Mobile Phone Takeover?

Messages
556
Name
Kell
Edit My Images
Yes
#41
It takes far to long and we need send direct by phone network not wifi.
I'm not saying it's perfect, but once it's set up, you can use the phone to control the camera and the shots are immediately on the phone.

Once it's on the phone you send it in the same way as you would with one taken on the phone. Not sure how you think that takes longer than taking a shot with your phone?

If this is the sort of thing that's needed to combat the creep of mobiles into DSLR territory, I'm sure it won't be long before you can post directly to your favourite social site by using your phone as a hotspot.

Surely a lot of sports photographers use cameras and send photos quite quickly? How does that work.
There's quite an advanced set up that I remember reading about for major sporting events where shots are on Getty, processed and ready for use within minutes of being taken.

I'll see if I can find the article.
 
Last edited:
Messages
6,624
Name
Graham
Edit My Images
No
#43
Even if the DSLR can be set to automatically transfer photos to a phone via WiFi and hotspot, then if you've got your phone setup for syncing your album with your (or a specified) Google photos account then you don't even need to send them. Someone on the other end with access to the Google account will have near instant access to the photos.
 
Messages
9,801
Name
Alf
Edit My Images
Yes
#45
Oh s*** what am I going to do I do not own a DSLR :runaway:


There are other types of camera out there you know not just antiquated heavy lumps that weigh more than is necessary.
 
Messages
9,801
Name
Alf
Edit My Images
Yes
#46
Last edited:
Messages
11,043
Name
Toni
Edit My Images
No
#47
They will not be great at A3 though
TBH even at the resolution you've posted here, the image quality of that first mono pic sucks, even if the composition & timing of the image itself is good. 50 years ago it would have been fine, taken with a half-frame camera, but this isn't 50 years ago, however it does possibly suggest to us there's an image quality level that the public will tolerate if there are perceived benefits that go with it (like always having a camera with you, getting 72 shots from a roll of film, with a tiny camera etc).

The rest look good at this size.
 
Messages
6,680
Name
Emily
Edit My Images
No
#48
They say the best camera you have is the one you have with you, for most people that is their phones.

SLR and mirrorless interchangeable lens systems still have their place if its full on control you need/want.
 
Messages
303
Name
Chris
Edit My Images
No
#49
Well seeing as most DSLRs and hobby level compacts now have speakers and microphones to support video I wonder how long it’ll be before they fit a SIM socket so you can also use your camera as a phone!!
 
Messages
14,197
Edit My Images
No
#50
Well seeing as most DSLRs and hobby level compacts now have speakers and microphones to support video I wonder how long it’ll be before they fit a SIM socket so you can also use your camera as a phone!!
You’re falling behind the times, they won’t need to accept a SIM card, they could have an eSIM as some mobile devices already have.
 
Messages
1,087
Name
Lee
Edit My Images
Yes
#51
It's not only the quality that is produced. It's more importantly the quality that is accepted.

I see many photos online with the usual "great image" "stunning shot" etc Now granted, these images may not be coming from someone who is overly enthusiastic but in my eyes it goes to show what the 'general public' think & therefore accept - Halo'd HDR (yes, it's still about) awful over saturated colours, awful unreal colours, out of focus, objects sticking out of peoples head, etc etc If the general public accept those things as 'awesome' then they will be more than happy with a phone camera vs a compact camera.

It's also true of parties/eating out etc No-one wants to lug a big DSLR around with flash unit when people have phones that are perfectly fine for FB, Snapchat & Instagram stories..... Most of this stuff is viewed on a phone screen or a tablet screen & never printed. I use my phone occasionally & mine seems to take crap photos (bloody Sony rubbish... ;) ) but it's okay for quick sharing where look, quality & style aren't important.
 
Messages
851
Name
Doug
Edit My Images
Yes
#52
I get really frustrated when I see iPhone X/XS 'portrait' photos with poorly rendered 'bokeh' where the algorithm has gone wrong and cut part of the image out; yet people still comment on how amazing it is. Madness :)
 
Messages
4,763
Edit My Images
Yes
#53
TBH even at the resolution you've posted here, the image quality of that first mono pic sucks, even if the composition & timing of the image itself is good. 50 years ago it would have been fine, taken with a half-frame camera, but this isn't 50 years ago, however it does possibly suggest to us there's an image quality level that the public will tolerate if there are perceived benefits that go with it (like always having a camera with you, getting 72 shots from a roll of film, with a tiny camera etc).

