DPReview.com to close(dpreview.com)
dpreview.com
DPReview.com to close
https://www.dpreview.com/news/5901145460/dpreview-com-to-close
386 comments
I do think times have changed though, DPReviews fortunes arguably have mirrored the fortunes of the ILC (interchangeable lens camera) market. The site (along with flickr.com...) was a daily visit for me 15 years ago at the height of the DSLR boom, but I honestly now can't remember the last time I checked.
ILC/DSLR annual sales volume peaked in ~2010 I believe, and has rapidly declined ever since really, another victim of the rapid pace of improvement in smartphones. If we are being blunt, Amazon bought dpreview to use as a sales funnel for DSLRs and cameras, which they simply don't sell so much of anymore. A sad day though.
I know dpreview covers cameras beyond ILCs, but ILC reviews where always by far the most popular content on the site - in the DSLR boom/Phil Askey years it simply was the gold standard in DSLR reviews. I still remember pouring over the classic battle between Canon's 300D and Nikon's D70 for entry level 6mp DSLR supremacy constantly on dpreview circa 2003/4.
ILC/DSLR annual sales volume peaked in ~2010 I believe, and has rapidly declined ever since really, another victim of the rapid pace of improvement in smartphones. If we are being blunt, Amazon bought dpreview to use as a sales funnel for DSLRs and cameras, which they simply don't sell so much of anymore. A sad day though.
I know dpreview covers cameras beyond ILCs, but ILC reviews where always by far the most popular content on the site - in the DSLR boom/Phil Askey years it simply was the gold standard in DSLR reviews. I still remember pouring over the classic battle between Canon's 300D and Nikon's D70 for entry level 6mp DSLR supremacy constantly on dpreview circa 2003/4.
I'm seeing a lot of people discussing sales numbers; here is one article showing the decline in terms of both lens and interchangeable lens cameras shipped: https://bythom.com/newsviews/real-camera-economics.html.
Lenses appear to have declined by about 66% from 2012 to 2022. Cameras, by a little under 50%.
This decline makes sense to me. I have a Fuji XT4 which I like a lot, but, also, starting around the iPhone 13, phones got really good. Their automatic exposure in sunlight, for example, is often (not always) great. At the same time, the software quality in pretty much all cameras leaves much to be desired: I can go on a rant about the number of clicks necessary to wirelessly transfer from camera to phone but would rather not, and people have been ranting about that topic for at least a decade.
Lenses appear to have declined by about 66% from 2012 to 2022. Cameras, by a little under 50%.
This decline makes sense to me. I have a Fuji XT4 which I like a lot, but, also, starting around the iPhone 13, phones got really good. Their automatic exposure in sunlight, for example, is often (not always) great. At the same time, the software quality in pretty much all cameras leaves much to be desired: I can go on a rant about the number of clicks necessary to wirelessly transfer from camera to phone but would rather not, and people have been ranting about that topic for at least a decade.
Phones definitely cannot compete with ILCs in the applications that photographers use. Phones fundamentally lack the larger sensors and specialist lenses that allow ILCs to produce the images they do. Yes, phones can blur stuff to fake bokeh, but even very basic things are not accounted for in phones.
What phones can do is replace dedicated cameras for the basic photography needs of many consumers. Point and shoot cameras have gone by the wayside. So have many cheaper consumer-oriented interchangeable-lens models. Many people bought APS-C DSLRs and just used them with the kit lens. That market has fizzled out. For one, most of those people now just use their phones. But even if they don't use their phones, DSLRs from the early 2010s still produce good images by today's standards.
But you know what a smartphone can't replace? My 135mm f/1.8 lens, just to name one. And full-frame sensors are way better than phone sensors. I'd much rather use my Canon 5Diii (from 2012) than my Pixel 6 Pro.
More than that, I feel that in their question to get bigger and bigger sensors, phone cameras have missed the mark with their actual purpose. The Pixel 6 Pro, for instance, has a larger sensor size to get a shallower depth of field. But this is NOT a welcome change when I am photographing pieces of paper and get the wrong focus in my images. The fact that you can't stop down the aperture on the lenses in 99% of phones is a major limitation. And that's just the beginning.
Now, I'm not saying I never use the camera on my Pixel. But I am saying that it's not at all useful for anything I'd use a real camera for.
What phones can do is replace dedicated cameras for the basic photography needs of many consumers. Point and shoot cameras have gone by the wayside. So have many cheaper consumer-oriented interchangeable-lens models. Many people bought APS-C DSLRs and just used them with the kit lens. That market has fizzled out. For one, most of those people now just use their phones. But even if they don't use their phones, DSLRs from the early 2010s still produce good images by today's standards.
But you know what a smartphone can't replace? My 135mm f/1.8 lens, just to name one. And full-frame sensors are way better than phone sensors. I'd much rather use my Canon 5Diii (from 2012) than my Pixel 6 Pro.
More than that, I feel that in their question to get bigger and bigger sensors, phone cameras have missed the mark with their actual purpose. The Pixel 6 Pro, for instance, has a larger sensor size to get a shallower depth of field. But this is NOT a welcome change when I am photographing pieces of paper and get the wrong focus in my images. The fact that you can't stop down the aperture on the lenses in 99% of phones is a major limitation. And that's just the beginning.
Now, I'm not saying I never use the camera on my Pixel. But I am saying that it's not at all useful for anything I'd use a real camera for.
> Phones definitely cannot compete with ILCs in the applications that photographers use.
That's overly broad. A lot of what photographers do doesn't need those capabilities (hell, some photographers work with literal children's toys), and the niches where you need them are getting smaller all the time. There are a few things you still can't photograph well with a phone (e.g. birds in flight), but that's a long way from being all photography.
> The fact that you can't stop down the aperture on the lenses in 99% of phones is a major limitation.
My last two phones have been able to do this, FWIW.
That's overly broad. A lot of what photographers do doesn't need those capabilities (hell, some photographers work with literal children's toys), and the niches where you need them are getting smaller all the time. There are a few things you still can't photograph well with a phone (e.g. birds in flight), but that's a long way from being all photography.
> The fact that you can't stop down the aperture on the lenses in 99% of phones is a major limitation.
My last two phones have been able to do this, FWIW.
In Asia I see more people with cameras year after year. It is now at a point where striking a convo about a camera someone has is tired because the next person over also has a cool camera. I mean I saw a guy with TWO Leicas yesterday. Fuji's mirrorless are huge and medium format is now as frequent as those Fujis were 6-8 years ago.
It's not only about features, in which I still think cameras best phones any day. It's also about the process. I don't want to use the same hated device that pesters me with work and atrocious social media for something artful. Same reason film is big lately. Sadly DPR due to its name excludes film.
It's not only about features, in which I still think cameras best phones any day. It's also about the process. I don't want to use the same hated device that pesters me with work and atrocious social media for something artful. Same reason film is big lately. Sadly DPR due to its name excludes film.
> Same reason film is big lately.
Also Instax / Polaroid. AFAIK, Fuji makes the majority (or at least a very significant chunk) of their consumer camera sales with Instax cameras and Instax film.
Also Instax / Polaroid. AFAIK, Fuji makes the majority (or at least a very significant chunk) of their consumer camera sales with Instax cameras and Instax film.
Also cheap digital compacts are popular, which are smaller than those instant film ones but also have the nostalgic look and cost a fraction of a phone. And a number of niche hobbies like astrophotography, wildlife, extreme macro, all requiring digital cameras. Saying if the phone can take nice photos (for some values of nice because physics make it impossible to rival the quality) then cameras should be obsolete is like saying your phone can zoom so microscopes are obsolete.
> That's overly broad. A lot of what photographers do doesn't need those capabilities (hell, some photographers work with literal children's toys),
OK, but nobody is doing serious photographic work (professional or hobbyist) using children's toy cameras. Those are used for an occasional laugh. Now, yes, you can photograph most things with your phone. But my full-frame cameras produce WAY better portraits than my phone, which is supposed to have a fairly decent camera for a phone.
> My last two phones have been able to do this, FWIW.
Good! Hopefully this will become more common. The fact that the Pixel 6 Pro expands the sensor size but keeps a fixed-aperture lens made the camera worse, as far as I'm concerned.
OK, but nobody is doing serious photographic work (professional or hobbyist) using children's toy cameras. Those are used for an occasional laugh. Now, yes, you can photograph most things with your phone. But my full-frame cameras produce WAY better portraits than my phone, which is supposed to have a fairly decent camera for a phone.
> My last two phones have been able to do this, FWIW.
