Author Topic: News story says smartphone cameras may rival DSLRs (Read 10294 times)

elvinstar · « **on:** March 01, 2014, 10:36 »

I ran across the article linked below and wondered what you guys thought of it...

http://www.nwherald.com/2014/02/28/smartphone-cameras-step-closer-to-high-end-power/aaciplt/

Mantis · « **Reply #1 on:** March 01, 2014, 11:08 »

We cannot stop technology. I was just telling my wife that all this fancy, expensive gear will be replaced by something small that does more than all my lenses, camera bodies, etc. You will soon see sensors in smartphones that rival DSLR's, you will see more and more apps that let you link your camera to your studio lights, you will see smart phones with WA/macro zoom functionality that covers the breadth of any lens collection ......all of this to a point that even their video capture will be equal to or better than DLSR's. This IS happening. I am seeing manufacturers of high end underwater housings toy with housings for smart phones. Just use the phone's flash inside of the housing to trigger external strobes through fiber optics (which is how it works today). I personally think this will permanently change the world of photography like like digital did to film.

Let the flaming begin.

ComfortEagle2095 · « **Reply #2 on:** March 01, 2014, 11:15 »

You can only do so much with software and sensors.

The limiting factor is the lens and lenses are bulky because you can't cheat physics. Unless someone can come up with new unknown materials that can make lenses with the characteristics of our large bulky DSLR lenses but small enough for a smart phone form factor, smart phones will not be able to outperform DSLRs.

Mirrorless cameras are a different story.

Mantis · « **Reply #3 on:** March 01, 2014, 11:20 »

Quote from: ComfortEagle2095 on March 01, 2014, 11:15

You can only do so much with software and sensors.

The limiting factor is the lens and lenses are bulky because you can't cheat physics. Unless someone can come up with new unknown materials that can make lenses with the characteristics of our large bulky DSLR lenses but small enough for a smart phone form factor, smart phones will not be able to outperform DSLRs.

Mirrorless cameras are a different story.

This is along the point I was making. The "trend" with technology is moving more to what I was saying above. Will it happen next year? No. In 10 years? Maybe. But you are totally spot on about physics being a key factor.

pancaketom · « **Reply #4 on:** March 01, 2014, 11:50 »

Other than the physics, there are ways around the 2 biggest downsides I see to non camera cameras - the shutter lag and the low light performance. I presume that better electronics will fix the latter, and software could fix the former - like show a slow motion video and you pick the moment to save the photo from.

Also people aren't going to want to pay big $ for a pro photographer if they show up with a phone.

Uncle Pete · « **Reply #5 on:** March 01, 2014, 11:57 »

You can't cheat Mother Nature or Physics. Some little 8MM diameter lens on a sensor the size of a pinky finger nail with who cares how many tiny pixels crammed into it? See above.

I don't think DSLRs are threatened for professional work, at least not in the near term. These news stories are designed to get clicks, hits and stir controversy. (or free marketing attention from a Press Release)

What it could have said is this: "Pocket cameras are rapidly becoming a thing of the past, because of cameras in phones."

I will say there's a great upside for the people here and I think for someone like myself.

As more and more others, trend away from larger format, DSLRs and pocket cameras and into tiny pocket phones that also take photos, we'll have less competition when it comes to high quality, larger resolution, fine photos.

Hey, good news. Less people who have the Letter [P] and a new EOS and are suddenly imagining themselves as Professional Photographers. Less people who discover Microstock and how to make money from taking snapshots.

I encourage everyone to dump their bulky, outdated, DSLRs and get one of these great little camera phones. Please, do it as soon as possible. (See Ya!)

Mantis · « **Reply #6 on:** March 01, 2014, 12:13 »

Quote from: Uncle Pete on March 01, 2014, 11:57

You can't cheat Mother Nature or Physics. Some little 8MM diameter lens on a sensor the size of a pinky finger nail with who cares how many tiny pixels crammed into it? See above.

I don't think DSLRs are threatened for professional work, at least not in the near term. These news stories are designed to get clicks, hits and stir controversy. (or free marketing attention from a Press Release)

What it could have said is this: "Pocket cameras are rapidly becoming a thing of the past, because of cameras in phones."

I will say there's a great upside for the people here and I think for someone like myself.

As more and more others, trend away from larger format, DSLRs and pocket cameras and into tiny pocket phones that also take photos, we'll have less competition when it comes to high quality, larger resolution, fine photos.

Hey, good news. Less people who have the Letter [P] and a new EOS and are suddenly imagining themselves as Professional Photographers. Less people who discover Microstock and how to make money from taking snapshots.

