Perhaps you bought your DSLR in anticipation of photographic needs that did not quite require an ILC. A fixed aperture, fixed focal length camera isn't going to replace the sheer flexability and speed of a DSLR anytime soon. The iPhone simply serves quite a different purpose.
This is true but many "dSLR's" are purchased by people that can barely operate them much less use them to advantage. iPhone on the other hand is idiot proof when used within its capabilities and is always with you. The always with you part of the equation is the big selling point of this technology, a picture taken is always better than a missed opportunity due to no camera.
Before the advent of digital I carried around an RZ67, which is a "monstrosity" but boy could a person take pictures with that machine. The problem is you can't carry such a camera in your pocket 9it in fact required a backpack). While I'm not sure a 12 megapixel camera will ever replace that camera but at this point for the photograph I do, a 12 megapixel camera might be good enough to replace point and shoots. It is absolutely shocking how far digital photography has come since its debut awhile back.
That was a great camera. Sort of like carrying a miniature view camera around. I used to use a Rolli SL66 many years ago for fashion shoots in the studio.
The iPhone currently serves a different purpose, but I don't think you should underestimate where this is headed.
I am not sure I am underestimating where this is going. DSLR and MILC are already fairly niche compared to the point and shoot market. The point and shoot market is the market most suffering the iPhone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
This is true but many "dSLR's" are purchased by people that can barely operate them much less use them to advantage. iPhone on the other hand is idiot proof when used within its capabilities and is always with you. The always with you part of the equation is the big selling point of this technology, a picture taken is always better than a missed opportunity due to no camera.
Which is what I attempted to convey in my original post. I am not sure he needs the versatility of a DSLR if his needs are satisfied with an iPhone.
I see a lot of DSLR users mentioning switching to the Micro Four thirds mirrorless system where the lenses and bodies are much smaller. I like the convenience of a camera in a phone but they are no substitute for a much larger sensor and being able to choose different focal lengths.
The problem with the Micro Four Thirds system is that you are still using a relatively small sensor, considerably smaller than a DSLR "full frame" sensor. So while it is an improvement over the cell phone cameras (where sizes is everything) you are still on a technology development curve to get to full frame 35 mm sensor performance. However as we have seen with cell phones the technology has come a very long ways.
I suspect that Four Thirds type systems will eventually gain a strong following. Mainly because you really don't need the bulk of a 35 mm camera to get picture fully suitable for the majority of viewing systems out there. The quality of these cameras will go up eventually making it hard for 35 mm bodies to compete for general photography. Short term that means filling a 4K monitor with enough pixels left over for editing and cropping.
Four Thirds is a far harder sell in the professional marketplace. I rather see Four Thirds replacing the point and shoot market which is dying fast.
I got rid of my Leicas in 1985. Rangefinders were simply obsolete by then. I only bought the M5 and the three lenses to shoot specific things where noise was very important, and I couldn't use flash.
But I've got a large range of "L" lenses for my various Canon 5D models, and I used to use them a lot. I'm even considering the new 5Dr s.
But, I use my iPhone for almost 90% of the time I shoot these days, and rarely take my DSLR around. I'm not going to upgrade my 6+ this year, but I'm looking forwards to next year. I've bought several lens systems for my iPhones, but have been disappointed in several ways. Sometimes, the lens quality delivers a pretty good picture, but is clumsy to use, with the case, and all. But what bothers me as that new phones require new lenses and cases, or attachments.
Sadly I lost interest in photography and seldom get my old Nikon out any more and a good portion of the medium format stuff has been sold off. I'd have to say that iPhone has reached the 99% mark with me over the last couple of years. It is that always with you reality that makes iPhone great for picture taking.
What I would absolutely love for Apple to do, which would absolutely kill the entire compact camera industry, which is already sliding very badly, is if they made a small bayonet around the lens on the phone. It could even have some electrical connections for focus, aperture, etc. This could be pretty small, and Apple could have standards as to what could attach, and how they would work, just as the major camera manufacturers do now.
I suspect part of the reason Apple has put the"ring" around the lens is to make it easier to center these third party lenses. Sadly everyone I've seen looks to be fairly clumsy to handle.
