The changing fortunes of Japanese camera manufacturers(petapixel.com)
petapixel.com
The changing fortunes of Japanese camera manufacturers
https://petapixel.com/2022/10/24/the-changing-fortunes-of-japanese-camera-manufacturers/
157 コメント
This is true for exactly one kind of photography - the one where we use pictures to capture memories and moments in time. And while I agree that that's a majority for most of us ("99% of us 99% of time", to quote somewhat exaggerating Hugh Brownstone), that's by no means all of it.
The smartphone camera can never "fully" replace an actual camera gear simply because of the choice of lenses and therefore the fields of view that the camera gives us. Optics is somewhat heartless in this respect.
AI and image processing can to a point simulate the feeling that the fixed focal length lenses of these cameras give us, but currently (and for the foreseeable future of at least a decade) they have a tough time going beyond that.
What we see now is the camera market shifting from mass use to a niche. "Prosumers", videographers, YouTubers and such.
The smartphone camera can never "fully" replace an actual camera gear simply because of the choice of lenses and therefore the fields of view that the camera gives us. Optics is somewhat heartless in this respect.
AI and image processing can to a point simulate the feeling that the fixed focal length lenses of these cameras give us, but currently (and for the foreseeable future of at least a decade) they have a tough time going beyond that.
What we see now is the camera market shifting from mass use to a niche. "Prosumers", videographers, YouTubers and such.
We bought a dSLR and a specific lens geared toward “point and click” of landscape and travel photos because after traveling to a few places pictures that looked great on a phone did not scale to any large prints or screens. That camera along has produced fantastic photos and I consider it money well spent.
> Yes, I can still roughly tell the processed shots from portrait mode on my phone from a much better camera but the differences aren't as drastic as you'd imagine.
This. I have my Apple TV set up to cycle through my favorite shots in my photo stream and I can tell immediately the quality difference between my slr shots and ones taken on my iPhone. The colors are more accurate, the bokeh more subtle, and excellent sharpness. Even when comparing shots from 7 years ago to todays iPhone 14.
Unfortunately my slr sits collecting dust because, well, the phone is “good enough”.
This. I have my Apple TV set up to cycle through my favorite shots in my photo stream and I can tell immediately the quality difference between my slr shots and ones taken on my iPhone. The colors are more accurate, the bokeh more subtle, and excellent sharpness. Even when comparing shots from 7 years ago to todays iPhone 14.
Unfortunately my slr sits collecting dust because, well, the phone is “good enough”.
"the best camera is the one you have with you"
Or for beginner film makers. "Start with the camera you already have" (i.e. your phone)
Or for beginner film makers. "Start with the camera you already have" (i.e. your phone)
Or don't. This is common advice layman / cloud level famous director advice that is in practice utterly misplaced. There are tonnes of fun little phone film festivals. No influential independent film festivals accept phone films. There are 2 - 3 films shot on phones that have ever been give a major (independent) release / distribution. Only one of those was not from an established director, Sean Baker's 'Tangerine'. They used dozens of phones, a full crew and specialised lenses custom made for the production.
Shooting narrative with a phone is a gimmick - with very few and specific hidden camera doc exceptions. Phones don't teach you anything about the mechanics of camera work or post, from how different lenses change the feeling of a shot to pulling focus ISO, t-stop, color spaces, data rangling etc. They teach bad habits like relying on autofocus and IBIS.
They may be the best camera that isn't a camera, but in terms of starting as a beginner filmmaker - you'd be much better off learning with even very outdated DSLR.
Shooting narrative with a phone is a gimmick - with very few and specific hidden camera doc exceptions. Phones don't teach you anything about the mechanics of camera work or post, from how different lenses change the feeling of a shot to pulling focus ISO, t-stop, color spaces, data rangling etc. They teach bad habits like relying on autofocus and IBIS.
They may be the best camera that isn't a camera, but in terms of starting as a beginner filmmaker - you'd be much better off learning with even very outdated DSLR.
Film festivals?
I think you and I have very different ideas what a "beginner film maker" means. If you have never told a story using the medium of moving pictures you should not worry about film festivals, or ISO, or t-stop, or colour spaces, or major releases / distribution, or anything like that.
Go grab the stuff you already have. Try to tell a story with that gear. Show it to your friends. Did they like it? Awesome, keep at it. Did they not like it? Get better friends, or tell better stories. Improve your art and craft as you progress one step at a time.
People who worry about film festivals, but haven't ever put two frames after each other are delusional.
There is a tendency in a lot of people to think that they should not try to do things until they are somehow anointed by someone or something. They think they could make a film, only if they would have a professional camera. Or they think they could do it only if they get into a school where they become something they are not yet. This advice is for those people. Instead of waiting around to do something some day they should start now and start getting better with what they have today.
I think you and I have very different ideas what a "beginner film maker" means. If you have never told a story using the medium of moving pictures you should not worry about film festivals, or ISO, or t-stop, or colour spaces, or major releases / distribution, or anything like that.
Go grab the stuff you already have. Try to tell a story with that gear. Show it to your friends. Did they like it? Awesome, keep at it. Did they not like it? Get better friends, or tell better stories. Improve your art and craft as you progress one step at a time.
People who worry about film festivals, but haven't ever put two frames after each other are delusional.
There is a tendency in a lot of people to think that they should not try to do things until they are somehow anointed by someone or something. They think they could make a film, only if they would have a professional camera. Or they think they could do it only if they get into a school where they become something they are not yet. This advice is for those people. Instead of waiting around to do something some day they should start now and start getting better with what they have today.
I was going to say Tangerine! I was excited to know such a random factoid. I didn’t realize it’s the only film from non-famous directors, writers, and actors.
If quality matter for you, smartphone is not answer. It won't replace camera designed for taking photographs with much higher dynamic range.
Sure, heavy DSLR's are annoying to care on trip but again... If you are casual snapshot taker, then smartphone is enough.
Or there are compact professional cameras like Fujifilm x100 series.
Sure, heavy DSLR's are annoying to care on trip but again... If you are casual snapshot taker, then smartphone is enough.
Or there are compact professional cameras like Fujifilm x100 series.
Smartphones have better dynamic range than dedicated cameras because they have better software and exposure stacking. If your subject stands still, that is. That’s why iPhones can save HDR photos you can actually view in HDR.
People editing camera raws in Lightroom still export them to sRGB JPEG at the end of the day. The main thing they’re doing with the dynamic range in those sensors is getting rid of it because there’s no ecosystem to view it. (Oddly, there is an ecosystem for HDR video, just not stills.)
People editing camera raws in Lightroom still export them to sRGB JPEG at the end of the day. The main thing they’re doing with the dynamic range in those sensors is getting rid of it because there’s no ecosystem to view it. (Oddly, there is an ecosystem for HDR video, just not stills.)
Plenty of monitors with higher dynamic range than sRGB, and plenty of people take pictures to print them, and there's also plenty of times you need the dynamic range to get something out of the shadows and highlights.
And if you have a still subject, any serious camera will allow you to do bracketing so you can combine shots.
And if you have a still subject, any serious camera will allow you to do bracketing so you can combine shots.
> Plenty of monitors with higher dynamic range than sRGB
Being P3 (WCG) doesn't mean it's also HDR or that it's calibrated well or that the display software is handling it.
> And if you have a still subject, any serious camera will allow you to do bracketing so you can combine shots.
So you can combine them how into what? There's no good software for it. HDR combining software typically creates SDR images, not eg EXR files, and it usually looks bad doing it.
> and plenty of people take pictures to print them
What's that got to do with HDR?? Surely reflective media has less dynamic range than transmissive media…
Being P3 (WCG) doesn't mean it's also HDR or that it's calibrated well or that the display software is handling it.
> And if you have a still subject, any serious camera will allow you to do bracketing so you can combine shots.
So you can combine them how into what? There's no good software for it. HDR combining software typically creates SDR images, not eg EXR files, and it usually looks bad doing it.
> and plenty of people take pictures to print them
What's that got to do with HDR?? Surely reflective media has less dynamic range than transmissive media…
> Being P3 (WCG) doesn't mean it's also HDR or that it's calibrated well or that the display software is handling it.
There are plenty of monitors with both a larger gammut and higher dynamic range.
> So you can combine them how into what? There's no good software for it. HDR combining software typically creates SDR images, not eg EXR files, and it usually looks bad doing it.
So you can combine it into a raw image with higher dynamic range. FF cameras generally have 12-13 stops of dynamic range without bracketing at 14 bits per channel, so you can absolutely tonemap them into an HDR image, even without bracketing. With bracketing, you can generate a raw image which will have 24 bits or more of dynamic range, which will actually be useful.
I'm not talking about cheesy HDR combining software, I'm talking about, for example, combining images into Lightroom with a high bit-depth workflow which can then be exported as an EXR or TIFF image. There's plenty of software that can generate even higher bitdepth, and these are often used in CGI to generate HDRI maps, for example.
The dynamic range of the actual image of the camera far exceeds any screen you might show it on. You're really only limited by the noise floor (which is close to the theoretical limit).
> What's that got to do with HDR?? Surely reflective media has less dynamic range than transmissive media…
Reflective media has theoretically infinite dynamic range, you're only limited by how black your black is and of course by the printer.