I encourage everyone to dump their bulky, outdated, DSLRs and get one of these great little camera phones. Please, do it as soon as possible. (See Ya!)

Well, this begs an extended conversation. Do buyers care about what an image is shot with and do they even know better? As stock sites are starting to accept more and more smartphone images, I'd think that competition will become so fierce that it wont be worth uploading anymore. If you make $1,000 a month now, think of a key MS collection like at SS if 75% of their images were from a smart phone, then rest from DSLR shooters. Buyers generally aren't going to sift through the images by what shot it unless there's a filter. Even then, if they can find what they want they might look at all images. Smart phones are mobile, always with you and "opportunistic" tools, while DSLR's are not. While I'm not intending to steal the thread this discussion grows in several directions. This is to say that even if smart phones do not/cannot completely replace DSLR's they are a major threat to us unless we get on board and start shooting/uploading content as time and technology evolves.

cuppacoffee · « **Reply #7 on:** March 01, 2014, 12:40 »

Strip the exif data and no one knows what camera or phone was used. The bottom line is the photo, not the camera.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #8 on:** March 01, 2014, 12:56 »

Quote from: cuppacoffee on March 01, 2014, 12:40

Strip the exif data and no one knows what camera or phone was used. The bottom line is the photo, not the camera.

But if the picture doesn't exist because a phone is physically incapable of taking it then nobody will be able to see it.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #9 on:** March 01, 2014, 13:25 »

Having at one point thought I could use a smaller point and shoot Canon (with RAW files as well as JPEG) to avoid lugging my DSLR everywhere I got a real world lesson on the physics of lenses and the difference it makes.

I have an iPhone 5 and it has a very nice point and shoot camera. I can't see why anyone would buy a point and shoot camera - other than an underwater one, which I also own - given the performance and convenience of smartphones.

You don't need a DSLR for lots of casual uses, but there just is no comparison between what my iPhone 5 delivers versus my Canon 5D Mk II and it's largely about the lens, secondarily about lighting and the sensor

topol · « **Reply #10 on:** March 01, 2014, 13:39 »

They do - if you have no standards for aesthetics... as culture gets eroded away, nowadays most people don't have any. That's the social erosion changing photography (and art in general), not technology as many mistakenly think. Having the technology in the field of photography to spew out crap that most can't tell apart from classy is just a coincidence, that might seem to speed things up due to it's overwhelming volume effect, but the same thing is happening in painting f.e. where there is basically zero tech playing zero effect. It's not the volume, it's not the technology, it's the total lack of taste in people's minds that used to be there.

Hobostocker · « **Reply #11 on:** March 01, 2014, 15:38 »

look at the latest Sony NEX, they're already able to produce saleable images especially if downsized to 12MP.

however, there's no way to squeeze the lens even more unless they squeeze the sensor too, in that case you could get a decent 8 or 12 MP with simil-DSLR quality, but we're still far far away from being able to fit it all inside a smartphone !

another option would be going the Rangefinder way, this allows the lens to be "pancake" but it's still 1-2cm long, so once again totally out of question for use on smartphones etc

it makes me laugh that all these marketing drones keep ranting about cell phones being just a step away from DSLR quality, they'll keep waiting a loooong time !

and this about shooting in daytime, forget about being able to shoot with fast apertures or in low lights with a smartphone, i mean just stop dreaming, i'm so sick of cell phones promising to make anything including coffe, what the he-ll ??

such a sign of desperation, they know the game is over, they know the actual 5-600$ phones will be on sale for a 100$ in a couple years and no dramatic improvemente in both hardware and software can be seen at the horizon, anything has been done already on phones, it's a crippled platform by design, very limited in its small perimeter due to weight, size, and touch screen.

nobody is innovating anymore because there's just no space left for innovation, they reached the peak already, as a product it's fully mature and complete now, new models will be just small cosmetic upgrades.

topol · « **Reply #12 on:** March 01, 2014, 16:44 »

Quote from: cuppacoffee on March 01, 2014, 12:40

Strip the exif data and no one knows what camera or phone was used. The bottom line is the photo, not the camera.

Ever heard of bokeh?

ShadySue · « **Reply #13 on:** March 01, 2014, 16:46 »

Wake me up when their 500mm ability compares to a dSLR with 400mm+ lens.
It would be lovely if it happened before I can't carry heavy gear any more, but I'm not necessarily holding my breath.

