How relevant are cameras these days?

Would an average normie that is on vacations somewhere actually spend money on a decent camera instead of using their phones? What would be the ups and downs?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=pLiehzLTxXk
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Used to work at a camera store, going on vacation is one of the top drivers for people to upgrade cameras.

>People with money - Sony RX100 or Fuji X100
>People with not a lot of money - Sony WX500

well first visit /p/ and read the gear thread, and observe all the people arguing and circlejerking about dozens of different non-phone cameras and innumerable lenses for them.

Second, I just got back from a road trip, where I visited the Grand Canyon, among other places. There sure were a lot of phones. Hundreds of them. There were also a lot of dedicated cameras. Dozens of no-sharp-corners D3300s and Rabals, many with 18-55s, plenty with superzooms of various descriptions. There were some people with 5D3s and such, and you saw a few people with normal primes. Some mirrorless folks, Olympus seemed to be the most common, followed by A6000s. Some housewife with two white Pentaxes. And one enterprising lunatic who had a D4 with a 24-70/2.8 VR and a flash, and a second crop body with some telephoto, plus a backpack which I'm sure had plenty of other lenses. Also saw a birdwatcher lugging around what I think was a 500/4.

So I feel pretty confident in saying that dedicated still cameras are alive and well. What phones did was kill point-n-shoots and disposable film cameras. They fill the same niche. Simple, cheap, easy to always have with you, not the greatest image quality but good enough for what most normies need (then: 3x5 prints, now: social media), and one roughly 28mm-equivalent field of view. As long as there are people that want anything more than that, or who just want to signal to others that they want more than that, fancy cameras will be assured of a future.

>Dozens of no-sharp-corners D3300s and Rabals
?

sharp corners are dictated by glass, not sensor

if anything crops will have sharper corners because they're cropped in on the glass itself

however you are right that cameras will never ever die

you cannot replace good glass
you cannot replace good glass
You.
Cannot.
Replace.
Good
Lenses.

Not to mention phone sensors are fucking garbage shit in a bag made out of feces bad awful.

Phone sensors aren't that bad. Hell, the iPhone's camera can do 720p at 240fps. I don't think anything in the 'price point' can even compete.

they're fucking awful you giga retard

shit tiny ass size
horrible noise performance
awful dynamic range
bad all around

"no sharp corners" in the sense of "piece of consumer electronics with a simple interface meant to protect you from needing to know anything technical". Not sharp corners in the sense of how the image looks at the edge of the frame.

gotcha - i am in /p/ mode so i went to the meaning i know there

All right. You're right. A cell phone camera has never produced a decent and usable image.

Modern phone sensors do okay if you give them tons of light. Go indoors and they can turn into a noisestorm pretty quickly though.

they are fucking trash when compared to a proper dSLR or mirrorless camera and _always_ will be, because the laws of physics dictate they are bad

the thing is, you are an ignorant buffon who only knows trash, having no conception of what a good camera or photo is, so you think that a smartphone can produce a technically speaking high quality photo when it is objectively, technically impossible

is Leica good or is it just an expensive meme

Yea, that's the problem with small sensors. There is usually enough light for them to be fine, though. Unless you live in the dark or something.
Ok dude.

listen the fuck up Sup Forumslads

you're out of your league when discussing the technical details of bikes

you are also out of your league when discussing the technical details of photography

i recommend you lurk the respective boards, lest you make insanely embarassing statements like trying to claim smartphones can compete with actual cameras

overpriced meme, status symbol which takes mediocre pictures

>lest you make insanely embarassing statements like trying to claim smartphones can compete with actual cameras
Literally who said that?

inb4 someone claims artificial bokeh is acceptable and not vomit inducing

both of the above.

They make really, really nice glass. They're also stratospherically expensive and are very much designed with an eye towards being status symbols.

You niggas sound butthurt lol

Sounds like y'all take a lot of pictures in the dark cuz that's the ONLY argument you have so far.

Btw u guys are prob comparing photos taken with an L lens or some shit... Kit lens vs phone, I chose phone for quality, size, and convenience

Spoken like the kind of retarded pleb who would take pictures on a smartphone and think they could ever compare to an actual Camera.

To top it off you sound like a retarded non-white.