The rest look good at this size.
I can't see what you think is wrong with the photo quality, as far as I can see it is a good shot, well seen, well exposed and very atmospheric.

And I think it would also make an excellent shot framed and on a wall.
 
Messages
2,894
Name
Simon Everett
Edit My Images
Yes
#54
It's not only the quality that is produced. It's more importantly the quality that is accepted.

I see many photos online with the usual "great image" "stunning shot" etc Now granted, these images may not be coming from someone who is overly enthusiastic but in my eyes it goes to show what the 'general public' think & therefore accept - Halo'd HDR (yes, it's still about) awful over saturated colours, awful unreal colours, out of focus, objects sticking out of peoples head, etc etc If the general public accept those things as 'awesome' then they will be more than happy with a phone camera vs a compact camera.

It's also true of parties/eating out etc No-one wants to lug a big DSLR around with flash unit when people have phones that are perfectly fine for FB, Snapchat & Instagram stories..... Most of this stuff is viewed on a phone screen or a tablet screen & never printed. I use my phone occasionally & mine seems to take crap photos (bloody Sony rubbish... ;) ) but it's okay for quick sharing where look, quality & style aren't important.

But isn't this simply because the modern generation cannot stand criticism, so they engage in a mutual back-slapping exercise to try and curry favour?

My mobile hasn't got a camera, the battery lasts me about 10 days. It does phone calls and texts. It does have a useful alarm on it though.
 
Messages
2,894
Name
Simon Everett
Edit My Images
Yes
#55
Oh s*** what am I going to do I do not own a DSLR :runaway:


There are other types of camera out there you know not just antiquated heavy lumps that weigh more than is necessary.
Are you a vegetarian or a vegan? Get some vitamins in you, then you'll be able to carry a DSLR with a few lenses in a bag and not even know it is there!
 
Messages
1,085
Name
David
Edit My Images
Yes
#56
I love playing around with my mobile phone camera it is not going to replace my Mirrorless camera but neither is a DSLR frankly.

I rather like this from 4 years ago with my mobile
I think they are really good, what I find from looking at my friends' photos on mobiles is that they seem to struggle more with poor light and movement than other digital cameras.
Also what looks good on a phone doesn't always look good on a PC - but if you only use a phone they all look better.
 
Messages
11,043
Name
Toni
Edit My Images
No
#57
I can't see what you think is wrong with the photo quality, as far as I can see it is a good shot, well seen, well exposed and very atmospheric.

And I think it would also make an excellent shot framed and on a wall.
This issue is not the image composition, subject or tone etc but the way it's visibly pixellated and crunchy, even at such a small and low-resolution. It's a potentially nice image spoiled by faecal equipment.

Are you a vegetarian or a vegan? Get some vitamins in you, then you'll be able to carry a DSLR with a few lenses in a bag and not even know it is there!
Alf is not a 'young' man: as with a number here, there comes a time when hefting a DSLR is probably possible but not enjoyable.
 
Messages
556
Name
Kell
Edit My Images
Yes
#58
Sometimes it's not even the weight that's the issue, but the physical size.

As I mentioned earlier, lugging a camera, plus a lens and a flash to a sit-down dinner is problematic as there's nowhere to put it without it being in the way. I did have (still have somewhere) a Panasonic Lumix for just such occasions, but to be honest, it's not much better than a modern camera phone. In fact I've never been happy with it, despite all the rave reviews.
 
Messages
9,801
Name
Alf
Edit My Images
Yes
#59
Messages
1,087
Name
Lee
Edit My Images
Yes
#60
But isn't this simply because the modern generation cannot stand criticism, so they engage in a mutual back-slapping exercise to try and curry favour?

My mobile hasn't got a camera, the battery lasts me about 10 days. It does phone calls and texts. It does have a useful alarm on it though.
Yeah. To some degree I expect. But people will say "What a beautiful photo of you" - It's blurry, out of focus, noisy, not level.... the list goes on. And people love it.
 
Messages
1,087
Name
Lee
Edit My Images
Yes
#61
Simon
A flappy mirror is not necessary to take pictures and I simply do not need one in my life.

