Endangered species

My kids bought me a small espresso machine for Father's Day so I could have a daily reminder of cruising if I wanted one. I shot the image below with my Pixel phone so I could quickly send them a thanks and a couple of things really stood out. It was shot in relatively dim light, yet visible noise is nearly absent. It is also nicely in focus and is sharp with a decent blurring of the background. This is straight out of the camera(phone) and the article link I posted about the 20th anniversary of the first photo sent from a phone got me thinking about the exponential advances in phones since then and that, except for the super-premium compacts, the basic pocket camera is approaching an extinction event.

A little over three years ago, I gave my Sony HX5V to my granddaughter and started shopping for a replacement. About the same time, my old phone started freezing on me so I bought a Lumia Icon. I really liked the Windows OS and the camera on it was excellent. It was good enough that I postponed replacing the 24/7 pocket camera for a bit. That bit stretched out to three years as I found that the phone was a very workable replacement for the camera I had previously carried everywhere. Earlier this year, I started shopping for a new phone and found myself attracted to the camera features more than any other spec. I settled on the Pixel since it seemed to be the king of the hill photographically and have found no reason to regret my decision to go with it. More significantly, I have again put off my search for a new pocket camera. Maybe permanently.

I realize that some of the advanced compacts have actual optical zoom and the RX100s have fantastic sensors but since I shoot with Sony A6x00 cameras, carrying them when I want to shoot "for real", isn't a big penalty over an advanced compact. Granted, my Pixel was expensive but a fair chunk of that expense would be spent on any really good phone. Add in the really impressive camera functionality, then subtract the cost of a good compact and the price of the resulting twofer isn't unreasonable. With this reasoning, I have pretty much decided on a phone to provide 24/7 camera duties.

The one thing I will miss is the righteous disdain I had for "phone shooters". (Though back in the earlier days of camera phones, it was probably justified.) Tablet shooters and selfie abusers are still subject to justified scorn. ;)

Thoughts? Opinions? Experiences?

Dave

I think eventually (soon)phones will have 3 sensors with 3 lenses (wide, mid and zoom). Even better software manipulation of sensor data will bring even more amazing results. Pocket cameras will not be able to produce much better results.

Sent from my Pixel using Forums mobile app

For me, it still comes down to feel/ergonomics/shooting style. I'm just too much of a traditionalist to ever really enjoy the feeling of shooting with a rectangular thin slab of metal with no viewfinder and all the controls being virtual touch icons. So though I agree that P&S cameras are pretty much no longer something I'd buy, and my 'newest' P&S is an 8 year old camera that I haven't used in 5 years...and yes, my iPhone can be used for those unplanned need-a-camera-but-didn't-bring-one-but-wait-I-have-one-on-my-phone moments...but for anything I am planning to photograph for the enjoyment and pursuit of photography for pleasure, I will always use a camera and not a phone. Already, P&S cameras had become extreme-backup emergency needs anyway, since I have different sized interchangeable large-sensor camera options to cover needs from lightweight travel to serious long-lens shooting...so having phones takeover for that emergency duty isn't much of a stretch. And I avoided flat, viewfinderless, touch-screen P&S cameras back when P&S was still viable too, so I'm not being prejudiced against phones themselves, but any camera device that functions the way phones do.

I find phones and non-viewfinder, touch-screen interfaces so uninteresting and uninspiring that even if the very best, full-frame-sensor phone ever measured came out with that type of design, that positively crushes the IQ and performance of my cameras, I still wouldn't want it. Photography for me isn't just about the end-result, but the pursuit and pleasure and art of finding and taking the photo, and I just enjoy doing that in a more traditional style and method - with a viewfinder held to my eye, physical controls, a lens I can hold onto, a well contoured grip to curl my fingers around, and real physical feedback when manipulating dials and buttons.

...for those unplanned need-a-camera-but-didn't-bring-one-but-wait-I-have-one-on-my-phone moments...but for anything I am planning to photograph for the enjoyment and pursuit of photography for pleasure, I will always use a camera and not a phone...

Hence my "shoot for real" comment. :)

The P&S and now the phone was always for the unplanned moments. I couldn't agree more that driving a real camera is part of the joy of the photography.

However my friend, in the wide world away from places like this I believe us to be in a shrinking minority.

