One slide note.
The impact of smartphones. Enlarge Image. Original image taken here.
Please note that the scale of the number of units on the left (for cameras) and on the right (for smartphones) have different steps.
That's the end of the fairy tale, and who listened - well done.
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
To some extent unexpected. Looking at the graph, I thought that it was a soap dish, until I read under the graph that this is data on cameras with interchangeable lenses.
I believe that the chart includes not only cameras with interchangeable lenses, but everything. The origin of digital cameras - remember what they were then? Most likely, this includes everything, including “full-frame” film soap boxes, the market for which just collapsed, first with the advent of digital soap boxes, and then smartphones.
A camera is a camera and a smartphone is a smartphone.
A smartphone for more mundane people who do not really need to worry about the correctness of the frame and its fullness, blur the background, in short, shoot without thinking too much. So that marketers do not talk, and with which cameras they compare smartphones in terms of quality, the camera in a smartphone still remains an appendage. At least to recall the attempts of manufacturers to integrate more or less high-quality camera solutions with smartphones and phones, they did not lead to anything, this only proved once again that smartphones with cameras are amateurishness. Yes, there were and will be people who filmed quite well on smartphones, but this is more like an artistic step and an option to declare oneself and a non-standard approach. Although several cameras have recently begun to be added to smartphones, which has brought a little closer to the camera in terms of artistic content, nevertheless, smartphones remain an amateur lot, although smartphones are the main generator of content on the Internet, both in photos and in videos.
Smatphones have not gone far from film soap dishes, or rather, they have not gone anywhere except for size.
Really? Modern smartphones have not gone anywhere from film soap dishes?
Regarding the composition of the frame and use - nowhere. Still the same single masterpiece button.
The same can be said for the rest of the cameras - the layout and the masterpiece button. Of course, I don't want to admit the success of some "smartphones" there. Until recently, many will try to prove that a smartphone is not a full-fledged camera. But we saw something like that when the tape left.
Arkady, I answered Volodymyr on his post about the niche of smartphone cameras. Of course, there are quality improvements, but for the consumer they are at the same level as film soap dishes - point-click. Even digital point-and-shoot cameras have more options with zoom and flash. But judging by their sales, most do not need it, as well as bells and whistles with cameras and matrices in top smartphones. Previously 10 * 15 per album, now downsizing from megapixels to instagram ...
Why, I have already written more than once that often I have to print photographs, including 20 * 30 from telephones, and not every photographer will tell where the print is from the Central Control Commission / BSC, and where from the usual smart for 200 bucks.
A blind photographer cannot tell exactly ... a sighted one right away
a couple of years ago, I also thought so, but modernity dictates a different picture of the world
I mean one thing, you mean something else. 10 * 15 to the album is about the end point from the soap dish. What you typed from a smartphone is generally an isolated case, wattsap and instagram in 99.9% of cases.
A smartphone is not a full-fledged camera ... A smartphone is a means for capturing moments for those who generally have no idea about photography from the technical point of view and do not want to know it ... And there will be more and more of them ... And people who are thoughtfully engaged in photography anyway little, but it will be even less over time ... The graph confirmed my guesses ... The growth in sales of cameras fell on 2010 - 2014, when normal cameras had already appeared and “them” began to fall due to the fact that everyone who wanted to bought a camera for themselves and such people are not satisfied with the fact that the manufacturer wants them to throw out their camera and buy a new one, they don’t want to spend money on the whims of the capitalists ... And here for two reasons - I have already voiced one and the second is a mess , arranged by the oligarchs for us in 2014, as a result of which the prices for cameras also increased and simply discouraged the majority of them from changing and buying them ... I'm talking about ordinary people, not about the pro segment ... There is a completely different topic, there many pr ofi get cameras for free ...
Complete - not complete, yeast bread is not complete - full of sourdough, what you sell in the supermarket is not milk ... Meanwhile, life expectancy is steadily growing. You can invent any cliches, nevertheless reality is a stubborn thing. I have five DSLRs, the D40 has a dead shutter, the D90 has a mirror lifting mechanism, the nearest Nikon service in another country is 1000 km away. I have already thrown one into the bucket and bought a new one, D90 is still a pity. Whatever suits me there, there is nowhere to go in “planned aging”. But my wife has where, as she found herself a normal smart, she scored on DSLRs and is glad that she has everything in one device and does not need to overtake anything anywhere and you can carry a small handbag, not a backpack. And I understand her perfectly.
It's like a VW polo is not a car. Since it doesn’t go into turns at high speed (read noise in poor lighting), it’s inconvenient for six in the long run (read no briquetting, timelapse, etc.), maintainability, and 1,2 turbo is not like an aspirated one (read no RAW and other hemorrhages with processing), no carrying capacity (think of yourself). In short, it is clear that it is not a sports car, not a minibus, not a truck in one combo bottle.
But 98% of buyers are never racers, go alone to work or with children to school. And about the remaining 2%, there are battles in all forums, it’s better to hire someone, suffer a little or even walk (this is me about the war of Nikon, Canon, Sony :) systems.
I admit that he himself is a very aesthetic and sometimes a photo draw. Well, who does not like to dream / show off? I'm not a driver / taxi driver / trucker :)
The graph shows exactly the opposite, i.e. that DSLRs are for pros, special tasks and "amateurs" of large numbers, and the number of the latter is catastrophically striving for the same restless film "amateurs".
The graph reflects a fait accompli - pictures taken with cameraphones satisfy 99% of cases 99% of photo consumers. Because it is very convenient.
smartphones with cameras are amateurishness. Absolutely correct. But it is the amateurism that makes the market. The best-selling segment is budget. The best camera is the one with you at the moment. This was addressed to the camera in the phone in shaggy 2006 and it was about the 2 megapixel camera Sony Ericsson k750. And now the situation has worsened many times. For $ 100-200 you get a device that completely covers a large number of needs for the mass segment, and a camera is one of them. Few will want to improve the hardware for better listening to music or taking photos. Sophisticated photographers and audiophiles are a minority. The bad news is that sales of the mass segment provided funds for the development of new technology, and this flow has dried up, as we have seen for the last seven years, perhaps. Nikon d3400 here, Canon 4000d and others like them
Regarding different scales for cameras and smartphones, it correlates perfectly with their lifespan. Where are these hundreds of millions of smartphones sold 10 years ago?
This is very accurately noticed! I take off all the crayons orders for the Canon 100D with professional optics (camera 6 years old). If something more serious then the Canon 5D mark 2 (the camera is 11 years old!) Or the Canon 6D (7 years old) and the Nikon D600 D800 (7 years old). I also have a fully working Fujifilm S2Pro (almost 18 years old).
Smartphones are still a scam, especially with system updates ... Cameras are somewhat different, especially those that have been released for 7 - 8 years ... These, I think, will work happily ever after ...
My camera broke after 4 years. Crop Nikon. I shoot with a compact camera without interchangeable optics (aka “soap dish”).
It does not happen that there are no breakdowns, but in general there are very few of them in the chambers of the release of previous years ...
Do not believe it - it happens.
And my D5100 has been working fine since 2011, mileage is already under 150k
This does not mean anything, I have a smart Sams E5, I don’t even remember when I took it, the two previous ones did not break, I “dropped them” myself. But Nikons D40 and D90 broke down within a week - shutter, mirror. And if smart can be repaired in any alley for 3 kopecks. That DSLRs are nowhere, since the service has not appeared and now it is unlikely to appear, since there are 1 per thousand people like me, and everyone is smart, including children who do not speak yet and no longer speak elders.
Well, guys, is it smart to pay 100 thousand rubles for a smartphone so that it will “bend” in three years? Be smarter than the world eaters!
Always disdain for the cameras of smartphones. Now I shoot on the Honor 20pro. Two SLRs gather dust in a closet and are picked up only for photo hunting. I think that high-quality 400-600mm on smarts will not appear during my lifetime) Although the cameras in a smartphone are terribly expensive, the Honor costs $ 700, for this money you can take a used canon6d and ef50 1.8. And enjoy the creativity. But smart is always in your pocket, and that’s it. And that monstrous gap in quality, as before, is no longer there. It is foolish to deny the software and technological breakthrough of smartphone cameras in recent years. It's only the beginning!
If you mentioned Canon 6D as an example, I’ll add that this camera has excellent built-in WI-FI. I transfer the captured material to the smartphone in one minute. If you shot in RAW, the camera will convert you to jpeg automatically and you can immediately upload photos to instagram and so on.
That's just what you need to spend a lot of money on Canon 6D, then upload photos from it on Instagram ... This is generally an occupation for single-celled organisms ...
I don’t know what kind of heap you are talking about. Canon 6D in good working condition now costs 400-500 euros. From optics to it for a start, you can take the Canon EF 28-105 3.5-4.5 USM. This is another 50-80 and that's it. It turns out cheaper than the new iPhone. With optics and a hollow frame, you get a completely different volume in the photo. Smartphones are still very far from good portrait capabilities. You can buy a Canon 40D or Nikon D90 if you have very little money. This camera + a good fix or the same zoom will cost less than 200 euros. And you have optics and very flexible and convenient controls. Note that I do not even consider buying entry-level amateur SLRs and whale lenses.
The question arises why something should be thrown somewhere, if it is already immediately removed by smart and is in smart? Plus, smart wins by the fact that it is almost always already in the hands - they talk to it, chat there, buy through it, call a taxi, watch the bus, see the road on the card, pay, etc. In order to get a DSLR out of a bag or rather a backpack , you need to put it (smart) in your pocket and then make a lot of unnecessary gestures, while you are showing a circus performance with pulling out a "mammoth from a bag" the whole plot will end on one side, and on the other, a photo taken from a smart will not only be sent, but they will even discuss it from all sides and forget it, and you are just hovering around and perhaps also climb into the settings ...
Do you look at the situation from the point of view of a photojournalist? Then, perhaps you are right. And look at it through the eyes of a landscape painter, or a photo hunter? What weak?
Among lovers of landscape painters and photo-hunters, there are depressingly few. It is difficult to imagine a simple person killing a vacation for a many-day, secretive creep to a herd of antelopes.
And there have never been many, but they are)
Dim, and if the amateur does not crawl to the antelopes, and removes birds in the park? Also hard to imagine?
Now, yes, all the birds have already been photographed from all angles on very expensive equipment and are on the Internet, while the photographs, as a rule, are also accompanied by the performance characteristics of the bird, its habits, habitat, there is a recording of its voice, the author's memories of “how it was” etc. There are no personal memories and events of yours. Previously, yes, it was interesting - he “crawled on the lawns” satisfying the interest. It's pretty pointless now.
Everywhere everyone says (even on the websites of the manufacturers' photos it is written) that it is with their camera that I will not miss that very moment ... What kind of moronism ...? Which moment…? Who can determine that the very moment is now, and not five seconds ago, during which the camera did not have time to turn on ... This is complete nonsense - some kind of marketing crap came up with this expression for this very market-logotron ... Is it possible that someone else is doing this crap ... ? Photography is art, not Nutcracking ...
Few people take pictures of inanimate nature, I believe that among lovers of such near zero. The main part is making family chronicles. Children went to school, a child scores a goal, friends make a snowman, bathe, play snowballs, children read with their mother, etc. Here, as it is not sad, the moment is very important and it is not about machine-gun shooting, namely fixing interesting moment. Of course, it can be repeated by directing everyone and everyone, setting the light on and then wondering what everyone has with faces and why are people's poses so strange?
And turn off the DSLR and do not. Well, art is art, and no one canceled the reporting as a genre.
The phone actually doesn’t take pictures of what telephoto cameras are used for: birds, squirrels, silhouettes of buildings against the background of the moon, so that the moon is clearly visible ... And these are all quite amateur stories. Well, when I go for a walk with a camera, I hang it on my shoulder, and do not put it in my backpack - the phone, in fact, takes longer to reach.
Yes you…? Now, when the well-being of people is deteriorating for the fifth year and many people eat the last horseradish without salt for you, then 600 euros is a penny ...? I congratulate you then ... Now only the hucksters, speculators and officials live well ...
And why, then, for the majority of ordinary young people smartphones will be more expensive since it is so expensive? Because it is promoted and you can play. And brag to the guys who has what processor there. Not everyone knows what a camera is and how to use it. There you must first learn. But learning is already ... Isn't it?
It is only in the CIS and in the territory of the former USSR. Who is to blame and what to do is no longer a rhetorical question. No need to vote for morons and not live in the "country of fools", children and grandchildren say thank you. The territory of the former USSR is a cursed place, and there will be no change for the better in the next 20 years. Generations and regimes and mentality must change.
Rave. People in many places are very, very similar (I have not been to Australia, Africa and America), not without their own special specifics, of course, and I would not say that in the CIS they differ for the worse. "Morons" are in many places, so nature is arranged.
And here the similarity of people？
I have known friends who went to Germany, Japan （!）, England and Ireland.
Bullshit is the slave mentality and the dictatorial-thieves regimes of the former commies. Once again I am convinced that people who left the former USSR right after the collapse and dumped in the USA, Canada and Israel made the right choice. I am convinced of this every week.
I think the same. Those who left Russia in difficult times are a shame to such non-citizens. They fled - temporary workers, crooks and thieves, taking pieces of the weak state apart. Then, when their tail is pressed, all sorts of juvenile and other authorities, they recall their homeland.
At the expense of the "dictatorial and thieves regimes of the former commies" read the diaries of Evezd "great" geographical discoveries such as Magelan, Vasco da Gama and others. Many of them have even declassified almost completely :))) It remains to wait until the Spaniards will finally deign to reveal to the world the diaries of their culture and enlightenment conquistadors. People in the Russian Empire rebelled for a reason, just to annoy you, perhaps something did not suit them. And to elevate the colonial countries to the pedestal of purity and purity is, in general, very strange.
This is the general schedule for all cameras (not only with interchangeable lenses). Fixed
Arkady, here)) Then everything falls into place. Cameras with interchangeable lenses have always occupied their rather specialized and narrow niche. Users of this technique cannot be knocked out by any smarts)))
The schedule of ordering sessions from the pros and the number of smarts sold would be indicative. It is a pity the information on the volume of orders is not received.
Somehow, either 500px, or dpreview threw out annual statistics on camera models, with the headline that only photos taken from iPhones exceeded the total number of images from all DSLRs. I do not know how in the world, in Belarus and the Russian Federation there were two waves. At first, at any holiday, everyone had a digital sign in their hands, then an amateur mirror. Now if you meet a DSLR, then it is amateur and even those years.
oh well, there have always been people who bought the f55 / d3100, clicked a little and put the device on the shelf. Such a smartphone is a balm for their soul, thirsting for beauty sometimes
I use a $ 200 smartphone. He helped out many times when it was necessary to take a picture, but the camera was not at hand (shooting the starry sky, macro, collective photo in difficult lighting conditions - everything is of very decent quality). 10 years ago, even the most advanced phone was not capable of this.
My compact Olympus 2011 is still good in terms of photos, it is not always possible to replace it with a smartphone (especially in teleposition). If we add a comparison of video capabilities, then Olympus against the background of a smartphone is just a trash can.
So, by 2020, smartphones were doing soap dishes. Advanced soap dishes are beginning to do right before our eyes.
And now the question. What will smartphones for $ 200 be able in another 10 years? (And even in combination with an external stub for $ 100?) Will they give a good kick to the full frame?
For those who are still using inertia as a mantra “physics cannot be fooled”, I recommend reading about computational photography. Smartphones already provide enough detail for most plots. The next step is full control of the depth of field. Just as film brands are now available at the flick of a finger in the form of filters, control of depth of field and bokeh will be available through computational photography. And people who use smartphones as their main camera do not automatically become “down-to-earth”, “narrow-minded,” just as a passion for cameras does not make photography “creative” and “deep”.
I agree with you that this whole process will be improved ... But this is just a software product, not a photograph ... But it will be photography when a breakthrough occurs and a matrix appears, consisting not of points, but of a solid array, like a film ... Here this will be a revolution in photographic technology ... And the emergence of digital matrices is just an evolution of cameras and nothing more ...
The film also consists of dots - grains. Only they are located chaotically.
But with a sufficient number of megapixels, the figure is already better than the film.
As for the breakthrough, it is up to the preservation of the light field, as in Litro
and refusal to programmatically cut the object
they don’t give details
We forget that the beginning of the growth in the popularity of smartphones and, accordingly, their sales, is by no means connected with the presence of cameras in them, which were also in ordinary mobile phones. When the quality of cameras in smartphones reached a higher modern level, this “trick” began to stick out in the same advertisement.
You can talk for a long time, a lot and diligently about the inviolability of cameras with interchangeable optics, etc. ... and all this is a drop in the ocean. Where are smartphones released 10 years ago? In the same place where the soap dishes / compacts / most of the DSLRs of those years, only the smartphone should be updated anyway, and every time the user receives a high-quality update of the camera of this smartphone. Will a lot of people buy a new DSLR for 100500 thousand dollars?
On the approach of AI to the masses, telephoto cameras (albeit incomparable for now), etc., there is where to move + convenience, I photographed with one device, edited where I needed to send it or printed it. And what about the "cool fataparats that?" And why, he still arranges in a cell 10 years ago.
IMHO now the only (or almost the only) thing that the "uncle with a long objective" takes - artistic skill, the right frame, a beautiful interior in a photo studio, etc. It is the creative component.
Yes, and many of the reporters (“wedding bombing”) are increasingly talking about the client's claims ala “but my friend / brother / matchmaker also took pictures of the iPhone”. So I agree with Arkady: we saw something like that when the tape was leaving.
All these technologies of "computational photography and AI", as soon as they become a real, modified tool, will immediately appear on new professional cameras, harmoniously complementing the full-size matrix and excellent optics. And a portable mobile micro-hole with a micro-matrix and a plastic glass will remain where it belongs. Believe me.
Time will judge us. Let's see how the introduction of “computational photography and AI” into “full-size sensor and great optics” will weaken the impact of smartphones on the camera industry.
Oh yes. "Computational photography", of course, provides new opportunities, but a) never a panacea, b) does not cancel optics. Exactly how Photoshop did not cancel optics (and digital processing in general), although new opportunities have appeared, and some old ones have been simplified, and theoretically you can add anything ...
Nothing, they will learn how to massively stamp a complex asphere - lenses from a pair of lenses (a working prototype of a “superspherical” single-lens lens seems to already exist, there was news somewhere), then the micro-holes will show themselves ...
Will not appear. The tendency goes in the other direction - do not transform the data captured from the matrix at all. There will be a stupid brick with a comfortable grip, in which there is a naked matrix and its cooling system, and what you will do with the output information (with which AI to process it) is your problem. The manufacturer sees no reason to invest in a fading segment and there are a lot of calls: mirrorless, only RAW (no jpeg), direct video stream past conversion modules.
the photo is interesting because to create a masterpiece you don't need cool equipment at all :-))) ... I made my best shot with a lousy digital Samsung for 3,5 thousand rubles, which washed all the time and shamefully missed focus in 2 cases out of three :-)) )
and now I have NIKON D 610, NIKON 9100, CANON 500 D, but so far I have not been able to repeat such a masterpiece :-))))
Yes, the main thing is the plot and the end result in the photo. It is useless to argue with this. But still show your masterpiece! At least a small resize. What is a masterpiece for you and why could not be repeated?
I'll tell you my story, which, perhaps, no one will read ...
In 2013 I bought Nikon d80. Over time, I supplied him with the necessary - normal glasses, a flash, cables, a tripod. In 2018, my shutter died. Camera repair is not economically feasible. I am not able to buy a new one at such prices, but to buy another used unit is a lottery.
As a result, lies 2 years in a backpack in the corner. I shoot on a smartphone.
The smartphone is also not forever)
A smartphone, even if it breaks, a new one will be bought, and with a camera it’s more difficult.
And how much does a smartphone with a camera give a result that remotely resembles a normal camera? Budget new models with very mediocre cameras cost comparable to b. at. cameras. In my opinion, there is something to ponder.
give a couple of examples of a "normal" camera
Why a couple. I indicate: https://radojuva.com/camera-review/
Not a single smartphone.
For me, photography is a hobby. I once already bought a camera for hobby, it is that ... I have a smartphone not for hobby, the camera in it, quite good, is built in by default. The price for my Chinese is 10 thousand.
When the camera breaks it is very sad and repairs cost money. Of course this is always an unpleasant surprise, but did you buy B.U. in 2013? How many frames did she go through and in what condition was before and after the purchase? You can also meet the D500 rolled, although the model is still fresh. Of course, I don’t know where you are from or what prices you have on B B, but if you choose well, then everything is usually excellent. And the D80 itself is a very old camera and today is poorly suited for serious use.
Of course boo. It was probably removed from production in 20009m))
At flea markets lie for pennies D80 and D70s.
With some luck, you can find the camera in good condition with a range of up to 50 thousand. On Avito, they simply piled up.
Here on my just 55 thousand frames))
You have a pessimistic view of things. Look at the bright side, I will show it to you :) This bright side is that at the peak of DSLR fashion, people picked up a whole bunch of them, and now they are selling with very low mileage and for very little money, while the models are quite fresh.
If the smartphone suits - this is one thing, but if not - something more decent is bought. 99% smart suits, as they did before with soap dishes
With good lighting on any current smartphone, the photo will be normal ... And if these photos are used only to post on social networks, then no one will tell what it was taken on ...
This is called "satisfied"
BU d90, d5100 and the like can now be bought with mileage up to 5000 frames, less than 10 thousand. A friend took d90 a month ago with mileage 6700 for 7000 rubles. and the lens 35-70 Nikon dark for 3000 rubles. On a smartphone, remove his dog jumping in flight behind a plate, which is still a trick.
In general, I don't see anything wrong with more ways to take good photos. If only they liked the one who makes them, no matter what. And no one bothers to combine. I laugh at the experts who despise smartphones as opposed to CZK. There is a friend, artist and reputable photographer with about 40 years of experience, who now does not shy away from taking pictures on a smartphone, at the same time using CZK for production, and combining them for personal albums. I really admired the development of technologies ...)) It seems to me that the perception of Arkady is similar, as far as I managed to observe him.
Phones, which at one time for various reasons surprised me with their cameras and made me respect the cameras in the phones and feel the progress, here are some of them: Siemens M75 （here I was pleased with the fact that there is always a camera with itself and it can do something), Nokia N93, Nokia N95 8Gb, Samsung i8910 Omnia HD, Nokia 808 Pureview, Nokia Lumia 1020. In addition to these, there were others, but they are less worthy of mention. I look closely at Huawei p30pro or the new Huawei Mate30 pro.
Cameras and smartphones. Each device has its own philosophy and its own evolutionary path of development. Smartphone manufacturers are striving to improve the phototechnical characteristics of these devices: they are increasing megapixels, improving algorithms for intra-camera, or rather intra-smartphone image processing, trying to introduce interchangeable optics. And cameras remain cameras, but their manufacturers systematically borrow technologies from year to year that are more characteristic of communication means than of photographic equipment (wireless control and data transfer to the Internet, GPS marker). I think that full integration will not happen due to the different philosophy of these devices. The camera will remain a specialized technical tool for creating high quality images, high in all respects (resolution, sensor size, color reproduction, optical capabilities of lenses). The smartphone will evolve as a universal device for the accumulation and transmission of information. Its evolution will continue, it seems to me, in the direction of increasing versatility and computing power. Personal home computers, in the form in which they exist now (system units, laptops, tablets) will leave. Smartphones will supplant them in the form of a universal compact, but powerful computing module, to which you can connect any peripheral device and effectively manage it. The amateur segment of digital photographic equipment will continue to be squeezed by smartphones, but against this background, I think, we will soon witness the revival of film photographic equipment. Funny paradox. Nobody will stick the film into the smartphone. The film will remain for professionals and amateurs from among the true connoisseurs of its unique charm. Based on personal experience, I can say that a smartphone for operational or protocol shooting is much more convenient than a camera, even a compact one. Simple recording of events, photocopying documents and nothing more. Once I ran out of “film” in the digital camera (in the sense of a place on the memory card), and I decided to try to take some pictures with my smartphone. The result pleased me and upset me. We were pleased with the bright, colorful, surprisingly sharp shots of the Samsung J2 Prime smartphone at a slow shutter speed (longer than 1/30 sec.), Upset by the muffled color, friable pictures of the Fuji S3 Pro in conjunction with a good lens, again at a slow shutter speed. However, after viewing the same pictures on a home computer, everything fell into place. The camera remained a camera, albeit an old one, but a professional one, capable of producing an honest frame suitable for further processing (shot in RAF). The smartphone was immediately “blown away”, dimmed and blurred. It is unclear where all the gloss and gloss of the captured photos went. I look at the smartphone screen - I see one picture, but on my computer it seems to be the same, but of a completely different quality. Since then, the feeling of some kind of falsity of these devices (smartphones) does not leave me. Photos are very miserable, mediocre. Manufacturers, it seems to me, have learned how to adapt the picture well to the display capabilities of a particular smartphone model, but nothing more.
Because a smartphone is a computational photography. You will also reproduce some of the effects from raw. The part is not, this is about "folding" a lot of images and processing by neural networks. Although it is quite possible that computational photography will come to prof. cameras.
Computational photography is an interesting technology, but you want to see a real picture, not a cartoon. Having lost touch with reality, photography ceases to be photography. It already ceases to be it, don't you think? Photoshop, plugins, digital effects and all that ... Soon all these technologies will be put on stream, automated, industrialized, equipped with artificial intelligence, which will decide for the photographer what, where and how to photograph. It can turn out like in the fairy tale “The Wizard of the Emerald City” - everyone will put on glasses with colorful glasses, and people will see the dull gray everyday life in pink or emerald light.
Everyone chooses for himself, but the very possibility of choice must be left. Creativity is always work, work on oneself. Nothing is given for free. You cannot deprive a person of the opportunity to create by replacing a tool for creativity (a camera) with a finished product - computing technology, implemented, among other things, in a smartphone. So you can get to the point of absurdity: install several photo and video cameras in famous historical places, for example, near the Eiffel Tower, on Red Square, in front of the Winter Palace and organize remote paid management of them over the network. Those who wish will come in and take a picture without taking their butt off the sofa or chair, just pressing the “Print Screen” button on the keyboard. Formally, you will not find fault, you are the author of the picture, although your foot has never set foot in Paris.
Further more ... Why install something somewhere. Networks and photo stocks are already overflowing with pictures of the most famous places from all possible angles. By pressing the shutter, the user will not even guess that his camera in general does not shoot anything, but selects a ready frame from the network, taking into account the device's GPS coordinates and computer simulation. A naive user will then brag about how cool he shoots with his “camera”. Every picture is a “masterpiece” worthy of the Louvre.
Your eye is a computational photo and a cartoon. If you get the original picture, you will be horrified.
The task of photography is to convey the sensations that you experienced. Without placing the person in the environment, you cannot convey this feeling. The most, the widest-angle lens will not convey the feeling of either a Gothic cathedral or a Cheops pyramid - until you enter this bulk and approach it, you will not understand this.
Neither the smell of rain, nor the charm of a person, nor the freshness of foliage, nor the starry sky, nor the sunset, nor the tide - just this image will not convey anything. Therefore, you have to resort to imitation and processing. To highlight by taking it out of context.
And where, in your opinion, should the very border of reality with the smell of rain, starry sky, fresh foliage, sunsets, sunrises, ebb and flow, which the photographer should capture? You can take photos, imitate, use a smartphone so that you completely lose touch with reality. In the process of processing photographs, the transition from quantitative changes to qualitative changes occurs quickly and almost imperceptibly. As a result, we get anything, but not reality. The art of photography, in my humble opinion, is dialectics and metaphysics in one bottle. Somewhere I read an interesting thought: “If you cannot distinguish an illusion from reality, choose what is more reasonable”. Of the two illusions, I personally choose the one that my eye perceives and processes the brain given to me by nature, but not the illusion that is built on the basis of computing technologies hardwired into a smartphone. As for reality, it really may turn out to be terrible, but not because everything is completely bad, it's just that humanity is not ready yet. In one thing you are right, in order to make a real photograph you need to be able to feel, be able to distinguish subtle shades of the surrounding world, no matter if it is real, this world, or illusory. And for this, man and humanity as a whole need to develop themselves, enrich their inner world, and not improve computational technologies, otherwise the technologies will outlive their creators.
Each smartphone has the same philosophy - to mow the bucks ... And all technical progress fits into the concept - selfish interest ... Now this is the main thing for them - the rest does not matter ...
The graph shows how those who did not really need them get rid of cameras in favor of mobile microcameras. I think it's great. Firstly, there is a tendency towards stabilization, and even a decrease in the cost of good cameras. Secondly. Good cameras aren't going anywhere in the foreseeable future. And they certainly will not "go away" as "the film left". In an effort to win back the buyer, they will only be made better and more perfect. This is a natural process. The evolution of the photographic tool.
The whole topic of displacing cameras by smartphones does not cost anything at all ... Those who want to shoot with normal cameras - and will shoot with them ... And those who just need to register what they see and do not carry anything with them, they will use smartphones ... who fell for a scam called "Fashion" and bought DSLRs, now they are selling and buying smartphones ... That's the whole religion ... I use DSLRs and I don't need mirrorless cameras ... A mirrorless is more a smartphone than a camera ... The whole photographic process is not the same ... Not impressive ...
Is the photographic process wrong? :) And how is it so different from the BLC in the Central Control Commission that the process is not the same? : D
Take a film, there is a "photographic process", and all these are your digital ...! : D: D: D The colors are not the same, the “air” is not the same, and in general it was better under the communists!
There will be no cost reduction. The camera market shrinks to its real value (pros + amateurs) from the current one (pros + amateurs + mimoprohodil), and with a decrease in circulation, the price usually increases. Another question is whether there is a stock there ...
I don’t know what is so shocking here, the graph very clearly shows the camera market returning to the sales levels of the late seventies, exactly to the appearance of autofocus soap dishes, because of which the photographic market began to grow. People needed a simple tool to capture their way of life and that this tool was simple, then soap dishes appeared, and people began to buy them, and now phones have replaced such simple devices. Everything returned to square one. And cameras, especially system ones, have always been a tool of enthusiasts, industry experts, or at the very least technodrocher, forgive me. What is this about?
You have described the situation with the photo market very accurately ...
Yes, that's right. I would only clarify: cheap autofocus soap dishes, although this is not essential.
The fact that the financial flows for innovation have already left the system cameras. Therefore, everything that will appear new in them will be an adaptation, and not everything will appear. The product will become niche, which will cause the price to rise. In the near future, the phrase "modern digital SLR" will convey the same pain that "modern film cameras" do now. They will not disappear, perhaps from our lives.
An article on the resource of mobile equipment was already on the same topic less than a month and a half ago. In addition to the article itself, comments on it are no less interesting:
https://mobile-review.com/articles/2019/huawei-p30-pro-camera.shtml
I didn’t write “Murtazyan”, it means you can read it, although this dubious resource has long and hard and not free drowned for Samsung and its phones and biased criticized the phones of other manufacturers, often setting the next SGS as an example.
The author writes: “Last year, I took a cool Canon EOS R for cosplay, which cost 200+ thousand rubles with a lens.
This year, perhaps, I'll take the Huawei P30 Pro. ”
And of course, this material, shot entirely on the Huawei, did not come out? :) Given the gloomy lighting at most exhibitions, I think it is unlikely that something serious happened on the photos from the phone.
In fact, photography always remains photography, so that it is not made.
What are they shooting now ... and what will they shoot for ...
And even more so, the history of photography proves and is time-tested that it’s not so important what the shot was taken on, how important its very existence. How many old photographs were taken terribly, not clear, crossed, without details, but they occupy their place of honor in the history of photography.
I would like to take more than a dozen of these historical photographs, and at least even one. It is unlikely that they will ask me the technical features of the frame, rather they will ask about the background and the aftermath of the frame. Indeed, the photo differs from the video in that there is always something behind the scenes, we can only watch for a moment, but not as a fragment of time, as in the video.
And I think that it will not matter what the photograph is taken when it is taken at the right time and from the right angle, it will be ideal not ideal, and it will not give a damn about the quarter, golden ratio, shutter speed, sensitivity. The main fact of photography, if not a variable value.
I wrote everything correctly!
Sfotkano and processed smartphone :)
God knows what, of course, but this is a random photo taken in rather wet, windy, salty and sandy conditions.
Each instrument has its own time and place.
There are no complaints about the artistic part, but about the technical ... All the delights of miniature optics and computational photography are on the face, oops, on the rays. Those. geometric distortions are so great that you have to make frantic image correction. Everything would be fine, but the bunnies gave it out with giblets.
That's just the correction here and there. And so all wide-angle lenses distort one way or another. The problem with all these microcams, in my opinion, is different: poor autofocus performance and poor image quality with a lack of light, and the control is so-so, as a result, the percentage of good photos catastrophically drops.
Dear participants of this discussion, when you all look at the sales schedule of cameras and compare it (sales) with smartphones, nobody really thinks that, unlike cameras, these same smartphones, in addition to the option to take pictures. they also have the option to call, write, and generally use the smartphone as a computer. So, proceeding from this, to draw a parallel of sales of these two gadgets is at least not correct, but at most simply wrong and not logical. When buying a smartphone, people think not only about how he takes pictures, but also about how he calls, and performs various other functions that in no way overlap with the functions of the camera! So tnank you! Good luck in further discussions)))
Quite right, and moreover, I am sure that if we add computers, navigators, landline telephones and other highly specialized equipment to this graph, then their graphs will be very similar to that of DSLRs ...
Well, logically, with the advent of Internet access devices alternative to a personal computer, i.e. tablets, smartphones, televisions, sales staff shifted towards mobile devices, and then the boom was asleep and melkosoft returned the Start button :)
Similarly, with the advent of photo and video capture devices, alternative to cameras and camcorders, the market for the latter has decreased. But with only one significant difference - smartphones have completely killed the camera market.
Not killed. And they won't kill you. They simply return it to its place - to its own relatively narrow niche.
Well, you're straight psychic and prophet)
I still can't use my smartphone camera if I have a very compact "soap dish" Canon s110 with me.
EGF 24-120, optical stabilization, aperture f / 2.0-f / 5.9, RAW, touchscreen, ISO 1600 is quite working for social networks.
With hands on the 50mm EGF, you can take pictures without 1/5 smear.
Even a top-end smartphone for space money probably will not give focal EFR 24-120 with an optical stub. And the size of s110 is much smaller than smartphones.
I bought a SLR camera from my hands. The former owner was quite satisfied with the new smartphone. There is no desire to “squeeze” all its possibilities from the camera. Last week I was at a concert, except myself, I did not find anyone else with a camera. All filmed on smartphones. I tried the recently purchased Canon EFS 55-250 stm lens, up to the scene 40-50 meters, except for the photo I shot a video. What kind of comparison can we talk about.
Bury cameras early, especially full-frame cameras. With great difficulty I can imagine, for example, a theatrical photographer who came to shoot a performance with a phone, even the coolest one. And what about studio shooting, and advertising, and fashion shooting? God is God, and smartphones - to photograph children in the sandbox. Well, they will do for selfies.
Exactly what is shot from full-frame DSLRs will be discussed by 10-20 highly skilled specialists i.e. freaks, whose opinion is not interesting to anyone. And successful photos from smartphones will be seen and discussed by millions of people. Now the question is who will pay the pros if their art does not and does not affect anyone?
Professionals are not freaks, they are professionals. A priori there cannot be many of them. It's like comparing an opera singer to someone singing karaoke. Let those millions of yours sing, the pros are neither hot nor cold.
Now a professional is a dude who snapped 2 thousand photos of some girl in the studio and then chose one for a magazine that nobody fucking needs ... The question is - who needs this magazine and who needs a photo of some shmara ...? The answer is that no one needs ... Except for a narrow circle that gets money for all this, and again it is not clear from where ... This is the same topic as advertising on a zombie box ... Whoever orders advertising pays both to those who create it and to those who who shows it ... The question is - to whom it is shown, if no one is watching, and if by chance someone saw it, then he knows that the crap that you can't buy in advertising, because nothing else is advertised besides shit ... then a closed period of time turns out ... It turns out that everyone from this advertising has, except for the one to whom it seems to be intended ... But, that it should be intended for someone in general, everyone has long forgotten ... But they forgot because the end user has long since put a horseradish out of this chain ... Nobody needs him ... All they need is his money ...
And what do they have so “professional” that will attract to them the commoners deprived of the divine gift?
Well, will you make a particularly expressive photo of a ballerina (whose art almost no one understands) will be appreciated by 2-3 people, will they pay you?
Seals photographed by millions of pieces, whose images are endlessly sifted by millions of Earth inhabitants for “cuddiness”, will eventually form an unattainable ideal for the aforementioned ballerina. At the same time, the current “image of a cat” will incredibly accurately correspond to the current average mentality of mankind thanks to social services. networks.
Or your professional is the one who exists without the public and its preferences, so what?
Perhaps there are such people like Phidias, Gauguin or Zola there, but something tells me that there are not many people of this caliber in the context of even the whole history of mankind.
And their work is very rarely appreciated during their lifetime, moreover, the entrance ticket to painting and architecture is much more expensive than to photography i.e. it’s easier for someone alone to catch what is in the air and be able to pleasantly surprise the audience.
Yes, these are all professionals and exist without people ... The fact that they shoot there in the studio, except as techno-style, can not be called anything else ...
You are surrounded by images from all sides. Advertising is looking at you, there is still printing, news sites are accompanied by pictures, movie posters, photo shoots of famous personalities - it exists. Expensive restaurants haven’t closed yet, although many eat in cafes, some cook at home (including macaroni and smear), and some guard in the booth chokes on Doshirak or Mivina. The amazing logic is to declare something unnecessary and non-existent. There are 6 billion people in the world. If desired, niches to feed enough for anyone. But they didn’t teach this in the scoop, the party and the government should give the ration.
I am in shock “advertising is looking at you” ... You have to come up with such a heresy ... Probably, you have something to do with this and are interested financially ... ... The presence of obtrusive advertising is a direct path to a psychiatric hospital ... There are no other ways and there cannot be ...
Yes, no matter how I saw successful photos from smartphones in the professional segment. Smartphones are reporting, life. Check in. Well, just successfully somewhere the lighting fell. In order not to bother, to simple, itself manifested itself without post-processing. Well, at a minimum there - color correction, filters.
Any production photo is light. Remote flash modifiers. And also make-up, and also suits, and also scenery. If all this is observed, isn’t it easier to bring a camera down to bring the result, and not shoot it on the phone?
It's just that those who say that DSLRs are dead, they never actually filmed. They used DSLRs (and mirrorless cameras) as a soap dish. We walked around the neighborhood, clicked flowers, but not on the car, but in the priority of the aperture. In JPEG, because the magic colors immediately, "so as not to mess around." Well, as before, they gave photos for development and printing - so as not to mess around. This is not a photograph. This is registration.
And doing some kind of garbage in the studio, with light, with make-up, with a huge waste of time, effort and money, the results of which no one will watch, because no one really needs it - is this art ...? Yes, in everything there is some kind of closed cycle, and without the participation of those to whom it should ultimately be intended ...
Well, you need a soldering in the hut and a portrait of Stalin to satisfy carnal desires - these are your needs and your problems. If something exists, then someone needs something. If someone doesn’t need something, it will die out, despite all attempts to revive it. For example, the Soviet Union.
And the mess, which is now flourishing, means everyone needs, according to your terminology ...? Abstractionism and a black square seem to be, only this is all fucking nobody needs ... However, it does exist ...! And there is all sorts of garbage because one person is trying to impose this crap on a mass of people ... But no one pays attention to it anyway, and it lies somewhere, gathering dust ...
Who saw a gopher in the tundra ..? That's right, no one ...! And he is there anyway ...! And no one saw him, because he and the fuck nobody needs ...! So this is your WHAT_THAT ...
And this is what I wrote about, nobody fucking needs it ... Only those photographers who do this garbage and get paid for it need it ... this is where the need for this crap ends ...
Art was never intended for the masses. This is not necessary
The problem is that the Artist does not need to earn money, he needs to express himself and many of them eke out a rather miserable life in terms of life. A professional photographer wants to earn money, but you need to earn money by satisfying the tastes and preferences of the crowd, their crowd knows best, and the smartphone performs.
An artist also needs to earn money, but few have succeeded. It's the same here - a narrow circle of connoisseurs and a crowd of others with smartphones
Judging by the special literature, any Artist is ready to die for a moment of inspiration. And they didn’t notice the household routine.
This can be said about all creative people)
And yet, one freak and professional, a certain S. Dali, said that if the artist, in his imagination, presented in detail the future work, then he might not create it.
an anomaly was when sales were at their peak, it was abnormal, and in vain the producers shed tears, they say sales fell ... And when they grew unreal, why did they not say that it was absurd? The users didn't need big cameras with different lenses, they just had to film themselves during their next meal, that's all. And it turned out that everyone suddenly became photographers ... Nature put everything in its place, now people take pictures with smartphones, and they are happy, and photographers, as before, continue to shoot with specialized photographic equipment in order to get a photo, and not simple pictures ...
I agree one hundred percent ... I have two DSLRs and I shoot with them, but I also shoot something with a tablet with a good camera ... Each type of shooting has its own device ... There is a shooting in which it is simply inappropriate to use a camera, a smartphone will be enough ...