Is digital dead now?

I have tried to take photos with a phone, only really useful thing was photo-spheres, but now the software doesn't work on later versions of Android.

For normal photographs, my hand always seems to go across the lens, or I press buttons on the side trying to hold it, or I press the screen to take a photo and nothing happens, by the time it does, either what I wanted to take a photo of has moved, or I have turned the phone to try and see what is happening, or I nearly drop it performing the contortions needed to use it, or I can't see the screen in the sun.

And then a 10+ year old 12MP camera takes better quality photos then the latest iphone!!

A camera is designed for taking photos, a phone is not. Yet
 
droj said:
I'm tempted to say that in the world of imaging, all methods of production are potentially equal.
Click to expand...
If you take out the word "potentially", I'll agree with that.
 
Mobile phone Samsung A52s vs Canon 6d2. (the phones cropped because it wasnt in 3/2 ratio. Yes you can see a difference, but it's not as obvious as you might think.
link
 
swanseamale47 said:
Mobile phone Samsung A52s vs Canon 6d2. (the phones cropped because it wasnt in 3/2 ratio. Yes you can see a difference, but it's not as obvious as you might think.
link
Click to expand...
Downsizing for the web levels the field somewhat. I often shoot my Fuji GFX 50S and X-T2 side by side and when I am finished processing and downsizing for upload I can hardly tell the difference but if I look at the full size images as TIFFs it is obvious.
 
Last edited:
swanseamale47 said:
Mobile phone Samsung A52s vs Canon 6d2. (the phones cropped because it wasnt in 3/2 ratio. Yes you can see a difference, but it's not as obvious as you might think.
link
Click to expand...
When the light is good, and there's no cropping, my pictures from a Canon A10 looks very similar to the 5Diii :)

Same comment has been made about compacts many times
 
A camera is a camera. That in a smartphone is just as much a camera as a Nikon Z8 is a camera. Okay a smartphone camera may not be a great camera but they are developing exponentially and as they say ‘The best camera is the one you have with you’.
Compared to the mainstream cameras, those in smartphones are still in their infancy. One day in the future people will be amazed that people carried ridiculously heavy and stupidly sized equipment to take photographs.
Even then though….long into the future….the most important feature will be the person operating the equipment…...maybe.
By the way…for those who don't consider a smartphone camera to be a camera, just checkout the various smartphone groups on Flickr.
 
Here are two images from Gran Canaria, shot recently on a mobile phone, two different phones but both allegedly have very competent cameras. They're ok until you start to push them in post processing or unless you want anything larger than an A4 print. They'd have both been very nice images had we gotten the cameras back out, as it is, they just serve as minor annoyances for the ones that got away. Phones will never replace camera's IMHO.

53515471283_59d3858964_k.jpg53567303728_d01cf54153_k.jpg
 
woof woof said:
As I've mentioned several times on this site Mrs WW is constantly swapping pictures with friends and family and most of the incoming ones are taken with smartphones. These pictures can look nothing short of stunning on a smartphone or even a tablet screen but to date I've never seen one which stands comparison to a picture taken with one on my cameras when viewed on my pc.

For me this is no real surprise as the camera part of the smartphone and its software must be geared towards making the pictures look good on the smartphone screen. When incoming smartphone pictures are transferred to and viewed on my pc their shortcomings are usually very apparent to me.
Click to expand...
For a lot of people they only look at photos on their phone.
 
Simplythebeast said:
They already have when you look at sales of compacts.
Click to expand...
Yes, maybe I should have clarified, because we all accept what has happened to the compact market, but then I'd no more have considered a compact camera for my photography, than I would a mobile phone.
 
Simplythebeast said:
They already have when you look at sales of compacts.
Click to expand...

Santafe2000 said:
Yes, maybe I should have clarified, because we all accept what has happened to the compact market, but then I'd no more have considered a compact camera for my photography, than I would a mobile phone.
Click to expand...

Of course there are always exceptions. high end compact market (Ricoh GR series) is still very much there but I agree the consumer end, cheap compact market is all but dead. Unless you have any old, low MP compacts...weirdly that market is thriving (I have seen it). The shop I used to work in couldn't get enough of them.


With regard to the original post, of course I understand the point of it but on a personal level, the more tech advances on the mirrorless market the more it pushes me away from it. Looking at an EVF just doesn't do it for me. I admire the technological advances and i see where it fits in but I just can't embrace most of it. The results I get from my film cameras and couple of digital options are still more than good enough for me.
 
I thought that about EVFs for years, and then I tried one and it is unnoticeable at first, then when you go back to a DSLR you wonder why you can't see your exposure.
 
Santafe2000 said:
Yes, maybe I should have clarified, because we all accept what has happened to the compact market, but then I'd no more have considered a compact camera for my photography, than I would a mobile phone.
Click to expand...
Your choice, of course.

Many others have found the compact camera to be a very useful tool for their photography. Two compact designs that I've used a lot are the extremely small iXus 70 and the very flexible Nikon S10. Both are long discontinued but I'm still using mine in those cases where I find one or the other the best available tool for the job.