Dave

I just picked up the S8 and concur with your assessment - it's my second, and only other camera. It's always with me and so far has done a fantastic job for impromptu moments. With more and more restrictions to cameras with "real lenses" (ballparks, etc.) it just makes life easier.

I was shocked by how good the photos from my Pixel were. I compared them to ones people took using the iPhone 7 and there was no comparison. Mine were way better. All these have not been touched up at all.

Sent from my Pixel XL using Forums mobile app

In July 2016, hubby and I had finally crawled out from under our rocks leaving the stone age and entered the modern age. We FINALLY got smart phones, which we love. We cruised out of San Juan on Carnival Liberty just about two months after getting our phones (Samsung Galazy S6's) and took them with us. I had always wanted pictures of our ship all lit up at night, and since sail away from San Juan was at 10PM AND it was not raining this time, this was the first chance I got. I got pictures with both my Canon Rebel and the smart phone. Took with the smart phone to text pictures to my parents and brother so they could see our home for the week. I was surprised at how good they looked on the phone's screen and texted the picture, but thought for sure that once I got home and viewed those pictures on the computer, they'd look grainy and not very good. I have to admit that I was very (pleasantly) surprised...they looked BETTER than the ones I'd gotten with my DSLR. I did take a few interior ship pictures with it, as well as nighttime pictures of the outside decks all lit up at night. I was very happy with the vivid colors. Great quality. I'm going to use this one for my "go to" for interior ship pictures from now on.

Both pictures below are of our ship, Carnival Liberty, in San Juan a few hours before our sail away. The first one is with my DSLR (Canon Rebel T1i) and the second is with my smart phone (Samsung Galaxy S6). Below is the settings for both. Although the smart phone has settings that can be manually adjusted, I just keep it on auto...just hold it up and it the button.

Rebel

F-Stop: f/3.5

Exposure time: 1/10 sec

ISO Speed: ISO-1600

Focal Lenght: 18mm

Samsung Galaxy S6

F-Stop: f/1.9

Exposure time: 1/10 sec.

ISO speed: 400

Focal Lenght: 4mm

Canon Rebel T1i

Samsung Galaxy S6

That's a slightly unfair competition: a 2009-vintage DSLR with a kit lens (one of the worst you could get, given the great lineup by Canon) versus a 2015 smartphone. That said, I really don't see the smartphone as a clear winner.

The one place where smartphones won't win over pocket cameras is for the older generation. My wife's grandfather insists on taking his camera to Costco, ejecting the memory card, and getting prints made from the card. Even though the rest of us see the smart phone as so much easier, the less technically inclined don't. ;)

The one place where smartphones won't win over pocket cameras is for the older generation. My wife's grandfather insists on taking his camera to Costco, ejecting the memory card, and getting prints made from the card. Even though the rest of us see the smart phone as so much easier, the less technically inclined don't. ;)

A valid point. I am at a point in life where many restaurants and cruise lines offer age-related benefits but I am an admitted technophile and the go-to for tech-related everything for family and friends. Conversely, we have friends of a similar age with appliances that still display 12:00 and my in-laws would rather enter the ninth circle of Dante's Inferno that change cable providers and have to learn a new remote control. Smartphones are winning the race through ubiquity and attrition of the technically challenged but like any change, time is a factor.

As ever:

"The best camera is the one you will use and the picture you take will always be better than the one you didn't!" :)

Dave

That's a slightly unfair competition: a 2009-vintage DSLR with a kit lens (one of the worst you could get, given the great lineup by Canon) versus a 2015 smartphone. That said, I really don't see the smartphone as a clear winner.

 

The one place where smartphones won't win over pocket cameras is for the older generation. My wife's grandfather insists on taking his camera to Costco, ejecting the memory card, and getting prints made from the card. Even though the rest of us see the smart phone as so much easier, the less technically inclined don't. ;)

Officially bummed...yes, I actually have the kit lens that came with the Canon Rebel. :o:eek::loudcry: I'm not a professional photographer and far from it, but do like to get the best pictures I'm able to and always do try to improve. I'd posted on a thread earlier about the Tamron lens (16 - 300), which I'm considering since it would be much easier to have one lens with a nice range for my Canon rather than two separate ones. Is this one that you are familiar with? If so, would recommend or is the quality similar to the kit lens that came with the Rebel T1i? On that original post, there were mixed views on it. I've also checked the actual user reviews, which were also mixed. Some say it's the greatest while others say it's not.