There are plenty of monitors with both a larger gammut and higher dynamic range.
> So you can combine them how into what? There's no good software for it. HDR combining software typically creates SDR images, not eg EXR files, and it usually looks bad doing it.
So you can combine it into a raw image with higher dynamic range. FF cameras generally have 12-13 stops of dynamic range without bracketing at 14 bits per channel, so you can absolutely tonemap them into an HDR image, even without bracketing. With bracketing, you can generate a raw image which will have 24 bits or more of dynamic range, which will actually be useful.
I'm not talking about cheesy HDR combining software, I'm talking about, for example, combining images into Lightroom with a high bit-depth workflow which can then be exported as an EXR or TIFF image. There's plenty of software that can generate even higher bitdepth, and these are often used in CGI to generate HDRI maps, for example.
The dynamic range of the actual image of the camera far exceeds any screen you might show it on. You're really only limited by the noise floor (which is close to the theoretical limit).
> What's that got to do with HDR?? Surely reflective media has less dynamic range than transmissive media…
Reflective media has theoretically infinite dynamic range, you're only limited by how black your black is and of course by the printer.
Sorry, but HDR stacketing is something completely different from sensor dynamic range.
With your logic, you can say that we can make static image with same results with any sensor.
With your logic, you can say that we can make static image with same results with any sensor.
> With your logic, you can say that we can make static image with same results with any sensor.
We can't do that because of lenses and diffraction, but that's different from being able to avoid exposure and sensor noise issues. You can in fact avoid those with more sampling.
We can't do that because of lenses and diffraction, but that's different from being able to avoid exposure and sensor noise issues. You can in fact avoid those with more sampling.
> the differences aren't as drastic as you'd imagine
And a honda accord driver won't be able to drive a formula one faster than a formula four around the track, give it to someone who knows how to drive and the difference will be drastic
And a honda accord driver won't be able to drive a formula one faster than a formula four around the track, give it to someone who knows how to drive and the difference will be drastic
That was Chase Jarvis if memory serves. Even published a book about it.
The article misses that Sony is Minolta, something I, too, didn't appreciate for years, as I took a photography hiatus in the 2000s.
https://www.lightstalking.com/minolta-sony-relationship/
https://www.lightstalking.com/minolta-sony-relationship/
The article also misses the idea that Sony is playing the house in the ongoing camera gambling market.
Almost all digital cameras, mirrorless cameras, phone cameras, iPhones, etc - regardless of maker / manufacturer, uses Sony sensors.
The purchase of Minolta unified sensor tech + software development + lens development and formulation + body ergonomics in one house - something no other maker is able to do, probably aside from Canon (who also uses Sony sensors depending on model) and Leica, which borrows sensors from other makers but has their own imaging tech that they add.
No matter how much money any Nikon, Canon, Pentax, OM system makes, Sony will always be part of the supply chain of those cameras.
Almost all digital cameras, mirrorless cameras, phone cameras, iPhones, etc - regardless of maker / manufacturer, uses Sony sensors.
The purchase of Minolta unified sensor tech + software development + lens development and formulation + body ergonomics in one house - something no other maker is able to do, probably aside from Canon (who also uses Sony sensors depending on model) and Leica, which borrows sensors from other makers but has their own imaging tech that they add.
No matter how much money any Nikon, Canon, Pentax, OM system makes, Sony will always be part of the supply chain of those cameras.
Canon makes its own sensors. They’re the only major player not using Sony sensors.
So does Fuji. Fuji has a pretty unique sensor with x-trans.
Sony and Samsung are both producing a lot of sensors for mobile devices though. For example Apple has used a lot of Sony sensors over time. And likewise most camera manufacturers do not design their own sensors at this point.
Sony and Samsung are both producing a lot of sensors for mobile devices though. For example Apple has used a lot of Sony sensors over time. And likewise most camera manufacturers do not design their own sensors at this point.
Fuji uses Sony sensors (custom ones but still Sony).
Sony might make them for Fuji. But they are Fuji designed sensors only used by Fuji. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fujifilm_X-Trans_sensor
Even if Fuji designs them, from a total dollar and cents sort of way, the better Fuji's sensors are received in the market and the more they sell, the more money Sony makes.
(and once Sony makes the money, it uses the same profits from Fuji to compete against Fuji.)
It's a sort of reverse competition, where by Sony is guaranteed victory simply because they participate in their competitor's victories.
(and once Sony makes the money, it uses the same profits from Fuji to compete against Fuji.)
It's a sort of reverse competition, where by Sony is guaranteed victory simply because they participate in their competitor's victories.
Third paragraph mentions this, then again in the eighth.
It's weird for a "changing fortunes" article to only just mention Sony whose rise with their mirrorless cameras has been a huge success.
Also it doesn't really explain why Canon is a "juggernauts" while Nikon has struggled. From a mildly interested observer, the Nikon and Canon DSLRs seems roughly comparable and Canon only has a slight lead in mirrorless (vs Nikon). What made Canon successful but not Nikon?
Also it doesn't really explain why Canon is a "juggernauts" while Nikon has struggled. From a mildly interested observer, the Nikon and Canon DSLRs seems roughly comparable and Canon only has a slight lead in mirrorless (vs Nikon). What made Canon successful but not Nikon?
Canon makes a lot more products than just cameras + lenses. They have printers, medical equipment, etc. Their market cap is roughly 4.18 trillion JPY
Nikon makes cameras, lenses, medical and consumer lines, but their market cap is roughly 529.86 billion JPY
So the Canon company is a lot larger.
Sony itself is even more Juggernaut. They make a ton of things and market cap is about 12 trillion yen.
Market cap doesn't tell the whole story, but you can understand why Sony and Canon are referred to as "juggernauts" compared to Nikon.
On the imaging side of things, I think the current rise of casual videography is eating Nikon alive.
Even if you don't have youtuber / OF aspirations, almost all cameras that sell today need to have some kind of video mode. Cell phones excel in this segment, being able to take short videos of people just walking around doing their day-to-day stuff, having fun, working, etc. In my opinion, video has taken the place in society that taking still photos had back in the 1980's and 1990's.
Anything that goes viral these days is a video uploaded on worldstar or youtube or tiktok or instagram etc.
Canon and Sony both have pro-video recording line (used in TV/cinema industry), and I think what they did was cross pollinated the video knowledge very early on with their consumer digital cameras.
Nikon has always been a "stills first" camera company. They did put a lot of video features into their cameras, but it wasn't enough.
Nikon makes cameras, lenses, medical and consumer lines, but their market cap is roughly 529.86 billion JPY
So the Canon company is a lot larger.
Sony itself is even more Juggernaut. They make a ton of things and market cap is about 12 trillion yen.
Market cap doesn't tell the whole story, but you can understand why Sony and Canon are referred to as "juggernauts" compared to Nikon.
On the imaging side of things, I think the current rise of casual videography is eating Nikon alive.
Even if you don't have youtuber / OF aspirations, almost all cameras that sell today need to have some kind of video mode. Cell phones excel in this segment, being able to take short videos of people just walking around doing their day-to-day stuff, having fun, working, etc. In my opinion, video has taken the place in society that taking still photos had back in the 1980's and 1990's.
Anything that goes viral these days is a video uploaded on worldstar or youtube or tiktok or instagram etc.
Canon and Sony both have pro-video recording line (used in TV/cinema industry), and I think what they did was cross pollinated the video knowledge very early on with their consumer digital cameras.
Nikon has always been a "stills first" camera company. They did put a lot of video features into their cameras, but it wasn't enough.
The story I heard is that Nikon intentionally crippled their video recording modes (29:59 time limit?) for import/export tax reasons.
Whereas apparently Sony and Canon didn't.
Edit: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/E-8-2016-00127...
So seems the full story is about the EU. Digital still image cameras (which were made in the EU?) were not taxed. Digital camcorders (which were mostly made in Japan) were taxed at either 4.9% or 14%. One distinguishing as to whether a camera was still or camcorder was "Whether the device can record at least 30 minutes of video."
The law was repealed in 2019.
Whereas apparently Sony and Canon didn't.
Edit: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/E-8-2016-00127...
So seems the full story is about the EU. Digital still image cameras (which were made in the EU?) were not taxed. Digital camcorders (which were mostly made in Japan) were taxed at either 4.9% or 14%. One distinguishing as to whether a camera was still or camcorder was "Whether the device can record at least 30 minutes of video."
The law was repealed in 2019.
Canon absolutely did this, I have the first-gen of their first-gen mirrorless system, the EOS-M, and I run a 3rd party firmware on it (MagicLantern) to be able to bypass the 30-minute record limit. The same was true in many other cameras as well, that were marketed more for photography but were fully capable of decent continuous video (without overheating).
[deleted]
Canon have been guilty of this too.
By all accounts, hear say of course as I never touched a mirrorless Nikon so far, the later gen Z cameras are great in taking videos. If anything Nikon was tad late to the mirrorless party.
Yup the later gen Z's are great for videos, but by the time they developed that line it was already way too late.
Same story with mirrorless to be honest. Too little too late is the story of Nikon's plight with digital photography for the last decade.