Good! Hopefully this will become more common. The fact that the Pixel 6 Pro expands the sensor size but keeps a fixed-aperture lens made the camera worse, as far as I'm concerned.
> OK, but nobody is doing serious photographic work (professional or hobbyist) using children's toy cameras.
Some serious artistic photographers do do serious work with them, taking pictures to show in galleries and the like. I wouldn't be at all surprised if someone was out there doing professional e.g. wedding photography with one, for customers who want photos that look a bit different. Of course it's a stylistic choice, but camera choice often is.
> But my full-frame cameras produce WAY better portraits than my phone, which is supposed to have a fairly decent camera for a phone.
Now that's interesting - well-lit, no motion or anything, but still much better portraits? Would be interested to hear some more details about what's different/better.
Some serious artistic photographers do do serious work with them, taking pictures to show in galleries and the like. I wouldn't be at all surprised if someone was out there doing professional e.g. wedding photography with one, for customers who want photos that look a bit different. Of course it's a stylistic choice, but camera choice often is.
> But my full-frame cameras produce WAY better portraits than my phone, which is supposed to have a fairly decent camera for a phone.
Now that's interesting - well-lit, no motion or anything, but still much better portraits? Would be interested to hear some more details about what's different/better.
> Of course it's a stylistic choice, but camera choice often is.
OK, I guess I mean to exclude this kind of work which is done because the cameras are of much worse technical quality — these are by definition not applications for which traditional dedicated cameras are used.
In other words, the toys are not replacements for more capable equipment. Yes, you can shoot with a Barbie camera (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tkmrFguxgS0). But nobody could seriously claim that it replaces any standard ILC. We're not discussing whether or not phones (or Barbies) can take photos; we're talking about whether or not they can replace ILCs, and in what applications.
> Now that's interesting - well-lit, no motion or anything, but still much better portraits? Would be interested to hear some more details about what's different/better.
Well, of course, also, we don't always have good lighting or a lack of motion. Often, I am photographing people in motion, or in poor lighting, or both. And that's not a super niche thing. Imagine photographing an actor who is in the middle of a rehearsal (which I've done many times). A dedicated camera is just the right tool for that job, with the appropriate lens attached. Not to mention, of course, you want to have a somewhat telephoto lens for that — and one area where phone cameras have been, to my eyes, mostly marketing bluster is that of "super-zoom."
But looking back just at the same gear example I mentioned earlier: I often use my Sigma 135mm f/1.8 lens on my (full-frame) Canon R5. Now, I'll concede that this lens itself is much, much larger than anything you could slap on a phone, and the full-frame sensor is also far bigger than what you'd find on any phone, so you'd EXPECT something larger.
Now, to be fair, this is one of the lenses you can buy (tied with a Canon and Sony of the same spec) with some of the shallowest possible DOF on a full-frame camera. I don't always shoot wide open, but sometimes I do. In the ideal situation, I'd be shooting at ISO 100. And a 45MP FF sensor at its base ISO is just going to be ... really good. Admittedly, the iPhone (more than the Pixel, to my eyes, by a LONG shot) can produce some OK fake bokeh. But I suppose that my eye is good enough to know real bokeh from fake. My R5 will focus perfectly on the point I want and get the shot I am looking for every time. And AI-based trickery won't work equally well with all subjects; pure optics stays the same no matter what you're shooting.
The Pixel, though, in my opinion, produces pretty bad photos. Everything is NR'd, sharpened and HDR'd until it looks like a watercolor. I much prefer to apply (in most cases) pretty limited adulteration to my photos (which I shoot in RAW). I can shoot RAW with my phone, but I've never been anywhere near satisfied with the results. I will confess that the RAW results from the iPhone are significantly better, though still nothing like what I get from my dedicated camera. (I won't use an iPhone for reasons unrelated to photography.)
OK, I guess I mean to exclude this kind of work which is done because the cameras are of much worse technical quality — these are by definition not applications for which traditional dedicated cameras are used.
In other words, the toys are not replacements for more capable equipment. Yes, you can shoot with a Barbie camera (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tkmrFguxgS0). But nobody could seriously claim that it replaces any standard ILC. We're not discussing whether or not phones (or Barbies) can take photos; we're talking about whether or not they can replace ILCs, and in what applications.
> Now that's interesting - well-lit, no motion or anything, but still much better portraits? Would be interested to hear some more details about what's different/better.
Well, of course, also, we don't always have good lighting or a lack of motion. Often, I am photographing people in motion, or in poor lighting, or both. And that's not a super niche thing. Imagine photographing an actor who is in the middle of a rehearsal (which I've done many times). A dedicated camera is just the right tool for that job, with the appropriate lens attached. Not to mention, of course, you want to have a somewhat telephoto lens for that — and one area where phone cameras have been, to my eyes, mostly marketing bluster is that of "super-zoom."
But looking back just at the same gear example I mentioned earlier: I often use my Sigma 135mm f/1.8 lens on my (full-frame) Canon R5. Now, I'll concede that this lens itself is much, much larger than anything you could slap on a phone, and the full-frame sensor is also far bigger than what you'd find on any phone, so you'd EXPECT something larger.
Now, to be fair, this is one of the lenses you can buy (tied with a Canon and Sony of the same spec) with some of the shallowest possible DOF on a full-frame camera. I don't always shoot wide open, but sometimes I do. In the ideal situation, I'd be shooting at ISO 100. And a 45MP FF sensor at its base ISO is just going to be ... really good. Admittedly, the iPhone (more than the Pixel, to my eyes, by a LONG shot) can produce some OK fake bokeh. But I suppose that my eye is good enough to know real bokeh from fake. My R5 will focus perfectly on the point I want and get the shot I am looking for every time. And AI-based trickery won't work equally well with all subjects; pure optics stays the same no matter what you're shooting.
The Pixel, though, in my opinion, produces pretty bad photos. Everything is NR'd, sharpened and HDR'd until it looks like a watercolor. I much prefer to apply (in most cases) pretty limited adulteration to my photos (which I shoot in RAW). I can shoot RAW with my phone, but I've never been anywhere near satisfied with the results. I will confess that the RAW results from the iPhone are significantly better, though still nothing like what I get from my dedicated camera. (I won't use an iPhone for reasons unrelated to photography.)
Not the grand parent.
> The Pixel, though, in my opinion, produces pretty bad photos.
I've had the opportunity to play with iPhone 14, it has 12 megapixel cameras, but I find that the image quality is no difference to 8 megapixels of detail, and if you use third party applications that can take pictures without post processing, it's often closer to 6 megapixels and the grain in the image is not great. Smart phones don't appear to be resolving the detail advertised.
> I shoot in RAW
Shooting raw on my Android phones (since the iPhone 14 won't let me) shows there is clearly very little dynamic range, which when trying to do beautiful processing on skin tones or such, come out very flat (regardless if going for natural or unrealistically perfect).
I do a lot of photography in poor lighting, I over expose a lot so I can the details in the shadow, and then bring it back down in post processing in raw. Try to do anything similar on phones, terrible grain. Leave it to the phone processing, it does some really bad approaches at AEB with post processing and not very good handling on the HDR merge, plus the exposure time is huge, meh.
> But I suppose that my eye is good enough to know real bokeh from fake.
It's not convincing to me because you can see stuff like the background between strands of hair in focus. I imagine it's only going to get better at that.
The biggest problem with phone photography is sensor size currently and it seems unlikely we're going to have larger sensor sizes when it requires more flange distance for the optics.
> The Pixel, though, in my opinion, produces pretty bad photos.
I've had the opportunity to play with iPhone 14, it has 12 megapixel cameras, but I find that the image quality is no difference to 8 megapixels of detail, and if you use third party applications that can take pictures without post processing, it's often closer to 6 megapixels and the grain in the image is not great. Smart phones don't appear to be resolving the detail advertised.
> I shoot in RAW
Shooting raw on my Android phones (since the iPhone 14 won't let me) shows there is clearly very little dynamic range, which when trying to do beautiful processing on skin tones or such, come out very flat (regardless if going for natural or unrealistically perfect).
I do a lot of photography in poor lighting, I over expose a lot so I can the details in the shadow, and then bring it back down in post processing in raw. Try to do anything similar on phones, terrible grain. Leave it to the phone processing, it does some really bad approaches at AEB with post processing and not very good handling on the HDR merge, plus the exposure time is huge, meh.
> But I suppose that my eye is good enough to know real bokeh from fake.
It's not convincing to me because you can see stuff like the background between strands of hair in focus. I imagine it's only going to get better at that.
The biggest problem with phone photography is sensor size currently and it seems unlikely we're going to have larger sensor sizes when it requires more flange distance for the optics.
Yeah, the iPhone doesn't have the best camera by any means. But having received some RAW photos from one, I feel like they at least don't look super shitty before you push them. Now, they do not compare to RAWs from my actual cameras (whether the R5 or 5Diii). But they at least might be worth looking at.
The iPhone does shoot RAW, by the way: 12-bit DNG, but apparently perhaps only on the Pro models. Also, the 48MP camera of the iPhone 14 Pro (this is the model whose RAWs I viewed, but I don't own one) can produce 48MP DNGs. In good light they can look decent enough for what they are.
The Pixel 6 Pro just takes smeary photos. Their NR and compression makes them look blocky like screencaps from a video.
I also have used the Sony Xperia 1ii (used to own this phone for a while). This was supposedly a phone with a focus on the camera. In my experience, it looked pretty bad.
The fake bokeh will get better, I'm sure, but it can never beat the real deal. Real shallow DOF already exists; sure, faking it will get closer, and that's probably enough for the average Joe, but it's not like we can't just keep using the real thing, which doesn't have the potential flaws.
The thing about larger sensors, of course, is that they require lenses that project a larger image circle — and phone lenses can't really be like ILC lenses because, well, the form factors conflict. You can't stuff a 135/1.8 in your pocket; the laws of optics are what makes those lenses as big as they are.
The iPhone does shoot RAW, by the way: 12-bit DNG, but apparently perhaps only on the Pro models. Also, the 48MP camera of the iPhone 14 Pro (this is the model whose RAWs I viewed, but I don't own one) can produce 48MP DNGs. In good light they can look decent enough for what they are.
The Pixel 6 Pro just takes smeary photos. Their NR and compression makes them look blocky like screencaps from a video.
I also have used the Sony Xperia 1ii (used to own this phone for a while). This was supposedly a phone with a focus on the camera. In my experience, it looked pretty bad.
The fake bokeh will get better, I'm sure, but it can never beat the real deal. Real shallow DOF already exists; sure, faking it will get closer, and that's probably enough for the average Joe, but it's not like we can't just keep using the real thing, which doesn't have the potential flaws.
The thing about larger sensors, of course, is that they require lenses that project a larger image circle — and phone lenses can't really be like ILC lenses because, well, the form factors conflict. You can't stuff a 135/1.8 in your pocket; the laws of optics are what makes those lenses as big as they are.
I had been hoping for metamaterial lenses to solve the physics problem, but that recent demo made it clear consumer applications are a very long way off. I can't actually find the demo, but it was someone from one of the three letter agencies showing it off on a stage. Maybe someone else will have it. It only shot in monochrome. The quality was good, and the lens was a lot smaller than an ordinary ILC lens on a camera you'd normally need to get that quality. But the presenter didn't offer much hope of it being better quickly. The demo was for a very specific scientific application.
"starting around the iPhone 13, phones got really good"
-exasperated sigh-
I wish I could agree but I just can't. I feel around that point pictures taken by phone cameras stopped looking real. They started forcing stuff like HDR and AI correction and very heavy handed noise filtering.
Looking back at my old pictures from the 2010s, I think my canon digital elph took better pictures than my phones do now lol. I realize how stupid that sounds.
-exasperated sigh-
I wish I could agree but I just can't. I feel around that point pictures taken by phone cameras stopped looking real. They started forcing stuff like HDR and AI correction and very heavy handed noise filtering.
Looking back at my old pictures from the 2010s, I think my canon digital elph took better pictures than my phones do now lol. I realize how stupid that sounds.
To me they do seem to be getting “better”, in air quotes, I think due to ILCs supplying ground truth data…
IMO the real problem is that there aren’t much connection between that photos you like and people. “If we take the S.D. Card out of the proper camera and insert it into a proper Computer…” just don’t cut it anymore.
They only have a phone each. You have to be able to get the photo to the phone to social media before the flash unit finishes recharging(on fresh batteries of course). Else they’ll lose interest.
IMO the real problem is that there aren’t much connection between that photos you like and people. “If we take the S.D. Card out of the proper camera and insert it into a proper Computer…” just don’t cut it anymore.
They only have a phone each. You have to be able to get the photo to the phone to social media before the flash unit finishes recharging(on fresh batteries of course). Else they’ll lose interest.
The companion apps provided by ILC manufacturers are just horrible, broken, useless. I was really glad that I could hack the in-camera "send email" function of the Samsung NX500 to send the picture to a VPS which then forwards it to my favorite photo sharing chat instead.
No, you're right. Pictures taken by my one plus one (especially the raw ones) were much much better than my new latest Samsung.
> starting around the iPhone 13, phones got really good.
ILC cameras also got really good.
I'm not at all doubting that smartphones are the primary cannibalization vector, but even for people who prefer to use cameras with significantly larger sensors than can be put into a smartphone I think the cameras themselves reached a point years ago where it became difficult even for ILC enthusiasts to justify upgrades on a regular basis because what people already owned was "Good Enough". I reached this point with the Sony A7R Mk3 and other people probably reached this point sooner.
For years it felt like Canon and Nikon were kind of aware this would happen with ILCs and were dragging their feet on camera body tech making incremental upgrades behind where the technology should have been if they were competing full speed, and then other vendors like Sony just came smashing in without being part of this implicit agreement and pushed camera body tech along extremely quickly for a few years (with Canon/Nikon having to follow along to some degree to keep up) and it didn't take many iterations of this pushing the technology to where it could be for ILC camera bodies to be something you feel no itch to upgrade from year to year because the shiny new thing is an extremely marginal upgrade.
So the cannibalization of the market probably had two fronts, the larger one from smartphones, and a smaller but still significant one from "Good Enough" (which is an issue smartphones are starting to run into as well).
ILC cameras also got really good.
I'm not at all doubting that smartphones are the primary cannibalization vector, but even for people who prefer to use cameras with significantly larger sensors than can be put into a smartphone I think the cameras themselves reached a point years ago where it became difficult even for ILC enthusiasts to justify upgrades on a regular basis because what people already owned was "Good Enough". I reached this point with the Sony A7R Mk3 and other people probably reached this point sooner.
For years it felt like Canon and Nikon were kind of aware this would happen with ILCs and were dragging their feet on camera body tech making incremental upgrades behind where the technology should have been if they were competing full speed, and then other vendors like Sony just came smashing in without being part of this implicit agreement and pushed camera body tech along extremely quickly for a few years (with Canon/Nikon having to follow along to some degree to keep up) and it didn't take many iterations of this pushing the technology to where it could be for ILC camera bodies to be something you feel no itch to upgrade from year to year because the shiny new thing is an extremely marginal upgrade.
So the cannibalization of the market probably had two fronts, the larger one from smartphones, and a smaller but still significant one from "Good Enough" (which is an issue smartphones are starting to run into as well).
Yep, my wife and I used to do wedding photography and from that period we have 2 Canon 5D Mk II's and 2 40D's along with 3 L lenses, some primes and a few cheaper zooms. There's absolutely no reason we would ever need another camera. Even people with a single body wouldn't ever need another one unless they broke it.
I'm guessing you don't record videos then.
In terms of video capabilities, Canon 5D Mk II is limited to 8-bit 4:2:0 1080p H.264 recording at 30fps, maxing out at 12 minutes of recording. That is a far cry from 10-bit (or 12-bit) 4:2:2 4K, 6K or even 8K RAW or ProRes at 120fps or higher with unlimited recording from a similarly priced camera in today's money.
(It's also limited in terms of RAW photo as well though: the best recording option is 8-bit 10MP RAW)
No phone comes anywhere near that either, not to mention the lenses for phones can't compete with the real interchangeable lenses. The difference probably doesn't matter to someone who is just going to record his baby walking around and watch it on a 7 inch screen, but of course that's not the target audience for those cameras.
In terms of video capabilities, Canon 5D Mk II is limited to 8-bit 4:2:0 1080p H.264 recording at 30fps, maxing out at 12 minutes of recording. That is a far cry from 10-bit (or 12-bit) 4:2:2 4K, 6K or even 8K RAW or ProRes at 120fps or higher with unlimited recording from a similarly priced camera in today's money.
(It's also limited in terms of RAW photo as well though: the best recording option is 8-bit 10MP RAW)
No phone comes anywhere near that either, not to mention the lenses for phones can't compete with the real interchangeable lenses. The difference probably doesn't matter to someone who is just going to record his baby walking around and watch it on a 7 inch screen, but of course that's not the target audience for those cameras.
