[BigMackCam]

The theory that a rising tide floats all boats is a good one, but in this instance, diminishing returns will hit large sensors pretty hard. The rising tide will raise the small boats far more than it will the large ones in this instance.
All that has to happen is for cell phone cameras to get good enough for people to stop seeing enough benefit of carrying a large camera (as well as their cell phone) to stop carrying the large camera in favour of what they already carry all the time.
We have seen this time and again in the camera world, and equally often in other areas.
No one would try to argue (at least I hope they wouldn’t) that 35mm film gave a better image than medium format, yet 35mm became the most popular format and pushed medium format to the fringes of photography, to be used by an increasingly small number of pros and enthusiasts.
This was after medium format had done the same thing to large format.

In my travels in the 1980s and 90s, I spent a lot of time in the American southwest, a region that is a landscape photographer’s nirvana. In something like a dozen trips to Utah and New Mexico, I only once saw a large format camera other than my own. For that matter, I almost never saw a medium format camera either.

Fast forward to the late 1990s, and along came the digital revolution. Actually, it was more like a tidal wave. People took up digital cameras in droves. It didn’t matter to them that the quality of the early digital couldn’t even hold up to a throw away single use camera, the convenience of not having to drop a film off at the lab was more important than quality.
Even pros, a normally pretty conservative lot adopted digital early on, even though they were trading quality for other criteria.

In other areas of technology we saw the same thing. Reel to reel tape decks gave better sound than cassettes, but cassettes, but guess what won’t the market? CDs are poorer quality than vinyl, but they killed the record industry anyway. MP3s that can be downloaded from the internet aren’t as good as CDs, but CD sales aren’t what they used to be.
Of course most people can’t hear the difference anyway. By the time we hit our late 30s, we’ve lost enough range of hearing that we are kidding ourselves if we think we can tell the difference between a well pressed LP and an MP3.

It’;s not about quality, it’s about good enough.

A valid and well-presented argument, Bill... but I remain unconvinced, despite the decades of evidence. Whilst the number of phone cameras is rising and sales of DSLR / MIL cameras falling, I suggest there are still enough photographic enthusiasts and professionals who want a more complete experience than a phone can offer, regardless of sensor IQ... viewfinder, sensor and interchangeable lenses that provide real depth of field, buttons (lots of buttons) to quickly and easily control operation, ports, and - importantly - something they can hold steadily and securely to target, track and capture subjects from sweeping landscapes to sports and wildlife, with every conceivable field of view at every distance.

So, even if small sensors improve enough that, from an image quality perspective, they're "good enough" for most casual photographers (and I can believe that's not many moons away... for some, it has already come), the versatility and ergonomics will still be missing.

As an aside, I think you know I own and shoot a Q and Q-7. Small sensor, image quality not as good as the APS-C and full frame DSLRs and mirrorless cameras I own. But it's good enough - more than good enough - for much of what I do. It has DSLR-like controls and operates as a "real" camera, and - though compact - it's chunky enough to grip and hold securely. The ergonomics are excellent. Of course, it's very limited in terms of shallow depth of field control, so I don't shoot it if that's what I'm looking for creatively. And the lack of a viewfinder makes it less enjoyable to shoot (for me, at least). But otherwise, I adore it... Yet it can't quite replace my bigger cameras, even though I can happily live with the image quality...

---

Last edited by BigMackCam; 05-12-2019 at 12:35 PM.

[Wheatfield]

A valid and well-presented argument, Bill... but I remain unconvinced, despite the decades of evidence. Whilst the number of phone cameras is rising and sales of DSLR / MIL cameras falling, I suggest there are still enough photographic enthusiasts and professionals who want a more complete experience than a phone can offer, regardless of sensor IQ... viewfinder, sensor and interchangeable lenses that provide real depth of field, buttons (lots of buttons) to quickly and easily control operation, ports, and - importantly - something they can hold steadily and securely to target, track and capture subjects from sweeping landscapes to sports and wildlife, with every conceivable field of view at every distance.

So, even if small sensors improve enough that, from an image quality perspective, they're "good enough" for most casual photographers (and I can believe that's not many moons away... for some, it has already come), the versatility and ergonomics will still be missing.

