answers: 223

  1. Alexander
    13.11.2019

    The controversy in the comments is very reminiscent of the long-standing speculation about how the emerging television will eventually completely supplant theater and cinema. Time has passed and nothing: all genres coexist happily, only their niches are different. The same is true for CZK with smartphones. As for who will need "high art", obtained with the help of professional cameras and professional glasses by talented photographers, I answer - the audience of the TV channel "Culture" is much narrower than "CTS" or "REN", but this does not mean that trash canals show a higher quality product. Time will put everything in its place, and mass smartphone cats will sink into oblivion, and piece photo masterpieces will remain for centuries. I can't imagine the future of a new Avedon or Cartier-Bresson with something like a smartphone as the main tool, even after 100 years.

    Reply

    • Oleg
      13.11.2019

      Well said. I support fully and completely.

      Reply

    • Roman
      13.11.2019

      If a person has a taste and skill, then with the help of anything he will create a masterpiece.

      Reply

      • Oleg
        16.10.2020

        Exactly!

        Reply

    • Alexander
      14.11.2019

      Television is now the most useless mass media, which spoils people's nerves with advertisements and idiotic broadcasts, especially on Federal channels ... It is not surprising that most of the people do not watch it, and a considerable part of them do not even have TVs ... We do not watch Federal channels almost at all because advertising there clogs everything so much that for myself I consider it a rude mockery of a person, and I am offended by such disrespect on the part of television, and to me in the first place ... Therefore, the process of television went the opposite ... More and more people refuse it ...

      Reply

    • Oleg
      16.10.2020

      You did not write that you intentionally stay on the platform?

      Reply

  2. Sergey
    14.11.2019

    A smartphone is primarily a PHONE with a camera. And I am sure that most people perceive and acquire the PHONE for themselves initially. That is why these are the sales figures. And such a comparison of sales is not logical at all.

    Reply

    • Dim
      14.11.2019

      Man is primarily a tool for increasing the livestock of his species. Most of the people subconsciously do everything so that their descendants occupy the largest niche. Any kind of analytics in the part of the so-called culture does not make sense.

      Reply

      • Anonymous
        14.11.2019

        Whose tool? Do you have any information?

        Reply

      • Dim
        14.11.2019

        Many knowledge - many sorrows (c) Nature (co)

        Reply

    • Alexander
      14.11.2019

      First of all, the phone does not cost 1000 bucks, like an iPhone ... So a person deliberately buys a toy with such a cost ... I, for example, a Phillips push-button phone with a powerful battery, and despite the fact that the phone was bought in 2013 for 2900 rubles, the battery is enough and now for 1 month ... And I am very pleased with the fact that I have enough sense not to buy different iPhones and not to feed speculators ... Whatever they tease me here, I will say that I also have an Apple Air tablet, which was bought the same year in 2014 ... Today we were making homemade ham in a ham maker, and when they pulled the ham out of the ham maker, I decided to film this process with a tablet and unexpectedly discovered that with good lighting, like in our kitchen, the photos come out very good and shooting with a DSLR in this situation would be not so convenient ... Tablets and phones with a good camera are quite suitable for such filming, I would even say that it was much more comfortable for me to shoot with a tablet in this case than with a DSLR ... Nobody can print such photos will not, but for viewing on the screen and for the Internet more than enough ... In Apple devices, I noticed that photos are always with excellent color reproduction and normal quality and do not require any modifications at all ... But if you take pictures with friends outdoors or in a room, then by itself there is no alternative to a DSLR ...

      Reply

  3. Pastor
    14.11.2019

    For me, the invasion of smartphone cameras began with the purchase of Sony Ericsson W800i, there were 2 megapixels, but the quality already made it possible to take sane pictures in good light. The soap dish began to get a little less. And even then I thought how cool it would be to have a really good camera on the phone to forget about the soap box at all.
    Then there were various telephones, motorola, samsungs, nokia, panthecs, siemens, all with cameras, but there was no revolution as photos. At that time there was already a digital soap dish, and the quality of the photos on it was incomparably higher than the quality of shooting on smartphones.
    The first swallow for me was the Samsung Galaxy C3. Good resolution, a fairly large amount of settings in the phone allowed taking decent pictures even in cloudy weather and even indoors. Further, the Samsung laptop 3 only strengthened the place of smartphones in my life - the digital camera has gone to rest.
    Around the same time, I became interested in DSLRs. At first it was a d5100 with a whale lens, half a year of studying this camera, a bunch of articles (including on their native Radozhiva), books and tips from experts on the network. Then things went downhill, I bought new cameras, lenses, began to try to process photos on a computer, shoot on old Soviet and German glasses. He assembled an impressive collection of photo equipment for my city: more than a dozen DSLRs, with fifty lenses, a dozen flashes, countless all kinds of stray things such as adapters, macro rings, tripods, batteries and other things.
    Then the smartphone faded into the background, they did not want to shoot - the quality is not the same, the settings are few, the resolution is small, the focal length is one, there are no bikes.
    And for about 5 years I was engaged in photography exclusively on DSLRs, a smartphone, except for snapshots of documents, schedules and other things. I took a DSLR with me on any walk, and even if this is an exit to take pictures, to an event, then 3-4 SLRs were not the limit.
    And now smartphones again tried to get into the photo niche in my life. A little-known brand of leeko (already collapsed due to dumping) interested me a year and a half or two ago with a cheap phone with a dual camera (A-brands probably already had these, but for some reason they did not interest me). And so, having bought such a smartphone, I was puzzled. Yes, even the quality of 50 1.8 blur with two lenses does not reach, but it was already better than the blur on the whale 18-55. And this already allowed to make tolerable portraits, which on other smartphones without blurring turned out to be too flat. In some cases, I stopped taking DSLRs, because the capabilities of the smartphone allowed me to do a lot.
    And now, for more than six months now I’ve been using a smartphone that has covered 90% of my photo needs:
    - high resolution in good light allows you to take pictures that can be printed even on a1, even on a banner. The need to take pictures on a DSLR immediately disappeared if you need to print with a format larger than 10 * 15. I have only 48 megapixels, but now laptop 10 from Siomi is coming out, and, probably, several more models will be presented before the end of the year, in which the sensor is more than 100 megapixels. The very 100 megapixels that surprised and mesmerized in medium format digital cameras are now in the smartphone. It is clear that the size of the matrix plays a huge role, but even here smartphone makers are not fooling and are trying to increase the physical size of the sensor;
    - rather tolerable quality with a lack of light. Where DSLRs are taken by the size of the sensor, phones are taken by artificial intelligence and sharpened software. I think the day is not far off when the quality of frames for some sigma 18-35 1.8 with a lack of light will be achieved with a tiny smartphone lens. Physics cannot be bypassed, but AI and software work wonders;
    - the number of settings in the “pro” mode is sufficient for a noticeable improvement in quality in comparison with the auto mode. There were “pro” regimes long before 2019, but more often for the sake of self-indulgence. Recently, the number of settings has expanded and their impact has increased. You can adjust WB, ISO, shutter speed, focus and much more;
    - the biggest stop for me when considering the transition from DSLRs to smartphones was this - the focal length. On DSLRs I have a zoom, I can put a shirik, telephoto, fixed, and on the phone there is one camera and one focal length. For many, this is enough for creativity, but still want space. And now, recently, smartphones have given us this freedom. Specifically, in my case, the telephoto camera is so-so, only 2 times increases in comparison with a standard camera. But this is already a huge plus when shooting portraits or something remote. Now there are smartphones with 5x zoom (p30 pro from Huawei) and developments with 8x and 10x zoom have already been announced, I think 20 is just around the corner. And the quality of the already released 5x zoom is quite good, since science does not stand still. But, I repeat, even a 10x zoom significantly expands the capabilities of the camera in a smartphone. And a special joy - shirik! I remember at one time this was my weakness. I bought canon 22-10, 18-10is, sigma 20-17 for nikon and canon, 40-4 117l and some manual shiriks and fishai - I compared them and was just happy with such coverage. And now I have XNUMX degrees of coverage on my phone, always with me. This means that indoors I no longer crawl along the walls like a spider-man, so that everything I want fits in. I can remove a puddle as if it were the sea. And landscapes in the width also have their own charm.
    There is much more interesting in the cameras of modern smartphones. Yes, in many respects they do not reach DSLRs in quality, but convenience and universality take their toll. Previously, you had to have three fixes and a large DSLR to get the same thing that I now have on the phone. But in addition to the phone and camera, there is also a video camera (with a good stub and 4k), a gaming platform, a music player, a cinema, a TV remote control, a bank card and Internet access. It is not surprising that even with a gain in the quality of shooting, cameras lose to phones because of their phones, versatility and convenience.
    The world will no longer be the same and DSLRs, like film, and digital cameras will go away, remaining in the hearts of amateur photographers and in the hands of a few photo professionals. There are already many examples of shooting weddings and other celebrations on the phone. A significant part of reporting is already being done on the phone. Filming of children, families and just everyday life at home - phone. Clips and even movies are filmed on phones. Is that sports and wildlife are still difficult for phones, but, I admit, in 10 years, smartphones will rule there.
    And personally, this development pleases me. Of course, I am sorry for my large collection of photographic equipment and it is sad that all this good lies and is gathering dust, but we must go further, we cannot remain in the past. And the future of photography now lies largely in the plane of smartphones whether we want it or not. I can’t wait to see full-fledged reviews of cameras in phones, their comparison with specialized equipment and with each other, on the joyful. But even if this does not happen, I’ll still go for a joy, at least for the sake of nostalgia for those wonderful years when I immediately climbed here before and after buying a new lens or camera to read the opinion of Arkady and commentators about him.