For having a camera handy at all times, the smart phone is great but I wouldn't use it as my "go to" camera when on a vacation, although I probably would use it for interior pictures of the ship (or other places that don't have ideal light). But I remember back in 2003, when I got my first digital camera (point and shoot), I also took the memory card to Costco to get pictures printed out. Now that we have faster internet (cable) and many others do, I never get prints anymore, unless it's a picture I want enlarged to frame.

All I brought to the ballgame and fireworks show was my S8 phone, too much of a hassle to bring a camera to a sellout event.

Good enough for me, just wanted to document the evening with the family...

I posted a comparison on here a few months ago -- iPhone 7 vs Sony a6300+kit lens+auto.

Do not even talking about a p&s comparison: Compared to an aps-c camera, even for medium sized low light prints, the iPhone was no worse. Maybe the iPhone was better.

For people willing to learn photography, for those who want to edit raw files, those who invest in fast aperture lenses... a smart phone cannot match the potential of a full frame or aps-c camera. For the 95% of shooters who stick to a single lens and auto shooting... my recommendation is stick to the phone.

If you took the pixel or iPhone 7, and ripped out the phone -- they would still be $500 cameras.

If you took the pixel or iPhone 7, and ripped out the phone -- they would still be $500 cameras.

$500 Sony cameras, actually...:)

Dave

$500 Sony cameras, actually...:)

 

Dave

I knew my Pixel had a Sony sensor. Is the iPhone the same sensor?

Sent from my Pixel using Forums mobile app

I knew my Pixel had a Sony sensor. Is the iPhone the same sensor?

 

Sent from my Pixel using Forums mobile app

The iPhone has a 12mp sensor from Sony. The Pixel has a newer Sony module that is also 12mp but the sensor is about 50% larger.

Dave

I hate to agree, but largely do!

I basically have three cameras right now: A Canon Rebel T2i (with some pretty good glass), a Canon G7-X for a "pocket" camera, and an iPhone 6S. Strangely, and perhaps sadly, I actually find that in some circumstances, the lens/sensor/processor algorithm of the iPhone is my BEST camera!

I'm currently debating on a mirrorless system, either a full frame from Sony, or going for broke for probably the TL system from Leica. But I've got some amazing shots with the stupid iPhone over the years!

"lens/sensor/processor algorithm" - This is probably a subject for a (long) separate thread, but I find it interesting that 'taking pictures' now involves interaction with all three of these components. Of course in the film days all the stuff dealing with developer types, development times, printing methods and print alteration techniques could be called the 'processor algorithm'. However, when I look at all the _in camera_ image manipulation options available on my A6300, it seems that we are over supplied with choices. I even see this to a certain degree in cell phone cameras, depending on the brand and model. Brings us back to the question of what is a true image?

"lens/sensor/processor algorithm" - This is probably a subject for a (long) separate thread, but I find it interesting that 'taking pictures' now involves interaction with all three of these components. Of course in the film days all the stuff dealing with developer types, development times, printing methods and print alteration techniques could be called the 'processor algorithm'. However, when I look at all the _in camera_ image manipulation options available on my A6300, it seems that we are over supplied with choices. I even see this to a certain degree in cell phone cameras, depending on the brand and model. Brings us back to the question of what is a true image?

Photography is art. So the true image is whatever the photographer wants it to be.

My kids bought me a small espresso machine for Father's Day so I could have a daily reminder of cruising if I wanted one. I shot the image below with my Pixel phone so I could quickly send them a thanks and a couple of things really stood out. It was shot in relatively dim light, yet visible noise is nearly absent.

 

Thoughts? Opinions? Experiences?

 

Dave

Make sure your speakers are plugged in and turn up the volume. :evilsmile:

Officially bummed...yes, I actually have the kit lens that came with the Canon Rebel. :o:eek::loudcry: I'm not a professional photographer and far from it, but do like to get the best pictures I'm able to and always do try to improve. I'd posted on a thread earlier about the Tamron lens (16 - 300), which I'm considering since it would be much easier to have one lens with a nice range for my Canon rather than two separate ones. Is this one that you are familiar with? If so, would recommend or is the quality similar to the kit lens that came with the Rebel T1i? On that original post, there were mixed views on it. I've also checked the actual user reviews, which were also mixed. Some say it's the greatest while others say it's not.