10bit and 4:2:2 is only for editing in post, majority of consumers don't need that.
If you read the last sentence of the post that you're replying to, I already said that it won't matter to most people.
That being said, "is only for editing in post" (which is not really true, banding is an issue in scenes with high dynamic range with 8-bit, not limited to sky but also with strong lights or deep shadows) doesn't mean people won't want it. Around 10-15 years ago, in the age of single-digit-GB slow SD cards and weaker camera/phone processors, that's what people used to say about RAW photos repeatedly. Now it is mainstream in even in phones, with built-in editing apps and easy to use desktop programs with few knobs. This means editing itself in post isn't a barrier for mainstream adoption, the issue is video editing currently has a high barrier as it is essentially impossible on portable devices, the programs have their learning curves, and the whole stack requires some financial investment.
That being said, "is only for editing in post" (which is not really true, banding is an issue in scenes with high dynamic range with 8-bit, not limited to sky but also with strong lights or deep shadows) doesn't mean people won't want it. Around 10-15 years ago, in the age of single-digit-GB slow SD cards and weaker camera/phone processors, that's what people used to say about RAW photos repeatedly. Now it is mainstream in even in phones, with built-in editing apps and easy to use desktop programs with few knobs. This means editing itself in post isn't a barrier for mainstream adoption, the issue is video editing currently has a high barrier as it is essentially impossible on portable devices, the programs have their learning curves, and the whole stack requires some financial investment.
Majority of displays are 8bit and it will probably stay as standard for while.
Btw, over 10 years old Canon 5DMIII can shoot RAW video with MagicLantern. Manufacturers should open/update code to their old cameras that are capable do this. Its really disappointing when marketing ruin whole product. No wonder that camera market dying.
Btw, over 10 years old Canon 5DMIII can shoot RAW video with MagicLantern. Manufacturers should open/update code to their old cameras that are capable do this. Its really disappointing when marketing ruin whole product. No wonder that camera market dying.
Even when targeting 8-bit displays, recording 10-bit is still beneficial. Besides obvious benefits in editing and encoding, simply playing a 10-bit video file straight from the camera on an 8-bit screen is useful when applying any common "effects" (brightness, contrast, LUT, colorspace transformation, gamma correction, tonemapping, etc etc).
> Btw, over 10 years old Canon 5DMIII can shoot RAW video with MagicLantern
Not sure why that is relevant in this context, but any digital camera would be capable of shooting RAW video with hacks: they all have photo-sensors and RAW simply means dumping the digitized signal data in a suitable format. It's a matter of hacking the device. But it doesn't mean you should do it, especially when that's not what they're designed for. Unsurprisingly, in the case of Canon 5D Mark III (which is a photo-oriented camera lacking a stabilizer, you can read about further limitations such as the under-utilized sensor in video mode [which typically happens due to hardware limitations] here https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canon-eos-5d-mark-iii/25), a lot of potential problems await apparently: https://www.cined.com/consider-this-before-you-shoot-raw-on-... For RAW video, at the very least, you need a more reliable storage hardware hooked to your device with sufficient capacity for recording (meaning CFExpress or NVMe via USB, not SDXC), and possibly active cooling, both missing from that camera so it would require some hardware modding.
That being said, modern video cameras can also do more than the trivial task of recording RAW: they can handle processing and encoding of higher quality videos (resolution, bpp, frame rate) in real time, which requires specialized silicon missing from Canon 5D Mark III.
> Manufacturers should open/update code to their old cameras that are capable do this. Its really disappointing when marketing ruin whole product. No wonder that camera market dying.
1. The camera hardware isn't actually designed for it (by the way, even with new video cameras, there are usually trade offs, you turn one feature on and another becomes inaccessible) 2. that's not the reason why the consumer camera market is shrinking, and 3. doing that would shrink the market volume even further.
> Btw, over 10 years old Canon 5DMIII can shoot RAW video with MagicLantern
Not sure why that is relevant in this context, but any digital camera would be capable of shooting RAW video with hacks: they all have photo-sensors and RAW simply means dumping the digitized signal data in a suitable format. It's a matter of hacking the device. But it doesn't mean you should do it, especially when that's not what they're designed for. Unsurprisingly, in the case of Canon 5D Mark III (which is a photo-oriented camera lacking a stabilizer, you can read about further limitations such as the under-utilized sensor in video mode [which typically happens due to hardware limitations] here https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canon-eos-5d-mark-iii/25), a lot of potential problems await apparently: https://www.cined.com/consider-this-before-you-shoot-raw-on-... For RAW video, at the very least, you need a more reliable storage hardware hooked to your device with sufficient capacity for recording (meaning CFExpress or NVMe via USB, not SDXC), and possibly active cooling, both missing from that camera so it would require some hardware modding.
That being said, modern video cameras can also do more than the trivial task of recording RAW: they can handle processing and encoding of higher quality videos (resolution, bpp, frame rate) in real time, which requires specialized silicon missing from Canon 5D Mark III.
> Manufacturers should open/update code to their old cameras that are capable do this. Its really disappointing when marketing ruin whole product. No wonder that camera market dying.
1. The camera hardware isn't actually designed for it (by the way, even with new video cameras, there are usually trade offs, you turn one feature on and another becomes inaccessible) 2. that's not the reason why the consumer camera market is shrinking, and 3. doing that would shrink the market volume even further.
Temporal Dithering also known as Frame Rate Control is very often used in 8 bit panels to allow them to display almost as many colours as a 10bit panel.
From the input perspective you're running it as a 10bit panel
From the input perspective you're running it as a 10bit panel
Videos are not what most people mean by "photography", 10-bit is mostly a gimmick (there are situations where it gives a real advantage, but they're niche), and higher-than-1080p resolutions are honestly pretty marginal a lot of the time. 30fps is pretty awful though.
I'm still a bit interested in buying a ILC camera, but I assumed at some point the prices would start dropping, but they really haven't. Demand has gone way down and supply isn't really limited. There is even competition. But the prices remain fairly constant.
Used is the budget option. Cameras aren't in the kind of rapid development cycle where an older model isn't competitive, but it's often half the price of new, or less.
The prices will go up as the products become more a niche. Less demand = lower economies of scale.
I wouldn't expect that to happen... Especially with lenses (full of expensive bits of glass) but new cameras will always be sold at a premium. Firms set prices for products, supply and demand mostly doesn't come into it (except pushing prices up perhaps when availability of components are constrained).
Look again at that chart. It's even worse for cameras. It's almost a 75% decline.
> I can go on a rant about the number of clicks necessary to wirelessly transfer from camera
Yeah this is a huge unaddressed issue that must be hemorrhaging users out of cameras. It’ll need a substantial rework in cameras and perhaps phones too, but I’ve seen enough times that the display of LCD taken and uploaded on social media and they must know that’s being done.
They could make a phone-camera hybrid, with or without in-camera Lightroom, TransferJet, USB cable transfer, anything in those direction that were attempted low-effort and forgotten.
People aren’t going to appreciate current hours-long delayed gratification that current ILCs require. No way.
Yeah this is a huge unaddressed issue that must be hemorrhaging users out of cameras. It’ll need a substantial rework in cameras and perhaps phones too, but I’ve seen enough times that the display of LCD taken and uploaded on social media and they must know that’s being done.
They could make a phone-camera hybrid, with or without in-camera Lightroom, TransferJet, USB cable transfer, anything in those direction that were attempted low-effort and forgotten.
People aren’t going to appreciate current hours-long delayed gratification that current ILCs require. No way.
These android-based cameras you talk about exist but not sure why any serious photographer would use one. When I need the camera I need it now, not wait for the camera app to decide to boot. Also, posting the result on social media as is is a thing of the past, people do post processing now and pros use raws. To develop a raw well you gotta use a proper big screen.
[deleted]
Cameras made after 2016 are so good in terms of image quality that you will not see any improvement in newer cameras. So upgrading is reasonable option only for those, who need better functionality, which majority of amateurs don't need.
It depends for what. There are still ways to go with video, but mostly only for people who care to colour grade their footage. I expect a significant proportion of people now are buying mirrorless cameras now almost entirely to shoot video so I expect it is a major consideration. Things like in-camera 10-bit raw video recording which is still fairly rare. Probably mirrorless cameras will start being able to shoot 5K or 6K too, which is useful (for reframing by cropping in, otherwise downscaling to increase visual quality).
It is pointless for casual consumers and professionals usually use cameras dedicated for video (Arri, RED), not hybrid camera.