Maybe I should take this

Camera and light meter 3
by Alf Branch, on Flickr

or maybe this

Konstruktor 1
by Alf Branch, on Flickr
We have a lot of local street art here in south Bristol - Google "Upfest" - & one is a portrait of Stephen Hawkin. We call my son 'Stephen Hawkin' sometimes when he has his very particular, scientific head on :) We went out to grab a quick shot of him in front of it - A7 & CV40/1.2E the perfect carryround in my opinion. I wasn't sure the view we'd get of it so I grabbed the CV21mm too..... & put it in my pocket ;)
 
Messages
19,346
Name
Alan
Edit My Images
No
#62
Are you a vegetarian or a vegan? Get some vitamins in you, then you'll be able to carry a DSLR with a few lenses in a bag and not even know it is there!
I know you're old enough to remember the days when cameras weren't the big fat bloated lumps some DSLR and lens combinations are today.

When did people start to accept that having a big fat camera and lens is the norm? It wasn't always so and thank God these big fat kit days are now coming to an end.
 
Messages
9,801
Name
Alf
Edit My Images
Yes
#63
I know you're old enough to remember the days when cameras weren't the big fat bloated lumps some DSLR and lens combinations are today.

When did people start to accept that having a big fat camera and lens is the norm? It wasn't always so and thank God these big fat kit days are now coming to an end.
I do have a camera with a flappy mirror camera but its a decent size

E-M5II compared to OM2sp 2
by Alf Branch, on Flickr
 
Messages
2,894
Name
Simon Everett
Edit My Images
Yes
#64
Yeah. To some degree I expect. But people will say "What a beautiful photo of you" - It's blurry, out of focus, noisy, not level.... the list goes on. And people love it.


No, in truth they don't love it, they simply don't have the character to say what they really mean, so they go all fluffy so as not to hurt the other person's feelings. Remember, we are not allowed to offend or hurt anyone's feelings nowadays.
 
Messages
2,894
Name
Simon Everett
Edit My Images
Yes
#65
I do have a camera with a flappy mirror camera but its a decent size

E-M5II compared to OM2sp 2
by Alf Branch, on Flickr
The first camera I bought myself was an OM1 - then I switched to Nikon when some *mod edited* broke into my cabon and stole the Olympus kit. That was an FM2, which was joined a little later with the FE2, which was upgraded to the quite brilliant FA with an MD15 and later on a 250 frame back on an F3 with MD4. They were good days.

The bulk really started to appear with the F4 and F4s, with the built in motordrive rather than have it as a screw on accessory. It became expected after that.
 
Messages
261
Name
David
Edit My Images
No
#66
You can absolutely send a photo from a DSLR just as quick as directly from a mobile - you do need to have an internet connection of some sort (a phone will do) but it gets done by some pro photographers every day - guy I shot the Dunhill Cup golf with was sending from the back of his camera out on the golf course
and there's always people at the football sending from the touchline without ever getting out their laptop

You just need one of these wifi transmitter
 
Messages
14,197
Edit My Images
No
#67
I get really frustrated when I see iPhone X/XS 'portrait' photos with poorly rendered 'bokeh' where the algorithm has gone wrong and cut part of the image out; yet people still comment on how amazing it is. Madness :)
So do you approve of any mobile phone portrait-mode shots, or is it just an anti-iPhone moan?
 
Messages
1,191
Edit My Images
Yes
#68
You can absolutely send a photo from a DSLR just as quick as directly from a mobile - you do need to have an internet connection of some sort (a phone will do) but it gets done by some pro photographers every day - guy I shot the Dunhill Cup golf with was sending from the back of his camera out on the golf course
and there's always people at the football sending from the touchline without ever getting out their laptop

You just need one of these wifi transmitter
Those send to a laptop not wifi. DSLR's cannot send photos as fast as phone camera at all. At football ect the photos are being sent to the press room a few hundred yards away on a computer/ laptop. It is possible to link a phone but it take an age to send from the camera to the phone. Nowhere near as fast as a phone.
 
Messages
261
Name
David
Edit My Images
No
#69
You don't have a clue about this sort of stuff do you? - the camera is connected to an internet source (dongle, phone or stadium wifi) and is set up to ftp pics to a server (usually not in the stadium) which is accessed by the picture desk - takes seconds nowadays and loads of photographers do it - about as fast as emailing a phone pic and it's a real high res pic from a professional camera
 
Messages
14,770
Edit My Images
No
#70
Don't even need a dongle, a lot of cameras create a WiFi network with the phone directly and transfer the files very quickly, from there you can just 4g them wherever.
 