>not enjoying nighttime photography
you got 24 hours in a day, use all of em

>phonecucks don't even know what an interchangeable lens is

Haha

Interesting response, making fun of me but still lacking a valid argument or rebuddle for that matter... u still butthurt bruh?

fester in your own stupidity, nigger.

>an average normie
They wouldn't have the patience to learn how to use it correctly. They would still buy it and shoot on full retard because a big camera is a status symbol.

Hahaha your a funny dude.... I'm white just like you but without all the hail Hitler racism

>i'm not a dumb minority, i'm just a nu-male SJW retard

oh wow! you sure showed us

It depends on the camera. Some of there lower end stuff is just re-branded sony cameras.

What do you think about the a6000 and mirror-less cameras in general?

They've mostly caught up to SLRs. A few years ago EVFs were ass and autofocus performance was noticeably inferior even in undemanding situations. Both of those have been about 90% fixed. EVF vs OVF is now more a matter of personal preference. You can still tell you're looking as a screen in a mirrorless viewfinder. Some people don't mind that and like that they can see real-time exposure preview and such, some people it just drives them nuts.

Autofocus is fine on mirrorless cameras these days, with one exception: if you're shooting the stuff that's most demanding on AF - continuous tracking of players in sporting events, birds on the wing, etc, there really isn't a choice, Canikon's top stuff is just plain better. But 99% of shooters don't need that level of performance, or can't pay the premium for it anyway.

Mirrorless camera bodies are smaller than SLRs, but the glass isn't, for a given sensor size, and the savings from simpler manufacturing by not having a mirrorbox and pentaprism aren't passed on to the consumer. You can have a tiny camera if you accept a smaller sensor and go m4/3. They're perfectly fine if you don't need the stuff that you want a larger sensor for. Mainly high-ISO performance, say above 1600. Which is still several stops above what any phone can do.

so mainly now it's a question of what interface you prefer, what feels better in your hand, which lens system you want to be in, and how sensitive you are to size and weight.

SONY RX100 III vs SONY A6300????????

help out a nigga about to buy a camera for holidays.

Well I already have a a6000 and I was wondering if i made the right choice.

I bought a "shitty" 200$ point and shoot.

I like it, I know its basic bitch tier compared to everything, but I am getting into a new hobby and have an interest aside from shitposting on Sup Forums now.

you lucky fucker. i fell for the normie meme.

i've left school, started working a sub-tier job making above minimum but barely enough to support myself alone and my "hobbies"

which include clubbing, drinking out with friends, trying to get at basic bitches, dealing with petty ass shit, etc. etc.

it's fucking hell but i'm too deep in the rabbit hole to get out now :(

To call camera phones awful is an exaggeration

Camera phones are good enough for the vast majority of users and cover nearly all possible uses.
youtube.com/watch?v=pLiehzLTxXk
Granted lowlight is still a problem for phones but that is getting significantly better.


OP is just some gear faggot is all.
Having an expensive camera is by no means some guarantee you will take good pictures.
Understanding the conditions you are shooting in and adjusting your settings accordingly will yield better results then going out and buying some entry level DSLR kit plus having an idea how to compose a shot also helps.

>i recommend you lurk the respective boards, lest you make insanely embarassing statements like trying to claim smartphones can compete with actual cameras
I did lurk /p/ for while and you're just going on about gear faggotry.
You have access to gear that Ansel Adams couldnt even dream of and you take shit pictures

now that we've addressed that cameras do infact exist

post some photos~

Pentax k-3 here

i almost wish i went with nikon instead of canon because the grain can be really distracting. maybe i just need to use light room instead of photoshop though

>overpriced meme, status symbol which takes mediocre pictures

have you ever actually used one? Not a fucking panasonic. As in a summacron on velvia

you're probably arguing with people whom have as much experience with real cameras as a giggly 13 year old with an iphone who takes a dozen selfies a day and posts all that blurry artifact ridden shit with edgy color filtration to instagram and facebook

don't even bother with apple-deranged imbeciles

I think not user. normies won't normally spend money on a decent camera, they instead use their smartphone.

>using facebook

>lol f*cking normies

You fucking tools don't even know what you are fucking saying anymore. Your epic le normies use DSLR's more than fucking phones if they fucking care about photos. No one is trading in these things for a god damn phone, they are trading in the point and shoots for them.

Fuck you are dumb, go back to fucking cuckid faggot

>Not Pentacks

As long as phone cameras stay small and are incapable of focal blur-type effects and long optical zooms, there's going to be a market for low-end and midrange dedicated cameras.

