Has The Day Come? (Bye bye SLR)
Discussion
TheFungle said:
SCEtoAUX said:
Show me a mobile phone that will take a 500mm lens and shoot 10 frames per second, in 14 bit RAW, in low light, of a fast moving subject. Oh, and they all have to be in focus too.
Show me an SLR you can phone your Mum on.
PS - I decided the answer some time ago...
Before The Snow... by Beano!, on Flickr
...and passed some gear on to teenage nephew so he can use with his telescope etc and generally learn all the stuff I learned when I was a teenager.
(Good Uncle, or wot!?)
Before The Snow... by Beano!, on Flickr...and passed some gear on to teenage nephew so he can use with his telescope etc and generally learn all the stuff I learned when I was a teenager.
(Good Uncle, or wot!?)
K12beano said:
That is hideous, are you really happy with that? LSD?Simpo Two said:
Most people would have a phone with them anyway. So you can phone your mum AND have a proper camera
I went for a bike ride yesterday, my 'proper' camera was in my jersey back pocket and took these shots .Am putting up all my other camera gear for sale this weekend, though looking at the used market there is hardly anyone buying the old stuff versus a few years ago. So might hold on to it for 'sentimental value.
Edited by gangzoom on Saturday 30th January 06:34
DibblyDobbler said:
Bacardi said:
That is hideous, are you really happy with that? LSD?
No need to mince your words 
The actual scene was truly dramatic. I didn't have to do much more than lighten up the foreground. Everyone else seems to think it's marvellous - in our local Facebook group people (who mostly saw that dawn, or have seen someone else's picture of it)are fawning over it - but I'm not hugely pleased - and I've set it as my Mac wallpaper so I have to see it every day until I change it out!
I have a DSLR.
Sadly family life means it hasn't been used for a few years, both time to use, and process the image afterwards.
I think forday to day you don't need anything more than a phone.
The phone isn't close to what you can do for sports, macro, and portraits, but it requires no time (or sort of financial) investment. The photos can be tweaked without booting up the PC, and are backed up automatically.
Sadly family life means it hasn't been used for a few years, both time to use, and process the image afterwards.
I think forday to day you don't need anything more than a phone.
The phone isn't close to what you can do for sports, macro, and portraits, but it requires no time (or sort of financial) investment. The photos can be tweaked without booting up the PC, and are backed up automatically.
K12beano said:
DibblyDobbler said:
Bacardi said:
That is hideous, are you really happy with that? LSD?
No need to mince your words The actual scene was truly dramatic. I didn't have to do much more than lighten up the foreground. Everyone else seems to think it's marvellous - in our local Facebook group people (who mostly saw that dawn, or have seen someone else's picture of it)are fawning over it - but I'm not hugely pleased - and I've set it as my Mac wallpaper so I have to see it every day until I change it out!
But I still think it’s hideous, but maybe I should qualify why I don’t like it.It just looks un-natural. I’m surprised to hear it’s a sunrise, I imagined sunset, as they tend to be more dramatic after humans have belched pollution into the atmosphere throughout the day.
It shouts ‘computational’ photography and the phone has analysed it’s algorithms which define sunset/rise and applied them with gusto to make everyone go ‘wow!’ I have seen plenty of dramatic skies, but the orange in the sky just looks over the top. You would have to shoot the phone side by side with a DSLR, but I’m guessing the trees on the horizon would be in silhouette against the sky, rather than looking they are in the middle of an Australian bush fire. Not here to criticise your artistic interpretation, but raising the shadows in the foreground has made the foreground warmer in colour temp so adds to the feeling of incongruousness.
Modern phones are amazing in what that can do and can be indistinguishable from DSLRs, but only in certain conditions. You did post a link to a guy shooting on the iPhone around San Fransisco, which with front lit aerial stuff looks great, but at 1.45m in the girl flicking her hair… yuck… they can’t do highlights and orange… undoubtedly they will improve, but for me, the smart phone will not replace what I do anytime soon.
At the end of the day, if you are happy and facebook viewers are happy, that’s all that matters. All IMO, YMMV
Bacardi said:
It just looks un-natural.