As an aside, I think you know I own and shoot a Q and Q-7. Small sensor, image quality not as good as the APS-C and full frame DSLRs and mirrorless cameras I own. But it's good enough - more than good enough - for much of what I do. It has DSLR-like controls and operates as a "real" camera, and - though compact - it's chunky enough to grip and hold securely. The ergonomics are excellent. Of course, it's very limited in terms of shallow depth of field control, so I don't shoot it if that's what I'm looking for creatively. And the lack of a viewfinder makes it less enjoyable to shoot (for me, at least). But otherwise, I adore it... Yet it can't quite replace my bigger cameras, even though I can happily live with the image quality...

I've got an original Q as well. If you put the optical viewfinder on it and use the standard lens it's actually a nice little camera to use.

The concern anyone who wants to shoot with cameras that are in the cell phone's sights is will sales be eroded to the point that it isn't viable to make them any more.
We aren't talking about a product that can be made one off and have a reasonable price point.

Cell phones have killed what used to be the bottom end, forcing the bottom end to move upscale. Now they have the bottom end in their crosshairs again.
If history repeats, we will see the bottom end move upscale again.
And again.
And again
.......

[photoptimist]

I've got an original Q as well. If you put the optical viewfinder on it and use the standard lens it's actually a nice little camera to use.

The concern anyone who wants to shoot with cameras that are in the cell phone's sights is will sales be eroded to the point that it isn't viable to make them any more.
We aren't talking about a product that can be made one off and have a reasonable price point.

Cell phones have killed what used to be the bottom end, forcing the bottom end to move upscale. Now they have the bottom end in their crosshairs again.
If history repeats, we will see the bottom end move upscale again.
And again.
And again
.......

Medium format lost to 35mm because 35mm cameras were essentially smaller copies of MF cameras -- the 35 mm camera offered all the features, controls, and ergonomics of MF cameras.

And film SLRs lost to digital SLRs because the digital cameras were essentially copies of film cameras. DSLRs offered all the features, controls, and ergonomics of film SLRs.

But that parallel fails for smartphone cameras because they aren't anything like small ILCs in features, controls, or ergonomics. At best, smartphone cameras are like small P&S cameras.

[repaap]

Medium format lost to 35mm because 35mm cameras were essentially smaller copies of MF cameras -- the 35 mm camera offered all the features, controls, and ergonomics of MF cameras.

And film SLRs lost to digital SLRs because the digital cameras were essentially copies of film cameras. DSLRs offered all the features, controls, and ergonomics of film SLRs.

But that parallel fails for smartphone cameras because they aren't anything like small ILCs in features, controls, or ergonomics. At best, smartphone cameras are like small P&S cameras.

It is funny that in some early models(iPhone?)of smart phones with ’better 8 mp camera’ they even offered that one of top buttons on The phone could be used as trigger on (p&s) camera if it was used in landscape. To improve that ergonomic thing. But that button is long gone. You are giving away a lot of controll over handy way to take and share photos/video.

It is little like chiken and egg, which came first, interest or need for ’phone’ like huawei P30, or is it just too much for what it is...? Biggest drawback of being handy, these things are slippery, cumbersome and extremelly fragile. Unlike nice small p&s..

[Rondec]

I think it is interesting that most of the photos in the linked article by the OP aren't actually that great -- even at the very tiny sizes posted in the article.

So far, we have this list of situations where you might want an ILC (1) really wide angle shots (2) macro shots (3) portrait shots (where narrow depth of field is desired) (3) telephoto shots (4) sports or any situation that requires really high frame rates (5) any situation where you want to use a bounce flash or flash with diffuser (6) any really high dynamic range situation where you don't want to use HDR (7) any time you want to use a tripod (I know you can use a tripod with camera phones, but isn't as easy as with an ILC) (8) any time you need to shoot a lot of shots. (9) any time you plan to print really big or crop a lot.

Camera phones are better when it comes to selfies. They are adequate when it comes to landscapes shot in good light.

But lets be honest. Camera phones are good enough for the majority of people and there are probably people that in another era would have bought a 35mm point and shoot film camera that are now shooting with their phones. And for their purposes (Instagram/Facebook and the occasional photo book) the images are more than fine.

[bdery]

Unless you've done a side-by-side shoot against the latest smart phone cameras from iPhone/Google/Samsung, you have no idea how far their built in cameras have evolved.

The gap is narrowing between smartphone images and big camera images.

I think this is a simplistic analysis, with all due respect.

I do have the latest Galaxy phone (S10e) and I like its output. I've played with a few recent phones and also like their outputs.

But... there's no way they even come close to what a DSLR sensor can do.

You named bokeh, that's one (the fake bokeh modes in cell phones are uninteresting to me, the blend looks fake and the demarcation line is always messy). Sensor noise is another (heck, even pushing my K-3 shows how much the K-1 is better for this), cropping capabilities, fine details, zoom, burst, light control, the list goes on.