Image clarity is actually quite good on the higher-end phones, though. A cellphone with a decent movable lensing system could invalidate a lot of DSLRs (while probably being prohibitively bulky).

1966 + 60
Not going full 14/88
Gas the kayaks, dolphin war now!

canon EOS 1200D

:^)

Are you happy with the pictures you take? If so you made the right choice.

they don't have the slightest idea

you also seem upset about your autism

The Zenfone 2 had horrible quality in a great amount of sunlight

you dont even know a fucking 'normie' is, stop trying to fit in here you fucking child

It depends if you enjoy photography as a technical hobby, or if you just want to take snaps. This distinction has always existed - once people used brownies, then they used compacts, now they use phones.

Nothing has changed.

/thread

Lightroom is the bomb

I try so hard to use PS because it feels like "LR is ez mode" but its just so gentle with changes compared to PS. My work always looks better in the end when I edit in LR.

is camera tech like audio tech?

full of man children who think it's bleeding edge yet it hasn't advanced an inch in years who are full of butthurt about shrinking and simplifying with barely any diminishing returns?

>tfw can't do this without a disgusting orange fucking haze
Fuck New York.

i've only got a nikon d3300, but i fucking love it, fuck phone cameras

i just wish i had fucking $3000 for one of those 500mm lenses so i can go out shooting wildlife, rather than the 55mm i use now

I wonder how much of the extra video performance is down to the cell phone having for more power to process it with.

>OP is just some gear faggot is all.
I know. I take pretty much all my photos on an iPhone 5s and, while I can definitely hit its limits, it's better than nothing because I don't carry around another camera. Some people even like my photos.

Not at all. It's got the classic problem of 'people with no skills spend too much money to try and compensate while berating everyone else', though.

>>you dont even know a fucking 'normie' is

normie are those imbecile who had to resort to community college because unable to complete sentences because of mental

you know - what you live every day

resized as original is like 4MB

shit tier point and shoot>smartphones

yes and no.

Photography is certainly full of gearfags who spend trainloads of money on expensive gear that's only slightly better than what they had before. And there's a lot of people circlejerking about minute intangibles about how their particular favorite lens renders such-and-such or how the bokeh looks or whatever. So in that sense it's similar.

On the other hand there's a lot of people doing the exact opposite of what audiophiles do, circlejerking and arguing over how to measure things ever more precisely. All the DxO fags are obsessed with MTF graphs and stops of dynamic range and at what aperture their lens is at it's very sharpest. They calibrate their autofocus and shoot test charts and quantify everything that can be quantified. Audiophiles ain't into that at all.

Anyway there really is a night and day difference between photography now and photography ten or twenty years ago, which isn't really present in the audio world. Cameras and lenses today are noticeably better in many respects. Yes, megapixels, but a lot more than that.

I bought a Canon T6i for shooting basic videos for Youtube and art projects and to be honest I use my smartphone for almost everything.

The image quality is good enough (the T6I does have better sharpness, lens options, shallow depth of field etc) but fuck me is it like pulling teeth for a non photographer like me to use. Why, in 2016 can I not just charge the fucking camera via USB? Why can't I auto-upload to the computer via without some clunky work-around? Why haven't the camera companies realised people don't have time for this shit.

I get that people are super into video production and gear, but I want gear to get out of the way when I make stuff.

I can buy a good mic to work with the iPhone or my Samsung phone, Filmic Pro takes care of focus and brightness levels and you can buy tripod mounts for phones for like 2 bucks on eBay. It's quicker to offload footage onto my computer, I can throw it into a video editing suite quickly and nobody I know who owns an SLR (and constantly shittalks phone cameras) can tell the fucking difference once it's color graded.

I totally get why the pros and hobbyist types buy big expensive cameras and some consumers love their little point and shoots, but I would rather use my phone as it's "good enough". Why would I want to carry around ANOTHER piece of equipment?

>that video

jesus, almost gave me cancer

>rebuddle
>kys

>Canon T6i
sounds like you bought a camera above your needs

>Why would I want to carry around ANOTHER piece of equipment?
You don't have to and shouldn't then, you aren't the target audience- and thats okay. People that aren't satisfied with smartphone cameras that shit themselves at anything other than selfie distance will still buy and carry cameras with them.