Slightly in Beano's defence, I've seen several other photos on Facebook with skies like that. Proper disaster-movie 'sky has caught fire' stuff. I assumed it was just a dramatic capture, but maybe as you say it wasn't like that at all and the phone processor's gone into overdrive.Anyway, as we're busy trashing Beano's efforts I'd say it's a photo of a pond and fails on composition
One thing that hasn’t been mentioned is video work.
I use a compact and mirrorless Panasonic. The former is adequate for most work I do and the video is OK unless compared to the video from the compact. My Moto G video is poor.
I edit video and that needs high quality video, not only pixels, but image quality as well. Picture in picture is possible with my compact, but with the mirrorless there are so many other possibilities. The limitations are fewer.
There are a number of controls and sub-systems on the mirrorless that mean I can use it in more borderline conditions.
Taking photos has changed remarkably since camera phones became common. Most images never leave the phone and that makes cameraphones perfect for the role. High quality is not overarching as they will be viewed on a mobile device on social media. An SLR seems a bit over qualified for taking a picture of what you’re having for breakfast.
I use a compact and mirrorless Panasonic. The former is adequate for most work I do and the video is OK unless compared to the video from the compact. My Moto G video is poor.
I edit video and that needs high quality video, not only pixels, but image quality as well. Picture in picture is possible with my compact, but with the mirrorless there are so many other possibilities. The limitations are fewer.
There are a number of controls and sub-systems on the mirrorless that mean I can use it in more borderline conditions.
Taking photos has changed remarkably since camera phones became common. Most images never leave the phone and that makes cameraphones perfect for the role. High quality is not overarching as they will be viewed on a mobile device on social media. An SLR seems a bit over qualified for taking a picture of what you’re having for breakfast.
Derek Smith said:
One thing that hasn’t been mentioned is video work.
^^^ Good Points ^^^I just watched: https://youtu.be/t-9YuIg7R1I
Admittedly only at 1080P, but quite a good result, I would say.
K12beano said:
Derek Smith said:
One thing that hasn’t been mentioned is video work.
^^^ Good Points ^^^I just watched: https://youtu.be/t-9YuIg7R1I
Admittedly only at 1080P, but quite a good result, I would say.
The Pro 12 sells for £1300 with 512 memory. You've got to wonder whether it is a phone with a camera or a camera with a phone. The image is fine. But for £350, you can get a Panasonic compact, weight just 300 grams, that gives 4k, and that's with a 10x zoom and 20mp images.
As I say, if what you want to do is keep the images and video for viewing on phones and social media, the 12 Pro is a fantastic bit of kit. But my Moto G does the sharing bit, my Panasonic TX does the ready to shoot high quality images/video, and a G7 will give me higher quality and more, and all for the same price, or at least their replacements, as the 12 Pro.
I know what suits me. If the 12 Pro suits you, then go for it.
Imaging has changed fundamentally over the last 20 or so years. It’s now available to everyone. Even manipulation of images can be done with free software. It’s open to the common man. I seem to remember a figure of 1 trillion photos being taken in 12 months a couple or so years ago. Yet dedicated cameras are a dying product. Camera-phones are obviously all that most people want and those who might have bought a compact 10 years ago can no longer see the benefit if they’ve got a high-quality camera on their phone, and can share images with their friends. But the phrase ‘most people’ means that they don’t suit everyone.
The implication in the thread title is that camera-phones can do everything an SLR does (at least for the OP). I don’t think that’s right, at least for me. I’m happy with my compact and mirrorless. The former is getting a bit long in the tooth and, if it gives up the ghost, I’ll go for something like a Panasonic TX, with 10x zoom, 4k video and 20mp images to replace it.
Derek Smith said:
One thing that hasn’t been mentioned is video work.
