Phones vs cameras
Jun 3, 2019 10:54:01 #
Many of my friends argue that cameras are becoming obsolete. I don't agree, but I would like to know what arguments are best to convince them that cameras do a better job than phones.
Jun 3, 2019 10:57:54 #
salewis wrote:
Many of my friends argue that cameras are becoming obsolete. I don't agree, but I would like to know what arguments are best to convince them that cameras do a better job than phones.
Cameras are going obsolete.
Jun 3, 2019 10:57:55 #
mwsilvers
Loc: Central New Jersey
salewis wrote:
Many of my friends argue that cameras are becoming obsolete. I don't agree, but I would like to know what arguments are best to convince them that cameras do a better job than phones.
To a great degree stand alone cameras are becoming obsolete. No arguments will likely convince them otherwise. Your friends have probably never heard about, wouldn't understand, and wouldn't care about most of the reasons why an image from a good camera and lens might be superior to a cell phone image. Just smile at them and move on.
Jun 3, 2019 11:04:59 #
salewis wrote:
Many of my friends argue that cameras are becoming obsolete. I don't agree, but I would like to know what arguments are best to convince them that cameras do a better job than phones.
Most casual snapshot shooters are better off with a phone. Today's phone cameras are way better than the film point and shoot cameras most people used to use. They won't get any advantage with a camera they won't want to learn to use effectively. Photographers who aspire to more than shapshots and want more control will still use cameras.
Jun 3, 2019 11:06:25 #
salewis wrote:
Many of my friends argue that cameras are becoming obsolete. I don't agree, but I would like to know what arguments are best to convince them that cameras do a better job than phones.
Don't argue! Just agree with your friend. Ask your friend if the camera prices will go up or down when they become obsolete.
Jun 3, 2019 11:10:24 #
wdross
Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado
salewis wrote:
Many of my friends argue that cameras are becoming obsolete. I don't agree, but I would like to know what arguments are best to convince them that cameras do a better job than phones.
Can they take a handheld 2 second picture under low light conditions? Can they guarantee the "decisive moment" at a sporting event using 18fps or 60fps at full 20mp RAW? They are not "obsolete" but serve a totally different function than social media.
Jun 3, 2019 11:10:25 #
In the realm of image capture there are categories where cameras are superior and other categories where smartphone cameras suffice. Suffice does not equal superior.
Jun 3, 2019 11:25:28 #
There are now photo editing apps available for iPhones that rival full-function computer editing software (Snapseed, for example). Smartphone cameras are getting much better than they used to be and are much more ubiquitous than DSLRs. Having said that, I think that each has its place and purpose, and neither one will ever completely replace the other.
Jun 3, 2019 11:28:23 #
That is becoming an increasingly difficult argument to make. A dedicated camera can however do things under marginal conditions where a phone camera would not be up to the task. Do you know of any phones that shoot RAW, Can a phone take a 30 second exposure of the milky way? a photograph of a bee's compound eye?
I's just my opinion but I feel that as long as there are photo enthusiasts and serious hobby photographers out there, real "dedicated to the purpose" cameras will have a market. For a selfie snapshooter record shot type photographer, a less capable tool (Phone camera) will suffice. Note that I'm not saying that a phone camera cannot be used to take great photos, if the subject conditions fall within their capabilities, just that the folks who gravitate to the phone cameras are USUALLY less discerning and less capable of good photographic art and may be more satisfied with visual mediocrity in their photos.
OK let the flaming begin.
I's just my opinion but I feel that as long as there are photo enthusiasts and serious hobby photographers out there, real "dedicated to the purpose" cameras will have a market. For a selfie snapshooter record shot type photographer, a less capable tool (Phone camera) will suffice. Note that I'm not saying that a phone camera cannot be used to take great photos, if the subject conditions fall within their capabilities, just that the folks who gravitate to the phone cameras are USUALLY less discerning and less capable of good photographic art and may be more satisfied with visual mediocrity in their photos.
OK let the flaming begin.
Jun 3, 2019 11:35:04 #
Is this going to be like Nikon vs Canon, Raw vs JPEG, DSLR vs MILC, an endless stream of pointless arguing where 1% of such posts might be interesting or give an original spin to the conversation? So here less about how or why to take an image. Please, actually do photography. To me it is an art and the tools are secondary. Yes, the Gallery area is different. But the repeated questions in the Main Section. Can we ever move on?
Jun 3, 2019 11:37:47 #
mwsilvers
Loc: Central New Jersey
wdross wrote:
Can they take a handheld 2 second picture under low light conditions? Can they guarantee the "decisive moment" at a sporting event using 18fps or 60fps at full 20mp RAW? They are not "obsolete" but serve a totally different function than social media.
These are concepts the average cell phone picture taker doesn't understand or care about.
Jun 3, 2019 11:49:41 #
photogeneralist wrote:
That is becoming an increasingly difficult argumen... (show quote)
Surprisingly my Samsung Note8, Note5 and Note9 also, does take RAW images. It can be set to RAW+JPG. But I think the Raw are only 10-bit and the jpg of course 8-bit. My Cameras can supply 14-bit Raw. I sometimes get a pretty nice Cell capture, as I learn its limitations my cell shots have improved. But in no way can SmartPhone files rival for PRINTING the images I get from my DSLRs.
And are no way like the 4x5" negatives I get from my mirrorless view camera.
Jun 3, 2019 12:02:01 #
Time to move on... Why this same question all the time ? YES, Dedicated cameras are only going to be relevant to folks like us in the " BUBBLE ". Phone cams will get to the point where they will be desirable to 99 % of the population and we will be in the other 1 %. A person wanting to send his or her selfie around the world could not care less about hand held shots in low light... OUR STUFF DOESN'T GIVE THE NEW GENERATION WHAT THEY WANT ! Pure and simple; way too complicated for this enlightened generation and NOT the connectivity they want. Nay say all you want but we are no diff. than the talking heads in DC who are in the their OWN bubble, far removed from 6 pack Joe out in the REAL world.
Jun 3, 2019 12:02:48 #
Forget the consumer and prosumer market. The vast majority of working professionals, individuals who make their living from photography, use DSLR and to a lesser extent, mirrorless cameras with detachable lenses.
The "death of anything" is usually greatly exaggerated. I was with somebody the other day using a 8x10 view camera.
The "death of anything" is usually greatly exaggerated. I was with somebody the other day using a 8x10 view camera.
Jun 3, 2019 12:07:45 #
Tomcat5133
Loc: Gladwyne PA
The ergonomics are a problem. I have the software to adjust the cell phone. It's quite good somewhat like a camera. but try zooming or changer aperture while holding the phone. Try not to drop it.
I have a client who is now cell shooting her dance studio for her website. The shots are dark.
Sometimes it looks ok. But not great. It is the cell phone format and ergonomics that make it
hard to use effectively.
I have a client who is now cell shooting her dance studio for her website. The shots are dark.
Sometimes it looks ok. But not great. It is the cell phone format and ergonomics that make it
hard to use effectively.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.