I have a "bridge camera", which is basically a point and shoot with a fairly decent but permanently attached lens w/30x optical zoom and a what appears to be an optical viewfinder but is really pointing at a shit resolution lcd making it ultimately worthless compared to the lcd display on the back of it. The picture quality is pretty good, even in low light, so I'm not really looking to go full DSLR just yet.

pic related, my camera.

Define "decent."
Anything that's not a phone, or DSLR? (or compact system?)

Depends on how much of a gear head they are and willing to carry around a massive camera. My cousin has a DSLR mainly for the zoom to catch her kids playing soccer. My sister travels a lot but takes a point & shoot.

You make a fine enough point,there are people on /p/ that produce amazing shots with lower end cameras and tons of people on /p/ that post awful shit with $5000 in gear.

Smartphone and P+S does limit you creatively how and what you can shoot (control, things like depth of field, lens choices, etc). You can pickup an older lower end DSLR (say something like the Rebel XS) on eBay for anywhere from like $75-$150, sometimes with the 18-55 lens or sometimes with none. That and a 50mm 1.8 lens gives you so much to work with, from low light shooting, depth of field, etc.

You know what pisses me off? Those Chinese or Japanese tourists you see with the expensive ass cameras. I was in SF last weekend and this middle aged asian guy was taking a casual photo of his daughter with a Canon L series lens. The sad part? I saw his camera was on Program setting. Just use your iPhone and don't flaunt that DSLR shit just because you have money.

well one it's his money not yours, so if he decides he wants to show off with a fancy camera, you'll just have to deal with that

two there's nothing inherently wrong with program mode. Program modes on modern cameras are pretty damned good, and there's nothing wrong with wanting a camera that can both give you a lot of control when you need it, and do things automatically when you don't.

DIGITAL IS SHIT
I
G
I
T
A
L

I
S

S
H
I
T

Makes everything look sterile. Of course since most people have no taste no one cares about it replacing film. I mean low cost and convenience is all that matters right?

Yet compare movies shot on film to movies shot on digital cameras. The latter just can't compare. You get the plastic aesthetic of video games. I can't remember the last recent movie that impressed me visually. Yet I can name so many movies shot on film that stunned me.

Film has personality. Film makes me feel. Film shows things while digital only describes. Film shows you how gorgeous a sunset is. Digital just tells you that it's very orange.

I picked up an a6300 and a tamron 18-200mm for family vacation to burger land. I'm no pro in photography but my pictures are easily destinguishable from the rest of the familys iPhone pictures.

Go home, Ken

Shooting on digital cameras is fine for professional work like wedding or studio photography but for everything else you are a literal fool if you don't shoot on film.

oh, what is this? hipster me wants one.
>google
oh, fuck. back to the holga. maybe one might inexplicably show up at goodwill.

lightroom is just photoshop adobe camera raw filter with a much better interface. By all means use it, and import the photos to photoshop for further editing. If you start raw in lightroom and >edit in>adobe photoshop you won't lose anything.

Very relevant for people who want quality photos

It's personal preference, but if you want the best quality, it's always a DSLR

No matter how good a cell phone camera is, it will always fall short as long as it doesn't have the lens.

Cell phone cameras are not as good, they are practical.

It's the fact that you have a camera everywhere and you don't have to lug around a big camera.

you should watch "Side by Side"

>rebuddle

It's spelled rebuttal you fucking idiot

Lots of people are into measurements in the audio world, especially headphonefags.

>Would an average normie that is on vacations somewhere actually spend money on a decent camera instead of using their phones
I've been tempted to get a good camera (my only one is the one on my Galaxy S3 and it's trash) for the purpose of taking good photos for selling things online.

But I get the feeling that building a lightbox or learning Photoshop would be a cheaper, more productive use of my time.

Sup Forums, I know you're not /p/ (and I'm definitely gonna ask this question there later), but what's the combination of good/cheap for making ebay/kijiji/craigslist photos look good?

Lightbox is definitely a better solution.
If you want a really cheapskate solution, get a sheet of poster paper from your local office supply store and just take pictures next to the window or outdoors.
Getting another camera won't do much if anything at all.