The thing is, they were really innovative in the DSLR space and could go toe to toe with Canon, but in the last decade or so Nikon has been late with each product focus (video, mirrorless, etc)
Same story with mirrorless to be honest. Too little too late is the story of Nikon's plight with digital photography for the last decade.
The thing is, they were really innovative in the DSLR space and could go toe to toe with Canon, but in the last decade or so Nikon has been late with each product focus (video, mirrorless, etc)
The answer goes back even further than my time in photography, which was over ten years ago at the transition from film to digital and DSLR video. Before digital, part of the answer was sports photographers all switching to Canon for autofocus. Before that, it was more of an even playing field with cameras (read: marketing). Back then however, Nikon had a semiconductor manufacturing machine business that supplemented their camera division.
Incidentally, Canon stumbled, in a fashion, onto DSLR video. They apparently only added video after years of suggestions from media photographers. And then at first they got the frame rate wrong. A year or so later, the deigned to fix the bug and of course the rest is history: jillions of their lenses, and DSLR bodies, sold to established and aspiring video/film shooters alike.
Meanwhile, Nikon clung to their roots trying to sell cameras to photographers and never overcame the Canon sports hegemony and video windfall. They had awful software and were even less responsive to the changing market than Canon was.
Most of this is dredged up from memory. For details, and data, go back ten or 20 years on https://bythom.com/
Incidentally, Canon stumbled, in a fashion, onto DSLR video. They apparently only added video after years of suggestions from media photographers. And then at first they got the frame rate wrong. A year or so later, the deigned to fix the bug and of course the rest is history: jillions of their lenses, and DSLR bodies, sold to established and aspiring video/film shooters alike.
Meanwhile, Nikon clung to their roots trying to sell cameras to photographers and never overcame the Canon sports hegemony and video windfall. They had awful software and were even less responsive to the changing market than Canon was.
Most of this is dredged up from memory. For details, and data, go back ten or 20 years on https://bythom.com/
One difference is that Canon decided to design and manufacture their own sensors (modulo some point-n-shoot cameras where they use 3rd party sensors). This has been to their disadvantage sometimes, but right now it's a win because they can innovate quicker and invent proprietary features like dual-pixel autofocus. It was DPAF that put them squarely ahead of Nikon a few years ago. Nikon buys their sensors from Sony so they can never do this.
Skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been.
This statement has made me more money than everything else combined.
This statement has made me more money than everything else combined.
A Canadian chengyu![0] Added to https://github.com/globalcitizen/taoup [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chengyu
I don't know if he invented it, but I always associate that phrase with John Gruber, e.g. https://daringfireball.net/linked/2011/01/04/battelle-apple
Wayne Gretzky
This article completely omits Fuji which is making some of the best cameras in the industry right now.
Fuji is not completely omitted. They are mentioned five times in the article, including their success with their recent medium format cameras:
> Purchased for a reportedly svelte $125 million, Ricoh has de-invested from medium format at a time when Fuji, Phase, and Hasselblad have successfully expanded the market.
Interestingly, their most profitable products in recent years don't appear to be from their professional or pro-sumer camera lines, but rather their relatively low-tech Instax cameras [1].
[1] https://www.fujirumors.com/latest-fujifilm-financial-results...
> Purchased for a reportedly svelte $125 million, Ricoh has de-invested from medium format at a time when Fuji, Phase, and Hasselblad have successfully expanded the market.
Interestingly, their most profitable products in recent years don't appear to be from their professional or pro-sumer camera lines, but rather their relatively low-tech Instax cameras [1].
[1] https://www.fujirumors.com/latest-fujifilm-financial-results...
Most references to Fuji in the article are them being lumped together with failed film makers and that's the only positive mention of them, again, lumped in with otbers.
Nevermind that they have a successful line of digital APS-C cameras plus the aforementioned medium format cameras and are a pioneer of professional-quality mirrorless cameras. They're also still growing.
Nevermind that they have a successful line of digital APS-C cameras plus the aforementioned medium format cameras and are a pioneer of professional-quality mirrorless cameras. They're also still growing.
Love my Fuji X-T1. All I've got is the 18-125 zoom but I'd like a shorter one too.
Really, what are some of those bests?
I’ve been thinking about one of the sony alphas for a while now
I’ve been thinking about one of the sony alphas for a while now
While most camera companies have come to focus on full-frame (i.e., 35mm) sensors in the last few years, Fuji has stuck to APS-C (one size down from full frame) and digital medium format (one size up).
Fuji’s medium-format line is called GFX; I don’t know too much about it except that it’s well regarded and inexpensive by medium-format standards. I would look into it if you are interested in landscape photography or high-resolution studio work and you are willing to spend serious money to make that happen.
Fuji’s APS-C line is focused on producing something which is pleasant to physically handle and use. It’s historically been smaller and handier than full-frame competitors and focused on physical controls for a lot of core settings. The different models within the APS-C range are distinguished as much by their form factors and controls as by their technical capabilities. Some of these advantages have been eroded over the years as they have competed with bigger cameras, particularly in video. But they have just released the X-H2 and X-H2S, targeted at action and event photographers, which should free the classic X-T and X-Pro series to return to their roots.
Concrete APS-C models to check out: X-T4 if you want an SLR-style mirrorless with more physical controls; X-Pro3 if you love old rangefinders; X-H2 and X-H2S if you want a PASM dial or heavy video. Fuji is expected to announce the X-T5 on November 2, and the rumors have it looking good, so I’d keep an eye out for reviews.
Fuji’s medium-format line is called GFX; I don’t know too much about it except that it’s well regarded and inexpensive by medium-format standards. I would look into it if you are interested in landscape photography or high-resolution studio work and you are willing to spend serious money to make that happen.
Fuji’s APS-C line is focused on producing something which is pleasant to physically handle and use. It’s historically been smaller and handier than full-frame competitors and focused on physical controls for a lot of core settings. The different models within the APS-C range are distinguished as much by their form factors and controls as by their technical capabilities. Some of these advantages have been eroded over the years as they have competed with bigger cameras, particularly in video. But they have just released the X-H2 and X-H2S, targeted at action and event photographers, which should free the classic X-T and X-Pro series to return to their roots.
Concrete APS-C models to check out: X-T4 if you want an SLR-style mirrorless with more physical controls; X-Pro3 if you love old rangefinders; X-H2 and X-H2S if you want a PASM dial or heavy video. Fuji is expected to announce the X-T5 on November 2, and the rumors have it looking good, so I’d keep an eye out for reviews.
X-T30 and X-E3/4 are a good choice for price and/or size conscious. X-Pro and X-T lines are big and relatively pricey.
Just take a look at their lines. Their APS-C cameras range from pro-sumer to professional. For the price of a full-frame professional quality camera you can get one of their medium format cameras as well (the GFX50 for example is in the same price range as much of the Alpha line).
All of their cameras take great photos regardless and their glass is great. Just read some reviews.
All of their cameras take great photos regardless and their glass is great. Just read some reviews.
The biggest issue with sony is that they're all about specs and that's it. The menu system and user experience are really lacking. Fuji is kind of the opposite (for their aps-c lineup), smaller sensor but much better software/UX
If I had to buy a digital camera today I'd go for an x100v or an xe-4 with a film era lens
If I had to buy a digital camera today I'd go for an x100v or an xe-4 with a film era lens
Great article concerning the state of JP Camera makers.
As an amateur photographer I feel this is just the natural order of things where companies succumb to the competition. Eventually leading to two or just three competing makers. Similar to Playstation, Xbox, and Switch.
My personal vision for a better camera is interoperability and an open source community.
Imagine if the major parts, pieces and software of the camera can be interchangeable rather than just the lenses.
Focus system of brand x, sensor of x, screen interface of x and view finder of x etc…
In this way, the components and technologies can be prioritized individually.
Open specifications can allow others the chance to invent.
Edit: another serious issue are the prices. This can be improved on greatly.
As an amateur photographer I feel this is just the natural order of things where companies succumb to the competition. Eventually leading to two or just three competing makers. Similar to Playstation, Xbox, and Switch.
My personal vision for a better camera is interoperability and an open source community.
Imagine if the major parts, pieces and software of the camera can be interchangeable rather than just the lenses.
Focus system of brand x, sensor of x, screen interface of x and view finder of x etc…
In this way, the components and technologies can be prioritized individually.
Open specifications can allow others the chance to invent.
Edit: another serious issue are the prices. This can be improved on greatly.
I find it interesting how vendor lock in of camera brands can keep a brand going. If you have a set of lenses for a system you're unlikely to switch, even if it was rational to do so. Even though lenses keep their resale value and you wouldn't lose much money in the process.
I never really fully understood the reasons behind it but it's clear to see that it creates stickyness that any company outside of photography would envy.
I never really fully understood the reasons behind it but it's clear to see that it creates stickyness that any company outside of photography would envy.
When I retired from photography a decade ago I dumped Nikon in favour Olympus (for its smaller size, 4/3 system). I wasn't fully happy and wanted to switch and buy Pentax but I only did that when I was robbed and lost my Olympus gear.
Selling all your lenses for a loss just to buy mostly the same thing sounds like a pain to me. Adapters are hit and miss too, even when on paper they should be 100% compatible
The biggest issue with adapters is that autofocus systems expect fairly detailed information on the optical formula of a lens nowadays, so it's not easy to adapt lenses even when you do fully reverse engineer the protocol
Is photography dead? Back like 20 years ago everyone was so into it. Nowadays our smartphones take fine photos.
It’s kind of sad to see only one or two people with SLRs at any “vista point” I visit because it brings back memories of talking with other amateur photographers and sharing our profiles on sites like trek earth or whatever.
It’s kind of sad to see only one or two people with SLRs at any “vista point” I visit because it brings back memories of talking with other amateur photographers and sharing our profiles on sites like trek earth or whatever.
Obviously photography as a whole has never been bigger and still growing. The vast majority of it on smartphones, which the industry, especially Apple, has pushed to incredible levels of quality.
But I'd say "serious photography" is about where it's always been, maybe a little reduced. It's always been expensive to have a proper setup. The huge difference is that the new consumer stuff (phones) are just much much better than it used to be (point and shoots).
There's still a big difference though between what you can get out of a phone and what you can do with a "real" camera. I have never seen anything out of a phone that can match what you can do with a full frame and a fast 55 or whatever. Sure you can add fake depth of field in software but I'm not sure it will ever be possible to really duplicate in a phone. Especially the interface - phones just don't have the physical controls you need to play some of the tricks "real" cameras can do, like grabbing focus or white balance from somewhere else then holding it as you compose your real shot. At some point just the lack of dedicated buttons is holding you back. I know there's apps that can give you more control than the default apps but with a physical body I can set up that shot in 1 second.
I actually felt this acutely just last night. One of my friends went all out with halloween makeup and wanted me to take some pictures, but I only had my phone on me. They came out OK, pretty good even, but I know for a fact I would have been able to do much better with my half-broken old a7sii and a decent lens. Much, much better. But it's the camera you have with you...
But I'd say "serious photography" is about where it's always been, maybe a little reduced. It's always been expensive to have a proper setup. The huge difference is that the new consumer stuff (phones) are just much much better than it used to be (point and shoots).
There's still a big difference though between what you can get out of a phone and what you can do with a "real" camera. I have never seen anything out of a phone that can match what you can do with a full frame and a fast 55 or whatever. Sure you can add fake depth of field in software but I'm not sure it will ever be possible to really duplicate in a phone. Especially the interface - phones just don't have the physical controls you need to play some of the tricks "real" cameras can do, like grabbing focus or white balance from somewhere else then holding it as you compose your real shot. At some point just the lack of dedicated buttons is holding you back. I know there's apps that can give you more control than the default apps but with a physical body I can set up that shot in 1 second.
I actually felt this acutely just last night. One of my friends went all out with halloween makeup and wanted me to take some pictures, but I only had my phone on me. They came out OK, pretty good even, but I know for a fact I would have been able to do much better with my half-broken old a7sii and a decent lens. Much, much better. But it's the camera you have with you...
100% this
I have a very basic Sony mirrorless camera gathering dust somewhere.
I used to much better photos even on just that.
I have a very basic Sony mirrorless camera gathering dust somewhere.
I used to much better photos even on just that.
Is photography dead?
Far from it, it’s just that phone cameras are good enough to replace DSLRs or full-featured P&S for most users.
DSLRs are pretty much dead. The handful of pros I know either have or plan to transition to mirrorless. Or, a few shoot medium format.
Most of my friends have at least one mirrorless. Sometimes several. Along with a stack of both current and vintage lenses. But, they’re a well-to-do crowd with hipster tendencies, so YMMV.
My parents had several film SLRs over the decades. But when their Pentax was stolen on a vacation in the late-90s or early-00s, they didn’t replace it. They got a compact P&S and now rely on their phones. The SLR was only ever used for snapshots, not photograhpy as a hobby.
Personally, I grew up using their SLR plus a pile of cheap or disposable P&S. Then a few compact digitals. Bought my first DSLR in my mid-20s to get better family shots. Transitioned to a mirrorless about 10 years ago, have two bodies and a pile of lenses, but 90% of the time just use my phone. The cameras only come out for events, vacation, or on the odd occasion the mood hits.
Far from it, it’s just that phone cameras are good enough to replace DSLRs or full-featured P&S for most users.
DSLRs are pretty much dead. The handful of pros I know either have or plan to transition to mirrorless. Or, a few shoot medium format.
Most of my friends have at least one mirrorless. Sometimes several. Along with a stack of both current and vintage lenses. But, they’re a well-to-do crowd with hipster tendencies, so YMMV.
My parents had several film SLRs over the decades. But when their Pentax was stolen on a vacation in the late-90s or early-00s, they didn’t replace it. They got a compact P&S and now rely on their phones. The SLR was only ever used for snapshots, not photograhpy as a hobby.
Personally, I grew up using their SLR plus a pile of cheap or disposable P&S. Then a few compact digitals. Bought my first DSLR in my mid-20s to get better family shots. Transitioned to a mirrorless about 10 years ago, have two bodies and a pile of lenses, but 90% of the time just use my phone. The cameras only come out for events, vacation, or on the odd occasion the mood hits.
I don't know why pros who already have gear would move to mirrorless. Its a step back for them. Battery life gets slashed by 2/3rds at least. AF is probably worse. Plus now you need to buy into a new lens ecosystem for the first time in 40 years.
Like many technologies, the first couple of mirrorless cameras were a step back from DSLRs, but the fundamentals of mirrorless design have allowed them to rocket past the capabilities of any DSLR.
Take a look at the Nikon Z9, which is a professional mirrorless and shutterless camera.
It can take essentially infinite shots without wearing out. DSLRs need maintenance every few hundred thousand shots, which sounds like a lot, but some pros take 10-20K per day. Timelapse videos especially are murder on DSLRs and can take big chunks out of the shutter mechanism lifetime.
The lack of moving parts means it can be totally silent and take full-res shots at 30 fps without mirror blackout. Lower-res shots can be taken at an astonishing 120 fps, which allows photographers to capture fleeting moments that would be missed otherwise.
Focus is as-good, if not better than any other DSLR in the world. E.g.: eye-tracking auto-focus is generally not possible on DSLRs because they can't use the full-resolution sensor while the mirror is down, and eyes are too small to recognise with the phase-detect array.
They've thrown in 4K and 8K HDR video capture as well, because why not, and this works with the viewfinder. That's not possible on DSLRs because the mirror blocks the viewfinder in video mode.
Take a look at the Nikon Z9, which is a professional mirrorless and shutterless camera.
It can take essentially infinite shots without wearing out. DSLRs need maintenance every few hundred thousand shots, which sounds like a lot, but some pros take 10-20K per day. Timelapse videos especially are murder on DSLRs and can take big chunks out of the shutter mechanism lifetime.
The lack of moving parts means it can be totally silent and take full-res shots at 30 fps without mirror blackout. Lower-res shots can be taken at an astonishing 120 fps, which allows photographers to capture fleeting moments that would be missed otherwise.
Focus is as-good, if not better than any other DSLR in the world. E.g.: eye-tracking auto-focus is generally not possible on DSLRs because they can't use the full-resolution sensor while the mirror is down, and eyes are too small to recognise with the phase-detect array.
They've thrown in 4K and 8K HDR video capture as well, because why not, and this works with the viewfinder. That's not possible on DSLRs because the mirror blocks the viewfinder in video mode.
I shoot weddings/portraits with a Z6ii (mirrorless, $2k) and a D850 (widely regarded as the best DSLR ever made, was $3k - now less). The D850 has much higher resolution.
I’d much rather use two Z6iis. The only reason I haven’t upgraded is because I’m anticipating a Z6iii soon and I’d love for it to be ~33mp as I think that’d be the sweet spot for me.
The autofocus advantage is huge, and the viewfinder is typically much easier to see. Yeah, I need to swap batteries at least twice as often. One battery still makes it through a 2 hour portrait session just fine.
I’d much rather use two Z6iis. The only reason I haven’t upgraded is because I’m anticipating a Z6iii soon and I’d love for it to be ~33mp as I think that’d be the sweet spot for me.
The autofocus advantage is huge, and the viewfinder is typically much easier to see. Yeah, I need to swap batteries at least twice as often. One battery still makes it through a 2 hour portrait session just fine.
Isn't AF significantly improved since the sensor always receives signals?
Yes. Parent is leaning on the conventional wisdom of 10 years ago regarding mirrorless.
The AF on my a7 III is nothing short of miraculous compared to any mirrored camera I've ever used, even in light where I'm shooting at 128k ISO, 1/125, 2.0f. Quick and accurate locks every time.
I shot 1000+ photos over 3 hours at an event last week, and honestly I couldn't even tell you how much battery I used. Because I wasn't paying attention, because it's a non-issue. Even if it was, batteries are cheap, small, and easy to swap.
The AF on my a7 III is nothing short of miraculous compared to any mirrored camera I've ever used, even in light where I'm shooting at 128k ISO, 1/125, 2.0f. Quick and accurate locks every time.
I shot 1000+ photos over 3 hours at an event last week, and honestly I couldn't even tell you how much battery I used. Because I wasn't paying attention, because it's a non-issue. Even if it was, batteries are cheap, small, and easy to swap.
I think this is true, in my experience it is. Only difference might be speed of acquiring focus but that could have just been lens and general camera differences, not because the core concept is slower.
I'm (somewhat sure) the DSLR allowed for a separate light path to a separate AF sensor, so now it has to be integrated into the same sensor which has some cost in terms of sensor area and resources devoted to AF vs. regular imaging? Not an expert so please someone correct me.
It’s a separate path, the sensor is under the camera (this allowed it to work with film). 2 sensors per autofocus point which it tries at align. It’s actually kind ofvv be amazing it works.
Gordy details, but the image helps see:
https://photographylife.com/how-phase-detection-autofocus-wo...
On camera sensor focusing was slightly different “contrast detection”. My understanding is modern cameras integrate those phase detection sensors on the image sensor itself. It might effect image quality but nobody notices and focus is fast and reliable. It’s tech that works well so generally nobody cares how it works.
https://www.usa.canon.com/learning/training-articles/trainin...
Gordy details, but the image helps see:
https://photographylife.com/how-phase-detection-autofocus-wo...
On camera sensor focusing was slightly different “contrast detection”. My understanding is modern cameras integrate those phase detection sensors on the image sensor itself. It might effect image quality but nobody notices and focus is fast and reliable. It’s tech that works well so generally nobody cares how it works.
https://www.usa.canon.com/learning/training-articles/trainin...
As far as I understand it, there’s no AF “sensor” on mirrorless cameras apart from the image sensor itself. They just adjust the focus until maximum contrast is achieved - but obviously it’s more complex than that.
You don't have to think about the physical image sensors as just an array of sensors with 1:1 correspondence in the final picture. There was always a lot of computation in between - bayer filters with more green pixels, different grid patterns, multiple sensors per pixel, more pixels on the sensor than in the actual photo and so on.
Recent sensors have AF phase-detect sensors built into the image sensor, by splitting one "pixel" into two sensors (and having lots of them; sometimes in Canon sensors more than half of the pixels have this functionality; on some cameras you can extract the raw image including the different data on those pixels for bigger resolution). The difference between phase detect and contrast being that a phase-detect sensor will give exact values on how to adjust the focus, whilst contrast detection needs focus hunting in small adjustments, so it's slower.
Recent sensors have AF phase-detect sensors built into the image sensor, by splitting one "pixel" into two sensors (and having lots of them; sometimes in Canon sensors more than half of the pixels have this functionality; on some cameras you can extract the raw image including the different data on those pixels for bigger resolution). The difference between phase detect and contrast being that a phase-detect sensor will give exact values on how to adjust the focus, whilst contrast detection needs focus hunting in small adjustments, so it's slower.
The only buy-in is the body and an adapter. AFAIK, all of the systems work fine with their SLR predecessor's glass. Pros already change bodies periodically to get the latest features (nowhere near annually, but probably one body every 2.5-5 years, and they'll have 2-3 bodies used in paid gigs).
And the bodies are relatively cheap at ~$2000 (half that for a previous generation or enthusiast grade body). Lenses tend to start around $1000, go up to $10k, and a pro will have 10 or more of them.
And the bodies are relatively cheap at ~$2000 (half that for a previous generation or enthusiast grade body). Lenses tend to start around $1000, go up to $10k, and a pro will have 10 or more of them.
The reasons are pretty clear: 1) Clearly better lenses for the first time in a generation. 2) Smaller, lighter camera's (to go with better and smaller/lighter glass), and 3) Your old glass works with an adapter, and 4) Focus is better than the DSLR World, even looking at a D6 or similar as the baseline.
AF is better since it's based on the actual image and not a reflection from a mirror that may or may not be tweaked
Battery life is solved, you get 1000+ shot with modern mirrorless, batteries are $20 a pop
Battery life is solved, you get 1000+ shot with modern mirrorless, batteries are $20 a pop
A few advantages: silent shooting for events like weddings, smaller and lighter bodies and lenses, new lenses with faster / silent AF, fewer moving parts (less to break and smaller batteries).
Photography is perhaps becoming niche.
My wife learned in the digital era, but has recently got into film with a couple of 35mm cameras and now a Rolleiflex 120-format twin-lens reflex from family friends.
She struggles with, but likes, the ideas that you have to think much harder about your shots with film (especially 120: 12 shots per roll!), and that you have to keep records of your shots in a notebook or similar, because you won't see them for a while. She loves the different effects of the different film types.
The result has been moving from a 1:15 keeper ratio to closer to a 1:6 or 1:4 ratio.
Film cameras are heavy, though. Something in carbon composite would be nice. And possibly a dual-media camera: take a preview on digital, then if you want, take the shot on film.
My wife learned in the digital era, but has recently got into film with a couple of 35mm cameras and now a Rolleiflex 120-format twin-lens reflex from family friends.
She struggles with, but likes, the ideas that you have to think much harder about your shots with film (especially 120: 12 shots per roll!), and that you have to keep records of your shots in a notebook or similar, because you won't see them for a while. She loves the different effects of the different film types.
The result has been moving from a 1:15 keeper ratio to closer to a 1:6 or 1:4 ratio.
Film cameras are heavy, though. Something in carbon composite would be nice. And possibly a dual-media camera: take a preview on digital, then if you want, take the shot on film.
Shooting on film really helped with visualizing the exposure and depth of field of my shots, it was always a lot of fun waiting to see if my final photos looked as good as I imagined them, especially when shooting on picky film like Velvia (RIP).
> And possibly a dual-media camera: take a preview on digital, then if you want, take the shot on film.
Here are some guys using an analog version of your idea to preview their product shots:
https://youtu.be/f021EEy9B08?t=173
> And possibly a dual-media camera: take a preview on digital, then if you want, take the shot on film.
Here are some guys using an analog version of your idea to preview their product shots:
https://youtu.be/f021EEy9B08?t=173
Try the Goodman Zone camera, a 3d printed medium format plastic camera. Also the Rolleicord or Rolleiflex T and earlier 3.5 models and the Minolta Autocord are light enough (~1 kg). I have a 3.5 MX-EVS and a 'cord IV.
https://doragoodman.com/goodlab-project/goodman-zone-medium-...
https://doragoodman.com/goodlab-project/goodman-zone-medium-...
We have a Rolleiflex T, which we love for its mechanical qualities (so clever!) but still find heavy.
My wife uses Olympus (micro four-thirds) digital, which is much lighter. Olympus make (made?) some great lenses.
My wife uses Olympus (micro four-thirds) digital, which is much lighter. Olympus make (made?) some great lenses.
Well, the only lighter medium format camera which isn't an ancient folder is the Fuji GS645S and it's not much lighter than the T, only 200 grams or so. There is a wide angle version, the GS645W which is even lighter at 680 grams. But it has its quirks: you frame it in portrait mode and the shutter has issues and makes a loud noise as well. You'd be lucky if you find one without fault.
The Rollei T is great but I was fed up with the crank issues on my 3.5 MX-EVS and bought an inexpensive 'cord. What kept me away from the T was the >1 kg weight and also the price. The 'cord is 830 grams but the viewfinder is qiute dim and not usable in weak light.
I too use a digital micro four thirds camera, but a Panasonic with the Leica 15 mm f1.4 and the first edition 20 mm Lumix lens. It's not much lughter than the 'cord
The Rollei T is great but I was fed up with the crank issues on my 3.5 MX-EVS and bought an inexpensive 'cord. What kept me away from the T was the >1 kg weight and also the price. The 'cord is 830 grams but the viewfinder is qiute dim and not usable in weak light.
I too use a digital micro four thirds camera, but a Panasonic with the Leica 15 mm f1.4 and the first edition 20 mm Lumix lens. It's not much lughter than the 'cord
Made - they sold their camera business to another conglomerate. Marketed as "OM System" now, but with mostly the same product line (there's one new body so far).
While I agree with everything here, I want to commend on the keeper ratio based on my own experience.
Whenever I shoot on film I definitely have a much higher keep ratio, but a much smaller overall keep volume.
It's simply not practical, either time/money/physically, to shoot on film the same amount and things that I do digital.
Whenever I shoot on film I definitely have a much higher keep ratio, but a much smaller overall keep volume.
It's simply not practical, either time/money/physically, to shoot on film the same amount and things that I do digital.
I make my living from photos , video and writing. I’ve got $5k of Sony mirrorless and gear, my gf has an iPhone 11.
For quick snaps of moving wildlife, or tricky light, or a quick snap, the iPhone is incredible, and often she has a very sharp shot before I have the lens cap off and start thinking about shutter speed, etc.
The iPhone photos are great for fb or insta or anything on small screen. The immense difference comes when I load photos into Lightroom and get to work, upping shadows, cropping or reducing highlights. They’re not even remotely the same. And all of that is just with one all purpose lens on the Sony. Throw a BIG zoom on the front and the comparison is a thousands times different... or a nice wide fast lens and again, whole different ball game .
Of the many hundreds of My photos That have run in print magazines, maybe two or three have been from a phone.
I don’t think a print worthy shot like this comes off phones (yet)
https://www.instagram.com/p/CersLuLBfCz/?igshid=YmMyMTA2M2Y=
For quick snaps of moving wildlife, or tricky light, or a quick snap, the iPhone is incredible, and often she has a very sharp shot before I have the lens cap off and start thinking about shutter speed, etc.
The iPhone photos are great for fb or insta or anything on small screen. The immense difference comes when I load photos into Lightroom and get to work, upping shadows, cropping or reducing highlights. They’re not even remotely the same. And all of that is just with one all purpose lens on the Sony. Throw a BIG zoom on the front and the comparison is a thousands times different... or a nice wide fast lens and again, whole different ball game .
Of the many hundreds of My photos That have run in print magazines, maybe two or three have been from a phone.
I don’t think a print worthy shot like this comes off phones (yet)
https://www.instagram.com/p/CersLuLBfCz/?igshid=YmMyMTA2M2Y=
1970: "It's kind of sad to see only one or two people with large-format cameras at any "vista point" I visit because it brings back memories of talking with other amateur photographers. Nowadays everyone has these stupid SLRs that you can just hang around your neck."
It's kind of sad to see only one or two people with their brushes and easels at any "vista point" I visit because it brings back memories of talking with other amateur painters. Nowadays everyone has these stupid machines that you can just fold up and have it do the work for you.
Yeah, what we need now is x-ray photography, those smartphones won't catch up until the tech is miniaturized enough!
Consumer point and shoot is totally dead and replaced by smartphones.
But enthusiasts who wants to practice the craft of photography are thriving. Cameras have never been this good, especially for their price.
But enthusiasts who wants to practice the craft of photography are thriving. Cameras have never been this good, especially for their price.
I'd add especially when buying used in good condition. A D700 for example goes for around 300 bucks. And that is a truely professional DSLR, the smaller sensor actually doesn't matter if you don't plan to prind barn door sized and then brake out a microscope. Back the day, it was Nikon's low light king (obviously not anymore) and basically the same camera as a D3. So still plenty good for ethusiasts and amateurs. For difference to a Z6 you get a lot of good glass (always a better investment than camera bodies) and there should still be some money left over to go to exotic and beautiful places to actually take pictures. If you want more resolution, a D750 goes for a little over double a D700 and a D800 can be had for around 500.
If you earn your living through photography, things are of course different.
If you earn your living through photography, things are of course different.
D700 has a big sensor but less MP. It doesn't matter, I got a Zfc(20MP) for my studio when the photographer complained about our D8xx(36MP) cameras being too heavy and not having articulated screens, and it's been fine so far.
> I got a Zfc(20MP) for my studio when the photographer complained about our D8xx(36MP) cameras being too heavy and not having articulated screens
As someone who used to lug around the D700 everywhere I went years ago (I stopped when I got my Olympus mirrorless), this complaint from someone about D8xx in studio use blows my mind.
As someone who used to lug around the D700 everywhere I went years ago (I stopped when I got my Olympus mirrorless), this complaint from someone about D8xx in studio use blows my mind.
That shows an interesting thing, doesn't it? Pro, people using cameras as tools to be used every day to earn a living, care about other things than amateurs. And I agree, a D700, especially with a battery grip, is heavy. It can be used as a hammer so, in a pinch, between shooting.
I love messing around with my bicycle's parts and adjustments to be 1% more efficient or whatever, so I understand where guys who take photos of test charts and use 2x heavier lenses because they have a little bit better corners or less aberrations wide open are coming from :-)
Phone cameras got good enough that for quite a lot of pictures there's no need for an interchangeable lens camera. Particularly if it's around the same focal lengths that phone cameras can get (reasonably wide angles). I use my phone for landscapes quite often, it's quite decent.
I use my mirrorless camera and a supertelephoto lens for things my phone just can't capture: birds and many distant animals.
I use my mirrorless camera and a supertelephoto lens for things my phone just can't capture: birds and many distant animals.
taking photos with cell phone cameras is still photography.
Photography never went away.
In fact, we share and post way way way more videos and images than before. No development time means you can get all 5000 photos that you snapped online with data everywhere!
Photography never went away.
In fact, we share and post way way way more videos and images than before. No development time means you can get all 5000 photos that you snapped online with data everywhere!
Many amateur photographers who used to carry SLRs around have switched to smartphones and written blog posts about it
https://www.diyphotography.net/why-i-dont-use-dslr-cameras-a...
https://www.dpreview.com/articles/4296660253/5-reasons-why-i...
https://photographylife.com/dslr-has-no-future
https://www.diyphotography.net/why-i-dont-use-dslr-cameras-a...
https://www.dpreview.com/articles/4296660253/5-reasons-why-i...
https://photographylife.com/dslr-has-no-future
Even when I carry my camera (Sony a7iii) around, I still take a lot of photos with my iPhone. The iPhone often gives better out-of-camera results than the Sony in high dynamic range situations. And other times it's just easier to grab my iPhone and take a quick snap than to swap the lens on the Sony for something wider.
Of course there are also a lot of situations where big-sensor, interchangeable lens cameras still excel, such as low light, telephoto, shallow depth of field, and resolution. So my Sony also gets a lot of use.
Photography isn't dead. Smartphones have just become serious photography tools.
Of course there are also a lot of situations where big-sensor, interchangeable lens cameras still excel, such as low light, telephoto, shallow depth of field, and resolution. So my Sony also gets a lot of use.
Photography isn't dead. Smartphones have just become serious photography tools.
Weird to be arguing that photography is dead when the number of pictures taken every day is experiencing super exponential growth. Lugging a 10lb chunk of glass and magnesium around on your neck otoh … _that’s_ dying.
Same. There is a difference in the photos I take with both but the outcome is clear, I take way more interesting photos with my phone because it is always at hand.
Am I missing something or do all the blogs above mention mirrorless as the replacement for DSLR, not smartphones?
All those are about dropping DSLR in favor of mirrorless / compact cameras, not phones. Phones get mentioned but the authors are still using dedicated cameras.
>"It’s kind of sad to see only one or two people with SLRs at any “vista point” I visit"
For contrast Toronto is choke full of people with SLR and mirrorless cams. Not that there are not enough people taking pics with smartphones either. What is virtually gone (from my perspective) are those small point and shoot cameras,
For contrast Toronto is choke full of people with SLR and mirrorless cams. Not that there are not enough people taking pics with smartphones either. What is virtually gone (from my perspective) are those small point and shoot cameras,
I sold my old beloved Fujifilm X100 digital rangefinder recently. It couldn’t hold a flame to my camera photos in direct tests. But that’s a good thing, because I’ve always got my phone.
It would be brilliant move from manufacturers to bring to life again older cameras by unlocking code. We know that cameras from 2012 are able to take RAW video (3DmII with Magic Lantern). But because of marketing, software limits abilities of hardware that we have at home collecting dust.
Sigma is almost never mentioned for its cameras, despite doing some interesting and trend-defying stuff with their own Foveon-based pocket cameras and the Bayer-based full-frame compact.
I have a first-generation Sigma 50mm f1.4 with Nikon F mount, and I'm still in love with its bokeh after many years. It's probably not the sharpest compared to the other 50mm heavyweights, but that's not an absolute need for portraits anyway.
Sigma makes great lenses compared to some of the other 3rd party manufacturers like Tamron and Tokina.
Sigma makes great lenses compared to some of the other 3rd party manufacturers like Tamron and Tokina.
Your comment more or less supports my point!
I am okay with progress but it is sad to see so many finely engineered mechanical things go the way of the dodo.
Not just film cameras but VCRs, consumer grade time pieces and much else that the Japanese are experts at mass manufacturing has been replaced by a circuit board.
With digital things, either it works or it doesn't (once you have taken it apart and put it together again). With mechanical gadgets the same applies but there is usually more to it than 'drat, I forgot to plug that bit in'.
Not just film cameras but VCRs, consumer grade time pieces and much else that the Japanese are experts at mass manufacturing has been replaced by a circuit board.
With digital things, either it works or it doesn't (once you have taken it apart and put it together again). With mechanical gadgets the same applies but there is usually more to it than 'drat, I forgot to plug that bit in'.
"Yes, some manufacturers struggled to move from film to digital (Fuji, Olympus, and Pentax being notable)"
The Olympus Camedia C800 around 1995 was my first digital camera and webcam (new shot every 5 seconds so people could see if I'm at my desk or not)
The Olympus Camedia C800 around 1995 was my first digital camera and webcam (new shot every 5 seconds so people could see if I'm at my desk or not)
cmd-f "software." Nada.
Any story that doesn't note that camera makers should've begun adopting Android at least a decade ago, and that doesn't note how poorly cameras integrate with smartphones, is missing a big part of the story. I have a Fuji mirrorless camera, and only people who are very interested in final image quality will tolerate the poor software.
There are other forms of malinvestment too: the article says "While Olympus has doggedly pursued the Four Thirds format since the 2003 release of the E-1, small sensors have largely been ill-fated with APS-C both more popular and a better-understood quantity by the consumer." It's not just about image size: Olympus has had sub-par autofocus relative to relevant competitors since at least 2016 or 2017, if not longer, and Panasonic has similar problems. But these are sideshows relative to software quality.
Any story that doesn't note that camera makers should've begun adopting Android at least a decade ago, and that doesn't note how poorly cameras integrate with smartphones, is missing a big part of the story. I have a Fuji mirrorless camera, and only people who are very interested in final image quality will tolerate the poor software.