Canon Eos 1Ds II with 28-135mm lens and Ixus Digital TZ7 1020222.jpg
Nikon S10 twist body camera Panasonic TZ40 1020188.JPG
 
There’s a certain amount of snobbery against compact cameras. Many of them sport the same controls as so-called “proper” cameras and are easily capable of A4 prints at least.
 
Downhill Specialist said:
Just remembered the excellent Canon G series after your post. Really good compacts.
Click to expand...
I‘ve had a G12 for over 10-years and it is a very capable camera. Unfortunately the front element picked up a scratch some years ago which shows on images taken against the light. Still use it occasionally.

Seems this a common problem (I think due to the automatic lens cover being too close to the lens). Too expensive to get it repaired.

I also picked up an EOS-M some years ago and that produces some great images. It is however, slow to focus and I need my reading glasses on to use the rear screen display.
 
Rick Waldroup said:
Also, photographic vision does not start with a camera. It starts with the mind and the eye.
Click to expand...

Well yes but in the real world where hyperbole and poetic licence and rose tinted remembrances only get us so far we need a camera to capture the image we see in our minds eye and there are things that get in the way and things that help. For example in years gone by if the camera took too long to set up and take the picture we may have had a problem capturing the image we wanted and even in these more modern days when we can shoot hand held with kit that fits in a small bag if there's not enough dynamic range we might not have the time or the ability to mitigate the problem or shoot multiple images to blend.

In just about every area of interest we look and maybe in every area as the kit marches on we can do more with it than we could with the old kit and do it more easily. Sadly, the kit does matter unless of course we're not pushing the envelope at all.
 
Rick Waldroup said:
I must have struck a nerve. You have my apology.
Click to expand...

Not at all. It's just that your post seemed so off track with other peoples needs that I thought an opposing view would be sort of nice.

I'm just a happy snapper in the north of England but even I find that my happy snapping often pushes DR to its limits (low sun, shadows etc) and I do see a clear difference between my Panasonic MFT cameras and my 10 year old Sony A7. That extra stop or two can really make a difference between blowing the highlights and having to recover shadows that are in reality beyond it. Then there's the other moves forward such as focus ability (full frame focus coverage with eye or even just face detect are a revolution,) frame rate and now the opportunities that the global shutter offers some people. If they need these things these and others can be real... Game Changers :D

With all these new opportunities as the tech marches on I think that statements like your closing one, whilst I agree with the sentiment, are just so out of date that a counter view is required.

Soz to provide such a stark alternative view :D
 
Surely, in Adams's case, it was as much the printer as the photographer who made the photograph? I know he did his own printing but I still think it's a different skill set to taking the shots.
 
snerkler said:
Whilst true, the camera and lens help the photographer acheive their vision and so shouldn't be completely discounted.
Click to expand...
.... Certainly, but Ansel Adams' quote doesn't discount the camera (obviously the lens is included) - The camera is just a tool to help a user achieve or capture their vision.

To put it less politely, some 'photographers' have all the gear but no idea.
 
Nod said:
Surely, in Adams's case, it was as much the printer as the photographer who made the photograph? I know he did his own printing but I still think it's a different skill set to taking the shots.
Click to expand...
.... I think this is splitting hairs and missing the point that it's the photographer as the author who makes the final result, printed or however presented, something worthy of praise.
 
Ed Sutton said:
The camera and lens can also dictate the sort of pictures that can be taken.
Click to expand...
.... Of course. And it's the photographer who makes that choice of tool. But someone can have all the gear but no idea.

It's not a question of some "sorts of pictures" being better than others.
 
RedRobin said:
.... I think this is splitting hairs and missing the point that it's the photographer as the author who makes the final result, printed or however presented, something worthy of praise.
Click to expand...

But his "straight" printed prints are (sometimes) hugely different from the dodged and burned final results.
 
RedRobin said:
.... I think this is splitting hairs and missing the point that it's the photographer as the author who makes the final result, printed or however presented, something worthy of praise.
Click to expand...
I haven't missed the point, but often when quotes like this are made it suggests that the camera equipment has no impact on the image and if this was the case we'd all be shooting with an iphone. I think it's important to rememeber that the equipment can also be important (y)
 
The steady rise in sales figures of ILC (Interchangeable Lens Camera) cameras often serves as a testament to the continuing popularity of photography as a past-time and as a career. However, beneath these promising sales statistics lies a critical question: What proportion of these ILC camera purchases are primarily geared towards users whose ILC camera will be primarily used for videography?

The soaring popularity of social media platforms, coupled with the burgeoning trend of "Content Creator" emerging as a coveted career path among younger demographics, stands as the chief catalyst propelling the sales of ILC cameras. It's worth noting that without the widespread influence of platforms like YouTube and various social media channels, the market for traditional "proper cameras" would undoubtedly be witnessing a precipitous decline.

Fortunately, the surge in demand for ILC cameras among social media content creators is bolstering the industry, as content creators harness the capabilities of such cameras to produce high-quality video content for their audience's enjoyment.
 
Last edited:
Nod said:
But his "straight" printed prints are (sometimes) hugely different from the dodged and burned final results.
Click to expand...
But importantly for the distinction here; his finished work is a considered image created from his inner vision created by the application of light to a light sensitive material.
 
Yup, as both photographer and printer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top