It would be great if we could have a small lens bayonet on, have Apple's lens go to infinity focus, and have focus and aperture controlled by the camera on auto, or even manual. If Apple could do that, and I see no reason why they couldn't, a standard for iPhones would go a long way to making the camera a more serious instrument. Even now, it's used with big mounts for pro video and photography. But I certainly would buy a Zeiss Otus lens series for this, as they would only need to cost between $250 to $400 per lens, for high pro quality. That's because of the small sensor size, and the resultant small lens size.
I'd like to see a higher quality lenses assembly that supports a decent zoom range and a larger sensor for better low light performance. Of course the optics would be a problem which may require a wedge shaped iPhone. I'd be willing to support a few mm of thickness at one end of the iPhone if that thickness delivers truly high performance out of the camera.
Edit:
I just thought of an addendum. What if Apple made a slightly higher end model called the Photo iPhone, say. That could have the lens mount I suggest, but would allow for the removal of Apple's lens when putting another lens on. This would eliminate all of the problems of trying to make a really good, fast lens, such as a 1.4 aperture version, or a proper wide angle, or high quality zoom.
Well if it is well thought out that might work. Any sort of lens mount does imply a thicker iPhone and a loss of internal space. It also unseals the iPhone which could be a significant issue. The problem is how big can Apple go before the iPhone becomes too large to pocket everyday? This I think is key, once the product no longer has the ease of use of an iPhone, due in this case to physical size, it is no longer a product who's primary focus is to be a smart phone.
That was a great camera. Sort of like carrying a miniature view camera around. I used to use a Rolli SL66 many years ago for fashion shoots in the studio.
The problem I had was that it was extremely expensive to shoot from an amateur standpoint. The quality of the pics though would stun me at times, which is why I sometimes growl at the people saying pixels don't matter. They (pixels) obviously don't matter if you don't have the hardware to use them effectively but there is no underestimating the importance of having lots of information to work with. For me the 6x7 format was the ultimate high megapixel sensor.
My mind wanders fast and i just searched for info on the pixel equivalent of medium format film. Of course plenty of argument there, but MF would easily match and probably beat the best digital cameras (24 mega pixel range) in an optimal setting. Still it is very impressive what one can get out of a digital SLR these days.
I've got a lowly G16, a mid range Canon camera and the Iphone 6, G6 are not even close, let alone close to a top end DSLR. The difference is taggering in my eye. Low light shots in particular are ridiculously bad on all smart phone cameras. But, I guess people have gotten used to them.
I can shoot in total darkness with just a bit light on buildings on a remote and get a very good shot on a the G16 (not a top end camera), while it would be total crap (if it could even focus) on the Iphone.
I think you forget... Most people cannot use a Canon G6 out the box (I have one BTW, that haven't used since owning my iPhone).. Most people can work an iPhone 6s out of the box.... Apple is developing for the latter.... Rather than technical (professional) extremes... That (normal) people rarely encounter.
Which I believe is one of the major reasons they switched developing from Aperture to Photos... But that's a different discussion.
The problem with the Micro Four Thirds system is that you are still using a relatively small sensor, considerably smaller than a DSLR "full frame" sensor. So while it is an improvement over the cell phone cameras (where sizes is everything) you are still on a technology development curve to get to full frame 35 mm sensor performance. However as we have seen with cell phones the technology has come a very long ways.
I suspect that Four Thirds type systems will eventually gain a strong following. Mainly because you really don't need the bulk of a 35 mm camera to get picture fully suitable for the majority of viewing systems out there. The quality of these cameras will go up eventually making it hard for 35 mm bodies to compete for general photography. Short term that means filling a 4K monitor with enough pixels left over for editing and cropping.
Four Thirds is a far harder sell in the professional marketplace. I rather see Four Thirds replacing the point and shoot market which is dying fast.
Four thirds is kind of interesting. I remember when it first came out. The advertisements for it said:
The best compromise between size, price and quality. They knew from the beginning that the quality wasn't really there. But things progress. At one time the CEO of, I think it was, Olympus, said that we didn't need more than 12MP. That was because for several years, the format couldn't do more than 12MP. But that was years ago.