There are other forms of malinvestment too: the article says "While Olympus has doggedly pursued the Four Thirds format since the 2003 release of the E-1, small sensors have largely been ill-fated with APS-C both more popular and a better-understood quantity by the consumer." It's not just about image size: Olympus has had sub-par autofocus relative to relevant competitors since at least 2016 or 2017, if not longer, and Panasonic has similar problems. But these are sideshows relative to software quality.
> Any story that doesn't note that camera makers should've begun adopting Android at least a decade ago
Cameras have a very tight energy budget. It’s not uncommon for current mirrorless camera to not get even 300 shots per batt charge. I’m not sure running a full-fledged multipurpose OS like Android would help that? And why is the software a problem exactly? I don’t care running apps on my camera.
Cameras have a very tight energy budget. It’s not uncommon for current mirrorless camera to not get even 300 shots per batt charge. I’m not sure running a full-fledged multipurpose OS like Android would help that? And why is the software a problem exactly? I don’t care running apps on my camera.
The battery life difference seems to be mostly on paper so (never tried it, but based on the meassurement method). Testing requires the cameras to be on for a certain time between shots, mirrorless obviously consumes more power with screens and EVFs powerd, DSLRs don't use any power at all when not shooting. Propably wouldn't make difference for me, my cameras are always off when not on my eye. The time it takes from getting them up there is enough for them to boot (Nikon bodies), so the difference between an EVF and a DSLR should be marginal in that case.
Moving parts (autofocus!) will dominate the energy budget, and cameras can fit much bigger batteries than phones. Running 24 hours+ isn't a problem for phones, and most cameras won't need network to be on most of that time.
> I don’t care running apps on my camera.
I'm sure that's true, but people love their image editing apps on their phones, and love being able to post clips directly to TikTok.
> I don’t care running apps on my camera.
I'm sure that's true, but people love their image editing apps on their phones, and love being able to post clips directly to TikTok.
Sony A7IV uses 16.4Wh battery that is equivalent to 4432mAh/3.7V. It's on par to latest smartphones. It's true that it could have bigger battery but it's not everyone want.
> Moving parts (autofocus!) will dominate the energy budget,
I've never noticed a difference between AF and MF lenses in battery use. What matters most by far is how long the EVF/display is on. Distant second is how many shots you actually take.
I've never noticed a difference between AF and MF lenses in battery use. What matters most by far is how long the EVF/display is on. Distant second is how many shots you actually take.
Sony cameras actually used to run Android. You could even sideload apks.
Can you provide more details/source for this? I didn't see any evidence for this in a quick Google search.
Recent Sony cameras[0] include an Android subsystem used to run apps from the proprietary Sony PlayMemories Camera App Store (PMCA).
Sony utilizes both Linux and the AV real time operating system (µITRON RTOS) on its arm cores.
Some of the nikon coolpix I believe were full android devices but are just a glorified phone / p&s not a dslr.
Nikon also uses µITRON RTOS on its proprietary expeed ASIC cores.
Canon has a proprietary inhouse OS named DRYOS for its DIGIC ASICs.
[0]: https://openmemories.readthedocs.io/devices.html
Sony utilizes both Linux and the AV real time operating system (µITRON RTOS) on its arm cores.
Some of the nikon coolpix I believe were full android devices but are just a glorified phone / p&s not a dslr.
Nikon also uses µITRON RTOS on its proprietary expeed ASIC cores.
Canon has a proprietary inhouse OS named DRYOS for its DIGIC ASICs.
[0]: https://openmemories.readthedocs.io/devices.html
I don’t recall a Sony, but Samsung def had one at one point. And today there’s a Chinese company named Yongnuo that produces them.
Software is a problem because software is what lets the dinky smartphone camera get a near-mirrorless-level result. If the mirrorless body had the smartphone's software, the image quality would be mindblowing.
Smartphones are nowhere near mirrorless level. Maybe if you only look at the thumbnail? Actually even then they would only be similar in extremely bright environments.
I agree mirrorless cameras could do more, but I’m not sure if it’s worth the compromises (power, cost, etc). The cameras don’t need all the processing since they have plenty of real signal to work with. If they did use a bunch of processing, it would need to be entirely new techniques from what phones do since those are pointless when you already have a quality image.
I agree mirrorless cameras could do more, but I’m not sure if it’s worth the compromises (power, cost, etc). The cameras don’t need all the processing since they have plenty of real signal to work with. If they did use a bunch of processing, it would need to be entirely new techniques from what phones do since those are pointless when you already have a quality image.
Is there a reason the cameras can't capture the raw data to be processed later? That would also provide more artistic control, which is desirable on a professional/prosumer device.
(I'd also question the "near-mirrorless-level" statement. My iPhone's camera is quite good, but my Nikon D750—admittedly not mirrorless, but a professional camera—is still on another level.)
(I'd also question the "near-mirrorless-level" statement. My iPhone's camera is quite good, but my Nikon D750—admittedly not mirrorless, but a professional camera—is still on another level.)
> Is there a reason the cameras can't capture the raw data to be processed later?
I'm not sure if this was a ironic comment, but assuming not: all serious cameras have been able to do this for 20 years.
I'm not sure if this was a ironic comment, but assuming not: all serious cameras have been able to do this for 20 years.
I thought maybe GP was referring to something more complex than your standard RAW capture. No idea what that would entail.
The main software tricks phones are using are HDR and noise reduction by means of stacking. Your D750 has an exposure bracketing feature and many image editors have stacking functionality. Of course it's hard to get perfectly aligned shots without a tripod or a very good image stabilizer, though I imagine some software can align and perspective-shift them enough to get decent results.
Funny you mention that. I recently stumbled onto software that does just that [1]. It implements Google’s stacking algorithm that it uses for the pixel line.
It’s Mac only, but fantastic. Even a two photo stack produces much better noise reduction than I could get from software.
[1] https://burst.photo/
It’s Mac only, but fantastic. Even a two photo stack produces much better noise reduction than I could get from software.
[1] https://burst.photo/
It’s neat. I think it falls short on the comparison to the Google paper where they provide comparisons. However they get major points for the clarity and honesty on the tech.
It's hard to tell exactly since while their comparison image is the same (the taxi cab) it looks like they've increased the exposure on their comparison.
The app also says it uses a "simplified" version of the approach google lays out, but doesn't provide more details about what was simplified out. (and I haven't dived through the code)
The app also says it uses a "simplified" version of the approach google lays out, but doesn't provide more details about what was simplified out. (and I haven't dived through the code)
> Your D750 has an exposure bracketing feature and many image editors have stacking functionality. Of course it's hard to get perfectly aligned shots without a tripod
Yeah, since I don't have a tripod I've found it to be basically useless (although it's very possible I haven't found the right software). I have always assumed (possibly incorrectly) that the camera's physical shutter prevented getting shots in as quick succession as a phone.
The thing is, the camera has enough dynamic range I don't feel like I need more than one shot anyway.
Yeah, since I don't have a tripod I've found it to be basically useless (although it's very possible I haven't found the right software). I have always assumed (possibly incorrectly) that the camera's physical shutter prevented getting shots in as quick succession as a phone.
The thing is, the camera has enough dynamic range I don't feel like I need more than one shot anyway.
Some mirrorless cameras do this better, offering very fast burst rates with electronic shutter and good enough stabilization for easy stacking.
The phone's camera hardware is different. It captures a short burst of photos at high frame rate, and also integrates the data from the gyroscope to cancel out the effects of camera shake.
Android (and iOS) has nothing I want on my camera.
I don't want or need an app store, I don't want or need messaging, and for god's sake please don't put an internet connection with a cell baseband chip in my camera. I need that battery life already.
Better integration? Sure. I'd like to see it. Snapbridge works acceptably but is slow.
But at the end of the day taking the picture is usually step one before culling, cropping, and editing so while it's a small irritation it's far less important than things like being able to get the shot in the first place (so autofocus, IBIS, etc.).
I don't want or need an app store, I don't want or need messaging, and for god's sake please don't put an internet connection with a cell baseband chip in my camera. I need that battery life already.
Better integration? Sure. I'd like to see it. Snapbridge works acceptably but is slow.
But at the end of the day taking the picture is usually step one before culling, cropping, and editing so while it's a small irritation it's far less important than things like being able to get the shot in the first place (so autofocus, IBIS, etc.).
A problem of Android for embeddeds is mismatch of software/hardware lifecycle. Android can't be secure for a decade. Even if manufacturer want to maintain, SoC vendor don't support version up so long, and SoC become significantly underpowered for latest OS/apps. Security is important since it's useless to have Android without networking.
I'm not sure that's fair to Olympus. For one point of comparison, the Mirrorless Comparison birds in flight test[0] rates the OM-1 better than everything in its price range. The Canon R6 and Sony A7 IV appear only a little more expensive at a glance, but comparable lenses for them cost more - considerably more in the case of long telephotos.
Of course, the OM-1 came out after the sale. Going back to 2016, the E-M1 II is, unsurprisingly not as good as newer cameras. It's notable, however that everything above it on the list is newer with the Sony A6500 (2017) and Fuji X-T3 (2018) being the oldest competitors to perform better.
Panasonic, on the other hand does have a problem with autofocus because it insists on using only contrast detection, while other manufacturers use contrast and phase detection in combination.
