darn it...

Well, we keep seeing the comparisons, getting my hopes up but I know better. You know, the new phone camera that will be the DSLR killer.

 

Well, it looks like the Google Pixel 2 isn't going to be a cheap alternative to a $20K Hasselblad. I am so disappointed. :(

 

Go Google! :mad: Back to the drawing board and don't return until you give us the real medium format Hasselblad in a $700 phone.

Same to you Apple and Samsung! :mad:

 

Looks like PetaPixel got this one right, LINK as opposed to some other stuff I have seen on Twitter and around the web. lol.;)

 

to video. Edited January 8, 2018 by Mark Keefer

Thanks for the links. Interesting topic and good to see and know where tech isn't yet.

I'll stay cheaping out on smart phones for a while. I like my old cameras too much and life might get too complicated for my taste when I'll have to remember to stop shooting my K10D between 18 and 24mm because smartphone pictures would look better.

Very timely. I was just trying to decide whether I'd be better off with a $1,000 phone or a $20,000 Hasselblad. ;)

 

Truth is that neither is likely to be in my future anytime soon, but I did just drop $80 on what was a high end compact back in 2012. My daughter's 8 grade class will be spending a week in Chicago this Spring and mobile phones aren't allowed on the trip. She wanted to bring my wife's DSLR which we thought was a bad idea for a lot of reasons. Anyway, it was an excuse for me to buy another camera. Mostly I've been buying film cameras lately so it's been interesting to see where digital technology is going (or at least where it was going a few years ago). I toyed with the idea of getting a small mirrorless setup but the kit lenses on those weren't as good as what I could find on the compacts and we have the DSLR if we want to deal with multiple lenses. I do think mirrorless is definitely in my future, - along with a better phone at some point. :)

A 20k Hasselblad? Try 40k. I have resisted the mirrorless fad. I have taken it a step further, I have gone sensorless. I have also been shooting film.

A 20k Hasselblad? Try 40k. I have resisted the mirrorless fad. I have taken it a step further, I have gone sensorless. I have also been shooting film.

 

Yes, I do enjoy film, and I use a smallish Olympus SLR a lot of the time or the medium format Yashica when I want something a little more spectacular. I like the versatility and convenience of the DSLR but often find myself wishing for something less bulky, - hence my interest in mirrorless. I'm something of a technology bottom feeder though so I'm content to wait a few years until today's $1000 phone or mirrorless system can be had for $200 or less. Doesn't seem to happen that way with Hasselblads so much.

20K $ Hasselblad?

 

A nearly identical Soviet Kiev 6x6 is much cheaper (for film).

 

Sometimes, they even work ;)

I don't really want my phone to mimic a dslr or Hasselblad. Don't need that kind of conformity. I want a phone camera to be a phone camera. That makes it special and gets me to find uses and applications for it that are different from how I use and see other cameras. That's a good thing, IMO. Glad Polaroids weren't Hasselblads either. Check out Marie Cosindas, Lucas Samaras.

I don't expect them to mimic each other either, but it's useful to know what you're getting with either one. The only reason we have a DSLR is because that's what my wife thought of when she envisioned a "good camera". It's hers. Honestly she'd be be better served by something a lot less complex. She only uses it in full automatic mode. The same with my daughter. We took the DSLR downtown yesterday to get some pictures for her urban art project. Her favorite shot out of the hundred or so she took was one she took with her phone. But she wanted to bring "the good camera". The DSLR did come in handy for the night time shot she got of the river + skyline, but she relied on me to set the camera up. It's also probably a shot she could have gotten with her phone with the right app and the right tripod mount. It would not look that great on a large print but she only needs a 4 X 6.

 

I'm not saying that there's no longer a reason to get a DSLR or medium format camera over a smart phone, but they are plenty capable for nearby, slow moving subjects when the existing lighting is sufficient.

Honestly she'd be be better served by something a lot less complex. . . . Her favorite shot out of the hundred or so she took was one she took with her phone.

+1

 

My point, exactly. A phone camera should be a phone camera and people who use them know why and feel comfortable with them.

 

I'm also saying they're not just capable as something to use instead of a dslr. They're something different. Most people are going to use them like Instamatics were used and they'll also be sending pics of furniture they're thinking of buying to their spouses and memorializing exciting events like dorm parties. And "serious" photographers can find a use for them, either similar to or very different from what they use other cameras for.

One person on DPR has his little micro homily ( for want of a better word that eludes me) under his name. Reads "The best camera is one that you have with you. " No, the best camera is one you understand well enough to make the photos you want to be identified with. It may take several. No, film had its day. Polaroid was my instant gratification but costly. Digital is all I need. But lighting is given short shrift. I am working on the set up where I have a Quantum flash and a Turbo pack and a big umbrella to control light. The ultimate gratification for control freaks. But I am glad that film users keep some companies afloat. As well as other analog things, like vinyl.

