone?

Both are using phones.
Just saying...




I rest my case.
OK, so most with a DSLR or bridge cameras were using them and I know the second guy is shooting video not stills (and he's shooting with a Canon, wat wid dat?) , but it's fun to make a point, even if you are uncertain of it's validity. My phone has a terrible camera, so whoever these people are, they aren't me.

---

Last edited by normhead; 10-09-2017 at 08:42 AM.

[ccc_]

I don't think people are denying it, they are discussing it. This is a discussion thread.

I thought it was a legitimate question

your earlier comment summed up the why of phone/camera usage...accessibility/universality

beyond the anecdotal confirmation of the original post it seems most of what followed is the typical...my way is better
does anyone really care who uses what to take an image...other than an insecurity regarding their own choice of tool that another's choice inspires?

I probably haven't used a phone to take more than a dozen images nor do I like cameras without viewfinders but do I care what someone else uses?
no...use what you want...i'm sure I will

[Rondec]

Part of the equation for using smaller sensors is great light.....

Do I have to explain everything?

Here we have some photographers with choice, camera or phone?

Both are using phones.
Just saying...




I rest my case.
OK, so most with a DSLR or bridge cameras were using them and I know the second guy is shooting video not stills (and he's shooting with a Canon, wat wid dat?) , but it's fun to make a point, even if you are uncertain of it's validity. My phone has a terrible camera, so whoever these people are, they aren't me.

That's fine. I'm sure they took some snaps with their SLRs too, not?

The reason someone would take an image with their cell phone after taking with an SLR is for quick upload -- not because they think the image will match the SLR image. Even if your camera has wifi, it is an extra step to send an image to your phone and then to upload it. Easier just to take a snap with your phone.

Anyway, I think we are actually mostly on the same page. I just don't find my cell phone pics to beat my SLR pics except when it comes to selfies (which I try not to do more than twice a year).

[normhead]

That's fine. I'm sure they took some snaps with their SLRs too, not?

The reason someone would take an image with their cell phone after taking with an SLR is for quick upload -- not because they think the image will match the SLR image. Even if your camera has wifi, it is an extra step to send an image to your phone and then to upload it. Easier just to take a snap with your phone.

Anyway, I think we are actually mostly on the same page. I just don't find my cell phone pics to beat my SLR pics except when it comes to selfies (which I try not to do more than twice a year).

Personally, I think the reason most people don't take better pictures with their cell phones, and small sensor cameras is that they don't take as much time with the hand held cameras. I got terrible pictures with my XG-1, until I started using the same tripods etc. I use with my DSLRs, and the same techniques. Smaller is in many ways easier, but if you cheat on technique you may have issues.

When I got my XG-1 I thought, "now I can leave the tripod or monopod home." Big mistake.

[photoptimist]

I thought it was a legitimate question

your earlier comment summed up the why of phone/camera usage...accessibility/universality

beyond the anecdotal confirmation of the original post it seems most of what followed is the typical...my way is better
does anyone really care who uses what to take an image...other than an insecurity regarding their own choice of tool that another's choice inspires?

I probably haven't used a phone to take more than a dozen images nor do I like cameras without viewfinders but do I care what someone else uses?
no...use what you want...i'm sure I will

Although it's true that insecurity may drive some of these discussions about the "right" and "wrong" equipment for photography, that's not the only reason for these discussions.

Personally, I care about how other people do photography (in the loosest possible sense of the term), the equipment they choose, and the way that they use it because it directly affects the decisions of camera & lens makers to create or discontinue the photographic equipment that I would like to use.

These forums are full of people who wish the available cameras and lenses were different in some way (more or fewer pixels, mirrored or mirrorless, larger or smaller bodies, square or other aspect ratios, different focal lengths, different price points, etc.) And it's entirely sensible that they would want to convince more photographers (and photographic companies) to agree. If I want X but everyone else wants Y, my chances of finding a product that does X will diminish. So I might quite reasonably try to convince others that X is a good idea in hopes that product makers continue to offer X and offer more enhancements to X.

And even if I fail to convince others to embrace X, maybe I learn of a hack to get X or maybe I learn there's alternatives to X or that sometimes X is not needed.

Yes, there are insecure trolls hyping their choice and attacking others. But there's also a lot of rational discussion about why certain camera and lens features are good and should be added or kept as features in production equipment.

[ccc_]

Although it's true that insecurity may drive some of these discussions about the "right" and "wrong" equipment for photography, that's not the only reason for these discussions.

Personally, I care about how other people do photography (in the loosest possible sense of the term), the equipment they choose, and the way that they use it because it directly affects the decisions of camera & lens makers to create or discontinue the photographic equipment that I would like to use.

These forums are full of people who wish the available cameras and lenses were different in some way (more or fewer pixels, mirrored or mirrorless, larger or smaller bodies, square or other aspect ratios, different focal lengths, different price points, etc.) And it's entirely sensible that they would want to convince more photographers (and photographic companies) to agree. If I want X but everyone else wants Y, my chances of finding a product that does X will diminish. So I might quite reasonably try to convince others that X is a good idea in hopes that product makers continue to offer X and offer more enhancements to X.

And even if I fail to convince others to embrace X, maybe I learn of a hack to get X or maybe I learn there's alternatives to X or that sometimes X is not needed.

Yes, there are insecure trolls hyping their choice and attacking others. But there's also a lot of rational discussion about why certain camera and lens features are good and should be added or kept as features in production equipment.

on a certain level I understand what you're saying but I personally don't hold out much hope for a positive outcome

we have an incredible number of choices available but we seem to have chosen a niche player
if I wasn't content I would move on

like this...
I drive Volvo...four tenths of one percent of the US market
my wife drives Toyota...a much bigger market share

I drive mine because it is what I like
she drives hers for the same reason

I shoot primarily pentax
she "shoots" with a Samsung galaxy

it seems we are both satisfied and see no reason to alter our choices
trust me when I tell you we both get a great deal of criticism for those choices

in my case it is a mulish disregard for others opinions
hers is a blissful ignorance that someone would care what she uses

[Rondec]

Personally, I think the reason most people don't take better pictures with their cell phones, and small sensor cameras is that they don't take as much time with the hand held cameras. I got terrible pictures with my XG-1, until I started using the same tripods etc. I use with my DSLRs, and the same techniques. Smaller is in many ways easier, but if you cheat on technique you may have issues.

When I got my XG-1 I thought, "now I can leave the tripod or monopod home." Big mistake.

Cell phones are a little tougher. They don't have a tripod mount and so you have to get a special head to mount it and once you've done all that, you might as well just lug an SLR along.

Regardless, in decent light small sensors will be fine. You can max out the dynamic range pretty quickly thought, even at iso 50, and if it gets dark you'll either need to use flash, a tripod, or deal with poor high iso performance.

[gatorguy]

Cell phones are a little tougher. They don't have a tripod mount and so you have to get a special head to mount it and once you've done all that, you might as well just lug an SLR along.

Regardless, in decent light small sensors will be fine. You can max out the dynamic range pretty quickly thought, even at iso 50, and if it gets dark you'll either need to use flash, a tripod, or deal with poor high iso performance.

Absolutely valid points. Still....

[Rondec]

Absolutely valid points. Still....

The pixel you are buying has a blur gimmick where you center something in the middle and somehow the cell phone blurs the background. It looks a little fake, but it is the sort of the thing that may eventually replace having a camera with wide aperture lenses - at least for the average person.