Ron · « **Reply #14 on:** March 01, 2014, 17:06 »

I have a Samsung S4 mini ( I know, I know), but I cant for the life of me get one single image that comes close the minimum quality for any stock site. Its just utter crap, even in the best conditions.

roede-orm · « **Reply #15 on:** March 01, 2014, 17:09 »

Maybe I can make calls with my next Nikon DSLR? Why should I use a Smartphone than?

elvinstar · « **Reply #16 on:** March 01, 2014, 18:25 »

I want to thank most of you

for not making me feel like an elitist for thinking that the article doesn't tell the whole story.

One thing that I do worry about was touched upon by topol: It seems like people don't know great from garbage any more. Look at what is posted on Facebook that people are so proud of. Don't even get me started on instagram...

Thanks again to everyone that responded. You've all made me fell just a bit better about myself.

cuppacoffee · « **Reply #17 on:** March 01, 2014, 19:01 »

Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know all about bokeh and lens quality and physics and shutter lag and blah, blah. And yes, currently dslrs and cell phones are two different animals, obviously. I guess what I was trying to say is that it doesn’t matter how great a photo is technically speaking or if it was shot in a studio or the best models in the world posed and you can see every hair on their head. If the buyer wants something less it’s moot. Trends come and go so why not exploit a trend if there is money to be made. Take your special photos and apply a filter, strip the metadata and call it a phone pic if it will make you money.

Mantis · « **Reply #18 on:** March 01, 2014, 20:07 »

Quote from: cuppacoffee on March 01, 2014, 19:01

Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know all about bokeh and lens quality and physics and shutter lag and blah, blah. And yes, currently dslrs and cell phones are two different animals, obviously. I guess what I was trying to say is that it doesn’t matter how great a photo is technically speaking or if it was shot in a studio or the best models in the world posed and you can see every hair on their head. If the buyer wants something less it’s moot. Trends come and go so why not exploit a trend if there is money to be made. Take your special photos and apply a filter, strip the metadata and call it a phone pic if it will make you money.

That's what I was saying in an earlier post. More saturation of smart phone images means simply a bigger pool of images that buyers will pick from. They aren't looking at what the image was shot with, etc. They just want what they want, generally regardless of what created it.

Beppe Grillo · « **Reply #19 on:** March 02, 2014, 02:53 »

Are we sure that the tomorrow cameras will need lenses?

http://phys.org/news/2013-06-bell-labs-camera-lens.html
http://techland.time.com/2013/06/03/finally-a-camera-without-a-lens-and-a-sensor-the-size-of-a-pixel/
http://www.engadget.com/2013/01/19/metamaterial-imaging-sensor/

onetoremember · « **Reply #20 on:** March 02, 2014, 02:59 »

Great improvements in sensors and software but I think the phone cameras will always be let done by the lens. If the lens was bigger then they would look like a DSLR - so it's difficult (as the post says) to see DSLRs being replaced by phone cameras like the ones mentioned.

But, beauty is in the eye of the beholder and it of course depends what the 'buyer' wants in an image.

I guess the same arguments were used when photography first started and it was suggested that paintings were better - they both live on....

JPSDK · « **Reply #21 on:** March 02, 2014, 04:30 »

I have just gotten a LG smartphone and it has advantages over the DSLR:
I carry it around, it does not weigh 2 kgs.
the images are super fine, that is, up to 1024 pix and if they are taken in good diffused light.

Compared to a camera its of course not as good:
The dynamic range of the sensor is far below my camera.
Focus is fast enough, but there is a shutterlag.
the images are 4160 x 2340 but become very artefacted and strangely filtered over 1024, so a lot of the sensor is useless.

Perry · « **Reply #22 on:** March 02, 2014, 05:00 »

Yes, smartphone cameras will totally rival DSLRs, they just need bigger sensors, lenses that can be changed, a decent grip, controls that can be used without looking at them, a flash system, viewfinder that can be used in sunlight..
(don't see these things happening without the camera starting to look like a DSLR...

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #23 on:** March 02, 2014, 05:09 »

There are two (or maybe three or four) different questions here - one is about what some punter might feel looks great on his web-page, another is about what an artist feels he needs to express his vision. Then there is the question of technical limits. And, ultimately, the question of what you happen to have with you when you need to take a picture.

Red Dove · « **Reply #24 on:** March 02, 2014, 06:52 »

In terms of market share - very likely.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: News story says smartphone cameras may rival DSLRs (Read 10294 times)

elvinstar

Mantis

ComfortEagle2095

Mantis

pancaketom

Uncle Pete

Mantis

cuppacoffee

BaldricksTrousers

Jo Ann Snover

topol

Hobostocker

topol

ShadySue

Ron

roede-orm

elvinstar

cuppacoffee

Mantis

Beppe Grillo

onetoremember

JPSDK

Perry

BaldricksTrousers

Red Dove

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors