Another note about phones and cameras.
Old school, well, at least the head does not need to be fixed in a special vice, so as not to twitch, as it was 20 years ago
For 2018, I was asked several times to make photo books from photos taken on mobile phones / tablets. There were several cases when I made photobooks from photographs taken on vacation in parallel on inexpensive CZKs and unpretentious modern smartphones. I mixed photos in photo books. In the printed version of photobooks of the format 20 * 30 (several photos per page) to distinguish where the phone and where the camera was almost impossible.
UPDATE 1: in 2019, I could not at all distinguish some pictures on the phone from pictures on Nikon D3300 (24 MP, APS-C) and kit lens Nikon 18-55mm 1: 3.5-5.6GII VR II AF-S DX Nikkor... In a photobook of 30 * 30 format, full-page photos from the phone looked very, very good.
UPDATE 2: in 2020 I worked hard with the phone Redmire Xiaomi Note Pro 8 (main sensor Samsung ISOCELL Plus 64 MP). The detail and dynamic range in some of the shots amazed me a lot!
UPDATE 3: in 2020, I had an interesting conversation with the owner of a Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra smartphone (108 MP main sensor), which simultaneously shoots with excellent Canon EOS 7D MARK II (20 MP, APS-C, 2015) and pretty Canon Zoom Lens EF-S 17-55mm 1: 2.8 IS USM... The owner complained for a long time and showed examples of the same scenes, shot at the same time, in which it is clearly visible that the photographs from the phone were superior to those from the camera.
UPDATE 4: small came out note about smartphone apps.
UPDATE 5: see this record.
UPDATE 5: great entertaining video about the current situation here
UPDATE 6: Sales of cameras and lenses for 15 years.
UPDATE 7: End of an era. Long live the Strong AI that generates cats.
If before buying some budget Canon EOS 550D / Nikon D3100 and in addition a budget fifty dollar with F / 1.8, you could immediately 'elevate' your photographic work due to perspective and bokeh, now modern gadgets do the same tricks. Previously, the photographer could easily stand out from the crowd of ordinary 'onlookers' by photographic equipment alone... It was something like this - whoever has a longer lens is a more 'professional photographer'.
What now and what next? Now the abundance of high-quality cameras in portable devices forces photographers to promote their services with more interesting subjects, ideas, photographic techniques, more perverse artistic processing. In general, it stimulates professional growth of the photographer, its capabilities and ways of providing services.
I also observe in the market of some photo services a certain satiety. In general, this throws many photographers out of the market. Over the past few months I have received many letters and phone calls from my colleagues with a question where is the money lebowski what's going on with customers, Arkady? I also feel the pressure of the market. If in 2011 I shot about 70 weddings, then in 2018 these numbers have become much smaller. One can rejoice that at last the number of built factories for burning photographers has reached effective indicators, but one can also be a little saddened for those who with great enthusiasm wanted to get into the world of photography, but remained overboard.
Conventionally, it can be argued that many people have 'millions' of more or less bearable photos from phones / tablets, a sea of 'creative' photos with colorful filters in 'these our' instagram and they simply don't need anything else. They were 'satiated' with photographs.
Leave your thoughts in the comments.
Materials on the topic
- Full frame mirrorless systems... Discussion, choice, recommendations.
- Cropped mirrorless systems... Discussion, choice, recommendations.
- Cropped mirrorless systems that have stopped or are no longer developing
- Digital SLR systems that have stopped or are no longer developing
- JVI or EVI (an important article that answers the question 'DSLR or mirrorless')
- About mirrorless batteries
- Simple and clear medium format
- High-speed solutions from Chinese brands
- All fastest autofocus zoom lenses
- All fastest AF prime lenses
- Mirrored full frame on mirrorless medium format
- Autofocus Speed Boosters
- One lens to rule the world
- The impact of smartphones on the photography market
- What's next (smartphone supremacy)?
- All announcements and novelties of lenses and cameras
Comments on this post do not require registration. Anyone can leave a comment. Many different photographic equipment can be found on AliExpress.
Material prepared Arkady Shapoval. Training/Consultations | Youtube | Facebook | Instagram | Twitter | Telegram
Great topic for discussion, cool comments!