Glad Polaroids weren't Hasselblads either.

Dunno, if film was still around & in my reach, I'd happily get a Graflock back to shoot it in my ordinary Technika. Considering the price of the material I see little use in getting a dedicated budged camera with an exposure automatic doing its own unknown thing like my Polaroid Land 240. While the regular camera is a tad heavier and the range meter VF distance is bigger it comes at least with interchangeable lenses. - I suppose when you fix your negative to enlarge it, you 'd get benefits

Contemporary DSLRs mimic smartphones. My latest one can be controlled and even shot via it's rear touch screen. The approach just doesn't feel that convenient with a medium weight zoom mounted.

IDK whats wrong about shooting a camera in auto mode. Twisting a knob to match 2 needles or spinning a wheel to turn a traffic light green makes nobody a better photographer. What might help is walking around with an incident or spot meter before you decide to get a camera out. There are cameras that offer more information in their auto mode than they'd reveal in manual.

 

I don't see what is supposed to make phone cameras different. - Do (modern) people feel urged to re-shoot an epic sunset with their phones, to tweet about their joy of capturing it with a bigger camera and have no time to wait till they are home and got film or RAW files processed?

I am aware of the convenience offered by phones that let you share images from the device that captured them, but still: I'd prefer hammering the accompanying text into an almost real keyboard and transmitting everything via dirt cheap domestic Internet over paying a lot for mobile bandwidth.

I am in the gym on a mat doing my post workout stretching. The young lady in leotards on a mat down from me in front of the mirrors is doing some ballet like things and poses with her cel phone in front of her. This way and that way and that way and then this way,,,, Did she get the perfect selfie. ( I was tempted to ask.) Took long enough. Crappy light in that X room. Better if she would maybe asked me to take the shot:) I am easy when approached.

I don't see what is supposed to make phone cameras different.

That's where creative vision comes in. I think some people will find something unique about what a cell phone can do and how it can and is being used and will translate that it into a photo that shows it. It's not about re-shooting epic sunsets or merely about convenience. It's about dealing with some of the social/cultural aspects of cell phone use and some of the very particular looks cell phone pics can have and doing something with all that.

IDK whats wrong about shooting a camera in auto mode. Twisting a knob to match 2 needles

Huh? First off, there's nothing at all wrong with shooting a camera in auto mode. Secondly, shooting without auto mode is about a lot more than twisting knobs to match needles. It's often about twisting knobs to defy those needles in order to get something different or unique. It's about not necessarily defaulting to your camera's idea of what a "good" exposure is for each shot. It's about twisting those few knobs creatively to get your exposure to do what you want it to do.

+1

 

My point, exactly. A phone camera should be a phone camera and people who use them know why and feel comfortable with them.

 

...They're something different. Most people are going to use them like Instamatics were used....

 

I was in New Orleans' French Quarter taking photos with a film camera a few months ago, and this fellow walking a few yards ahead of me was just snapping away with his phone camera. Lucky if he gave a second's thought to each photo. I shot one photo (I think) in the time it took me to walk that one block.

Dunno, if film was still around & in my reach, I'd happily get a Graflock back to shoot it in my ordinary Technika. Considering the price of the material I see little use in getting a dedicated budged camera with an exposure automatic doing its own unknown thing like my Polaroid Land 240. While the regular camera is a tad heavier and the range meter VF distance is bigger it comes at least with interchangeable lenses. - I suppose when you fix your negative to enlarge it, you 'd get benefits

Contemporary DSLRs mimic smartphones. My latest one can be controlled and even shot via it's rear touch screen. The approach just doesn't feel that convenient with a medium weight zoom mounted.

IDK whats wrong about shooting a camera in auto mode. Twisting a knob to match 2 needles or spinning a wheel to turn a traffic light green makes nobody a better photographer. What might help is walking around with an incident or spot meter before you decide to get a camera out. There are cameras that offer more information in their auto mode than they'd reveal in manual.

 

I don't see what is supposed to make phone cameras different. - Do (modern) people feel urged to re-shoot an epic sunset with their phones, to tweet about their joy of capturing it with a bigger camera and have no time to wait till they are home and got film or RAW files processed?

I am aware of the convenience offered by phones that let you share images from the device that captured them, but still: I'd prefer hammering the accompanying text into an almost real keyboard and transmitting everything via dirt cheap domestic Internet over paying a lot for mobile bandwidth.

 

Lot's of people have automatic bill pay and even if they don't, they maybe only care about usage if it exceeds their plan limits. And my teens are comfortable spending hours tapping away at their touch-screen keyboards. Film is much too slow of a process for them and to be honest, at times much too slow for me. But lots of DSLRs have wifi or can use wifi cards, - so pics can be downloaded to your phone or even imported from SD cards directly. There are even phone apps that let you edit RAW files. So you can still tweet that epic sunset captured on your DSLR ;-)

Lucky if he gave a second's thought to each photo.

One of the great things about phone cameras (and, of course, they don't have to be used this way) is that they are often used more as an exclamation than a full sentence. It can be a very random and haphazard view of the world, which now has its place in our world. Taking a cell phone pic and sending it to someone (or a lot of people!) can be like a simple wave of the hand to a friend, hardly a conversation about life! On the other hand, some people are doing amazing things with cell phones. And some people just love to be able to wave in pictures to their friends far away.

I used to think that the iPhone had the best camera. But no, it seems that the Panasonic CM1, a strangely forgotten phone, takes that award. It has a 1" sensor. Its camera is much better than even the newest iPhone's. It could even be the perfect shirt-pocket compact. Here is one look at the CM1:

 

(3:04)

the Panasonic CM1, a strangely forgotten phone, takes that award. It has a 1" sensor.

Wow. 1-inch sensor and 20Mpixel DNG. Almost as good as if Hasselblad put a phone in their camera. Seriously though, sounds like a great phone camera.

Wow. 1-inch sensor and 20Mpixel DNG. Almost as good as if Hasselblad put a phone in their camera. Seriously though, sounds like a great phone camera.

I have a tiny Canon G9X that has a 1" sensor at 20 megapixels.....and it doesn't do all of that annoying ringing.....

The power of a photograph is rarely driven by a particular camera.

 

Rather, that's a result of the photographer's curiosity, imagination, life experiences, drive, ability to compose and read light, and on and on.

+1

 

I'm also saying they're not just capable as something to use instead of a dslr. They're something different. Most people are going to use them like Instamatics were used and they'll also be sending pics of furniture they're thinking of buying to their spouses and memorializing exciting events like dorm parties. And "serious" photographers can find a use for them, either similar to or very different from what they use other cameras for.

 

Yes, I think we sometimes look at them as lesser cameras that are pocketable and convenient but otherwise provide no advantages. That's a little short sited. They have extremely powerful processors relative to dedicated cameras, large screens, much better user interfaces, and in some cases, they get better over time. What I mean by the latter is that they get frequent software upgrades and people develop apps for them.

 

I'll admit that I'm not a high end DSLR user, but my guess is that you might see a few firmware upgrades that fix some bugs and provide a minor new feature or but that's about it.

 

I purchased my phone only a few months after the DSLR we bought (getting close to 5 years ago), but the phone has become a more capable camera in that time while the DSLR has the same exact feature set as the day we bought it. For example, the phone is much better at taking panoramas now than it was (and it was always better than the DSLR), it's gotten some really nice time lapse features just within the last year or so (time lapse on the DLSR is archaic by comparison), and on phone editing through built in software and 3rd party apps has improved dramatically.

 

Think about post processing for a minute. Smart phones can now store pictures in RAW format and post process them without requiring a separate computer and expensive software. Phone software is cheap. A lot of photography oriented desktop software is expensive and moving to a subscription model so you can be gouged on a regular basis.

 

What the DSLR gives you is much better glass and the ability to change it. Phones can't compete there directly but they close the gap some with improved sensors, lens technology and software. Phones now even come with multiple cameras with lenses of different focal lengths working together to give you some of the capabilities that larger traditional lenses have.

Some of the newer cameras have Wi-Fi and the ability to transfer images to your android phone so it allows you to attach a phone to your DSLR wirelessly. With the Canon 5D MK IV it works well with a tablet or higher end android, though my Samsung Galaxy 3s or 4, the transfer chokes, maybe the file size or the app to control the camera is too much for the phone. It never works on my $140 android but works well with a higher end android phone and tablets I have.

The power of a photograph is rarely driven by a particular camera.

 

Rather, that's a result of the photographer's curiosity, imagination, life experiences, drive, ability to compose and read light, and on and on.

I think with some photographers it's not a binary distinction. The particular camera they're using, as well as their curiosity, imagination, life experience, drive, ability to compose and read light, and on and on all play a role. I would imagine in the majority of cases, the camera doesn't much matter to a lot of photographers and think Brad makes a good point. But I think in some important cases, the particular camera is more integral to the photography and is worth considering.

The power of a photograph is rarely driven by a particular camera.

 

Rather, that's a result of the photographer's curiosity, imagination, life experiences, drive, ability to compose and read light, and on and on.

 

I think a lot depends on what you're trying to do. For example, it would be difficult to be a sports photographer with a smart phone. You really want something that can work with fast and large lenses. And there are lots of cameras not well suited for underwater photography. Those are pretty clear examples where the equipment does matter. But I agree that there's lot of situations where it doesn't.

 

And yes the power of the photograph doesn't come from the equipment itself, but the right tools help.

Edited January 9, 2018 by tomspielman

As someone used to say here, horses for courses.