Sorry I missed this from a long time ago. I've always said that the larger a zoom lens's range, the worse the optics will be. So a 15x zoom won't be as good as a 10x zoom, which won't be as good as a 5x, 4x, 3x, or "1x" ("prime") lens. The rare exception only happens when you open your wallet; I think the Canon 28-300L is notably better than other ~10x superzooms, but it's also bigger/heavier/pricier. That said, if one lens is important to you, that has value that can't be ignored.

If I had a sherpa, I'd just cruise with 2-3 cameras (1-2 super high resolution DSLRs, 1-2 high-speed DSLRs) and 11-12 lenses (14/2.8, 24/1.4, 35/1.4, 50/1.2, 85/1.2, Zeiss 100/2 Macro, 135/2, 200/2, 400/2.8, 600/4, and 1-2 tilt-shift lenses)...oops, I might need two sherpas for that. Nonetheless, I've shot with every one of those lenses at one point or another, and know that zooms cannot compare to them except in convenience. Am I willing to sacrifice some of those amazing lenses for zooms? Absolutely, but at some point in the future if something like one of those makes sense for what you shoot, it's definitely worth considering.

Bigger picture, I do believe that for the most part, the camera business is highly competitive, and for any given price point, products in a similar bracket are going to be reasonably comparable. If the Tamron 16-300 is priced like other 16-300s, it's probably as good as (and as bad as) the others. So then it's up to you to try it somehow and see if it's the right choice for you.

Make sure your speakers are plugged in and turn up the volume. :evilsmile:

Did I do something to deserve this punishment?

Dave

Did I do something to deserve this punishment?

 

Dave

That is a good come back. I might want to use it sometime. :cool:

DP Review just added an article that kicks my original premise into second gear.

https://www.dpreview.com/opinion/7372168021/smartphones-killed-the-compact-and-now-they-re-coming-for-entry-level-ilcs

They are suggesting that the next victim of ultra-capable phones will lead to the demise of the entry-level ILC. Considering that Sony hasn't released a follow-up to the A5100 in three years and all but one model of the Nikon 1 cameras showing as "archived" on their website, they may have a valid point. Sub $1k ILCs that only offer incremental improvement over increasingly capable top end camera phones and typically offer the manufacturers very small profit margins may follow the low-end compacts into the pages of history.

The times are changing and one quote from the article stood out for me: "lots of people who do want the image quality benefits traditionally associated with a DSLR actually want nothing to do with a DSLR".

It's an interesting time to be a photographer!

Dave

DP Review just added an article that kicks my original premise into second gear.

 

https://www.dpreview.com/opinion/7372168021/smartphones-killed-the-compact-and-now-they-re-coming-for-entry-level-ilcs

 

They are suggesting that the next victim of ultra-capable phones will lead to the demise of the entry-level ILC. Considering that Sony hasn't released a follow-up to the A5100 in three years and all but one model of the Nikon 1 cameras showing as "archived" on their website, they may have a valid point. Sub $1k ILCs that only offer incremental improvement over increasingly capable top end camera phones and typically offer the manufacturers very small profit margins may follow the low-end compacts into the pages of history.

 

The times are changing and one quote from the article stood out for me: "lots of people who do want the image quality benefits traditionally associated with a DSLR actually want nothing to do with a DSLR".

 

It's an interesting time to be a photographer!

 

Dave

Maybe the camera makers should install phone capabilities in their cameras. I'll still take my DSLR over a camera phone any day and I'll still turn off my cell phone and leave it in the safe while I'm cruising.

Maybe the camera makers should install phone capabilities in their cameras. I'll still take my DSLR over a camera phone any day and I'll still turn off my cell phone and leave it in the safe while I'm cruising.

And you're an active participant in this forum... :)

I'm sure there will always be those of us that prefer the advanced options available with ILCs and don't mind the learning curve or "inconvenience" of toting them around. Based on the numbers, it looks like we're in the minority and staying there may be getting more costly as the phones eat at the lower end.

Oh, dear....I may have to get better bodies and lenses to stay ahead of the pack.... ;)

Dave