Sure, there is specific group of enthusiastic folks on youtube that promote products consumed... by youtubers I guess?
Sure, there is specific group of enthusiastic folks on youtube that promote products consumed... by youtubers I guess?
[deleted]
The thing is, there's another boom currently going on. The mirrorless boom, and this site is the gold standard for that one as well. Now there is no home, and its much harder to gleam the differences that are actually meaningful between these many mirrorless cameras (and new dslrs that do get made).
It isn't a boom. It is just a transition from DSRL/video cameras to mirrorless. Market is consolidating around mirrorless for everything from photography to video. Hire a wedding photography and a wedding videographer today, they may have the same equipment.
Yea now we're going to have to put up with youtubers trying to build a brand and shove their personality into every review they make. :(
a "boom" is an overstatement. The camera industry overall is dying and struggling. We're down to something like 10% of camera sales from 2010. There is no boom. There is a transition from DSLR to mirrorless for the few existing dedicated camera photographers out there.
I have a $600 DSLR that I bought at Costco on a whim, fifteen years ago. Once in a blue moon I look at my old photos and realize they just look night and day better than anything I've taken in the last decade. Camera phone lenses do alright when it's sunny outside, but DSLRs kill it when it comes to medium and low light.
I have an entry level Nikon paired with their F1.4G 50mm lens. It takes staggeringly good portraits in any conditions.
DPReview was of course my primary source of information when choosing equipment. Sad indeed to see them shutter.
* https://www.nikonusa.com/en/nikon-products/product/camera-le...
DPReview was of course my primary source of information when choosing equipment. Sad indeed to see them shutter.
* https://www.nikonusa.com/en/nikon-products/product/camera-le...
And of course, the dslr looks perfect in perfect light too. You can do things that make your images even better with dslrs since you have access to the raw files and complete control over exposure. You can underexpose for a night scene to not blow up highlights and shoot at lower noise or at a shutter speed you can hand hold without blur (depends on your current focal length), then pull up the exposure only on the shadows where you aren't liable to notice much noise anyway. You can get that shot on a bright blue day that looks like what you eyes see with this technique, where you can see the blue sky and shadows under trees just fine, by exposing for the sky to not blow it out, and then pulling up the shadows. For any pro digital camera built in the last 15 years, you can pull a lot before the noise gets too unruly. A camera like an old 5dmk1 is still great at this, and its almost 20.
Trying to expose for the highlights is annoying on the iphone at least. It doesn't hold exposure lock that reliably, and the slider needs to be a lot more sensitive to actually let me quickly stop down the exposure. Usually I miss click since you have to swipe several times, and it resets the exposure. Then you are left with a jpeg that's compressed with some aggressive de noising applied probably missing most of the color depth too.
Trying to expose for the highlights is annoying on the iphone at least. It doesn't hold exposure lock that reliably, and the slider needs to be a lot more sensitive to actually let me quickly stop down the exposure. Usually I miss click since you have to swipe several times, and it resets the exposure. Then you are left with a jpeg that's compressed with some aggressive de noising applied probably missing most of the color depth too.
You can easily shoot RAW with manual control over exposure (and even focus) on an iPhone with Halide or other third party apps. Aperture is fixed, of course.
IMO if a third party app has to bring the feature its not really a part of the phone. Apps come and go. Plus apps like halide are paid so you could think of it as a tax to get to actually use some of the hardware you purchased.
That seems like a rather academic distinction. The cost of the app is minuscule compared to the cost of any of the camera hardware that you’re referring to.
The built in app does give you focus lock and manual exposure control (with auto ISO). Only a very small number of people would want the additional control that Halide offers, so it wouldn’t really make sense for Apple to add those features to the built in app.
The built in app does give you focus lock and manual exposure control (with auto ISO). Only a very small number of people would want the additional control that Halide offers, so it wouldn’t really make sense for Apple to add those features to the built in app.
Exposing for highlights doesn't work the same way on a phone since it's doing multiple captures and HDR merging.
(Well, it can if you use a third-party camera app.)
(Well, it can if you use a third-party camera app.)
The only people who think Smartphone Cameras take better pictures than SLRs are not photographers.
It is not just low light, it is depth of field, exposure control, the minimization or absence of computed exposures.
I have an iPhone 13 Pro Max and only shot in RAW mode. That is the best I can do. Saving money fro a mirrorless camera so i can start shooting again.
It is not just low light, it is depth of field, exposure control, the minimization or absence of computed exposures.
I have an iPhone 13 Pro Max and only shot in RAW mode. That is the best I can do. Saving money fro a mirrorless camera so i can start shooting again.
> The only people who think Smartphone Cameras take better pictures than SLRs are not photographers.
Amateur photographer here, currently have a Canon 80D and a 20-year collection of medium-quality lenses. You're completely right. The photos that this thing takes are miles ahead of my iPhone 12 Pro; you just can't beat a sensor with big pixels and an aperture that's 10-100x (? I don't know the actual ratio) larger than a smartphone lens. But the one nuance is the old saying "the best camera in the world is the one you've got with you"; I have some beautiful shots from this camera, and the 20D before it, and the Rebel XT before it, but some of my absolute favourites were shot on a smartphone because it was in my pocket at the right time and the DSLR was at home in the bag.
Amateur photographer here, currently have a Canon 80D and a 20-year collection of medium-quality lenses. You're completely right. The photos that this thing takes are miles ahead of my iPhone 12 Pro; you just can't beat a sensor with big pixels and an aperture that's 10-100x (? I don't know the actual ratio) larger than a smartphone lens. But the one nuance is the old saying "the best camera in the world is the one you've got with you"; I have some beautiful shots from this camera, and the 20D before it, and the Rebel XT before it, but some of my absolute favourites were shot on a smartphone because it was in my pocket at the right time and the DSLR was at home in the bag.
The final output isn’t the only criteria either. The file may look good, but when you really know your SLR, you can compose and shoot much much faster with more options. Aperture, shutter speed, even ISO, and you can create art.
On a phone it’s all kinda pre-canned. And you have to paw at the stupid thing like a monkey.
You might have an equally sharp or whatever JPG, but it’s the difference between watercolor and crayons.
On a phone it’s all kinda pre-canned. And you have to paw at the stupid thing like a monkey.
You might have an equally sharp or whatever JPG, but it’s the difference between watercolor and crayons.
SLRs don't take "better" photos, they take more detailed photos. The best photo is the one you actually took because you had the camera on you and didn't miss the shot.
And if you want the most detailed photo, SLRs are not the highest quality cameras either when you could rent a Fujifilm GFX 100.
And if you want the most detailed photo, SLRs are not the highest quality cameras either when you could rent a Fujifilm GFX 100.
> SLRs don't take "better" photos, they take more detailed photos. The best photo is the one you actually took because you had the camera on you and didn't miss the shot.
At this point I want to go back to using a pocket camera. I can turn it on and take a picture without having to look at the screen. There's no automatic cloud uploads. I don't have to worry about someone logging metrics or scanning the pictures or AI doing weird things like filling in moon textures. I take picture. I get picture. That's it. I don't have to worry about cloud subscriptions or "ecosystems" (GAH!) or whatever. I stick the SD card in my computer and there's the fucking pictures. Done.
At this point I want to go back to using a pocket camera. I can turn it on and take a picture without having to look at the screen. There's no automatic cloud uploads. I don't have to worry about someone logging metrics or scanning the pictures or AI doing weird things like filling in moon textures. I take picture. I get picture. That's it. I don't have to worry about cloud subscriptions or "ecosystems" (GAH!) or whatever. I stick the SD card in my computer and there's the fucking pictures. Done.
If you take a picture without looking at the screen I hope you checked the lens cap is off first.
[deleted]
Not to mention that almost all photo consumption happens on a phone as well.
Only when you open a phone photo on a big screen and compared to one taken by a real lens do you realize the big difference. Despite all the incredible technology in phone cameras, there is no substitute for proper optics.
Only when you open a phone photo on a big screen and compared to one taken by a real lens do you realize the big difference. Despite all the incredible technology in phone cameras, there is no substitute for proper optics.
> Once in a blue moon I look at my old photos and realize they just look night and day better than anything I've taken in the last decade.
Exactly. I can't identify at all with comments saying phone cameras are good. Convenient, yes I get it (although personally I keep my phone in my backpack so pulling it out takes only slightly less effort than pulling out the camera, only because the phone is smaller, but I realize most people keep their phone glued to their hand).