Phones are fine for snapshots and to document moments, I use mine regularly, but claiming they compare well with a DSLR sensor just isn't accurate.

[Robin]

Did you take a good photo with your DSLR or did the in camera jpeg engine make it good?

With an old K20D in RAW... I'm fairly sure it's a good photo

[Wheatfield]

With an old K20D in RAW... I'm fairly sure it's a good photo

You must have a good raw converter

---------- Post added 05-13-19 at 10:43 AM ----------

Medium format lost to 35mm because 35mm cameras were essentially smaller copies of MF cameras -- the 35 mm camera offered all the features, controls, and ergonomics of MF cameras.

And film SLRs lost to digital SLRs because the digital cameras were essentially copies of film cameras. DSLRs offered all the features, controls, and ergonomics of film SLRs.

But that parallel fails for smartphone cameras because they aren't anything like small ILCs in features, controls, or ergonomics. At best, smartphone cameras are like small P&S cameras.

Similarities in appearance, such as they existed, may have made the transition easier, but the reasons for the transitions in the film era came down to convenience and economics.
The transition to digital was driven by a longstanding campaign across several different platforms that had us brainwashed into believing that digital was superior.

I really don't think that the shape of the equipment had anything to do with it. Manufacturers could have put sensors and lenses onto potatos and they would have sold because we had, by then, been led to believe that anything digital was better.

[ffking]

The rising tide will raise the small boats far more than it will the large ones in this instance.

Actually, even the analogy betrays a truth - or suggests it's not quite that simple, as you imply - a tide can rise enough to float small boats but not enough to float the big ones that remain firmly stuck in the mud

[Wheatfield]

I think this is a simplistic analysis, with all due respect.

I do have the latest Galaxy phone (S10e) and I like its output. I've played with a few recent phones and also like their outputs.

But... there's no way they even come close to what a DSLR sensor can do.

You named bokeh, that's one (the fake bokeh modes in cell phones are uninteresting to me, the blend looks fake and the demarcation line is always messy). Sensor noise is another (heck, even pushing my K-3 shows how much the K-1 is better for this), cropping capabilities, fine details, zoom, burst, light control, the list goes on.

Phones are fine for snapshots and to document moments, I use mine regularly, but claiming they compare well with a DSLR sensor just isn't accurate.

I don't think anyone has ever said a cell phone is comparable to a DSLR and a decent lens. Do remember that cell phone cameras now are in the same place as digital cameras were 20 years ago. I'm sure people back then said digital was junk compared to film and look where we are now.

---------- Post added 05-13-19 at 10:55 AM ----------

Actually, even the analogy betrays a truth - or suggests it's not quite that simple, as you imply - a tide can rise enough to float small boats but not enough to float the big ones that remain firmly stuck in the mud

I think that falls under "diminishing returns".

[BigMackCam]

I don't think anyone has ever said a cell phone is comparable to a DSLR and a decent lens.

Dave wrote:

As far as I can see, unless your are shooting wildlife/fast action, LONG shutter speeds, bokeh, low light, doing HEAVY editing in post (e.g. lots of layers) or making GIANT sized prints, I see little advantage to shooting a big camera over the latest smartphone.

... and:

So, in an attempt to summarize this thread - for "general photography" that does not require any of the above 10 bolded factors, the use of a late-model/flagship smartphone is just as acceptable as is using a big camera.

With due respect to Dave, that's where my contention lies... the suggestion that there is little advantage to shooting a DSLR / MIL camera, and that a flagship phone is just as acceptable as a big camera. In my opinion, that could only be true for a very limited set of photographic use cases in a limited range of lighting conditions, with a limited requirement for real depth-of-field control, and final reproduction sizes that are small enough - or viewing distances that are great enough - that image quality differences cease to be meaningful... or otherwise that the photographer doesn't actually care about the differences, even if he / she can see them.

[texandrews]

With due respect to Dave, that's where my contention lies... the suggestion that there is little advantage to shooting a DSLR / MIL camera, and that a flagship phone is just as acceptable as a big camera. In my opinion, that could only be true for a very limited set of photographic use cases in a limited range of lighting conditions, with a limited requirement for real depth-of-field control, and final reproduction sizes that are small enough - or viewing distances that are great enough - that image quality differences cease to be meaningful... or otherwise that the photographer doesn't actually care about the differences, even if he / she can see them.