    Reply

    • Madame Broshkina
      14.11.2019

      Strange, very strange. I read this long text 1,5 times and did not understand the catch. A person who is deeply and closely immersed in the subject of cameras, professionally shoots, has a fucking bunch of optics, suddenly switches to a smartphone and says that it is better, cooler and in general all your DSLRs suck.

      Reply

      • Roman
        14.11.2019

        A man took pictures, not photographs. Well, who in their right mind would come up with the idea of ​​buying three identical lenses - 10-18, 10-22, 10-20, to compare them. To compare what? Or, if you didn’t reach the full frame, take 17-40. Once you have a shirik, you only need one thing - a place where this shirik turn around. Landscape, architecture, an unusual angle of some kind.
        You didn’t do photography. You practiced technique, Pastor.

        Reply

      • Pastor
        14.11.2019

        “Who in their right mind would think of buying three identical lenses - 10-18, 10-22, 10-20, in order to compare them. To compare what? “Have you ever had a desire to compare this or that technique with each other, and not just read the comparison on the Internet? The stars just formed so that in my region several shiriks were sold almost simultaneously. I bought and compared distortion, vignetting, sharpness, chromatic aberration, and, what was important to me, the ability to shoot in the evenings without a tripod.
        “Or, if he didn’t reach the full frame, take 17-40.”. Do you really think that having such a park of optics and photographic equipment I “didn’t make it” to FF? :)
        “After you've got a shirik, you only need one thing - a place where this shirik can turn around. Landscape, architecture, some unusual perspective. " You must have decided that I bought lenses and were just comparing them, right? Well, maybe this is my fault, I wrote it wrong. Of course, I shot with all these glasses. Filmed reports, architecture, and landscapes. And still 10-18is and 10-20 from sigma lie. By the way, I think 10-18is is an extremely successful width and choosing between 17-40l or 16-35l with ff and some 650d with 10-18is, I am more likely to choose the second option.
        “You haven't done photography. You've been admiring the technique, Pastor. " Thanks for the psychoanalysis, how much do I owe, where to translate? :)

        Reply

      • Roman
        14.11.2019

        Fair? No. On attempts to compare, I immediately lose the desire to shoot something. I can do a couple of shots purely for myself, and everything else is in the reviews. I have a choice either according to the principle: “I don’t have a width for a full frame”, or “Oh, something inexpensive, let's try and find a use for it”. Especially when the reviews are C grade.

        Reply

      • Pastor
        15.11.2019

        Well, the conclusion is simple - all people are different and everyone has different interests. It was interesting for me to compare the shiriks, fifty dollars, telephones myself. You are not interested. This is neither bad nor good, just different interests.

        Reply

      • Pastor
        14.11.2019

        I didn't quite understand where it says in my text that DSLRs suck. I had to re-read it - I still could not find it. I'm talking about the convenience and growing quality of cameras in phones. Of course, in terms of many parameters, phones are still far from even the very first DSLRs. But even what is in the phones is already enough for many tasks.

        Reply

    • Alexander
      14.11.2019

      Pastor /// -> Mirrors will not go anywhere ... Mirrorless and other lobuda are just toys for making money by companies producing photographic equipment ... How can you not understand that all this progress, except for their selfish interest, is no longer based on any than ... Those who wanted to buy a camera for a long time ... Those who like to change cameras often will always change them, but there are not so many of them ... Those who bought cameras before, but always wanted something small, now switched to smartphones ... And sales fell and are falling, only everyone is silent about this ... They all the time need to invent something in order to sell at least something ... It's funny to read comparisons, disadvantages and advantages of DSLRs and mirrorless cameras ... It doesn't make sense at all ... Both are needed for different people and for different types of shooting and it is stupid to conduct stupid conversations about replacing one with another, it's stupid ... These are all the tricks of the marketolochotron of these companies, and you cut off each other's forelocks ... They just need this ... But DSLRs will always be DSLRs and they always but they will be in demand, because this is the only version of the camera ... Everything else (mirrorless, etc.) is just a parody of the camera ...
      A pastor with so many photographic equipment is simply engaged in technical activity ... There is simply no sense in so many of it ... Only if, of course, this is not such a favorite hobby ... I understand that ... You can shoot ads on your smartphone, go to the kitchen and all that ...
      But landscapes, people, portraits, even flowers and jewelry need to be filmed with a DSLR ... Everything has its purpose ...
      Because the landscape will be worthless on a smartphone, and shooting food in the kitchen does not make sense on a DSLR, because it works great on a tablet and smartphone ... But jewelry will be better on DSLRs ... The topic is stupid and not worth discussing ... Firms always need something to sell ... So they lure you with mirrorless cameras, full frame, middle frame, three cameras on a smartphone and other nonsense ... And those who are doing this they will regularly cheat for money ...
      Smartphones are deliberately made in such a way that they would quickly become outdated and start to slow down, and everyone thinks that this is evolution ... This is a deception and a scam ... I have two DSLRs, I just have them for myself, for us, for the family ... In a year we shoot from strength a thousand shots, or even less ... The quality is more than satisfactory for me ... And I don't need anything else ... How can I be divorced and forced to buy a new camera ...? No way ... Moreover, I see that the new cameras are not better than the old ones, and in a sense their functionality is even worse ... We do not need their sales, only they need sales ... That's because there are a lot of people like me and there are more of them more and more, from their side, the marketolokhotron is flourishing ... I don't have a smartphone and I don't need it to feed the speculators ... I have an Apple tablet that was bought before the beginning of the mess in 2014 and it suits me perfectly ... , do not update the system, otherwise it will sooner or later turn into a piece of glass and aluminum ... And whoever thinks wrong, congratulations - in this case, you automatically become objects for the automatic enrichment of capitalists ... You need to buy wisely, and not mindlessly giving money for a marketing scam ...

      Reply

      • Pastor
        14.11.2019

        “Mirrorless cameras and other lobuda are just toys for making money by companies that produce photographic equipment ...” I think mirrorless cameras have nevertheless entered the professional level, but yes, while the pros often choose DSLRs.
        “Those who wanted to have bought themselves a camera long ago ... Those who like to change cameras often will always change them, but there are not so many of them ... Those who bought cameras before, but always wanted something small, have now switched to smartphones ... ”We shouldn't forget those who are just beginning to be interested in photography, there are quite a few of them. And the initial segment of DSLRs and mirrorless cameras is aimed at them, it seems to me. For a person with experience is unlikely to overpay for new mirror-making products with matrices of 5 years ago :)
        “It's ridiculous to read comparisons, disadvantages and advantages of DSLRs and mirrorless cameras ... It doesn't make sense at all ... Both are necessary for different people and for different types of shooting and it is stupid to conduct stupid conversations about replacing one with another. you cut off each other's forelocks ... ”. I didn’t seem to tear my forelocks and didn’t remember about mirrorless cameras, but as for me, any disputes without insults and with arguments are always good. If you mean phones, then I managed to almost completely replace DSLRs with a phone, so not to say that this is for different people, at least for my example.
        “A pastor with so many photographic equipment is simply engaged in technodrosty ... There is simply no sense in so many of it ... Only if, of course, this is not such a favorite hobby ... I understand that ...”. Yes, exactly, this is just a hobby, I have never made money with photography, because I am artistically untalented, although I love good photography and good technique. There is no sense in quantity? How to say. I still cannot part with my collection and even part of it, for me Canon 50 1.8, 50 1.4, 50 1.2, Nikon 50 1.8g, 50 1.4 (g and d) are six different lenses, and I can definitely say that I do not need any of them, I cannot, although I understand that it is high time to sell at least something for the glasses to work. Also with carcasses. The color of d80 and d70s is different, Fuji s5pro has its own charm, the old canon 300d does not rise to sell, like 5d, d800 gives a cool resolution, 7d is the best of inexpensive all-weather cameras, and so on.
        “Because the landscape will be worthless on a smartphone”, but here you can look at the sections on photo sites with photos on smartphones and be very surprised. Seriously, there will be time - take a look.
        “And those who are led to this they will regularly bribe for money” “Smartphones are deliberately made so that they would quickly become outdated and start to slow down, and everyone thinks that this is evolution ... This is a deception and a scam ...” who are not ready to part with them is difficult. And the one who is ready - quite. Everyone decides for himself how to spend his money. And personally I would not condemn people for the decision to buy new equipment. And about smartphones. I still have a Samsung laptop 3, bought 5 or 6 years ago. There are no particular brakes, everything works fine, if you do not take new games. And I bought the following smartphones solely out of interest in getting to know their capabilities, and not because the previous one stopped working normally. Well, you shouldn't think that this is a deception. For example, a number of games will simply not run on older processors or will slow down. I will not call myself a gamer, but nevertheless it is sometimes interesting to get acquainted with the novelties of mobile gaming. And with the 855 snapdragon it's easier to do that than with the old processor.
        “How can I be divorced and forced to buy a new camera ...? No way ... ”I agree, to each his own. You are satisfied with what you have. I always want something new. And I don’t spare money for what interests me. I think you would not regret it either, you just are not interested in buying a phone, that's all. And people are different. I love all sorts of gadgets, wireless headphones, different chargers, smart watches, phones, projectors. But someone doesn't care and he won't buy new items. It's a matter of personal choice and personal interest.
        “And whoever thinks wrong, congratulations - in this case, you automatically become objects for the automatic enrichment of the capitalists ...” There are objective and biased advantages of new goods. It is for this reason that I did not buy 70-200 2.8lis3 (I am not ready to spend that kind of money for the sake of comparison, as in the case of shiriks), the second is enough for me, but at the same time it was very interesting to take the 24-70 2.8 of the second version, although I got rid of him in favor of the first. But there are more objective indicators of buying a new phone. The new models have higher operating speed, better gaming performance, better screen, cameras, etc. Comparing what I have and what they sell, I wonder if the innovations in the new model are worth a certain amount. And if they are, I buy.
        Well, in terms of purchases, you need to understand that everyone has different incomes, so everyone starts from their capabilities.

        Reply

      • Valery A.
        14.11.2019

        Good evening everyone, especially the Pastor, who has not been seen for a long time and who, upon his appearance, naturally gave birth to texts. (By the way, in addition to the fact that someone else's hobby must be respected, the calm admission that phones in many ways beat his vast and expensive collection deserves respect. ) In addition to the general opinion - who is comfortable / like what, I want to reiterate the fact of a new revolution after the film-digital revolution: lenses against software / artificial intelligence.

        Reply

      • Pastor
        15.11.2019

        Yes, I completely agree with you. AI and new software do wonders. The same software bokeh 10 years ago was terrifying, and now it comes out sometimes indistinguishable from very worthy lenses. Well, the recognition that phones hit on a number of SLR parameters was not easy, but defeats must be recognized :)

        Reply

      • Alexey
        20.11.2019

        No matter how much I love DSLRs, as a class, I think in 5 years (if not earlier) mirrorless cameras will almost completely occupy the niche of current DSLRs. As for smartphone photos - well, objectively speaking, most people on the planet had enough digital camera (and even earlier - a film "fool"). For photographs such as “we are with the boys in the bathhouse / with the family in ... (fill in the geotag manually)”. For these tasks, cameras in a normal smartphone are no longer just good, but fire !!! Yes, everything is decided not by large matrices / optics, but by AI (or AI). Well, he doesn't stand still, fortunately

        Reply

      • Heinz
        27.07.2020

        I have a smartphone from 2015, I carry it with me as a backup, spare, however, it is very highly optimized, clipped. Literally a month ago, I forgot it and came back for it a little more than a week later, I thought it would turn off, but no, his discharge had just begun. This is about the battery. The cord and the charger are native. Perhaps, only the protective film on the screen was very rubbed and the buttons on the sides became bald - they shine.
        I agree with Pastor and here's why. After reading and leafing through the tests and comparisons of the P30Pro and Canon Mark 4, I immediately placed an order without delaying the matter. It cost 65000. So, sea spray, no more compared to the cost of mirrorless DSLRs. I was going to go to the BZK, I especially remember one author who said this phrase: “I began to shoot more ...” So I began to shoot more time, and not only photos, but also videos, panoramas, for evening and night shooting, I don't need a tripod , no time to prepare. All that is required is to see the frame and render it correctly. And I am very happy about that. For a year now I have not taken out a DSLR, light filters, a tripod, endless lenses, bags, batteries, I have to carry all this on myself, I often go to the mountains, and I only need two boxes - a phone and a powerbank. And that's enough. I stopped killing time for endless photo editing, the maximum now is crop-crop. No joke! - but since 2013 I have terabytes of raw RAWs!
        And further. I am very interested in reading the comments on this site, some commentators are already like family, I would like to say this about the progress. I remember that at the beginning of the 95s, the "Win 98 98 ME Registry Handbook" by Klimov and Chebotarev was popular. And then one day, in new updates, the authors stopped writing about old systems, updating only tips for the newfangled WinXP. To the continuing angry accusations that no pigs are needed, 98 farevs and that 98 is enough forever, comrade Klimov wrote a very interesting note about progress and added at the end: “in a year or two or three, you will all be on XP, I will I guarantee it! Still running Windows XNUMX? Then we go to you!" He turned out, oh, how right! :)

        Reply

    • Sergei
      14.11.2019

      Modern smartphones shoot pretty well, I agree with you. However, the quality is not comparable with system cameras.
      However, if the purpose of photographing is a social network like Instagram, VK, Facebook, it will not affect it, except for the natural limitations of the phone’s cameras in the ability to separate an object from the background. You wrote something about blurring in portrait mode, as I understand it, but I almost never used this program mode, it often mows on complex backgrounds, hair, etc. Although maybe the latest devices defeated this problem. And then if the shot came out successful it is better to process it yourself.
      I once changed a Nikon D7000 DSLR to an Olympus E-M5 mkII for the sake of compactness, and for about two years I carried it with me in an ordinary working shoulder bag. Then it was time to change the smartphone and I took a Xiaomi Mi A1 with two cameras on EGFs 26mm and 50mm, poked around the firmware, rolled up the Google Camera HDR + application and it's just fire, I tell you, by the standards of the phone, of course. Almost pixel-by-pixel resolution, unlike the stock application, shooting raw + jpg and raw should be said not so empty. Processing HDR + (nothing to do with the elaborate motley HDR pictures that may pop up in my head when I see the acronym HDR) I almost always like, and in case I don’t like it, there’s raw. In general, since then I began to take Olympus only for photo sorties, walks with my family, and at home I take pictures of him. I shoot everything else, technicals, documents, fleeting stories on a smartphone.
      There are some unpleasant moments with this smartphone in conjunction with Google Camera, so it is for enthusiasts who can overcome these problems. Also at that time there was also a Nokia smartphone with two cameras - shirik and fifty (which is usually called telephoto: D), but then it cost 3 times more. The Google camera application is also suitable for it, but without dancing with a tambourine. In general, both of these smartphones are no longer on sale and are considered ancient. Out of the corner of my eye I saw what they were doing with 3-4 cameras, but this is the only way out for smartphones to expand the focal range.
      Asus tried to kind of make smart with zoom, I even felt it live, but that shovel was also and the picture quality was soapy soap, but natural zoom.

      Reply

      • Pastor
        15.11.2019

        “You wrote something about blur in portrait mode, as I understand it, but I almost never used this program mode, it often skews on complex backgrounds, hair, etc. although the most recent devices may have overcome this problem. " Interestingly, it was originally a program mode, and now it is already a physically tangible separate camera that helps to calculate the depth of field for the main camera. The separation of the background from the object is due to the joint work of artificial intelligence and data from the second (most often b / w) camera. And even when hovering (and not only on the final frame after intra-camera processing), the depth of field is now visible, which allows not only to separate the subject from the background, but also to select a specific depth of field and focus point (and in a smartphone, this point can be anywhere throughout frame field). And, by the way, the degree of blur varies depending on the distance, that is, the objects directly behind the person are slightly blurred, and the distant ones are blurred completely, although on purely software blur everything was washed evenly.
        You remembered Google Camera - and this is a great example of how new programming technologies allow you to get high quality images from a small sensor. Moreover, on the same phone, a stock camera can be several times worse than a Google camera. Just an application that does not change the physical properties of the matrix and lens, but what an increase in quality and capabilities! On the Internet, you can find a lot of rave reviews from the owners of old phones who have installed a Google camera for themselves. As if a new phone was bought, or the camera was replaced. And your feedback is confirmation of this - with the same physical stuffing, the camera began to produce much better quality.
        If you dream, it may happen that in 5 years, let's say, a smartphone camera, due to the necessary software, will be able to compete with DSLRs in most parameters. Expand DD, improve contrast, sharpness, correct colors - all this can be improved programmatically.
        Camerophones were available before, I agree. There was a Samsung, very interesting, but apart from the optical zoom, there was little that attracted it (heavy and very inconvenient to put in your pocket). There was also such a thing from Sony, which clung to any smartphone and was a separate portable camera with a large sensor and zoom. Another Nokia 808 View View with 40 megapixels and a physically large matrix in comparison with ordinary babies in phones. At the same time, the sales of these phones did not shine, judging by the reviews on the network, all of these phones were repelled by a number of problems such as size and excessive precision under the photo. But now top-end solutions from Apple, Samsung, Xiaomi, Huawei and Oppo give out, in addition to excellent pictures, other delights of smartphones - excellent screens, performance, NSF, sound, etc. The same iPhone 11 cannot be called a camera phone, since an excellent camera is not its main competitive advantage, but becomes only an additional plus to other bells and whistles.
        The solution with fixes is, in principle, logical, it is easier to make a fix than a zoom, and there is no zooming mechanism in it, which means it will break less. Here is an example - huavei p30 pro: fixed at 27 mm - main camera, telephoto at 135mm and width at 16mm. By and large - a good set of a reporter. With a lack of light, a high-aperture main lens will save, a shirik will come in handy in a room, a telephoto lens can be used to pick out an object in the distance. And all this is not a big DSLR and 3 lenses that need to be rearranged, but one small smartphone in your pocket. It is clear that the quality is not quite the same, but even for printing on A4, the capabilities of the same p30pro are more than enough.
        In general, we are waiting for the development of software, sensors and lenses in phones, we hope to develop Chinese, Google and Apple. I think the future of amateur photography is already a foregone conclusion, but phones may also occupy the professional sphere.

        Reply

      • Sergei
        15.11.2019

        Despite the progress with ext. cameras in smartphones, blur still remains a software effect. In fact, Google Camera was ported to my phone from the Google Pixel device, where there is no second camera. Meanwhile, she worked out this algorithm better than dual-camera phones.
        But it doesn’t matter, I’m saying, for Instagram this effect will work. For creative shooting, except for lack of fish.
        The second point is that smartphone cameras are not too fast in terms of reaction to the actions of the photographer, so some of the scenes fly by. Recently I compared my A1 with the Samsung Galaxy S10, well, the picture is on par with the native camera of this smart, even better in places. But if you roll the same Google Camer on Samsung, it will immediately come out ahead.
        Regarding the "pulling" with DSLRs, no. Even a ten-year-old DSLR like Nikon D90 with a kit 18-105 and even more so with a 16-85 lens will do any smartphone in terms of picture, ease of control and speed of operation.
        Smartphones have evolved rapidly at one time, especially the cameras in them. Today, a usable camera can be found in very cheap smartphones. Yes, software algorithms are also evolving, but it still won't fool the physics of things. Because shooting a bust or front portrait on a shirik or fifty dollars is such a thing, perspective distortions will not go anywhere, no matter how much the background is blurred. Dealing with noise in low light also has its limits, if there is no information, then it is not. Theoretically, the algorithms can come up with how to fill in the missing sections, but this is also the same. And technically all this is no longer a photo.
        So I would not compare these devices. Just earlier, those who needed to somehow take something off had to buy a camera, but now this is not required. And cameras are bought by those who know why they need them.
        Lovers are also different. There are those who are interested in mobile photography. There are those who need a real photo, where you can control all the parameters according to the situation. I like the process of photographing on a smartphone much less than on a camera. And in terms of control and speed, and in terms of tactile sensations, etc.

        Reply

    • Andrei
      27.10.2020

      You have rather meager photo requirements.

      Reply

  4. Zax
    14.11.2019

    It seems that this situation grieves most of all those who bought a DSLR and imagined themselves to be a photographer. And now I saw that there was nothing more to show off - since the majority gets a comparable result on a smartphone. So there were stories about thoughtless clicking, spiritual / soulless pictures, and other tinsel.
    And instead of this, one should not masturbate, but photograph, and on what - everyone decides for himself, based on the tasks and opportunities.

    I remember absolutely the same moaning at the beginning of the massive transition to digital - they say, you can only click on the digital camera, but real photographers shoot slowly and thoughtfully on a noble film)

    Reply

    • Alexander
      14.11.2019

      Different people need different cameras ... Some DSLRs, others mirrorless, others have more than enough smartphones ... And rightly so ... Why compare all this ...? This comparison is stupid and useless ... Previously, someone also bought Kiev 88, but someone with a head and Smena 8M was enough ... All these comparisons are made by the desks, which from this have the dough ... In other cases, nobody needs the fuck ... And the review cameras ...? What can be observed there now ...? Just look at the exterior and that's it ...? Well, and look at a dozen photos in the original, and then, these should be photos at different and especially at high ISOs ... Although now this meaning is already lost, since up to 1600 now everything is shooting normally, and this is more than enough ... But here it is the concept is ambiguous, because a picture at ISO 2000, for example, will look and have a very different noise picture quality in night conditions and in normal daylight ... Lens reviews are a little more relevant, but there are also enough 5-10 photos to roughly estimate how the lens shoots and even scribbling is not necessary ... And a more relevant picture can be obtained only when you yourself shoot with this lens and camera ...

      Reply

    • someone
      14.11.2019

      It seems that this situation grieves most of all those who spend their lives on show-off and worry about the opinion of those who do not care about themselves. Sorry Zach, but you are either a schoolboy, or you haven't grown up from the age of "wow what a car" and "I have the coolest crosses" psychologically. In fact, there are enough of them, and this very contingent is the dream of Basilio-crossed out marketers. After all, the main thing is to convince that moving the connector to another place (for example) is cool, and you are no longer cool, what Vovan and Manka will say, hurry to the store. There are also enough “photographers” like that with a bag of unnecessary equipment, constant resale, meaningless and merciless - crossed out)) endless testing of cameras / lenses. Only here the pictures are my cat, my wife, my child's drool, my carpet (my porsche, if you like, that's not the point), leaves, etc. But how it washes! And boke ?! OU!! And what color is from this camera ?? And all the lint on the carpet can be seen if you make a crop of 300%! These are adherents of the sects Nikonzelenit Canonkrasnit, Gibson Sun Fender and vinaigrette against Olivier. All this is amusing and witty, but has an indirect relation to photography (rather, none). Here it is really wiser to stop suffering .. uh ..., buy a smartphone and calm down, especially the resale and the longed-for measure with pipis-crossed out show-offs, he will give much more, in that area many uncles are working on this. Hence, on the issue raised in the article .. To each his own. Smartphones do now cover 95% of the average person's needs for taking a photo against a carpet-crossed out for the family. And a DSLR is not needed in this case. But how many people have the same Gibson at home, if there is mp3? How many, for example, buy a hi-fi player and corresponding headphones, if there is the same smartphone and plugs (Or the godless Bits audio for show-off, maybe there is no sound there)? Someone mentioned that cinema did not kill theaters. Well, how many people go to the cinema for some kind of "Cockroach-teapot Man" and how many to the theater? So here. I don't see anything bad in it. System cameras will remain for professionals as a creative tool, etc. The rest is smartphones. And great.

      Reply

      • Alexander
        15.11.2019

        Yes, all this talk about bokeh, color and other nonsense to catch up on the device under test more show-off ... Now that digital photography has come to the usual quality, which does not even make sense to talk about now (and this has happened since about 2010), just like that as it was with the film, now all these topics with tests, conversations about color and other nonsense are completely superfluous ... What does color mean now ...? Yes, absolutely nothing ... It used to be that films of different companies could give slightly different shades, and then, all this was leveled by light filters ... But now, when photography is a software product and everything is solved in an elementary way

        Reply

      • Alexander
        15.11.2019

        And now, when photography is a software product and everything is solved simply by setting up profiles in the camera or then, with a single button in Photoshop, talking about the color of different manufacturers is not a topic at all ... And what is bokeh, that is, blurring the background ... Yes it is even in the last century it was not a topic of conversation ... If you want more blurring of the background - choose lenses with a larger aperture, with a large focal length and a camera with a large physical matrix size ... What can I talk about ...? The number of aperture blades speaks of a different bokeh pattern ... There is nothing more to talk about ... Everything fits into two sentences ... No, we have so much shit delivered on this topic ... But why, you have to give yourself importance that you are very smart, irreplaceable, and what if you systematize and teach for money what on the Internet is complete and free of charge, then a person will immediately know how to make a masterpiece ... Utter nonsense and just deceiving people ... everything is on the Internet for free, and if you have brains, and in general yourself you can think of it ...

        Reply

    • Andrei
      16.11.2019

      If a person picks up a violin, this is a person with a violin in his hands.
      If a person picks up a SLR camera, he immediately turns into a photographer.
      Photos taken on a smartphone look good only on the smartphone screen.

      Reply

  5. Aleksandr1612
    14.11.2019

    Good evening everyone. My opinion is that it is stupid to compare in the photographic aspect smartphones and photo cameras (SLR, no SLR). There is simply a physical limit to the capabilities of smartphone cameras and photo cameras, only photo cameras have this limit higher and significantly. I have a smartphone with a good camera (huawei p20 pro), when something interesting or cool comes across on the way to work or while walking with a dog, I take pictures for Instagram and quickly post it because I don't always carry a camera with me, so to speak. Whenever I want to photograph the sea, Odessa courtyards, people and nature in all its glory, I definitely take a Sony A7 photo camera and manual optics with me, and when I need a tripod, I get a lot of pleasure and emotional positive from photography. I repeat, IMHO, it's stupid to compare a smartphone camera and a camera (ZK and BZK). Absolutely different things in terms of functionality and capabilities. Yes, and from photos from smartphones the entire Internet is crammed, all networks of all sorts of garbage, especially annoying selfie photos, a crazy branch in photography, especially a year, one person has 500 pieces of them, shorter muck.

    Reply

    • Aleksandr16121964
      14.11.2019

      I fully support. Enough to test everything around. As Hristich says: Get up and take off.

      Reply

    • Alexander
      15.11.2019

      I agree, a smartphone is just a camera for recording an image ... And a camera serves for taking photography, and what I think is a DSLR ... Bezrkalka is just an evolution of smartphones to improve quality and, most importantly, a way to inspire people to make a profit ... Hence all these stupid rumors about the replacement of DSLRs by mirrorless cameras ... And Sony began to move towards SLT, and then mirrorless, not because it is correct and promising, but because there are Nikon and Canon for DSLRs ... This is their niche and this cannot be changed ... Sony would always be in the shadow of these firms, that's why she left them ... And SLT is garbage and an unsuccessful attempt to change something, and they themselves know it ... Every year in the fall, businessmen spread rumors that buckwheat will rise in price ... Recently, almost no one is doing this and they are less and less able to make money on these rumors ... So is their stupid Black Friday ... The maximum that you can get on 11.11 is a price that is only 1 - 3 percent less ... This time on Ali watched the price of the Yongnuo YN-622N-TX synchronizer ... So the crossed out price is 4509 rubles, and 11,11 was 2112 rubles, but if you look at the price for the last half of the year, it is higher than 2669 rubles. did not rise ... As a result, we received a very small 11,11 discount, about 5-7 percent ... And this is everywhere on Ali and this is still a normal result ... In Eldorado, mVideo and other centers There is no speculation at all, and often the price is even 11,11 a little more than she was before every day ...

      Reply

  6. Sergei
    14.11.2019

    In the absence of serious photographic needs, a smartphone allows you to abandon the purchase of either a soap dish or a system camera. Because even a soap dish is a separate device that performs one or two functions, and a person's smartphone is always with him.
    For example a walk on a hot summer day. I want to put on shorts and a T-shirt and not carry anything in my hands, not take any bags with me. Smart in one pocket, in another there to taste and went - beauty.
    The trend was also influenced by the development of social services. networks focused on photo and video content, which have low requirements for image quality and are based directly on the device. From the camera it is certainly not so convenient, even in the conditions of any Wifi Bluetooth lotions.
    Another failure in sales of cameras is naturally associated with the saturation of this product with the population. Because in fact, a person who bought, for example, a DSLR 10 years ago, in terms of image quality, does not get any global advantages by buying a camera today, i.e. he does not buy. And some are buying.
    Judging by the schedule for smartphones, there is also a decline at the end, this can also be attributed to some peak in the development of smartphones, when for a reasonable price you could buy a device that has everything you need. Many die the last push-button phones that have been replaced by smartphones, the market is again saturated, and sales began to fall.
    You can also weave here world crises, other circumstances up to the intrigues of the Annunaki, Reptilians and other gibberish ...

    Reply

    • Alexander
      15.11.2019

      The bulk of those who bought smartphones, buy them as a poke for social networks, posting their stupid selfies there and watching a moronic video on YouTube ... And a camera is a tool for taking photography ... Also, since 2010, nothing has changed in the quality of the cameras produced blinking unnecessary nonsense, which has no effect on the final photo at all ... Therefore, a camera bought five years ago, and in ten years will be fine to shoot ... But with smartphones they still manage to fool people, forcing a certain category to buy new ones, but also this will change sooner or later ... Bluetooth and Wi-Fi in cameras are generally the most useless crap ... A camera should be just a PHOTO camera, not a box stuck with all sorts of unnecessary junk ... Here's a flash ... I have an SB -910 ... What is different in it than in the world's first flash with TTL function ...? That's right, absolutely nothing ... And what has now replaced this sb910 ...? Nothing, just different numbers in the name of the model ... But in fact, having saturated with this artificial light, I am already starting to return to shooting without a flash, with optics with a wide aperture and ordinary LED lighting in the room, which (if you turn on all the lamps) is enough for shooting without a flash and photos come out much better than with this puffer ... In the 70s I hung a 2 kW incandescent lamp on a chandelier and even on 64 film it turned out okay ... In extreme cases, an external flash on a tripod and the head to the side- upwards, opposite to those you are shooting ... In all other cases - the flash on the camera, raised up, sideways, back, with diffusers put on - all this is nonsense ... Only a large circle of diffused light opposite / above can give correct illumination ... And I'm not talking about studios and artistic staging of light, I'm talking about simple, ordinary home photography of myself and my family ... Without a flash with good lighting it works best ...

      Reply

      • Anton
        15.11.2019

        "Poking around for social networks, posting their stupid selfies there and watching a moronic video on YouTube ..." How can any next word of the author be taken seriously? “In the 70s I hung a 2 kW incandescent lamp on a chandelier” and ice cream was tastier then, and the grass was greener, and the politicians were handsome ... but ... uh ... I don't want to shock, but 60 years have passed !!! (the phrase 60 years when reading must be read with increased reading). It is foolish to deny that the WORLD has changed, to put it mildly.

        Reply

      • Alexander
        15.11.2019

        Why can't you take my next word seriously further ...? What's wrong with the pokes ...? Pokesticks - they are pokelers ... And social networks are the moronism of our reality ... And no one denies that the world has changed ... Thin TVs have appeared, cameras have evolved into digital ones, vacuum cleaners have appeared without a bag for collecting, which, as it has now become clear to everyone, after using it for a couple of years, that this is complete crap ... Mirrors, mirrorless cameras, Smartphones - each of these devices has its own photographic niche, and the companies that have now rushed together to produce UPC are unobtrusively imposing on everyone that they will oust the CPC ... Why ...? But this has remained unchanged since the appearance of the capitalists - this is a selfish interest ... When people had already bought cameras, it was urgent to come up with something, since capitalism cannot exist without vparivaniya, so they came up with ... Came up with mirrorless ... Very soon everyone who and those who really wanted to, will buy themselves mirrorless cameras and the camera sales market will start to fall again with even greater speed ... What should the capitalists do next ...? They cannot make a deliberate marriage, this is not the industry, there are a lot of companies, people will start to run over to another camp ... I think that one of the options is to start doing this in mirrorless cameras a viewfinder, like it was in film rangefinder cameras, only there will be a lot of information, like in a DSLR, which will drastically reduce the energy consumption from the battery and a massive attack will immediately begin about the advantages of such a viewfinder over a purely electronic one ... And what next ...? They will come up with something else ... Although, the capitalist vparivalist thought has dead ends ...

        Reply

      • Alexander
        15.11.2019

        Yes, and there is nothing extraordinary in the appearance of thin smartphones and more advanced lenses and cameras ... This is just an ordinary evolutionary process of reducing the element base ... And the appearance of firmware devices has further reduced the dimensions of the device ...

        Reply

      • Alexander
        15.11.2019

        And if you have euphoria from all this, then there is nothing surprising there ... Just an ordinary evolution, which is spurred on by the selfish interest of the capitalists ...

        Reply

      • Anton
        16.11.2019

        From all that has been said, the statement really interested me: “vacuum cleaners without a bag for collection appeared, which, as everyone now understood, after using a couple of years, that this is complete crap”. I use it, what's wrong with it?

        As for the rest: the best photos in these very "poking", the most popular profiles of models with their photographs are the result of good photosets, good photographers and not bad equipment, so this moment has nothing to do with the question of smartphones. But a good photographer is a real plus for promotion and free advertising all over the planet, which is VERY good. YouTube from its “moronic video” is a really useful thing for getting a lot of useful information, you just need to be able to filter (like what is shown on “thin TVs”). For example, where can I get knowledge of photography in my outback? Go to courses in an incomprehensible photo school where an incomprehensible amateur will say something and take money for it? Or watch a bunch of video tutorials for free, try what was said and draw your own conclusions what I need and what not? For me, the second option is much more preferable. Well, BZK, as an amateur-beginner, I really liked it. If I have extra money, I will definitely buy it (but I will leave my old DSLR). I liked EVI very much, I really liked the focus peak when working with the same helios. Eye autofocus - I liked it very much, you don't get distracted, you keep an eye on the overall composition. I understand that photographers can control everything at once - but it's a huge plus for me. I do not see any reason not to use the modern benefits of mankind. And yes, if the terrible capitalists are to blame for this progress - bow to the guys.

        Reply

      • Sergei
        15.11.2019

        Well, in general, it does not really matter why the bulk of people buy smartphones - let them continue to buy. They can and have the right to buy what they like and spend their free time in the same way as you do. I still don’t understand what you are actually dissatisfied with. The demand for the same smartphones is driving their development. I'm glad that today I can buy for ridiculous money a device with the functions of the flagships of previous years, which cost an order of magnitude more.

        On flashes you are wrong, firstly simple flashes are also sold and you can buy them. Then in new flashes, for example, a function appeared that allows you to use it at very short shutter speeds, almost up to 1/8000 due to multiple short strobe-like flashes, synchronized with the movement of the shutter slit. I tried it personally on a cheap Chinese flash for Nikon - it works. There was a focusing flash zoom, wireless synchronizers, laser grids to help phase detection autofocus in the dark and other nice little things.
        Bluetooth and wifi are a tribute to time. The camera owes nothing to anyone. By the way, you also do not have the most dense camera, and two. Why didn’t you take the D60, D3000? Is there no matrix, shutter, bayonet, no shutter button? Cameras are also much cheaper, but meanwhile you succumbed to marketing tricks and preferred the D7000 and D7100 to them.
        A 2 kW lamp can also be arranged to fire, including by burning wiring in old houses. I won’t forget about the flash in the room with Olympus, the stabilizer in tandem with high-aperture optics decides. Although I have a flash, and even a wireless one.

        As for evolution - well, yes, it is and is going on. UPCs with a hybrid viewfinder have been around for a long time, if you're not aware. You don’t like the fact that the batteries in the battery run out quickly, but according to your words, you take 1000 frames per year, this is the resource of approximately one battery for the D7000. Well, plus self-discharge, viewing, menus, in general, you will charge the camera three times a year. And you will charge the UPC 5 times - is there such a big difference in your case? And even more so if you charge the camera more often.

        Reply

  7. Anton
    15.11.2019

    Well, I understand the swearing of smarts in front of the CZK, but I do not quite understand the idea "BZK is a show-off, play around, etc." What's in a DSLR that a mirrorless can't do? OVI ... a dubious advantage over EVI, 100500 thousand frames on one battery ... also not the most serious advantage, autofocus ... the latest UPCs are certainly not worse than the CZK, and judging by the forums and reviews, autofocus in DSLRs has become good in the very recent past. What don't I understand? Explain attsy to a stupid person why when buying a camera for work you shouldn't take an UPC? :)

    Reply

    • Alexander
      15.11.2019

      There is a fast autofocus in the mirror ... And no matter what they say, it will still be faster than any, the fastest in the BZK ... Well, personally, it is unpleasant for me to look into this electronic viewfinder ... Like in the ass ...

      Reply

      • Madame Broshkina
        15.11.2019

        And how is it "like in the ass"? What's wrong there? :-)

        Reply

      • Alexander
        16.11.2019

        There is a dead end ...

        Reply

    • Peter Sh.
      15.11.2019

      When the photographer is looking for a new camera for work, he already has an optics park. Switch to bzk how to change the system. This requires very serious advantages. So far, the BZK has no such advantages.

      Reply

    • Sergei
      15.11.2019

      JVI itself is of no value. In fact, this is autonomy and "warm lamp-like". Autonomy - you can shoot with the camera turned off altogether. Seeing the picture in real time, as a result, it is more likely to predict the position of a fast-moving object, it is important in shooting sports, reportage. And so what is seen in JVI is not “reality through the lens” and not the final image. And that's why there is frosted glass in the viewfinder. It is difficult to determine the accuracy of getting into focus from it, it is almost impossible to determine the final nature of the blur, if it is important. In the EVI BZK, the picture is displayed exactly the one that will end up in the picture, there are options, this is a little more boring than ignorance in the case of the ZK, but it can be useful. It is very convenient to work with manual optics. There are modes for visual determination of areas of sharpness, approach, areas of over / underexposure, displaying a histogram, level, etc.

      By focus. Autofocus in a CZK is in itself a lottery, and a lottery with the purchase of each next lens. Also, due to objective reasons, it is not very accurate. No focus on the face and eyes. In the case of FF DSC, the focus points are concentrated in the center of the frame. I have not the freshest UPC Olympus with contrast AF. During the day, there are no complaints about autofocus, as soon as it gets dark it becomes more difficult, it can scour for quite a long time, especially if the object is not contrasting, but this is not fatal in fact, consider that there is no AF tracking. Modern hybrid focus cameras should have much less yaw and tracking problems.

      In general, any camera is a tool, if it fits - take it, it doesn't fit - no need to force yourself and wind up. It is better if before buying there is an opportunity to try or at least hold it in your hands.

      Reply

      • Pokemon
        16.11.2019

        1) "It is difficult to determine the accuracy of getting into focus from it, it is almost impossible to determine the final nature of the blur, if it is important."
        Absolutely not difficult on both D750 and D4. On D4, the "eye" is larger, it is easier to aim.
        If vision allows you to read a book without glasses and watch TV, then you can focus on D4 / D3s without problems and the nature of the bokeh on the same 44 Helios is perfectly visible.
        2) "In EVI BZK, the picture is displayed exactly what will be in the end on the picture, there are options"
        Lies happen in colors and in the picture itself (exposure). The picture in EVI is sometimes better than it will be in RAW or camera jpg.

        Reply

      • Sergei
        16.11.2019

        “Absolutely not difficult on both D750 and D4. On D4, the "eye" is larger, it is more convenient to aim. " Yeah, and the microraster with Doden wedges was just invented out of boredom. It is clear that the larger the viewfinder, the more convenient it is. But the question is how accurately you need to hit. Moreover, the larger the focal point, the easier it is to catch the eye. It's the hardest thing on the shirikas

        “Lies happen in colors and in the picture itself (exposure). The picture in EVI is sometimes better than in RAW or camera jpg. " - Well, how do you set it up and what does it mean better? In EVI, you can adjust the WB and brightness. Everything else depends on the profile chosen and is no different from shooting on the ZK. you also see in jpeg and in the built-in raw preview not what will be in the raw file itself. But what you see raw in post-processing can provide + additional information.

        Reply

      • Pokemon
        16.11.2019

        "But the question is how accurately you need to hit."
        1) The green dot for confirming the focus to help, but sometimes the viewfinder is faster and more convenient. It’s more complicated on the widths, but there is a green dot again and on Nikonov it works. And if the shooting is responsible for the money, then without a normal AF lens, you get sweaty, and there’s no point.
        2) “and what is better? "
        The eye is nicer. More intense and contrasting, at least in modern Fujah.

        Reply

      • Sergei
        16.11.2019

        1. The green dot, as it were, is extended. Those. when the focus ring rotates from the moment of its appearance to its disappearance, there is a rather long section on which the object seems to be in sufficient sharpness but the focus can be in another place.
        You can continue to give arguments, but it’s stupid for me to deny that working with manual optics at the UPC has become much more convenient and predictable.
        2. Personally, my eye is more pleasant than the JVI, precisely in terms of sensations, if it is large enough and bright, that is, Nikon has a minimum series of 7xxx. Except in situations in which there is a dead night or vice versa the sun or bright light sources in the frame. But the JVI is not entirely reality and not the final image, but there is an element of suspense.
        And so I say that in EVI you can configure for yourself as it should. Reduce contrast and saturation, there is a mode of simulating the JVI.

        Reply

      • Pokemon
        16.11.2019

        “The green dot, how to say it, has an extension. Those. when the focus ring rotates from the moment of its appearance to its disappearance, there is a rather extended section "
        I know about it. Therefore, on cameras such as D3s-D4 and other full-size Nikons, it is more convenient for me to focus using the viewfinder - everything is clearly visible. I pay attention to the green dot only in bad light or when I'm not sure. The fact that it is more convenient to work with manual glasses at the BZK, I heard it, but so far there is no desire and time to try.

        Reply

      • Vitaly N
        16.11.2019

        "Yeah, and the microraster with Doden wedges was just invented out of boredom."
        They came up with when there was no autofocus. And it's not just not using it now. The light meter “sees” them and twists.

        Reply

      • Sergei
        16.11.2019

        I wrote this in the context of working with manual optics. With autofocus, everything is clear, except perhaps all the same sometimes you need to make sure the camera is focused in a place.

        Reply

      • Alexander
        16.11.2019

        “” ”Seeing the picture in real time, as a result, it is more likely to predict the position of a fast-moving object, it is important in shooting sports, reportage.” ””
        -What does it mean to predict the position of an object ...? Are you going to read the player's thoughts with the help of the BZK ...? Absolute nonsense ... And if we add that all these photos of professionals who shoot sports, fashion, and no one will watch reports either, then what's the point in these professionals and their professional cameras ...? In EVF, you will see a darker or lighter picture if the exposure bar is incorrectly positioned ... And considering that even in the manual mode all photographers use an exposure meter, what is the point ... All discussions about autofocus now are just about nothing ... In cameras of the last 9 years, autofocus everyone works fine ... I have two Nikon SLR cameras, autofocus works fine in any light ... When it is completely dark, the autofocus illumination is still normal ... Well, if you mean how many microseconds autofocus worked faster during the day than at night, then this already technodrostvo ... Once I had an Elikon film camera - autofocus ... And even that primitive autofocus worked more or less normally under normal lighting conditions ... And knowing its features, I normally used it ... Photography is creativity, not autofocus is fast or slow ... Previously, they shot on cameras with manual focus, or even set them according to the footage ... And the photos from this did not get worse and the sharpness was normal normal ... And here, microseconds were not enough for someone to make that very shot ... There is a proverb - “when a dog does a fuck, it“ catches microseconds ””

        Reply

      • Sergei
        16.11.2019

        You read inattentively apparently. This applies precisely to the ZK. When a photographer leads a fast-moving object, he sees it in real time and to take a picture at the right time, he only needs to take into account the shutter lag, which is quite small with SLRs. In the UPC through the EVI, the photographer sees in real time a picture for a split second from the past, and makes a motion forecast based on this, plus the same shutter lag, which, as far as I know (but I can be mistaken), is still higher for the UCC. It is clear that in any case, we see a picture from the past, because the speed of light, but the total lag of the UPC accumulates more. Personally, I do not shoot such stories, but there is such a fact.
        Regarding my contrasting AF, in poor lighting there isn’t any micro, and it can take quite a whole second to focus. And on D7k I don’t remember that autofocus was especially good, it worked somehow and okay. In LiveView, he had a terrible contrast. Nevertheless, after the transition to Olympus, my technical marriage with focus and movement became much less.
        With manual focus on old glasses, I still shoot with sharpness and all the things. And on Smena 8M I filmed on Kiev-19 and nothing. Only this is all a hobby, even more like pampering. Discussion of the possibilities of photographic tools and creativity are two different things, you do not need to contrast them.

        Reply

  8. Roman
    15.11.2019

    We walked in the park today, I wanted to take a picture of the berries among the foliage. He pulled out his smart, not the worst, in principle. I got tired of focusing and never got into focus, poking my finger at the screen. I know that the distance is more than MDF, but damn it. Where I would have clicked and moved on, I had to stand for three minutes - and I still could not make these damn berries sharp. I no longer thought about framing, or about the fact that there were no people in the background - I FOCUSED.

    Fuck it, with a fixed wide angle. This can be experienced and you can get used to it, enough stories. To hell with him, with a large depth of field, blur is somehow imitated. And even working in the dark is no longer a problem. But when I shoot with the camera, it is an extension of my hands. I think in terms of “shutter speed-aperture”, plan the shot, think about whether it is worth a little under-light or not. I solve in my mind a whole bunch of problems already purely mechanically, and they are often not even technical. Is there any debris, move away, approach, I can fix it, I can’t, the facial expression of the model (if the model) is the pose, plans. And with the phone, I practically can't think about it.

    I’ve already thought of taking some EOS-M with a pancake and an adapter for EF, so that I would always be at hand. M3, M6. And then I realized that it’s easier to pick up some convenient bag and carry a DSLR with at least a couple of fixes. Somehow photographers of the past dealt with this. If my problem is that the DSLR is not available to me, then I need to solve this problem, and not create a number of others.

    Reply

    • Alexander
      16.11.2019

      I have an Apple Air tablet and two DSLRs ... There is also a Sony compact in the closet, which does not fit into any kind of shooting ... So I decided for myself that it is good to use a tablet (smartphone) to shoot ads and eat on the table, especially close-up ... Still somehow it's better for me to shoot an aquarium with a tablet, although it seems like the detail is better on a DSLR ... But at home with a family, in nature, landscapes, cones, squirrels, a zoo, mushrooms in the forest, and so on, only with a DSLR ... Tablets and smartphones here do not fit at all ... Mirrorless - only on the screen ... And there is no desire to look into this stupid evi ...

      Reply

    • Sergei
      16.11.2019

      Yes, there is such, not convenient. I also have Google Camera ported to medium-sized hardware from the flagship and slows down, there is also the merit of amateur programmers who implemented all this. But the native camera is not much faster. But in my version there is a "macro" button that fixes the focus on the MDF and further focusing is easy to carry out by changing the distance to the object.

      Before I got a smartphone with a suitable camera, I drove a Panasonic GF5 with a manual pancake from Chaika2. It was pretty fun, but somehow by itself fell away in the end.

      And I think photographers of the past simply did not have such a task, i.e. either take pictures or do other things. In modern society, many are trying to develop multitasking, losing the quality of individual processes.

      Reply

      • Alexander
        17.11.2019

        I agree ... In today's society, it is not at all clear what was made of photography ... There is a feeling that everything is important in modern photography, except for what it is intended for - that is, the PHOTOGRAPHY itself ... And not a picture, not a snapshot, but PHOTOS ...

        Reply

  9. Air force
    16.11.2019

    I look here a lot of bukoff wrote.
    I’ll write and I vyser mine.
    I do not like photos on smartphones. But I like the video for some.
    In the DSLRs I like the photo, and the format is equal.
    I really want a video but in equal terms, but this is not done for people.
    And another moment, I do not see through the screen of a smartphone. I can only see through the eyepiece
    And I also want the integration of the DSLR with the android. So that she ceases to be self-enclosed

    Reply

    • Air force
      16.11.2019

      And microsmaz on the mirrors can be seen. Infuriates

      Reply

      • Alexander
        17.11.2019

        The expression “Microsmaz” is already becoming some kind of obsession in the minds of people ... All these fictitious non-existent problems are called in one word - Technodrochestvo ... Grease is lubricant in Africa too ... Both small and large ... It all depends on endurance, strength of hands and stamina of legs ... All these so-called "smears" appear a little more on the digital matrix due to the fact that it consists of dots ... It was either blurry or abrupt on the film because there are no dots, there is a solid light-sensitive array (do not confuse dots - pixels and grain films are completely different things) ... When all the capitalists' arguments for making a profit in the form of mirrorless cameras and everything else run out, then, as the last argument, they still dump a matrix for us, which will have a continuous photosensitive array, without dots ... With such a matrix, a lot will disappear problems associated with the matrix of dots, including the problem of noise at high ISO ... I think that such a development already exists and it will be in the safe until t until there is a complete crisis in the sales of photographic equipment and they have no other choice ...

        Reply

      • Air force
        17.11.2019

        What a jerking, if it is visible on long focal. Though with hands, even with a tripod?
        To deny the presence of grease from the clap of a mirror is the same as to allow the existence of God

        Reply

      • Valery A.
        17.11.2019

        Then there is no grease.

        Reply

      • Onotole
        18.11.2019

        Repent :)

        Reply

      • Roman
        17.11.2019

        On long focal lengths, you can see, first of all, the shake (from the hands) and the work of the stub, which they forgot to disconnect (from the tripod). Visible blurry optics, visible focus errors. You can see the movement of the object (people) and the environment (foliage, waves). Haze is visible. Lubrication from shutter-mirror operation is one of the last reasons for a blurry image with minimal input. If the main problem with your photos is the lack of subpixel sharpness, then you are unlikely to be involved in photography.

        Reply

    • Maria
      16.11.2019

      “So that she stops being closed on herself”
      You are not familiar with modern science fiction?
      It’s time for people to unite into single neural networks.
      Silly question - why is there an android in the camera? it may already be easier to wait until a supersensitive sensor appears, which will automatically transmit a report in 5k from the retina to the social network
      But the joke is good.

      Reply

      • Alexander
        17.11.2019

        For social networks there is a poking device Smartphone ... And for photography there is a SLR camera ... Social networks suck, this is a useless time-spending and stuffing people, especially young people, with all sorts of shit ... And, most importantly, this is a feeder for their creators - hucksters ...

        Reply

  10. Adon
    19.11.2019

    I recently watched a comparison of smartphone cameras, the reviewer included in the comparison the photos taken on the Sony A7s for color.
    So, according to the reviewer, I quote "this smartphone camera bypasses in all respects even a" professional DSLR ", albeit outdated.")))

    Reply

    • Roman
      19.11.2019

      The SLR does not know how to automatically process the image. More precisely, the level of its processing is not sufficient to obtain a similar result, such as “software blur”, “HDR” and the like. The mirror takes on the matrix and the space left for custom processing. Therefore, everything is simple. It is necessary here and now - a smartphone. You need what you have in mind - a DSLR. Or a mirrorless.