I will also try to share my thoughts.
1) Photography as a service for citizens (wealthy people are excluded from consideration) will only decline. This process will accelerate in the next couple of years, when advanced technologies from existing top-end smartphones (AI, multi-stacking, sensor size, etc.) get to the masses, and the next tops become even more perfect. The professions associated with this area can expect difficult times.
2) Photography as a tool (advertising, fashion, events, journalism, stocks) will be approximately at the current level. Possible growth due to online trading, where high-quality advertising is required. Perhaps increased competition due to defectors from p. 1.
3) Photography as a hobby will depend on the level of income of the population and its standard of living. If money is not enough - smartphones or antiquity on the used market. If all your free time is spent on everyday issues (Maslow's pyramid), then there is no time for photography.
4) Photography as art will remain where it was. The lot of the chosen, successful gifted and zealous, who spent 10000+ productive hours on improving themselves as a photographer.
5) The genres "wildlife", "sports" are unlikely to change much from the progress in smartphones in the next 5 years.
6) The market of used equipment will continue to be saturated. Almost now nobody needs compacts. SLR cameras will be replaced by smartphones and OPCs. New mounts help sell off old lenses.
Time for a change. In it, as always, someone will win, and someone will remain with nothing.
Section 5 in general does not, the smartphone does not fit there. You can not attach a telephoto lens to a smartphone.
About two years ago I passed the test “guess where the smartphone is where is the DSLR”, the result is 9/10, familiar not photographers - with a finger to the sky, but this is a landscape and a large object. It won't work like that with football players and birds.
"You can't attach a long lens to a smartphone." They also talked about the wide-angle lens, and now there are very wide lenses in smartphones. So they talked about bokeh, like, only on a DSLR it is possible to get blur, and now even smartphones for 10 thousand can do it. And zooms are already in smartphones, moreover, they already have a good approximation. It seems to me that about 5 years separate us from the analogue of some 70-300 or 150-600 in a smartphone.
Huawei P30 Pro has a fivefold optical zoom with an interesting design. I think this is the first swallow. I agree that in 5 years you can expect something like a dark 70-300, which, in close to ideal conditions, you can remove birds or sports.
If the conditions are not ideal, then they will shoot on FF and high-aperture optics in the same way as they do now. I think the genres "wildlife" and "sport" will be the longest and most staunchly resist the onslaught of smartphones.
yeah .. divine bokeh, only in public and with a kind of plasticine smeared
when viewed on a monitor screen or TV, there is no difference in bokeh.
pseudo "gurus" momentarily merge in a blind test, unable to determine where the bokeh of the smartphone is and where the lenses are.
Very easy to identify by hair!
If the hair is not slicked down and individual hairs stick out, then on the camera they are in focus and are visible, and the phones blur the hair along with the background, because for the program “the head is over and the background has started”, which needs to be blurred ...
To do this, you need to bring the picture closer) And bringing it closer and so it will be seen, I mean, without bringing it closer you will not distinguish
The point is the need for people to photograph what and where to show.
Of course mobility decided here. the manufacturers were impressed with the instagram and threw hundreds of money into the development of the mobile photo, now they are announcing the flagships and paying for them on the first day of sales.
at the same time, the bar in $ is approximately the same as that of the phones that the DSLR / mirrorless have interleaved.
Sony is now bursting forward with his a9 and dictating terms to the rest of the bzk. Canon has famously migrated to the BZK and releases Elks in bouquets (fans of the system still hold on). Nikon slows down as usual.
It seems to me that Fuji will come to success, because there is an epic “sort of medium-format” matrix with all the bikes and dd, the optics park is growing and the quality is simply magnificent, while cheaper than Hasselblad and other Rollsroys.
And cropless mirrors are also competitive.
I see no reason for the compactness of the BZK, toy dimensions can be relevant for girls.
I do not want to foment a holivar regarding manufacturers.
Only now I have a different opinion. In my opinion, it is Kenon that slows down, releasing weak (relative to competitors Nikon and Sony) BZK simultaneously with very expensive L-kami. Trying to maintain market share, they go all-in, releasing a compromise-filled RP for record low money for FF (at the start of sales).
IMHO, the UPC solution from Nikon (cameras and lenses) is not ideal (like sony), but more balanced than Kenon (at the moment).
Sony is now on a horse in the world of BZK (there are many cameras for taste and color, a huge selection of lenses), as Kenon once was in the world of DSLRs.
What will happen tomorrow - time will tell. I think each of the big trinity of monopolists will offer + - similar opportunities in the future, and these opportunities will be enough to cover any photographic need in excess.
left Fuji because of their matrices and the complete unreliability of the system as such.
They won’t break out anywhere, the company is small, and they can’t overpower large volumes.
Now phone?
It seems the post is not from April 1.
Lynx, this is coming out ... I'm surprised. What system did you migrate to and what technique let you down? And if it's not difficult, what didn't suit in the matrices? I have x100t and I am almost happy with everything - my friend has x100f and DD is wider there, but I look closely at x-t3, there is even wider DD. Fuji like the color and skin tone)
Pokemonchik, do you seriously claim that the lynx made a cuming out?
Cuming-out (from the English. Coming out - “disclosure”, “exit”) - the process of open and voluntary recognition by a person of his belonging to a sexual or gender minority, or the result of such a process.
Almost:)
Lynx had s5pro, had modern Fujik, and now it seems like EOS R.
Ill, you are not in the subject of the word at all. How I like candy wrappers fanboys :)
Do two simple tests, I hope your qualifications are enough.
1. Take Sonya, Kenon or Nikon. Take Fuj Bz. Take manual lens and adapter. Set the handles to ISO 200. Place the same expo pairs with the handles. Take a picture. Check out the exposure. Fuj has a darker shot. Find an exposure pair to get the same exposures. The bottom line is obvious - Fuj lies in ISO at 1.2-1.5 stops.
2. Open Rav Fujah by any developer who does NOT support the tag from the rabbit to enable noise reduction. Ah, popper noise! And why not, the matrix is standard from Sony, only the filter is different :).
It’s not clear to the foolish fanboys that Rav Fujah has a command / tag for the converter to ENABLE noise reduction, it is supported by Adobe and other developers, and it’s simply impossible to turn it off in the camera! :)
And from here we google the obvious problem - plastic skin tone, because the noise reduction still works)
Pokemonchik, I don’t have Nikon. Sonia a7mk3 quite suits me.
Comrade Soniboy, I have no noise at x100t, because I don’t raise ISO on crops above 800 due to the old habit. The noise reduction is “-2” and is turned off at long exposures.
Owners of the A7 have the same skin tone for everyone they shoot - carrot orange. Rather, it is the camera that has them, but the son-boys like this color and they do not want to see anything else. I like Fuji's skin tone and color better than with the existing two full-frame Nikons.
I have a friend who has q700 and q3x (I was not mistaken - D3X) and Fuji x100f. He takes pictures of his children and family and himself on Fuji. Skinton is always good in almost any light. On D3x people no longer take pictures after buying Fuji. I do not consider myself a fanboy, because in addition to Fuji, I also have Nikon and have a normal attitude towards owners of cameras of other brands. I don’t understand Fuji haters. Especially those who do not invent flaws, but simply filmed with these cameras.
History repeats itself as usual. 200 years ago, these were Indian weavers who could not resist the onslaught of cheap English fabrics. Now these are bombers who cannot withstand the onslaught of telephony.
You can finally relax and shoot true art.
Logino of course; keep calm and keep moving. However, on the other hand, we are all human and want to tryndet too.
It's like that. Many of my fellow amateurs have stopped using their entry-level DSLRs. I don’t know what to do about it. But at the same time, Arkady, once again, I am amazed at your calmness, adequacy, positivity and goodwill. Keeping these qualities in the madhouse that is going on around is really cool.
It seems to me that the times when it was possible to be a sought-after photographer simply by having the technique ended eight years ago. Those photographers who elevated themselves through bokeh, as it is written here, deservedly go to the dustbin of history, and this is good. Because nowadays a photographer is not a tripod with a good voice-activated camera. Many of the pros that I have subscribed to no longer masturbate on telephoto and bokeh. At first, I also shot at fifty dollars with a ripped-eyed bokeh, “professionally”, never closed the hole more than 1.8 (never closed it at all), and enjoyed life. And then I learned to work with composition with perspective, with light and models, and now I don't really want to shoot with something other than wide.
“But you can also be a little sad for those who, with great enthusiasm, wanted to get into the world of photography, but were left behind.”
The reality is that if the enthusiasm was to make money on filming babies, then yes, there are already an oversupply of such people, they are all aggressive and toxic, from the fact that they inject shit photo around the clock on their conveyor, but have a penny. And if the enthusiasm is to do photography normally, now there are simply many times more opportunities than 7-8 years ago. You can shoot well with anything, DSLRs cost a penny on the secondary, YouTube has a million channels of photography in different languages, you don't need to master Ps or Lightroom, because there are a lot of quality alternatives. To start mastering photography now is, on the contrary, the most wonderful time. And when they stop crawling into photography for the sake of making money, then the whole culture will begin to freshen up from the inside, and everything will be fine.
How to make a telephoto will be found very quickly. For example, the lenses will be spaced along the length, or if wide enough, and there will even be a megazoom. After reading the first comments, it immediately occurred to me. I don’t think that a group of engineers of any company will think of it.
"Length or width" in the mobile body. Blur, if correctly reported to me, users did at the expense of the second lens, although this is pretty wasteful for the manufacturer. See in a hurry in the struggle for the market.
Natural selection sir. Natural ...
Or maybe you need to improve the quality of the photo?
Otherwise, they will drive the rabid into some sort of "lightroom", which will completely kill the entire texture and give out disgusting colors.
Or in Photoshop, they will stamp the skin so that it’s disgusting to look. Smartphone: At and I can do that!
Boke, you say? Heh! The bokeh of samyang and sigma is cotton wool, is it easy to program the fog to bring it?
Yes, everything is fine, well, a slight decline, just a lot of young people have appeared. So I invited young guys - photographers-videographers to the wedding, so they famously earn money and there are orders and the quality of the pictures is acceptable. I wrote to Arkady, but then he could not. The guys for $ 500 worked all day in two cameras, although they took pictures for a long time. I watch pictures on a 65 ″ 4k TV, so keep the huavei for yourself)
For 4k 65 ″ - objectively not enough, only for 1080 this size is just right. Full disclosure 4k requires at least 80-100 ″ with a typical viewing distance of 3-3,5m.
Well, or to the 65 ″ -panel, sit at 1,5m, which I do not consider comfortable.
I speak as the owner of 65 ″ 4k.
To put the phones in place in the photo, you need:
- make pixels on DSLRs or bzk the same as on smarts, i.e. about 1 micron;
- to make interchangeable optics with a resolving power of 400-600 lines / mm., Also like on smarts;
- you need to print with a quality of 600-900 dpi, so that the picture looks like living.
If such conditions are created on large matrices, then the phones will never catch up with “real” cameras due to the physical quality limit. Imagine that there is 800-1000mp on the FF or 300-400mp on the crop (I am silent about the SF), but for some reason such cameras are not yet produced, but they can if they want. Mobile cameras prove this, it remains to "increase" them to the norm. sizes, that's all
That is, in your opinion, you need to completely kill the picture in cameras (1 micron)? Make a fifty dollar price with Hubble? Save one photo for 3-4 seconds, send half an hour? - complete crap.
Almost no one has been printing a photo for a hundred years, and there is nowhere to watch 1000 MP. And it’s not the resolution that makes the picture "alive".
And in order to compete with phones, you just need to make cameras a constant access to the Internet, in particular - to social networks, a touchscreen and a size that fits into an average static pocket. The quality of the picture is quite enough, as in good soap dishes with Kf = 5,6 five to seven years ago, if you focus on the current parameters of screens and IG - 3-4 MP is guaranteed to be enough.
To be able to call is desirable, but not at all necessary :)
I agree, if you do not print anything, 3-4mp for social networks is enough, or up to 8-10mp for 4K monitors.
But then why shove the phones at 40-50mp ???
And if you print pictures, the reserve of pixels will always come in handy, because the lens is not perfect and the Bayer matrix is used, so a resize is needed. And fifty dollars at the price of Hubble - smiled :)))
The answer is simple - pure marketing. This went to the current smartphones "inherited" from the deceased digital camera market.
Because to explain to the average buyer for focal length, aperture, dynamic range, photo latitude, signal-to-noise ratio, diffraction threshold, phase and contrast autofocus, spherical aberrations, etc. - difficult and practically useless. Instead, they assigned megapixels as the main parameter (which at one time, in 2000, were really not enough: about 1MP). Therefore, whoever has more megapixels - that camera is cooler, and the question is closed. And since constantly increasing megapixels without increasing the size of the photosensitive element is definitely sabotage, and only leads to a deterioration in the quality of the picture, now they have begun to flaunt the number of cameras.
The huge number of megapixels is required for printing large posters, advertisements, etc. You can't get away from this, and hence all the problems with noise due to the small area of the pixel (hence the low photosensitivity of the pixel, the need to increase the voltage, hence the noise). But there is one idea - programmatically, in the menu, to make it possible to combine neighboring pixels into one, then, for example, a 16 megapixel matrix turns into 4 megapixels - with a fourfold increase in the pixel area, therefore, photosensitivity without the need to raise the ISO.
There it is also not very necessary) No one looks at advertising posters at point blank range and print resolution is lower than the plinth
And the diffraction limit will be at f / 1.8 pts. funny. Increasing resolution on a fixed-size matrix is the way to go
It is theoretically possible to make a 1000MP FF matrix, but it will have to be cooled with liquid nitrogen. The problem with small pixel cells in soap dishes and smartphones is noise. With a lack of lighting, the EMF generated by the photodiode cell (depending on the area) with the signal amplifier is comparable to its thermal current.
It is necessary to fight not for the increase in megapixels, but for minimizing thermal noise. This professional devices are significantly different from amateur.
And megapixels are already more than enough, unless of course you are trying to pull out a photo measuring 3-5% of the source.
Be measured by megapixels let the manufacturers of smartphones and inexperienced buyers.
By the way, in my old Huawei Honor 3 = only 8 MP, but when I take off the text page, the detail allows me to see the texture of the paper. I have not yet seen a single Samsung or iPhone with such a quality photo.
And the 10MP in the Nikon D80 was fine too. I changed it on the D610 only because of the ability to shoot at high ISO without a significant degradation in quality.
The key is millions of more or less bearable photos .. 1. People don't know what to do with them. Of course, photo books will be in favor, I made clips. Many people can make photobooks. But I am for photography pro) Not only because I started this path recently. 2. Birthdays, weddings, anniversaries will not go anywhere - you still need professional photos with great quality. Of course, not classic photographers will be in demand, but with humor, their own vision of the frame, and imagination. 3. My niece, 9 years old and younger, loves both photos in the album - after all, we tell what is behind this photo, stories, and humorous clips from photos. About the trip together we make a scrub album. Many people love tactile sensations, so paper photos will be needed. 4. In the regions, very few have good smartphones with a decent camera. Very few people can shoot beautifully with a smartphone. Very often the colors in the smartphone do not match. My camera makes facial imperfections slightly smoothed out, people look more beautiful. It is more difficult to do this in the program - more obscurity, the person is less like himself. 5. We have a great demand for photo sessions - with a family, girls in different outfits, children's photography - different topics. Here the question is in the creative potential of the photographer and his mobility.
Strannl, for some reason they don’t write in comments that color, its accuracy and coverage has changed a lot in cameras.
It is easy to see that cameras like Kenon 5d and 5dmk2 were created under daylight, so dense color filters were used.
5dmk3, 6d - already optimized for high ISO, the filters are weakened to get more light, the lack of halftones is compensated by an increase in saturation.
5dmk4 - even greater attenuation of filters due to the dual of the pixel and, above all, the red channel. As a result, an excess of green and yellow, Nikon's brilliant green appeared.
While cameras lost color and midtones, smartphones improved them.
As a result, they came together somewhere close. But why buy a camera if you already have a smartphone?
The picture with 5D_Mk4 and EOS R looks much nicer than on the third nickle.
There is no Zelenka. This is not d800 / d800e. The colors are very nice, almost like 1Dh and 1Ds_mk3. Just rent and rent.
Yes, well, no, let's talk about skinton ...
Why reinvent the wheel?
There are standard tests for the color gamut of the matrix, for example from imatest.
Matrix brand 4 has a spread in color twice as large as mark 2. Just measure imatest in srgb.
In this case, more saturation.
What should be expected.
The canon rb has a problem of color noise due to the constantly on matrix, so that it is crushed to further weaken the red, got the problem of banding and even more green, it was noted even with the test preview. As a result, the spread in color in the test has tripled in comparison with mark 2, the saturation is even higher than in mark 4.
Kenon r almost failed in sales, including because of the color.
There are tests. And there are photographs of the owners of these cameras - 5DMk4 and EOS R.
On real photos of real people, everything is fine. Z6 / Z7 owners are smaller than d750 / d850. Yes, and the colors from these zetas like less than from the canon or d750 / d850.
In real photos, everything is very sad. See the videos that the Chinese puts on the yu-tube, see that Oleg from Kiev on the photo ru stopped uploading pictures from the erk, see that the owners of the brand 4 and especially the erk are nothing at all, one and a half pieces in the photo ru, look in the branch that the same horror is laid out by woodlands and how a mercilessly paid moderator bans everyone who asks a simple question - where is the color?
Mark 4 is better, but according to the test, he’s getting better than the Erka with its screwed color.
And pay attention to how quickly many owners of the erca after praising the cameras sold them on Avito)).
Nikon has a super camera d850. Zetas in color are the same junk as d600, d750.
There is nothing to discuss there.
D600 junk ?? DXOmark not authority ??
Today, the Sony a7mk3 is perhaps the best choice from the bz.
The color is modified to fit the profile of the canon, exactly what is worse than an erka or brand 4.
DD is better, there is no problem with the banding that the erca has. The color is better than the zetok nikon. There are two cards, a luxurious video, a full fleet of optics.
Sense of castrated problem erk or raw Nikon zetas?
Whoever has a large fleet of optic lenses Nikon or Kenon will take the d850 or 5dsr or mark4.
And where is the thread you can see the Lynx portfolio? Very interesting.
No, this is a secret))
On his site there is. Look and find it.
Please scribble the site. I always listen with interest to his controversy. I want to see his work.
Lynx's site was updated, there were a lot of things on his old one, so far very few on the new one. Link http://master-lynx.ru
Professional activity Lynx https://vk.com/lynx_tassi_manufactory
Hello. For several years I have been reading Arkady's website, thank you for being there. Here, too, I decided to insert my three kopecks. I am an Amateur, there is a 650d DSLR, three glasses 1.8, 55.250, sigma 17.50, helios 1.8, a flash from aliexpress, plus personal belongings, hoya filters. For an amateur, a complete gentleman's set, for home shooting is enough. But I never recognize a phone as a camera, and the difference in image quality really does show. Filmed 2 weddings, can you imagine at what terrible level? They asked, the main thing was he worked for free. Then I had to buy a second-hand lens from a bombila wedding man, he asked, do you earn extra money? I was surprised. And he says it's okay, you should have seen what they are shooting for ... amateur DSLRs, plus whale optics, which are extra 8-15 thousand extra. And I know, a day like a monkey you jump with a camera, then 4-5 days processing photos for 8 hours a day, I’ll tell you such hard work. And I can't shoot for amateur equipment, earn money, it's hack. And most of this is enough, the phones are fine. 4 cameras what for in the phone, somebody tell me? the phone has supplanted photomilnits, matrices are the same. It is convenient to carry it in your pocket in the heat of Thailand, there it is not for the arts. I don't want to carry a DSLR on vacation in the south. But I like that phones are pushing out cheap photographers from the market, so they are definitely not needed. It is given to me to shoot, I can do it for the house. But commerce is not only an expensive technique, plus experience, you need to quit the main job, live with photography and not earn money.
Thanks for your feedback.
Alexey, I completely agree. You need to shoot for the soul, not for money. Even at a wedding - not for fear of displeasing the customer and not getting money, but for the soul. Recently, a friend asked to film his daughter's prom. Just out of friendship. So I got real pleasure from the process itself! What I wish for everyone.
Photography is on the list of the worst professions and it seems that now this is a general trend
https://www.dpreview.com/news/7564938322/photographer-among-2018-worst-jobs-due-to-rise-of-freelancing-and-smartphones
Thanks for the article, read)
And if on the topic of the article, then everything is as usual “if you don't see the difference, then why pay more”. Taking pictures of ordinary events / holidays on their phones, people capture the mood, atmosphere, moments for which later it is rather a shame, but it is interesting to review not only yourself. They take other pictures to show one or two. And they do not see the difference precisely in what to do it for. Since initially there is no requirement to “get a masterpiece”, the convenience of doing this with a phone outweighs the difference seen “when magnified on a computer screen”.
A good shot will only differ technically.
The common goal of most pictures is to “show off” by posting it on your wall or flipping it across your phone screen. Plus their very number. Therefore, few people revise their photos, and whether strangers look more than once. This all devalues the photograph itself and the meaning of investing in albums that go into the closet. Therefore, a couple of pictures in the registry office by a regular photographer - for the frame / relatives. And sabantuy on the phones, for those who could not come or "left" early.
Dear fellow photographers. Well, I can’t write as beautifully as you, but I will say a few words, with your permission.
Firstly, I thank Arkady for his tremendous work. I am pleased to read his reviews. Low bow.
Well, it is rightly noted that photography, which has become a means of earning money, loses its “soul”. Take a look at amateur photos from Soviet times. The cards are black and white, sometimes sepia, often not of the best quality, but they are not just viewed, but admired.
And in those days there were people who made money at weddings and events, but how many photos I saw, frankly filthy quality. For example, your school is just awful. If today such photos of my children were made to me, then such a “pro” would have to pay me moral compensation :) So, not much has changed. There are even now amateurs who shoot better than the “pros”, although they shoot for the sake of their souls, there are professionals who love their job, and not just clipping loot, there are creative photographers, there are photo artists, etc. Many people really live in photography, although not all in the field of photo business ...
And one moment. Not always people start earning a photograph, setting themselves the goal of becoming a photo-businessman. Sometimes he begins to take off for a fee because of a difficult financial situation, to support his pants.
But actually, if there is a demand, then there will be a supply. Therefore, everyone will live, as they previously lived, who to shoot for the soul, and who for money.
I wish you all good and peace and creative success (for the soul).
In my opinion, smartphones cannot be compared to cameras. And not because the image quality is improving. There are just people who take pictures, and there are people who press the button. Here on the second are designed photo gadgets on smartphones. There is no need to think, I pressed the button, processed it in the program and voila, like a “masterpiece”. Everyone wants cool pictures that are obtained by pressing the "masterpiece" button. That's what marketing and advertising companies are designed for. People hawala. For a person who thinks with any camera, you can take a good picture, but for others: “Oh, you have such good pictures. Of course, you have such a cool camera ... ”Although sometimes they hold a camera or a smartphone in their hands, which is three or more times more expensive than my camera. Well, another moment. There are, of course, pictures from smartphones that are not bad, but in most cases the pages of social networks are littered with all sorts of junk that you don't even want to look at.
Already caught up in many cases and genres. Their quality is SUFFICIENT for those purposes and tasks.
In fact, phones are now very good at taking pictures and the differences between photos from a camera and a phone are purely technical. You can easily print a 10x15 photo from a good phone. And more units were printed earlier. It's just that the camera is now only for those who are fond of it, who love photography and verify the frames. A good shot can be taken with a phone, the question is in the “gasket between the steering wheel and the seat”.
Commentators could only see the combination “smartphones cannot be compared to cameras” and could not finish reading or didn’t want to, in general they didn’t master it, but immediately began to comment in the style “the quality of smart cameras is very good, it will be no worse than your govnozerkalka”.
#facepalm
They mastered everything and not worse, but acceptable and sufficient for many
Kakbe post wasn’t about it at all, but you are still figuring out everything with your quality here.
I think that if photographers measure their writing ... there will be nowhere else with iron, there will always be a major who has a photo and (or) a lens that will be better. Then you will have to face off with software! That is, to master graphic editors. After all, if you can buy any camera or lens in the principe, then you cannot buy the ability to shoot and correctly process photos. Well, that is, you can kanesh, but you need to spend time learning, which early-maturing photographers do not accept.
In short, the one who knows how to more beautifully process photos will survive! Well, the ability to blabber a client is necessary in any situation!
"I think so!" - as the hero of the film Mimino said.
what does this have to do with the article?
History moves in a circle (or spiral, depending on which side to look at).
With the appearance of the photo, there was an assumption that painting would die out ... did not die out, moved to a new (expensive / aristocratic / etc.) level.
With the appearance of the figure, there was an assumption that the film would die out ... did not die out, moved to another (fans / pros / etc.) level.
With the advent of smartphones….
Those. each turn (circle) provides "natural selection" and the industry remains either actively promoted or sufficiently "high quality", because consumer goods are being replaced by the emergence of new technologies.
For example, even with the coolest smartphone, it is impossible to make high-quality astrophotography, different compositions with long exposure, etc. complicated shots. So here is the choice for everyone.
For those who need to squeeze out the maximum quality, DSLRs will always be better, and for whom the quality is not very important, and he looks at his photos as much as possible on the phone screen - a smartphone with a good camera will do too)
Astrophotography is generally a very specific and expensive thing. This is not a shirbotreb for most.
It's all about the money. To force an ordinary person to carry even a light UPC with a pair of weighty "ultrazoom" and "shirik", it is necessary to give some advantages. What kind? Such a bundle, costing at least 80000 rubles, will not do night photography. Like any crop from Nikon \ Sony \ Canon. Fuji might do a little better, but not much. But some smartphone for 20000 rubles will perfectly take a photo at night and there will be no smearing. Plus the smartphone has excellent on-the-fly photo correction capabilities. For example, my Xiaomi for 7000 rubles perfectly blurs the background so that it takes me at least 10 mouse clicks to correct it in Nik Collection and more time for loading and processing.
If you sell crop (I am Nikon and Canon), then for 35000 rubles they should have software that can resolve the camera matrix, and a normal menu, and not the squalor that was 15 years ago. Older cameras should have more functionality, again based on the capabilities of their matrix.
Personally, the situation is at hand for me: in a year I can buy a D810 in a used market, some kind of stabilized lens 24-70. As an amateur I know why I need it and how to use it.
Undoubtedly, the CZK and the BZK should have the best video capabilities, for which again you don’t need to specifically strangle crop matrices and artificially lower the ISO for younger models.
So far, photography simply sucks on crop, it’s not clear what to pay money for, only lenses help out, and the camera, as it was a lens plug 10 years ago, remains.
It reminds an old joke:
“Greedy newlyweds abandoned the photographer
and remember the wedding ”
Today I was at an auto show and drew attention to how ordinary people take pictures.
Since the exhibition was not in the room, but in the open air, then 90 came with smartphones, one girl came with a plastic film silver Nikon (f55 / 65/75 like that) and the same plastic silver whale lens, there were several people with budget crop kenonikonami with whale glasses and several videographers with Sonya. One person who came in with the d750 stood out, but he still hung on his shoulder from 24-85 or 24-120 and he didn’t shoot something at all, and another guy who came in from 80-200 / 2.8 and d5 or d4 . At + 34C and bright sun.
Moreover, he is clearly an amateur, who came to “” surprise everyone “” and was very different from the photographers of the news channels who work with these cameras and 70-200 or 24-70 at rallies or other events. And this is really work. I stood with them and smoked at rallies and the onises are not particularly happy with the weight of cameras and lenses. But this is such a job ... And the boy in + 34C with such a set is clearly worn out)
I understand him - I have q4. But for all sorts of crap and on a bright sunny day ... for free ... at + 34C ... well, in fig.
And 80-200 / 2.8 at auto shows is such a thing. The error is shorter.
There was also a cute girl, a student with a double-crop Olympus omd or omg (xs shorter as it is called there), something slender with a plastic silver tiny zoom lens.
The best thing that was written about the smartphone photo:
https://vas3k.ru/blog/computational_photography/?fbclid=IwAR11OwAX0fEeXh_ujP80RFzAA47Ae2XKl6lGBJgEeP48ekHO41FQz2hJLaA
wonderful article
Approved.