But even my 15+ year old DSLR (a low-end Nikon D40) takes better photos than my 2022 smartphone. I have large (4ft wide) cropped prints on the wall from that camera which have great quality, the <1yr old smartphone camera can't do that.
And my newer DSLRs are even better than that.
Exactly. I can't identify at all with comments saying phone cameras are good. Convenient, yes I get it (although personally I keep my phone in my backpack so pulling it out takes only slightly less effort than pulling out the camera, only because the phone is smaller, but I realize most people keep their phone glued to their hand).
But even my 15+ year old DSLR (a low-end Nikon D40) takes better photos than my 2022 smartphone. I have large (4ft wide) cropped prints on the wall from that camera which have great quality, the <1yr old smartphone camera can't do that.
And my newer DSLRs are even better than that.
Its enough of a boom for a small company like fujifilm to justify producing more cameras and lenses and even start up and grow a medium format mirrorless ecosystem. Fujifilm in particular struggles to keep up with demand which is probably not easy given global shortages, but it goes to show there is a market. It's not the market it was in 1995 or 2005, but its a market no less because there's always a demand for the best image technolgy can do.
Phone cameras will always look worse than their contemporary full size counterparts just due to physics, so the pros and prosumers will always be in demand of a dedicated rig even if their iphone looks like a spider on the back. Not to mention even today just from an OS standpoint, no phone has feature parity with even the first dslr released since phone manufacturers "childproof" camera features that pro camera manufacturers assume you don't need your hand held to use. Usually you have to resort to a third party app if you want to set a manual exposure, you know, something any photographer since 1860 could do that we now deem to be "too advanced" for modern humans.
Phone cameras will always look worse than their contemporary full size counterparts just due to physics, so the pros and prosumers will always be in demand of a dedicated rig even if their iphone looks like a spider on the back. Not to mention even today just from an OS standpoint, no phone has feature parity with even the first dslr released since phone manufacturers "childproof" camera features that pro camera manufacturers assume you don't need your hand held to use. Usually you have to resort to a third party app if you want to set a manual exposure, you know, something any photographer since 1860 could do that we now deem to be "too advanced" for modern humans.
Fujifilm is a twenty billion dollar company. Imaging is just a hobby for them.
Though I agree that if it were truly hemorrhaging them money, they'd have sold it (like Minolta or Pentax) or spun it out into its own entity (like Olympus).
Though I agree that if it were truly hemorrhaging them money, they'd have sold it (like Minolta or Pentax) or spun it out into its own entity (like Olympus).
The point-and-shoot market collapsed, but the dslr market is not nearly as dramatically affected with 2010 numbers not too far off 2018 numbers based on statista charts[1].
On the other hand, mirrorless is starting to show growth[2].
Looking at the overall camera-sales are misleading, especially considering that it largely shuffled numbers around within big companies: A Samsung point-and-shoot with a Samsung sensor became a Samsung smartphone with a Samsung sensor, selling even more units with the camera still being a primary selling point.
---
[1]: https://seekingalpha.com/article/4242091-why-nikon-and-canon...
[2]: https://petapixel.com/2023/02/15/2022-was-officially-the-yea... (using CIPA data)
On the other hand, mirrorless is starting to show growth[2].
Looking at the overall camera-sales are misleading, especially considering that it largely shuffled numbers around within big companies: A Samsung point-and-shoot with a Samsung sensor became a Samsung smartphone with a Samsung sensor, selling even more units with the camera still being a primary selling point.
---
[1]: https://seekingalpha.com/article/4242091-why-nikon-and-canon...
[2]: https://petapixel.com/2023/02/15/2022-was-officially-the-yea... (using CIPA data)
I'm kinda curious why though, and I'm speaking as someone who bought a mirrorless camera (I think my first camera ever?) about a year ago.
Also, certain camera brands are less affected than others. Fuji is probably doing better than its ever done these days and has trouble keeping inventory in stock from demand, whereas nikon is at a historic low.
And with good reason. While I like shooting with DSLM some software and hardware parts are just bad.
No GPS. The cheapest Android phone from 5 years ago has this. I don't want to use the shitty app to get geoinformation. Yes, battery lifetime - no need to enable it by default.
No embedded storage. With SSD prices cheap as now, add some 64 or 128GB storage. Keep the card slot.
More computational stuff, no need for enabling it by default, but stuff like taking 10 pictures, then selecting the best one automatically (or whatever the camera thinks is best). Additional: enable better tethering. On my Nikon Z7 I still can't set everything from the computer. Some settings depend on the mode (P,A,S,M) - why? Nobody knows.
If no flash, at least have some light.
No GPS. The cheapest Android phone from 5 years ago has this. I don't want to use the shitty app to get geoinformation. Yes, battery lifetime - no need to enable it by default.
No embedded storage. With SSD prices cheap as now, add some 64 or 128GB storage. Keep the card slot.
More computational stuff, no need for enabling it by default, but stuff like taking 10 pictures, then selecting the best one automatically (or whatever the camera thinks is best). Additional: enable better tethering. On my Nikon Z7 I still can't set everything from the computer. Some settings depend on the mode (P,A,S,M) - why? Nobody knows.
If no flash, at least have some light.
They exist! My YN455 interchangeable-lens Android camera has all of those things. It uses the same 20MP MFT sensor as my PEN-F and I love it a lot: https://www.yongnuomall.com/product/detail/16254
Does that have a cell modem? An m4/3 camera with wifi and cell data sounds amazing?
Yes, I use it on Mint (T-Mobile). Some screenshots I took just now: https://imgur.com/a/x8TU7o3
It's picky about certain zooms, but it is fantastic with all of my primes (Lumix 20mm F1.7 ASPH and SIGMA 56mm F1.4 DC DN being my favs) and with any of my cine lenses. It's fine for stills as long as I can stand the e-shutter, but I love it for video. Unfortunately I can't seem to share an accurate video sample because Youtube's recompression is adding a ton of horrible choppiness that isn't in the actual camera output: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RCbnbKvNZlg (Shot on LAOWA 6mm T2.1 Zero-D Cine. Warning: loud!!)
It's picky about certain zooms, but it is fantastic with all of my primes (Lumix 20mm F1.7 ASPH and SIGMA 56mm F1.4 DC DN being my favs) and with any of my cine lenses. It's fine for stills as long as I can stand the e-shutter, but I love it for video. Unfortunately I can't seem to share an accurate video sample because Youtube's recompression is adding a ton of horrible choppiness that isn't in the actual camera output: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RCbnbKvNZlg (Shot on LAOWA 6mm T2.1 Zero-D Cine. Warning: loud!!)
Definitely not a boom, but there is still a sizable niche community that I would thought to be big enough to support a good website.
For example there is no boom of home audio systems anymore, but there are enough audiophiles to support a number of sites and magazines
For example there is no boom of home audio systems anymore, but there are enough audiophiles to support a number of sites and magazines
And yet, popular cameras like the Fujifilm X100V are selling for above retail because demand is outstripping supply.
10% camera sales or 10% ILC sales? The point and click market is obviously irrelevant for a mirrorless boom.
Point and shoot peaked in 2010, I think. Camera sales have dropped by something like 90% since 2010, if you exclude smartphones. Any “boom” is just consumers shuffling around within a collapsing market.
Consumer fixed-lens cameras are much more dead as a market than ILCs, and those made up the bulk of camera sales. Almost everyone who isn't doing photography as a profession or serious hobby is satisfied with smartphone cameras now.
There is one more use case not covered by smartphones but actually covered by fixed-lens cameras - taking photos in rainy weather (which in some parts of the world is hard to avoid) or underwater. While there are waterproof smartphones, capacitive touchscreen becomes unusable as soon as it catches even a few drops of rain or water from wet fingers. A camera like Fujifilm XP140 works well in rain as long as there are no drops on the lens and under water if you want to make a shot of marine life.
And while there are gloves which allows to use touchscreen using it in the snow is not the best experience either - pressing a physical button is easier.
I expect many smartphones to have quality better then this camera but in some conditions it's hard/impossible to use a smartphone. And quality is enough to capture some moments from a family vocation.
And while there are gloves which allows to use touchscreen using it in the snow is not the best experience either - pressing a physical button is easier.
I expect many smartphones to have quality better then this camera but in some conditions it's hard/impossible to use a smartphone. And quality is enough to capture some moments from a family vocation.
The iPhone is waterproof and you can take a photo with the physical volume up/down key. I've used it underwater a couple of times, none of my other proper cameras would be able to do that. My two cents.