I don't use the video functions on any device, but my S21 Ultra will record in 8K 24fps, 4K at 60 FPS across three lens which is swappable whilst filming + does a strange 'director view' that has a picture in picture function and HDR10+ support. All seems to work fine, but that seems to be quite alot of video support.For auto HDR on photos you do sometimes get odd results, but having played with RAW files on the S21 this weekend my conclusion is 9 time out of 10 the phone does a better job of post processing than I could do. This is another shot against a totally back lit scene on the Zoom lens on the S21 so no manual control at all, I could barely see the screen on the phone because of the direct sun light yet the camera has processed them very well. I could have got similar shots on my EM5 but it would have taken lots of attempts, and post processing.
The only remaining downfall is the x10 zoom lens of the S21 is not 10MB in resolution, sub 5MB is the reality and than upscaled to 10MB. Samsung did this knowing most people will view the photos on their phones so absolute resolution isn't an issue. The main sensor is very good though, and if in 2023/24 Samsung puts a larger sensor on the zoom lens I could be tempted to upgrade again
.
Edited by gangzoom on Monday 1st February 20:57
Phunk said:
Resolution isn’t really a key factor in great video, bitrate and colour science are significantly more important.
I’d rather shoot on a decade old 1080p Arri Alexa than a brand new 8K Canon R5.
I’d rather shoot on a decade old 1080p Arri Alexa than a brand new 8K Canon R5.
... Alexa 2k, plus open gate for anamorphic...
... not to mention optics...
Edited by Bacardi on Monday 1st February 23:05
RJB_2279-Edit.jpg by Richard Brown, on FlickrMobile phones have their place but there's certainly shots that only an SLR and decent length lens will do. Ultimately it depends on what you want to photograph!
It is a good question. I used to have an SLR pretty much at hand wherever I went that was interesting. I still have a reasonably ok kit..( Canon 5D 4,EOS R and the usual lens collection.
Yet, I find that I use them less and less ,and especially if the unexpected pops up I reach for my iPhone like the shot below. Of course to does not have the quality of an SLR and a RAW shot, but I rarely print shots or enlarge them to massive sizes. Obviously you can manipulate and crop a proper SLR shot and the details is there, but I do not think I will buy another SLR
.jpeg?width=1920&height=1080&fit=bounds)
Its kind of like the whole EV world. I am a dedicated ICE fan, but I know at some stage I wi probably make the move in some way.
Yet, I find that I use them less and less ,and especially if the unexpected pops up I reach for my iPhone like the shot below. Of course to does not have the quality of an SLR and a RAW shot, but I rarely print shots or enlarge them to massive sizes. Obviously you can manipulate and crop a proper SLR shot and the details is there, but I do not think I will buy another SLR
Its kind of like the whole EV world. I am a dedicated ICE fan, but I know at some stage I wi probably make the move in some way.
Richjam said:
RJB_2279-Edit.jpg by Richard Brown, on FlickrMobile phones have their place but there's certainly shots that only an SLR and decent length lens will do. Ultimately it depends on what you want to photograph!
I can count on one hand how many times I used the 300mm lens on my old DSLR in a decade, yet I use my phone camera every day.
Interms of 'value for money' unless you make a living from photography these latest phones are all you need - extreme zoom subjects aside.
The main sensor on the S21 Utra is actually amazing at what it can capture given its size, if Samsung/Apple can find a way to get the zoom lens to use that sensor it really would be the killer feature for my next photography gear upgrade.
gangzoom said:
unless you make a living from photography these latest phones are all you need - extreme zoom subjects aside.
This is it, and should end the thread here If your making money and a living, a mobile phone simply won't replace a DSLR and it's massive array of kit, sure you can try but it simply won't be as capable to get the brief correct etc for the client.
Imagine turning up at a 2/3 day shoot for a £80k retainer job and having just a mobile phone
you will quickly realise then! Yes for day to day or point and shoot a phone is perfect and all many people need, and it's great as it has got more people into the great hobby of photography.
But, seriously DSLRs are going nowhere for the pros and serious hobbyists, it borders on ignorance sometimes that people think this is all you need to make an image, it takes skill and time to learn to "take a photograph" many elements to it, and many elements to get the brief for the client right, not just sticking a phone in someone's face and adding a tacky filter
And the fake "depth of field/bokeh" on the phones now, Jesus get a nice 50mm wide aperture lens and see how it's done correctly and beautifully.
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff