Everyone else is using smartphones, the best of which will out-resolve most old 35mm cameras, and have larger teams working on their photo technology than camera manufacturers have on theirs.
It's not really about the actual resolution. But the general market is compromised mostly of non-photographers. People who mainly just want to "make a picture." That was always the case. Even in the "good old film days," the bulk of camera and film sales were such users. Who didn't care about apertures and shutter speeds and just wanted to "make a picture." And that picture has to "look nice." Of course, when digital cameras entered the market, the resolution was an issue. My first digital camera had 1.3 megapixels, and the next one had 4. That was a significant jump in terms of "looking nice." So, megapixels became a selling point and one of the key marketing messages. They stuck. So, people still think of more megapixels as being "nicer" or "better." We, as enthusiasts know that there isn't a difference between 12 or 14 megapixels, especially if you post your pictures to social media, send them by mail or view them on the screen. But "14 is better than 12" just got into the collective mind. That isn't just the case with photography. With cars, it's horsepower. With stereos, it is, or was, Watts. Simple metrics which for the non-enthusiasts mean "better." And I don't really think we will get away from that. How else can you sell a camera, including the one included in a cell-phone, and point out that it's "good"? So, what people are looking for is not really resolution but some hint of the device outperforming other devices.Hmm... that statement chills me. First, it suggests (probably truthfully) that most people will judge a camera mostly based n resolution. Second, it seems to me that the type of image one can get with a phone camera is severely limited to how one can use it, limited by software interface and ergonomics, etc. I've seen phone camera images that are quite good, but it strikes me that as a culture we are narrowing our future image production (rather than broadening/enlightening it!) by so wholeheartedly embracing the limits of the phone camera. Sorry, if this is OT, but that possible truth of that comment really bothers me.
I agree on smart phone ergonomics, they're terrible. However the 99% seem to manage perfectly well with them, so I assume it's me who finds them compromising. I even made a book shot entirely on an iPhone, but I find screen interfaces of any kind don't work for reading glasses wearers. I wouldn't want to use a phone for photography often, never mind exclusively.Hmm... that statement chills me. First, it suggests (probably truthfully) that most people will judge a camera mostly based n resolution. Second, it seems to me that the type of image one can get with a phone camera is severely limited to how one can use it, limited by software interface and ergonomics, etc. I've seen phone camera images that are quite good, but it strikes me that as a culture we are narrowing our future image production (rather than broadening/enlightening it!) by so wholeheartedly embracing the limits of the phone camera. Sorry, if this is OT, but that possible truth of that comment really bothers me.
Digital has made a nonsense of older conventions, but they hang on in the minds of enthusiasts. Everyone else is using smartphones, the best of which will out-resolve most old 35mm cameras, and have larger teams working on their photo technology than camera manufacturers have on theirs.
Not true on numerous levels. Professionals - people who are paid for their work like journalists, - are more likely to use a phone than any other photographic tool. That's the reality of the commercial sector. What has optics got to do with anything? If an image is sharp and has sufficient mp to be enlarged, it fulfils the brief. The rest is advertising and amateur photography.This completely misses the point that the last two posts cover plus the fact that smartphones are almost always used for snapshots while professional and good amateur photographers take photographs. Yes a smartphone can be use to take a photograph and so can a box camera, but that is rarely the case.
Furthermore resolution is not the end all and be all of photography. For example blockend has completely ignored optics, just for starters.
Not true on numerous levels. Professionals - people who are paid for their work like journalists, - are more likely to use a phone than any other photographic tool.
You're clearly unfamiliar with contemporary practice. Paid photography is not generally concerned with aesthetics, and never was. The stuff that used to be shot on cameras is shot on phones. Can you see the subject? Is it sharp enough? Does the picture fit the text? The internet has accelerated the process, but most commercial photography was never art. That's for enthusiasts.Please cite your source. It was probably something you read on your morning buttered toast. Jus' sayin'
You're clearly unfamiliar with contemporary practice. Paid photography is not generally concerned with aesthetics, and never was. The stuff that used to be shot on cameras is shot on phones. Can you see the subject? Is it sharp enough? Does the picture fit the text? The internet has accelerated the process, but most commercial photography was never art. That's for enthusiasts.
You're clearly unfamiliar with contemporary practice. Paid photography is not generally concerned with aesthetics, and never was. The stuff that used to be shot on cameras is shot on phones. Can you see the subject? Is it sharp enough? Does the picture fit the text? The internet has accelerated the process, but most commercial photography was never art. That's for enthusiasts.
A source for what? The principle source of photographic imagery in the last fifteen years? It doesn't require peer reviewed research to demonstrate the bleeding obvious. Phones are the default tool for the nuts and bolts work that used to comprise the majority of applied photography. The last barrier to its adoption was Raw, which allowed the editor to tweak the image. From war photography, to academia, to photojournalism, to the guy who shot real estate, they're using phones. Not exclusively, obviously but numerically, certainly.Again, cite your source please.
A source for what? The principle source of photographic imagery in the last fifteen years? It doesn't require peer reviewed research to demonstrate the bleeding obvious. Phones are the default tool for the nuts and bolts work that used to comprise the majority of applied photography. The last barrier to its adoption was Raw, which allowed the editor to tweak the image. From war photography, to academia, to photojournalism, to the guy who shot real estate, they're using phones. Not exclusively, obviously but numerically, certainly.
You have not show any examples of professional photographers delivering their paid assignments from smartphones. Put up or shut up.
You seem to be under the illusion that professional photography is about a studio and a bag of lenses. It is not. Visual data gathering is part of many people's paid work, for others it comprises all of it.You have not show any examples of professional photographers delivering their paid assignments from smartphones. Put up or shut up.
This shows just how out of touch you are.the fact that smartphones are almost always used for snapshots while professional and good amateur photographers take photographs
You have not show any examples of professional photographers delivering their paid assignments from smartphones. Put up or shut up.
For some reason Nikon seems to take the brunt of criticism for the lack of primes for smaller sensor (EF-S/DX/APS/Whatever) dSLR cameras, but with the exception of Pentax it's pretty well industry wide.
Since a) I continued to shoot film when my primary digital camera was a D200, and b) generally prefer wide-angle zooms, it amazes me how heated this topic becomes.
- Nikon has 4 -- 10.5mm fisheye, 35mm f/1.8, 40mm f/2.8 Micro, 85mm f/3.5 VR Micro
- Canon has 3 -- 24mm f/2.8 pancake, 35mm f/2.8 IS macro, 60mm f/2.8 macro
- Sigma had 3-4 -- 4.5mm f/2.8 fisheye, 10mm f/2.8 fisheye (discontinued), 4.5, 30mm f/1.4 (two versions, one discontinued)
- Tamron has 1 -- 60mm f/2 Macro
- Tokina and Zeiss have zero.
Michael Kenna ust released a book of ONLY Holga images!https://www.photigy.com/product-pho...rtphone-the-lighting-matters-camera-does-not/
https://www.boredpanda.com/iphone-wedding-photography-sephi-bergerson-india/
http://www.amateurphotographer.co.u...raphers-who-ditched-a-dslr-for-an-iphone-5832
next thing you are going to say is professional photographers dont' use a HOLGA or speed graphic
http://www.davidburnett.com
True. What does Pentax offer? I know they have a couple pancakes.
Also 40mm 2.8 pancake. Fits FF and APS-C bodies.Canon has 3 -- 24mm f/2.8 pancake, 35mm f/2.8 IS macro, 60mm f/2.8 macro
Sirius Glass said:I now that I am going to set off a firestorm, but I find that my 28mm to 200mm AF Nikon zoom, my 28mm to 200mm AF Tamron zoom, and my 20mm to 25mm Nikon zoom photographs are indistinguishable from the primes. The differences are so small that I challenge all but the optical engineers to pick out the differences on slides and prints.
For the most part I agree, I find that my primes are sharper than zooms at max aperture, but once stopped to 5.6 to 8 very hard to pick out the zooms from primes. Maybe if I had all pro glass, Sigma art, Minolta G, or Pentax LE I would see more of a difference. What I do get with primes is fast glass, 2.8 to 4.5, what I think is better Boka, less to go wrong, not as complicated as a zoom.
I don't see much iPhone photography in the fashion, home, and food magazines, including especially the advertisements contained therein. The occasion iPhone photo, yes; the bulk of it, no.A source for what? The principle source of photographic imagery in the last fifteen years? It doesn't require peer reviewed research to demonstrate the bleeding obvious. Phones are the default tool for the nuts and bolts work that used to comprise the majority of applied photography. The last barrier to its adoption was Raw, which allowed the editor to tweak the image. From war photography, to academia, to photojournalism, to the guy who shot real estate, they're using phones. Not exclusively, obviously but numerically, certainly.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?