I've used my olympus TG4 underwater at a depth of 15m (best I could do without scuba), and had it trailing on a lanyard on my wrist whilst swimming in the ocean. I'd like to think nobody would subject any current smartphone to these sorts of conditions, and expect them to survive, nor believe the marketing rhetoric.
One other thing I do like about the TG4, nice big buttons, and I've had plenty of opportunities to use it in rather adverse conditions.
One other thing I do like about the TG4, nice big buttons, and I've had plenty of opportunities to use it in rather adverse conditions.
Which model? And does it survive saltwater? How deep?
Asking for a me who doesn't want to fuck up a thousand euro phone trying something stupid next time I'm at the seaside :)
Asking for a me who doesn't want to fuck up a thousand euro phone trying something stupid next time I'm at the seaside :)
Pretty much all iPhones have been for some time (since iPhone 7) to various degrees, but Apple themselves make no promises it will always work:
https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT207043
"Splash, water, and dust resistance are not permanent conditions and resistance might decrease as a result of normal wear. Liquid damage is not covered under warranty, but you might have rights under consumer law."
I think of it more as good to have for an accidental drop, rather than a specification to rely upon for regular underwater photography, although the more recent phones do reach ever higher Ingress Protection (IP67, IP68 etc) water/splash/dust ratings.
https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT207043
"Splash, water, and dust resistance are not permanent conditions and resistance might decrease as a result of normal wear. Liquid damage is not covered under warranty, but you might have rights under consumer law."
I think of it more as good to have for an accidental drop, rather than a specification to rely upon for regular underwater photography, although the more recent phones do reach ever higher Ingress Protection (IP67, IP68 etc) water/splash/dust ratings.
Anecdata but I’ve jumped in saltwater to get ahold of my stupid dog that fell off our dock with my iPhone 12 in my pocket. I am typing this response on said phone :)
I got mine wet in the sea and it barely worked after (probably an 11 I think)
Took my 12 mini on a day of kayaking, water got into the lenses and broke the faceID camera. The water in the lens eventually evaporated, but the faceID cam seems permenantly broken.
They are water resistant, but I wouldn't use it in water as a matter of course. Maybe if its in pristine/as new condition, at best - I've dropped mine a few times, which probably didn't help.
They are water resistant, but I wouldn't use it in water as a matter of course. Maybe if its in pristine/as new condition, at best - I've dropped mine a few times, which probably didn't help.
Smartphones don't really work for underwater photography. Even the water resistant models have very limited depth ratings so to take them scuba diving you need a strong housing, just as with any other camera. There are underwater housings available for a few smartphone models but controlling anything through the touch screen is problematic, the small lenses and sensors don't work well in dim light, and there isn't a good way to trigger external strobes.
Any thoughts on the various action cameras for underwater? I've got an inexpensive (not GoPro) one that I've taken diving. It's just in looping video mode, cutting a new clip every few minutes, and could certainly use additional lighting. If I want stills, I just grab them from a freeze frame.
While I'm starting to get more into diving, I don't want to just throw money at other goodies before I know what they'll do for me.
While I'm starting to get more into diving, I don't want to just throw money at other goodies before I know what they'll do for me.
I used to shoot only medium and large format film. Maybe 3-4 years ago, I realized I can do everything I want with my phone camera.
If you honestly think your phone camera is a valid replacement for medium/large format film, then you were never serious about photography in the first place.
For all their improvements, smartphones are still extremely limited by sensor size and the size of optics. Those are terrible, compared to even the entry level DSLRs.
I'm glad it works for your use case (although I can't imagine what that is), but any decent photographer will be able to tell a smartphone picture from a picture taken with good optics and a DSLR. It's just that the market for those photos has also shrunk and the masses are happy with their instagram filter drivel.
For all their improvements, smartphones are still extremely limited by sensor size and the size of optics. Those are terrible, compared to even the entry level DSLRs.
I'm glad it works for your use case (although I can't imagine what that is), but any decent photographer will be able to tell a smartphone picture from a picture taken with good optics and a DSLR. It's just that the market for those photos has also shrunk and the masses are happy with their instagram filter drivel.
The vast, vast, vast majority of pictures are viewed on a 6ish inch screen. You'll have real trouble telling much difference there.
Now if you're blowing things up into a poster, it becomes much more apparent, granted, but it's not a common use case.
Now if you're blowing things up into a poster, it becomes much more apparent, granted, but it's not a common use case.
not only that, but Google magic eraser made my holiday photos appear like i had my own private island and yacht and i was always happy and smiling and looking at the camera and the sunset and skies, oh my! it just lights up my instas. i don't get what real cameras even do, they have something to do with reality?
seriously though, not all the kids will be coopted into this, and will find cameras are still instruments for artistic expression. but for that we hardly need dpreview and its obsession with optical sharpness and perpetually reviewing every camera in existence as "almost good enough"
seriously though, not all the kids will be coopted into this, and will find cameras are still instruments for artistic expression. but for that we hardly need dpreview and its obsession with optical sharpness and perpetually reviewing every camera in existence as "almost good enough"
You might have it mixed up with DXOMark. DPReview is more "you can sort of tell the difference side by side, but who does that outside a review? They're both good"
If the use case was a 6ish inch screen, that was overkill for medium/large format, which is parent's point.
and film photographers weren't as serious as daguerreotype photographers in the 1840s.
the market shrunk because gatekeeping photographers were insufferable and tone deaf and everyone ignored them because they had an accessible solution that was good enough.
if you want to pursue a convoluted process for self fulfillment, the choice is yours, but almost nobody else will care about the output of your photos or your fine tuned process.
the market shrunk because gatekeeping photographers were insufferable and tone deaf and everyone ignored them because they had an accessible solution that was good enough.
if you want to pursue a convoluted process for self fulfillment, the choice is yours, but almost nobody else will care about the output of your photos or your fine tuned process.
This is my standard for serious photography: https://petapixel.com/2022/05/22/photographer-builds-giant-c...
If you aren't shooting giant format wet plates in your own custom-modified darkroom bus, then you're just an amateur like the rest of us.
If you aren't shooting giant format wet plates in your own custom-modified darkroom bus, then you're just an amateur like the rest of us.
The best camera is the one you have ready.
That's an interesting transition. Why were you choosing those formats over digital ILCs at that time? Most people I hear from choosing film within the past decade, especially larger formats are as interested in the process as the result.
> I used to shoot only medium and large format film. Maybe 3-4 years ago, I realized I can do everything I want with my phone camera.
Only you can judge what is "everything I want", but that's a surprising statement.
Phone cameras can't come close to the quality of even a full frame DSLR, anything medium or large format is light years ahead of phone quality.
So I can only think that quality wasn't what you needed/wanted, but then why would you have been shooting large format film?
Only you can judge what is "everything I want", but that's a surprising statement.
Phone cameras can't come close to the quality of even a full frame DSLR, anything medium or large format is light years ahead of phone quality.
So I can only think that quality wasn't what you needed/wanted, but then why would you have been shooting large format film?
>Phone cameras can't come close to the quality of even a full frame DSLR, anything medium or large format is light years ahead of phone quality.
This is true for medium format if you're doing a drum scan of the medium format negative. Realistically, however, most medium format negatives are never going to be drum scanned.
If you're scanning with a flatbed or via a DLSR, then the difference in quality vs. a modern cell phone camera is not huge. With a typical flatbed you'll get less resolution than a modern cell phone camera; if you scan with a DSLR and macro lens you'll get a bit more (but it's laborious, especially for color negatives).
It's possibly a bit counterintuitive just how bad a job flatbed scanners do in the case of medium format negatives. Years ago I was very excited to make my first scans of some 6x6 negatives with a consumer Epson flatbed scanner. The resulting photos showed about the same amount of detail as roughly equivalent photos taken using my iPhone 4S. There was far more detail on the negatives, as I easily confirmed with a loupe. Extracting that detail via practical scanning methods is far from trivial.
The other point to consider is exposure, color and dynamic range. Modern phones do a fantastic job here.
This is true for medium format if you're doing a drum scan of the medium format negative. Realistically, however, most medium format negatives are never going to be drum scanned.
If you're scanning with a flatbed or via a DLSR, then the difference in quality vs. a modern cell phone camera is not huge. With a typical flatbed you'll get less resolution than a modern cell phone camera; if you scan with a DSLR and macro lens you'll get a bit more (but it's laborious, especially for color negatives).
It's possibly a bit counterintuitive just how bad a job flatbed scanners do in the case of medium format negatives. Years ago I was very excited to make my first scans of some 6x6 negatives with a consumer Epson flatbed scanner. The resulting photos showed about the same amount of detail as roughly equivalent photos taken using my iPhone 4S. There was far more detail on the negatives, as I easily confirmed with a loupe. Extracting that detail via practical scanning methods is far from trivial.