The advent of mirror less made a big splash with four thirds, but is now moving to APS C, and even full frame, even though there are some ill conceived 1" sensor models out there. The Nikon 1 series is a disaster, for example.
Four thirds is kind of interesting. I remember when it first came out. The advertisements for it said:
The best compromise between size, price and quality. They knew from the beginning that the quality wasn't really there. But things progress. At one time the CEO of, I think it was, Olympus, said that we didn't need more than 12MP. That was because for several years, the format couldn't do more than 12MP. But that was years ago.
Well he is right in a sense, if you crop in camera and otherwise take care with composition 12 MP is more than enough for a consumer and isn't too bad for an amateur. The reality is 12 MP will cover all output systems that consumers will have access to for the next couple of years. Unless of course the TV industry skips 4K and high resolution printers hit the consumer market.
The advent of mirror less made a big splash with four thirds, but is now moving to APS C, and even full frame, even though there are some ill conceived 1" sensor models out there. The Nikon 1 series is a disaster, for example.
I'm not sure why one would go to a full frame platform and be mirrorless. That however isn't the really problem consumers will prefer small over large if they can get good enough results.
Sadly I lost interest in photography and seldom get my old Nikon out any more and a good portion of the medium format stuff has been sold off. I'd have to say that iPhone has reached the 99% mark with me over the last couple of years. It is that always with you reality that makes iPhone great for picture taking.
I suspect part of the reason Apple has put the"ring" around the lens is to make it easier to center these third party lenses. Sadly everyone I've seen looks to be fairly clumsy to handle.
I'd like to see a higher quality lenses assembly that supports a decent zoom range and a larger sensor for better low light performance. Of course the optics would be a problem which may require a wedge shaped iPhone. I'd be willing to support a few mm of thickness at one end of the iPhone if that thickness delivers truly high performance out of the camera.
Well if it is well thought out that might work. Any sort of lens mount does imply a thicker iPhone and a loss of internal space. It also unseals the iPhone which could be a significant issue. The problem is how big can Apple go before the iPhone becomes too large to pocket everyday? This I think is key, once the product no longer has the ease of use of an iPhone, due in this case to physical size, it is no longer a product who's primary focus is to be a smart phone.
While we've all seen the pics of the rear camera body, I do t know exactly how everything fits where the camera is. I believe that Apple could strengthen the crack with thicker metal around the camera for a ways. They then could undercut a bit around the lens and mount a bayonet there. Doing that wouldn't need the phone to be thicker. As for water proofing, I do t see a major problem. Certainly, it would be a sealed compartment. There's no reason why that would be difficult. The front of the sensor is glass, so that whole portion would be sealed by nature. The area around it, and various parts of the phone are open now, so that wouldn't be moving backwards. Even the electrical connections can be waterproof.
The article seems to be confusing two different issues. Deep trench isolation is a technique to prevent photoelectron-diffusion crosstalk, not optical crosstalk.
Well he is right in a sense, if you crop in camera and otherwise take care with composition 12 MP is more than enough for a consumer and isn't too bad for an amateur. The reality is 12 MP will cover all output systems that consumers will have access to for the next couple of years. Unless of course the TV industry skips 4K and high resolution printers hit the consumer market.
I'm not sure why one would go to a full frame platform and be mirrorless. That however isn't the really problem consumers will prefer small over large if they can get good enough results.
Even four thirds is up to 20MP these day. That's just the trend. The problem with DSLRs is that it's almost impossible to focus manually. No focus help in the screen at all. No microprism, no rangefinder in the middle of it. No nothing. Nada! The little dot that tells us when we're in focus isn't much help either, because it's still difficult to quickly tell where the focus is with all of the focus spots cameras offer across the field. Even when these do light up, it's a pain. And it's complex to set that all up for most people.
But mirror less can give us ELVs, which for those who don't know, means "electronic viewfinders". The old ones really sucked, but the new ones are high Rez, and work pretty well, and they give us view and focus right off the sensor. At some point, when Canikon decide to do this, the DSLR, with optical viewing, will disappear.
Well he is right in a sense, if you crop in camera and otherwise take care with composition 12 MP is more than enough for a consumer and isn't too bad for an amateur. The reality is 12 MP will cover all output systems that consumers will have access to for the next couple of years. Unless of course the TV industry skips 4K and high resolution printers hit the consumer market.
I'm not sure why one would go to a full frame platform and be mirrorless. That however isn't the really problem consumers will prefer small over large if they can get good enough results.
Even four thirds is up to 20MP these day. That's just the trend. The problem with DSLRs is that it's almost impossible to focus manually. No focus help in the screen at all. No microprism, no rangefinder in the middle of it. No nothing. Nada! The little dot that tells us when we're in focus isn't much help either, because it's still difficult to quickly tell where the focus is with all of the focus spots cameras offer across the field. Even when these do light up, it's a pain. And it's complex to set that all up for most people.
But mirror less can give us ELVs, which for those who don't know, means "electronic viewfinders". The o,d ones really suck, but the new ones are high Rez, and work pretty well, and they give us view and focus right off the sensor. At some point, when Canikon decide to do this, the DSLR, with optical viewing, will disappear.
The newer DSLRs effectively provide ELV focus tools via Live View (as Nikon calls it).
The article seems to be confusing two different issues. Deep trench isolation is a technique to prevent photoelectron-diffusion crosstalk, not optical crosstalk.
That's what they're talking about. But for simplification, in an optical sensor, it helps prevent cross optical diffusion.
The newer DSLRs effectively provide ELV focus tools via Live View (as Nikon calls it).
That's not exactly the same thing, and is very clumsy. Looking at the back of the camera, while holding your hands out so you can focus on that screen, is not the way to do photography, even though point and shoots do that. I only do that with my 5D mkIII is when doing macro. An actual viewfinder is much better. The cameras, and lenses are heavy.
The article seems to be confusing two different issues. Deep trench isolation is a technique to prevent photoelectron-diffusion crosstalk, not optical crosstalk.
That's what they're talking about. But for simplification, in an optical sensor, it helps prevent cross optical diffusion.
I don't think I understand your comment. Deep trench isolation is designed to prevent electron diffusion, not photon diffusion. It's not a method to reduce optical crosstalk. What am I missing?
The newer DSLRs effectively provide ELV focus tools via Live View (as Nikon calls it).
That's not exactly the same thing, and is very clumsy. Looking at the back of the camera, while holding your hands out so you can focus on that screen, is not the way to do photography, even though point and shoots do that. I only do that with my 5D mkIII is when doing macro. An actual viewfinder is much better. The cameras, and lenses are heavy.
Agreed. I only use it when the camera is on a tripod - mostly for astro/night photography in my case.
I don't think I understand your comment. Deep trench isolation is designed to prevent electron diffusion, not photon diffusion. It's not a method to reduce optical crosstalk. What am I missing?
The deep trench is there to isolate each optical column. Whether photons or electrons, they diffuse through the silicon. Isolating these columns minimizes this.
The problem I had was that it was extremely expensive to shoot from an amateur standpoint. The quality of the pics though would stun me at times, which is why I sometimes growl at the people saying pixels don't matter. They (pixels) obviously don't matter if you don't have the hardware to use them effectively but there is no underestimating the importance of having lots of information to work with. For me the 6x7 format was the ultimate high megapixel sensor.
My mind wanders fast and i just searched for info on the pixel equivalent of medium format film. Of course plenty of argument there, but MF would easily match and probably beat the best digital cameras (24 mega pixel range) in an optimal setting. Still it is very impressive what one can get out of a digital SLR these days.
What most people call 'full frame' is I think comparable to medium format in film terms. I have a M4/3 camera and since my old film scanner died some years ago I have used it to scan 35mm slides. I can say with confidence that a M4/3 sensor can easily resolve the film grain of 35mm Provia 100F and Velvia and has enough dynamic range to capture what's there. A 16 MP M4/3 sensor handily bests 35mm film IMO, so to me, M4/3 is the new 35mm and the 36 Mp and up full frame DSLRs are now the new MF.
I don't need that many pixels and happily trade for the much smaller size weight and bulk, particularly where lenses are concerned.
What most people call 'full frame' is I think comparable to medium format in film terms. I have a M4/3 camera and since my old film scanner died some years ago I have used it to scan 35mm slides. I can say with confidence that a M4/3 sensor can easily resolve the film grain of 35mm Provia 100F and Velvia and has enough dynamic range to capture what's there. A 16 MP M4/3 sensor handily bests 35mm film IMO, so to me, M4/3 is the new 35mm and the 36 Mp and up full frame DSLRs are now the new MF.
I don't need that many pixels and happily trade for the much smaller size weight and bulk, particularly where lenses are concerned.
Full frame sensors are approx 24x36mm. That's the same as full frame 35mm film. Medium format sensors are from about 36mm x48mm for the Leica S series, and new model, to much larger, up to about 48mm x56mm.
Comments
This is true but many "dSLR's" are purchased by people that can barely operate them much less use them to advantage. iPhone on the other hand is idiot proof when used within its capabilities and is always with you. The always with you part of the equation is the big selling point of this technology, a picture taken is always better than a missed opportunity due to no camera.
That was a great camera. Sort of like carrying a miniature view camera around. I used to use a Rolli SL66 many years ago for fashion shoots in the studio.
The iPhone currently serves a different purpose, but I don't think you should underestimate where this is headed.
I am not sure I am underestimating where this is going. DSLR and MILC are already fairly niche compared to the point and shoot market. The point and shoot market is the market most suffering the iPhone.
This is true but many "dSLR's" are purchased by people that can barely operate them much less use them to advantage. iPhone on the other hand is idiot proof when used within its capabilities and is always with you. The always with you part of the equation is the big selling point of this technology, a picture taken is always better than a missed opportunity due to no camera.
Which is what I attempted to convey in my original post. I am not sure he needs the versatility of a DSLR if his needs are satisfied with an iPhone.
The problem with the Micro Four Thirds system is that you are still using a relatively small sensor, considerably smaller than a DSLR "full frame" sensor. So while it is an improvement over the cell phone cameras (where sizes is everything) you are still on a technology development curve to get to full frame 35 mm sensor performance. However as we have seen with cell phones the technology has come a very long ways.
I suspect that Four Thirds type systems will eventually gain a strong following. Mainly because you really don't need the bulk of a 35 mm camera to get picture fully suitable for the majority of viewing systems out there. The quality of these cameras will go up eventually making it hard for 35 mm bodies to compete for general photography. Short term that means filling a 4K monitor with enough pixels left over for editing and cropping.
Four Thirds is a far harder sell in the professional marketplace. I rather see Four Thirds replacing the point and shoot market which is dying fast.
Well if it is well thought out that might work. Any sort of lens mount does imply a thicker iPhone and a loss of internal space. It also unseals the iPhone which could be a significant issue. The problem is how big can Apple go before the iPhone becomes too large to pocket everyday? This I think is key, once the product no longer has the ease of use of an iPhone, due in this case to physical size, it is no longer a product who's primary focus is to be a smart phone.
The problem I had was that it was extremely expensive to shoot from an amateur standpoint. The quality of the pics though would stun me at times, which is why I sometimes growl at the people saying pixels don't matter. They (pixels) obviously don't matter if you don't have the hardware to use them effectively but there is no underestimating the importance of having lots of information to work with. For me the 6x7 format was the ultimate high megapixel sensor.
My mind wanders fast and i just searched for info on the pixel equivalent of medium format film. Of course plenty of argument there, but MF would easily match and probably beat the best digital cameras (24 mega pixel range) in an optimal setting. Still it is very impressive what one can get out of a digital SLR these days.
I think you forget... Most people cannot use a Canon G6 out the box (I have one BTW, that haven't used since owning my iPhone).. Most people can work an iPhone 6s out of the box.... Apple is developing for the latter.... Rather than technical (professional) extremes... That (normal) people rarely encounter.
Which I believe is one of the major reasons they switched developing from Aperture to Photos... But that's a different discussion.
Four thirds is kind of interesting. I remember when it first came out. The advertisements for it said:
The best compromise between size, price and quality. They knew from the beginning that the quality wasn't really there. But things progress. At one time the CEO of, I think it was, Olympus, said that we didn't need more than 12MP. That was because for several years, the format couldn't do more than 12MP. But that was years ago.
The advent of mirror less made a big splash with four thirds, but is now moving to APS C, and even full frame, even though there are some ill conceived 1" sensor models out there. The Nikon 1 series is a disaster, for example.
I'm not sure why one would go to a full frame platform and be mirrorless. That however isn't the really problem consumers will prefer small over large if they can get good enough results.
While we've all seen the pics of the rear camera body, I do t know exactly how everything fits where the camera is. I believe that Apple could strengthen the crack with thicker metal around the camera for a ways. They then could undercut a bit around the lens and mount a bayonet there. Doing that wouldn't need the phone to be thicker. As for water proofing, I do t see a major problem. Certainly, it would be a sealed compartment. There's no reason why that would be difficult. The front of the sensor is glass, so that whole portion would be sealed by nature. The area around it, and various parts of the phone are open now, so that wouldn't be moving backwards. Even the electrical connections can be waterproof.
Even four thirds is up to 20MP these day. That's just the trend. The problem with DSLRs is that it's almost impossible to focus manually. No focus help in the screen at all. No microprism, no rangefinder in the middle of it. No nothing. Nada! The little dot that tells us when we're in focus isn't much help either, because it's still difficult to quickly tell where the focus is with all of the focus spots cameras offer across the field. Even when these do light up, it's a pain. And it's complex to set that all up for most people.
But mirror less can give us ELVs, which for those who don't know, means "electronic viewfinders". The old ones really sucked, but the new ones are high Rez, and work pretty well, and they give us view and focus right off the sensor. At some point, when Canikon decide to do this, the DSLR, with optical viewing, will disappear.
The newer DSLRs effectively provide ELV focus tools via Live View (as Nikon calls it).
That's what they're talking about. But for simplification, in an optical sensor, it helps prevent cross optical diffusion.
That's not exactly the same thing, and is very clumsy. Looking at the back of the camera, while holding your hands out so you can focus on that screen, is not the way to do photography, even though point and shoots do that. I only do that with my 5D mkIII is when doing macro. An actual viewfinder is much better. The cameras, and lenses are heavy.
I don't think I understand your comment. Deep trench isolation is designed to prevent electron diffusion, not photon diffusion. It's not a method to reduce optical crosstalk. What am I missing?
Agreed. I only use it when the camera is on a tripod - mostly for astro/night photography in my case.
The deep trench is there to isolate each optical column. Whether photons or electrons, they diffuse through the silicon. Isolating these columns minimizes this.
The problem I had was that it was extremely expensive to shoot from an amateur standpoint. The quality of the pics though would stun me at times, which is why I sometimes growl at the people saying pixels don't matter. They (pixels) obviously don't matter if you don't have the hardware to use them effectively but there is no underestimating the importance of having lots of information to work with. For me the 6x7 format was the ultimate high megapixel sensor.
My mind wanders fast and i just searched for info on the pixel equivalent of medium format film. Of course plenty of argument there, but MF would easily match and probably beat the best digital cameras (24 mega pixel range) in an optimal setting. Still it is very impressive what one can get out of a digital SLR these days.
What most people call 'full frame' is I think comparable to medium format in film terms. I have a M4/3 camera and since my old film scanner died some years ago I have used it to scan 35mm slides. I can say with confidence that a M4/3 sensor can easily resolve the film grain of 35mm Provia 100F and Velvia and has enough dynamic range to capture what's there. A 16 MP M4/3 sensor handily bests 35mm film IMO, so to me, M4/3 is the new 35mm and the 36 Mp and up full frame DSLRs are now the new MF.
I don't need that many pixels and happily trade for the much smaller size weight and bulk, particularly where lenses are concerned.
Full frame sensors are approx 24x36mm. That's the same as full frame 35mm film. Medium format sensors are from about 36mm x48mm for the Leica S series, and new model, to much larger, up to about 48mm x56mm.