[0] https://mirrorlesscomparison.com/best/mirrorless-cameras-for...
Of course, the OM-1 came out after the sale. Going back to 2016, the E-M1 II is, unsurprisingly not as good as newer cameras. It's notable, however that everything above it on the list is newer with the Sony A6500 (2017) and Fuji X-T3 (2018) being the oldest competitors to perform better.
Panasonic, on the other hand does have a problem with autofocus because it insists on using only contrast detection, while other manufacturers use contrast and phase detection in combination.
[0] https://mirrorlesscomparison.com/best/mirrorless-cameras-for...
Olympus (or "OM System" as it's now called) has a bigger problem, and that's the software that runs on your computer. Unlike almost any other manufacturer, in order to do a firmware update, you have to install a special application on your computer. If you have a Mac, that application requires a kernel extension. For what reason, I can't even imagine.
The software is just awful. Why they can't just go with "put the updated firmware on the SD card", I have no idea.
The software is just awful. Why they can't just go with "put the updated firmware on the SD card", I have no idea.
That's awful, but it evidently is possible to just put the firmware on the SD card, and somebody made a website with instructions and download links.
https://lightsnowdev.com/Olympus/index.html
https://lightsnowdev.com/Olympus/index.html
That's cool, but it seems to only work with older bodies. Mine, the E-M10 IV, is not listed.
I suspect it's possible to find the download URLs by other means, or perhaps the site maintainer would be willing to update it if asked.
That’s also how the Sony updater works. Though it shouldn’t need a kernel extension anymore now that DriverKit is in userspace.
It's amazing so watch so many organizations ship poor software and fail to understand that there is a lot of value in starting a product from a simple user experience.
I don't think adopting Android would have helped them (they'd still be on 4.0 right now and a security nightmare, let's be real).
Same with many device manufacturers as well (something something most car infotainment systems and companion apps). Apple isn't for everyone (I'm an Android user) but they're one of the few organizations that is trying to think of software and hardware as components that should work well together even though they also make some hilarious missteps.
At this rate, mirrorless and DSLR cameras will keep getting a smaller slice of users and phone photography will keep improving for the 99% of people out there. Maybe that's okay.
I do wish my Sony AIII had great Google Photos integration.
I don't think adopting Android would have helped them (they'd still be on 4.0 right now and a security nightmare, let's be real).
Same with many device manufacturers as well (something something most car infotainment systems and companion apps). Apple isn't for everyone (I'm an Android user) but they're one of the few organizations that is trying to think of software and hardware as components that should work well together even though they also make some hilarious missteps.
At this rate, mirrorless and DSLR cameras will keep getting a smaller slice of users and phone photography will keep improving for the 99% of people out there. Maybe that's okay.
I do wish my Sony AIII had great Google Photos integration.
Android is the exact opposite of what I want in my camera. Sometimes when I'm out I need to swap batteries -- now I get to wait five minutes for my camera to boot? I know Android can boot faster, but do we really want octo-core cameras with 8GB of RAM?
A friend of mine has a pet complaint about the camera industry: in the 1980s if you bought a 110-film camera you could pull it out of your pocket aim at a subject, and take a picture, and the slowest part of that from 'cold boot' is pulling it out of your pocket. No digital camera can replicate that (unless you walk around with an 'on' camera in your pocket at all times). Your suggestion immediately made me think of him, and how not only have we lost something we had in the past, we're marching firmly away from it.
A friend of mine has a pet complaint about the camera industry: in the 1980s if you bought a 110-film camera you could pull it out of your pocket aim at a subject, and take a picture, and the slowest part of that from 'cold boot' is pulling it out of your pocket. No digital camera can replicate that (unless you walk around with an 'on' camera in your pocket at all times). Your suggestion immediately made me think of him, and how not only have we lost something we had in the past, we're marching firmly away from it.
I have an old Canon t2i and can flick it on while pulling it up to my eye and it's on before it gets there. Honestly it's faster to shoot with it than to double tap the power button on my Pixel, even if the phone is already in my hand.
Edit: Even more so when autofocus speed is taken into account.
Edit: Even more so when autofocus speed is taken into account.
I usually carry a film SLR and the best camera is the one you have with you, true. But the shots missed with my phone before I get it out of the pocket and get the camera app out, are many. I'm faster with a manual focus SLR than the phone.
The Nikon DSLRs I used so far could be carried in your hand at the side of your body, turned off. By the time you had the view finder in front of your eye, they are ready to shoot, and focused, in case you don't mind composition for a quick snapshot. No idea how the mirrorless ones stack up to that, I don't see a reason why they should be any slower so... Maybe EVF and displays need more time to switch on, I don't know.
They're a bit slower (~1s turn-on time) but I have yet to see it be an issue between the Z50, Z7ii, and Z9. Like you said, if I switch it on while pulling it up from the slung position, it's ready to rock by the time the viewfinder has reached my eye. If I bring it to my eye and only then switch it on there will be a short delay.
> the slowest part of that from 'cold boot' is pulling it out of your pocket. No digital camera can replicate that
Except for the part about fitting in your pocket, any DSLR can easily replicate that. That's one of the many factors that keep me using them, they are instant-on and have zero lag when taking a photo.
With a toddler, that's priceless. The only delay in taking a photo is the time it takes me to lift the camera to my eyes. Or even less, as I have many photos where I realize I won't have time to look through the viewfinder so I just grab the camera and release the shutter, the DSRLs are so fast this always works. I can straighten and crop later.
With a phone, by the time I unlock the screen, bring up the camera app, let it slowly focus, let the slowly-responding touch screen button activate, the toddler is in the other room.
Except for the part about fitting in your pocket, any DSLR can easily replicate that. That's one of the many factors that keep me using them, they are instant-on and have zero lag when taking a photo.
With a toddler, that's priceless. The only delay in taking a photo is the time it takes me to lift the camera to my eyes. Or even less, as I have many photos where I realize I won't have time to look through the viewfinder so I just grab the camera and release the shutter, the DSRLs are so fast this always works. I can straighten and crop later.
With a phone, by the time I unlock the screen, bring up the camera app, let it slowly focus, let the slowly-responding touch screen button activate, the toddler is in the other room.
I agree that software on cameras is terrible, and I would love for it to improve. But I'm not necessarily sure that good software would give a huge competitive advantage. Camera sales seem to be largely driven by technical specs, and I'm not sure that most buyers would choose to put their money toward better software over better specs. Even things like ergonomics (button layout, whether it has a fold-out display) seem to get more attention in camera reviews than software. The emphasis seems to be on getting the shot with the best image quality possible rather than what you do with it afterwards.
I do think that computational photography features (e.g. snapping a lot of photos and merging them) have the potential to be a big driver of camera sales for whoever is able to integrate them first into a large sensor camera. But this isn't just a matter of software but also processing power.
I personally would love to see Apple put out an interchangeable lens camera, but I'm not holding my breath as I don't think the market is large enough for them to bother. Also I'm not sure I could afford to buy one even if they did...
I do think that computational photography features (e.g. snapping a lot of photos and merging them) have the potential to be a big driver of camera sales for whoever is able to integrate them first into a large sensor camera. But this isn't just a matter of software but also processing power.
I personally would love to see Apple put out an interchangeable lens camera, but I'm not holding my breath as I don't think the market is large enough for them to bother. Also I'm not sure I could afford to buy one even if they did...
Yongnuo are on their second generation of Android+MFT camera with the YN455:
https://www.hkyongnuo.com/productinfo/660161.html
https://www.yongnuomall.com/product/detail/16254
https://www.hkyongnuo.com/productinfo/660161.html
https://www.yongnuomall.com/product/detail/16254
Android would only slow these cameras down, they need to integrate ML models into their existing realtime OSes (utron etc.)
Agree. And this is what they’re doing. Sony’s just announced camera leans heavily on ML for autofocus.
Cameras have used "ML" since the Nikon FA in 1983.
They have, but the current generation of ML is far more sophisticated than what cameras have specialized in -- which is why you're seeing phone cameras punch so far above their weight. We haven't seen the same class of improvements for standalone cameras yet.
> camera makers should've begun adopting Android at least a decade ago
That would be horrible. So now my camera would need a constant stream of security patch updates (which the manufacturer will stop supplying). And surely use a lot more battery.
What I love about Nikon DSLRs is the firmware is just for taking photos, hyper-optimized for that. There's no baggage. And it will keep working forever.
That would be horrible. So now my camera would need a constant stream of security patch updates (which the manufacturer will stop supplying). And surely use a lot more battery.
What I love about Nikon DSLRs is the firmware is just for taking photos, hyper-optimized for that. There's no baggage. And it will keep working forever.
I would hard disagree with that. I can’t think of a single way that Android would improve my experience on any of the DSLR or mirrorless cameras I own.
[deleted]
[deleted]
His point being that carrying around a bunch of heavy gear is not pleasant.
A lot of camera and lens sales were driven by progress at the margins without any serious benefit to the average user. Until the smartphone. Now, the number of people with surprisingly good cameras which they have with them almost constantly is absolutely astounding.
Yes, I can still roughly tell the processed shots from portrait mode on my phone from a much better camera but the differences aren't as drastic as you'd imagine. Most importantly, I have the camera with me.