Messages
6,272
Name
Graham
Edit My Images
No
#72
No, in truth they don't love it, they simply don't have the character to say what they really mean, so they go all fluffy so as not to hurt the other person's feelings. Remember, we are not allowed to offend or hurt anyone's feelings nowadays.
Think you might be looking at this far too cynically. I just think the huge majority of people aren't as anal as photographers and don't care so much about white balance being off, a little image noise, a messy background etc. They can see through all that stuff and just like a picture for what it is rather than dwelling on the negatives. It's not a generational thing, I have friends and relatives spanning the entire age range that love 'crap' pictures and will be very happy to frame a technically appalling photo from a phone, a 35mm disposable or any other device you care to mention. They don't care.
 
Messages
851
Name
Doug
Edit My Images
Yes
#73
So do you approve of any mobile phone portrait-mode shots, or is it just an anti-iPhone moan?
If the shot is nice, I approve of it. When the algorithmicly generated bokeh cuts off parts of the image and people still comment on how amazing the shot it is it irks me. Not enough to do anything about it, but enough to comment on a forum about it :p
 
Messages
2
Name
Paul
Edit My Images
Yes
#74
It takes far to long and we need send direct by phone network not wifi.
Takes maybe a second or 2 more to send from a DSLR than a mobile phone.
Even the base cannon 1300d will transfer a picture to your phone in a second with nfc or wifi, you then just send the picture from your phone as you would normally.
 
Messages
556
Name
Kell
Edit My Images
Yes
#75
I’ve just discovered that you can use your iPhone to take DNG shots.

If you have the lightroom app, use the camera there rather than the camera app and then you have full control over the resulting shots.
 
Messages
556
Name
Kell
Edit My Images
Yes
#76
If the shot is nice, I approve of it. When the algorithmicly generated bokeh cuts off parts of the image and people still comment on how amazing the shot it is it irks me. Not enough to do anything about it, but enough to comment on a forum about it :p
With most people it’s the hair/background that causes the issues.

It’s essentially cutting people out and applying blue to a layer rather than using optics. The algorithms are improving, but are nowhere near as effective as genuine DOF.

I’m not so problematic as I shave my head completely so it’s much easier to find a clean ‘edge’.
 
Messages
830
Edit My Images
No
#77
Unless you require specific equipment for either print, publication etc it there really a need for a DSLR or Mirrorless these days especially when these mobile phones are capable of producing better shots in some cases (Huawei Mate 20 Pro at Nighttime) than some larger sensor cameras?

Interesting and surely difficult times coming for us part time casual photographers?
Mobile phones with built-in cameras are really more suited for people who wants to have a compact cameras in their pockets just for snapshots. They are people who have no interest in photography, do not read photography magazines or books, do not study photography, do not care what is the different between a f-stop and a bus stop. They wanted a compact camera to take a snapshot as memories. School friends hanging around after school taking selfies, girlfriends at a friend's 18th birthday party, someone who wanted a photograph of that famous person as proof, to show others at work and say "Look! I told you I really met Lewis Hamilton!"

Mobile phones with built-in cameras are really more like a future replacement for both landline telephones and pocket compact cameras put together in one machine.

I would say that photographers (whether pros, semi-pros, or amateurs) would still want a proper camera that is for photography only. I can image a professional photographer feeling annoyed at being interrupted by the camera that keeps ringing or beeps every time there is an incoming call or text message. I can image an amateur photographer supposedly taking photographs ends up playing Minecraft on the camera. People who are not into photography and wanted a phone with built-in camera would not care if there is an incoming call or ends up playing gaming apps.

So I think there will still be a need for DSLR or Mirrorless cameras for photographers who want to get on with doing photography.
 
Messages
14,197
Edit My Images
No
#78
I’ve just discovered that you can use your iPhone to take DNG shots.

If you have the lightroom app, use the camera there rather than the camera app and then you have full control over the resulting shots.
You’ve been able to shoot raw files on an iPhone for years. Since iOS 10 I think.
 
Messages
556
Name
Kell
Edit My Images
Yes
#79
You’ve been able to shoot raw files on an iPhone for years. Since iOS 10 I think.
Finger on the pulse, me.

It was a recent article, so I assumed it was new thing.
 
Messages
2,701
Name
Richard
Edit My Images
Yes
#80
Finger on the pulse, me.

It was a recent article, so I assumed it was new thing.
Do iPhones have a full manual mode? I know on most midrange and flagship Android phones from the past few years you've been able to put the camera in manual mode (or Pro mode as some call it) and have full control over shutter speed, focus point, white balance, ISO etc, and shoot in raw for processing later. I always find it quite fiddly to use on a phone but it's occasionally handy to be able to have full control over the image. My Note 9 even defaults to shooting Raw+Jpeg in Pro mode
 
Top