Very relevant for people who want to have proper control over the photos they take. It's a tool for hobbyists and professionals and makes many things easier and allows you to shoot in situations where a lot of other cameras wouldn't be able to. That said there are compact cameras with very good manual controls and dials. You don't need to invest into a larger format (D)SLR or a mirrorless system to do vacation shooting but there are benefits for it provided you can use them. Of course these cameras also allow for unparalled image quality compared to say mobile phones or cheap point and shoots. I find it hard to enjoy photography if I have to fight with my gear's limitations which is mainly the ease of use of manual controls.

If you have a tripod and are taking photos of static objects in a makeshift "studio", literally anything that allows manual control. Rest is your skill with the camera, controlling the lighting and Photoshop. A better camera makes it easier, speeding up the workflow and getting a good photo with less amount of tinkering and effort.

Any point & shoot will probably do, and maybe a photo tent. If you insist on a "nicer" camera, Micro Four Thirds will do more than fine, then you can fag out over lenses and manual settings.

Though when I sell shit, I just place a bed sheet on the kitchen counter and find a good angle to not catch the reflection of the fluorescent light directly overhead, or the kitchen in the background ... if I have a "tall" object, I put a box behind so the sheet can angle upwards.

Unless you're selling high dollar items and demand professional looking shots, you shouldn't be wasting much time getting the perfect photo. People won't care unless maybe if the color is really off. Just provide enough detail to see the item and any imperfections if it's used.

In addition, I've recently also taken to just using my iPad's camera. Snap. Crop and minor adjustments in Lightroom. Then post from the eBay app. No need to move memory cards between the camera and my dekstop.

I never understood why phone cameras have (auto)focus. Just focus on infinite and shoot. It's not like they have a big tele lens in front that can create cool dof effects

Because sometimes people want to take photos of stuff that's closer than 20cm like QR codes, text translation and shit like that.

Dslr etc will always be better than phones.

But, the thing is that you have to be good at taking photos and make use of the gear, which also involves editing the photos.

So, if youre not planning on using the camera more, after the trip, learning everything to become good, dont get one.

Are digital cameras really worth it? I had a look at some WX500 samples and it seems like not a huge step up from a flagship smartphone, at least not $500 worth.

You're wrong on a few things. All audiophiles do is argue about measurements (whenever they're not waxing arbitrary words on their musical experience) because it's the only factor that can back up their claims.
With cameras you can show a photo and direct attention to the amount of noise it has in the shadows and you know that what the other person is seeing is what you're seeing, but with audio, once you hear a sound, it's gone. You can't "share" the experience of that sound with anyone else, and a different person listening to the same song with the same gear will likely hear it differently, because everyone's hearing is objectively different as proved by science. Sometimes even the SAME person with the same gear can hear a song differently because of bias. With vision you can be color blind or short of sight, but if you're not, then what you see is what everyone else sees.

Next, while there's a massive difference between photography now and then, to a good extent it's the vocal minority of gear fags that keep things at check. Companies have revised lenses numerous times on account of them honking measurement stats all the time and demanding the gear be perfect. For instance, the Canon 16-35 2.8 is coming into its third revision because it was always a weak lens compared to most lenses within the same focal range, even if it might be good enough for you or me, but until the corners are sharp at every step, I doubt they'll stop complaining.
Same with things like dynamic range, I own a camera with nearly 15 stops DR (101 points on DxO, even though they haven't published it) and it's absolutely fucking insane, every shot is like an HDR with no artifacts. Compared to my old Canon, the difference is both very clear visually, and is very much backed up by measurements. So, while I personally don't give a shit about how things are measured and scored in general, I am still grateful for the advancements.

1st gen Rabal

>has a problem with P-mode
P stands for professional and it genuinely has its uses.

>All audiophiles do is argue about measurements
No that's just a one type of audiophile. Many couldn't care less and even deny/object to some.

>Sup Forumsfags dunning krugering out the ass about photography

embarassing

>I own a camera with nearly 15 stops DR (101 points on DxO, even though they haven't published it) and it's absolutely fucking insane, every shot is like an HDR with no artifacts.

what fucking camera

My choice would be a mid-ish range smartphone plus a camera, phone cameras are a shit

>Note 3
>Sony A6000

OP here, when I made this post I wasn't even aware about /p/ but I appreciate everyone's opinion on this thread!

np user

just don't fall for the sony meme

An iphone is what? $1000?

For that you can get a fullframe camera.

Pentax 645Z, it's basically an over-sized Nikon D810, thats higher resolution, but also with a lower pixel density as well, due to a much larger sensor.