      Reply

  11. Arkady Shapoval
    20.11.2019

    Today I was asked to convert 660 (!) Photos from the phone (from different phones, like REDMI NOTE 7 to 48 MP and goPro cameras) to print 10 * 15 for a family album. Some photolabs ask you to give them already customized files with photos for a certain size and not everyone knows how to perform this procedure.
    So - the emotional component of these photographs is several times higher than most photographs, especially staged ones, using “serious” photographic equipment.

    Reply

    • Valery A.
      20.11.2019

      The emotional component is good, but what is the quality?

      Reply

  12. Erbolat
    16.12.2019

    The moment when it’s better to buy a DSLR or a mirrorless one for better quality, it’s much cheaper even with some good fix than buying Steve Jobs products.

    Reply

  13. user
    23.12.2019

    "Leica M"
    Similar in color.

    Reply

  14. user
    23.12.2019

    not posted there. )))

    Reply

  15. Random
    05.01.2020

    To the place you can also recall the story of e-books.
    Their popularity did not finish off paper, but forced publishers to pay more attention to the quality of books.
    Again the story with quartz and fur. for hours.
    So let’s be dead. Cameras have a chance to outlast us all.

    Reply

  16. Peter
    10.07.2020

    I was presented with a simple SLR, a Nikon D5100 and a standard 18-55 lens, I bought an 18-200 and take pictures on it (I look after some kind of good lens). I took some photos of my wife, he posted them on instagram, all her friends are now recording to me at the photo shoot. Photos are fundamentally different from telephone ones (I bought xiaomi mi9 48mp for her), no AI will defeat optics and light physics. Who does not fumble in the photo, he will not find a difference with good optics, and even less will appreciate the photo.

    Reply

    • Trueash
      10.07.2020

      >> looking after some good lens - you already have it :) Don't rush to stock up on glass, see what exactly you are missing. Perhaps a good fix portrait will come in handy. Or reflectors for light

      Reply

      • Peter
        10.07.2020

        I want Nikon 24-70mm f / 2.8E ED VR AF-S but - it's very expensive for me….

        Reply

    • Jury
      21.07.2020

      Yes, I also spent a long time choosing glass for my Nikon, though I have a d3100 ..), but I took the lens 18-200, just like you. In general, I am satisfied, I just got a cumbersome set, it is often not convenient to use it for work on an object (I am an architect) - to climb in basements and attics ...)) I use an old Kodak V570-lens dual, where one of the 17mm lenses helps me out, for technical photography the quality is enough. Although customers sometimes send photos made by iPhones and other devices, the quality is quite tolerable, for non-artistic photography - that's the thing ...)))

      Reply

  17. Michael
    07.11.2020

    Many smart people said a lot of smart words, divided into two camps. In the process of developing my photography skills, I personally became convinced of the following considerations:
    1. Physics cannot be defeated - the dimensions of the matrix, the flow of light, the diffraction limits, and so on, bring full-fledged optical technology to a special pedestal, where smartphones with their pipette matrices, plastic parodies of glass and restrictions on the thickness of a smartphone will never climb. But …
    2. A photographic masterpiece contains 50% of the skill of a photographer, 25% of a good sun, 15% of a good moment and 10% of the technical capabilities of photographic equipment. This is what the greatest masters say.
    3. Can artificial intelligence think out a real picture from a unique and diverse analog living world?
    4. Let's imagine that our world is most likely not the physical real world. Most likely, we just live in a simulated computer reality, a kind of digital strategy. In this case, our entire "unique living world" is just created by a slightly more developed artificial intelligence.
    5. Of course, at serious magnification on a good screen, all disgusting digital bounce and bloopers lose to a well-coordinated picture from good optics. But, smartphones have gone all their way in some 5-10 years, having achieved that on a 6-10-inch screen without enlarging a fragment, you cannot always figure out what you were shooting.
    6. Purely subconsciously, I do not believe that a matrix slightly larger than a match head can compete with excellent optical designs with a diameter of 100 mm and weighing more than a kilogram, which pleasantly pull the hand, and the same sophisticated cameras. But sometimes I think that the human eye, the most perfect optical design, which is the arbiter in this dispute, is a little larger than a nail, that is, it is much closer to a match head than a kilogram.
    7. Of course, the human eye cannot act as a telescope, as close as the largest telescopic lenses do. A human cannot, but the small eye of an eagle sees a motionless mouse from a kilometer height. How can you place a normal telescope in a thin smartphone, for the thickness of which there is a constant struggle? So progress does not stand still, but throws us new ideas - place the telescope not across, but along the smartphone. And how many new technical improvements we can’t even imagine.
    8. No art exists without a spectator. Let's confess, how long have you been to photo exhibitions? A huge mass of people watch TV, a small proportion of them go to the cinema, an even smaller proportion of the latter go to the theater, and a very small percentage of the third ones gaze intently at “photo-masterpieces” and go to photo exhibitions.
    9. How often do you look at photos from your wedding, taken with a powerful photographic technique? Much less often (many orders of magnitude less often) than pictures in Whatsapp taken on smartphones.
    10. The main application of optical photography equipment is for oneself. Some people are perfectionists, they are warmed by the thought that their photos are made of better quality than just on a smartphone, and neatly arranged in daddies, even if they never look at this photo. Tomorrow they will take another photo to put in their daddy, without having time to look at yesterday's "masterpieces", and so on. This work "on the shelf" practically levels out the result of the work itself and the waste of money on expensive pribluda, and is only needed for self-development. So let's at least make the process comfortable for our loved ones.
    11. Huge expensive carcasses and glasses are extreme. I can quite confidently distinguish a wine of 2-3 thousand per bottle, I can distinguish it from wine for 200-300 rubles, but I cannot distinguish it from a wine that costs 10 thousand. Also, the difference in the results of photography with cropped matrices with compact lenses and heavy expensive equipment is hardly distinguishable for 99,9999% of viewers. That is why more and more manufacturers are creating lines that are compact in size and weight, and are convenient for travel and movement. All this size-heavy splendor falls in sales and remains a narrow layer of people who decided to take a photo as their profession.
    12. Cyclopean mirrors and gigantic, expensive lenses are disgustingly awkward. Filling luggage with this glass and iron on the plane, carrying special backpacks on a hike or in the city, paying millions of rubles for a dubious and disappearing difference in quality is the lot of photographers or freaks who have no other occupations and attachments.
    13. Smartphones for taking photos and especially video are also disgustingly uncomfortable. A smartphone is a universal device, and in order to conveniently take a photo with it, it must be taken in two hands, otherwise it will turn out crooked, and it will also crash on the asphalt.
    14. Compact photography equipment (with interchangeable lenses), oddly enough, in convenience can give a head start to smartphones. Modern lines of compact technology with interchangeable light optics allow you to confidently and conveniently shoot with one hand and constantly hold the camera in your hand while on the move.
    15. Of course, modern smartphones have an indisputable advantage over modern cameras - they are much more powerful processors and incredible software with AI, into which huge money is pumped and with which they are trying to level the optical gap. In addition, smartphones and tablets with their modern screens are much more convenient for instant viewing of a snapshot and showing it to others on-line. And here the smartphone gives odds even to the most expensive cameras with their 3-inch wretched screens or the need to look through the viewfinder hole.
    16. Most likely common sense will prevail and, as usual, we will see the "golden mean". I don't know what such a golden mean would look like. Maybe the lenses will be made in the form of stylus, which are used in Galaxy-Note and laptops, and will be removed with a slight movement of the hand from smartphones. Maybe the image will be immediately projected onto the retina, like in smart Google glasses. It's hard to say now. But the movement towards this middle is already underway. Instead of cyclopean DSLRs, the world is quickly shifting to miniature mirrorless cameras (even if they are FF). Smartphone makers are announcing the development of sensors larger than an inch, as well as innovative lenses that extend from smartphones. Apparently, camera manufacturers, in turn, will make a big leap in their processors and these processors installed in optical photography equipment, in addition to good "analog" pictures, will also process them using AI, as smartphones already do. Wait and see.

    Reply

    • Pokemon
      07.11.2020

      An interesting article on the topic of cameras in mobile phones and mobileography in general and what can be expected in the near future (and what already now):
      http://vesnins.ru/vychislitelnaya-fotografiya-budushhee-fotografii-eto-kod

      Reply

      • Ivan
        07.11.2020

        Very interesting article! That's just a reprint. Original link at the bottom of the article.

        Reply

    • Michael
      07.11.2020

      I don't quite agree. If you look back, it was the same. Nobody went to photo exhibitions or looked at the photos from the wedding. Most household photos and 99% of people need acceptable quality for household photos, say print size 10x15. The first soap dishes did not give such a quality and the people piled on the mirror. Most people are satisfied with the phone now. the quality already fits into the size 10x15. There are still enthusiasts who previously treated photography differently. They will consider this 1% difference and will not go smart. Actually everything

      Reply

  18. Load more comments ...

Reply

 

 

Top
mobility. computer