And that's not even mentioning the haptics and ergonomics, which will still stink no matter how good the lens and sensor. It ignores the input of the photographer, which is pretty huge IMO.

[photoptimist]

I don't think anyone has ever said a cell phone is comparable to a DSLR and a decent lens. Do remember that cell phone cameras now are in the same place as digital cameras were 20 years ago. I'm sure people back then said digital was junk compared to film and look where we are now.

---------- Post added 05-13-19 at 10:55 AM ----------


I think that falls under "diminishing returns".

This line of argument assumes that the only criticism of smartphones is IQ but that's not the problem with smartphones. Even if someone managed to shoehorn the latest and greatest FF sensor into an iPhone XXXXXL, it would still suck as a camera even if the IQ were leading edge.

No matter how good the IQ gets on a smartphone, it's still an awkwardly shaped rectangle with no viewfinder, an uncomfortable grip, no dedicated dials and buttons, and severely limited focal length options.

Cellphones now are at the same place as the original box brownie film camera -- a box with one button. But unlike the brownie that evolved into the modern DSLR with more controls, top-surface display, control knobs, etc., smartphones are evolving in the opposite direction. If anything smartphones are getting worse for taking pictures.

No matter how great the image looks, if the process of taking pictures is unpleasant, those who take lots of pictures will opt for dedicated standalone cameras.

[Wheatfield]

This line of argument assumes that the only criticism of smartphones is IQ but that's not the problem with smartphones. Even if someone managed to shoehorn the latest and greatest FF sensor into an iPhone XXXXXL, it would still suck as a camera even if the IQ were leading edge.
No matter how good the IQ gets on a smartphone, it's still an awkwardly shaped rectangle with no viewfinder, an uncomfortable grip, no dedicated dials and buttons, and severely limited focal length options.

That is a matter of opinion, of course. It can be argued that all of these viewfinderless cameras have the same problem as smartphones.
With real zooms coming on line in smartphones now, the limited focal range argument is becoming less valid.

A smartphone with a 28-105 equivalent zoom lens would be about as usable as a K-01 with a 17-70 lens attached.
There are a lot of people who never really find the need to move beyond the camera and a kit zoom.

When I started in photography, the only lens I used for the first 10 years was the standard lens. It’s still my preferred focal length. I’m not saying this is for everyone, just giving an example of how keeping it simple works for some people. I bet I still do 75% of my shooting with the standard lens.

Cellphones now are at the same place as the original box brownie film camera -- a box with one button. But unlike the brownie that evolved into the modern DSLR with more controls, top-surface display, control knobs, etc., smartphones are evolving in the opposite direction. If anything smartphones are getting worse for taking pictures.

Again, that is a matter of opinion (one that I happen to share, BTW).

No matter how great the image looks, if the process of taking pictures is unpleasant, those who take lots of pictures will opt for dedicated standalone cameras.

Just so you know, you are preaching to the choir.

What concerns me is what is going to happen to the stand alone camera.

When film was in it’s heyday from the mid 1960s to the early 2000s, the manufacturers used cheap to build point and shoots to underwrite the cost of producing their higher end products.
This continued into digital, lower end cameras helped keep the cost of the high end ones reasonable. The fact that every man and his poodle wanted one didn’t hurt. Economy of scale is a beautiful thing.
Now we are seeing entire product categories being picked off. What used to underwrite the expensive stuff is no longer there.
The expensive stuff has also gotten good enough that the yearly upgrade no longer seems as necessary. I suspect that for the next several years, the high end market, especially the 35mm portion of it, is going to stagnate near present levels with flat to negative comps.
I believe that we are going to lose the economy of scale that has helped keep prices reasonable. We have already lost the crutch of the low priced high volume products that provided good cash flow.

I also foresee a severe bout of inflation rearing it’s ugly head, with North America and Europe bearing the brunt of the cost.


The brands I fear for most are Sony and Nikon, with Canon poised to commit another crime against it’s user base. These three are the ones with the biggest manufacturing base and supply chains, etc. They have the most to lose. Canon might find two full frame mounts to be unviable. Guess which one gets the axe. Sony is on record that they are throwing money at the wall to see what sticks. When cameras stop sticking enough, they are out. Nikon is somehow associated with Mitsubishi, or at least was up until recently, though I don’t know if that would help them or hinder them.

I think we can expect higher prices on cameras with less selection from the manufacturers.

Sorry for the rant.

[stihlmania]

I could epoxy a K mount right there but the lens is way up in the corner!