The other point to consider is exposure, color and dynamic range. Modern phones do a fantastic job here.
That's a strange comparison, but if all you want is a photo to post to Instagram, I guess you really doesn't need medium format film, and any "phone camera" will do.
[deleted]
> another victim of the rapid pace of improvement in smartphones
It's not just the pace of improvement, but also the marketing spin. I find the strengths of smartphone camera and ILCs pretty complementary. Smartphone cameras work pretty well outdoors where there is enough light. DSLR and mirroless are hard to beat indoors in low light conditions. Coincidentally it is also easier to find your ILC indoors at home when you need it, rather than lugging it around on a hike. When we didn't have kids, we used to spend more time outdoors and so most of our memorable pictures are from a phone. Now that we have restless young kids and are spending more time indoors, almost all of the memorable photos are from a mirrorless camera. But the marketing spin makes it seem like ILCs are completely redundant.
It's not just the pace of improvement, but also the marketing spin. I find the strengths of smartphone camera and ILCs pretty complementary. Smartphone cameras work pretty well outdoors where there is enough light. DSLR and mirroless are hard to beat indoors in low light conditions. Coincidentally it is also easier to find your ILC indoors at home when you need it, rather than lugging it around on a hike. When we didn't have kids, we used to spend more time outdoors and so most of our memorable pictures are from a phone. Now that we have restless young kids and are spending more time indoors, almost all of the memorable photos are from a mirrorless camera. But the marketing spin makes it seem like ILCs are completely redundant.
> Smartphone cameras work pretty well outdoors where there is enough light. DSLR and mirroless are hard to beat indoors in low light conditions.
I find the opposite. Proper cameras are much more flexible and plain better when there's enough light. Inside, without a flash, you'll not get a great photo anyway, so might as well benefit from “computational” fakery.
I find the opposite. Proper cameras are much more flexible and plain better when there's enough light. Inside, without a flash, you'll not get a great photo anyway, so might as well benefit from “computational” fakery.
Lots of software tricks make it easy to take low light photos on phones today but require quite a bit of manual tweaking on a DSLR.
The thing about this is that the manual tweaking allows you to take the picture you're envisioning. Whereas the processing on the phone provides a clear picture in poor conditions, but it's not necessarily the picture I want.
For instance a phone can do a great job in a backlit scenario by intelligently cutting the highlights and boosting the shadows. The resulting image shows both the subject and background clearly but it doesn't represent the real-word lighting conditions. As a result it's great for a quick snapshot but is less useful in an artistic sense.
For instance a phone can do a great job in a backlit scenario by intelligently cutting the highlights and boosting the shadows. The resulting image shows both the subject and background clearly but it doesn't represent the real-word lighting conditions. As a result it's great for a quick snapshot but is less useful in an artistic sense.
>For instance a phone can do a great job in a backlit scenario by intelligently cutting the highlights and boosting the shadows. The resulting image shows both the subject and background clearly but it doesn't represent the real-word lighting conditions. As a result it's great for a quick snapshot but is less useful in an artistic sense.
This seems completely backwards to me. Artistic photography isn't about representing real-world lighting conditions as perceived by humans. Just putting a polarizing filter on a camera changes how the image looks from the way the scene actually appears to humans. Artistic photography routinely does very bizarre stuff with colors to achieve an artistic effect. Even Ansel Adams experimented with solarization, one of the earliest photographic effects: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solarization_(photography)
In fact, I'd go so far as to say that photography has never been about accurately showing real-world lighting conditions, but rather either an artistic or at least idealized version of a scene or subject.
This seems completely backwards to me. Artistic photography isn't about representing real-world lighting conditions as perceived by humans. Just putting a polarizing filter on a camera changes how the image looks from the way the scene actually appears to humans. Artistic photography routinely does very bizarre stuff with colors to achieve an artistic effect. Even Ansel Adams experimented with solarization, one of the earliest photographic effects: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solarization_(photography)
In fact, I'd go so far as to say that photography has never been about accurately showing real-world lighting conditions, but rather either an artistic or at least idealized version of a scene or subject.
I guess I didn't really word this clearly, my intent was to state that the manual camera generally captures real-world conditions as a baseline. Then the photographer could in camera or in post manipulate the image to fulfill his artistic vision. While there are certain cameras which have inherent distortion for artistic purposes (e.g. Lomo camera) the majority of them are designed to realistically capture the scene in front of them.
In contrast the phone produces a specific artistic decision influence by the software. For instance in the backlit scenario the phone purposely boosts the highlights and cuts the shadows to create what it perceives as a more balanced image.
In contrast the phone produces a specific artistic decision influence by the software. For instance in the backlit scenario the phone purposely boosts the highlights and cuts the shadows to create what it perceives as a more balanced image.
I'm not so sure about this. Even very old cameras have many lens settings, such as f-stops, which change the depth of field and can massively change how a scene looks. I fail to see how boosting highlights and cutting shadows, so the viewer sees a more balanced image, is really any different than using a wide-angle lens to capture much more in the image than a human can naturally perceive (human vision supposedly looks like a 35mm camera with a 50mm focal length lens setting; telephoto and wide-angle focal lengths are showing things quite differently from how humans would perceive it), or arranging a hyperfocal shot (so that both near and far objects are in-focus, something human eyes are incapable of).
Sure, if you have the camera correctly setup and can remember all of cryptic settings, which using it infrequently I never could. I got once where i knew how to setup the my canon rebel after taking a class. But I just set it to automatic 99% of the time I used it. Any time it was manual it would 20% chance mess up and I'd miss the shot. I took mostly action stuff.
The setup on a phoen is so much simpler and easier esp where it makes suggestions. Phone is bad menus, no touch, dial wheel, ok buttons.
The setup on a phoen is so much simpler and easier esp where it makes suggestions. Phone is bad menus, no touch, dial wheel, ok buttons.
A camera with a swiveling flash (almost always a separate unit) can yield stunning photos in dim indoor conditions. If you have a white wall or ceiling, bam, tons of diffuse light without any more props.
Only available on a traditional camera.
But even fewer people will bother with all that.
Only available on a traditional camera.
But even fewer people will bother with all that.
You can manually rotate the built-in flash in Sony’s α6000-series cameras: it uses two spring-loaded hinges, and still operates if you push/pull it backwards. This gives a range of motion from full-forwards to full-upwards to somewhat-backwards.
For 'proper cameras', it depends on the size of the sensor and lens, largely.
I think the reality is that most people who were doing photography don’t need what ILCs offer. I was talking to a sweet old lady on one of the last days I was in California. She was showing me some of her work, and TBH, small-aperture landscape / portrait photos that are to be viewed on a smartphone don’t need to be taken on an ILC. Even bokeh can be hacked for a base class of photos.
To put it in another way, ILCs were bought because saw people had to buy them, back in the day. If you wanted anything that wasn’t potato-quality, you needed an ILC.
A lot of photography was enjoyed as an accessible art. It was about being able to capture things. You don’t strictly need an ILC for that, and I think photography will evolve and adapt in that regard. There will still be a market for folks who e.g. need aperture or shutter control, simply because of market segmentation reasons. As an art-art, photography will be about being able to see things differently, and for that reason, there will be people drawn back to the knobs, switches, and lenses that ILCs offer. Some folks will say it’s about the bokeh, or the low-light, or whatever, but it was always about being able to see differently than what other cameras could see, or even what the human eye can “see.”
To which end, the marketing spin is just that. We shouldn’t discount creative folks being able to see differently with a smartphone. It’s just that there are shots that you won’t get be able to take with a small-aperture fixed lens on a smartphone sensor.
(This, and of course, applications where the bleeding edge of image quality matters.)
To put it in another way, ILCs were bought because saw people had to buy them, back in the day. If you wanted anything that wasn’t potato-quality, you needed an ILC.
A lot of photography was enjoyed as an accessible art. It was about being able to capture things. You don’t strictly need an ILC for that, and I think photography will evolve and adapt in that regard. There will still be a market for folks who e.g. need aperture or shutter control, simply because of market segmentation reasons. As an art-art, photography will be about being able to see things differently, and for that reason, there will be people drawn back to the knobs, switches, and lenses that ILCs offer. Some folks will say it’s about the bokeh, or the low-light, or whatever, but it was always about being able to see differently than what other cameras could see, or even what the human eye can “see.”
To which end, the marketing spin is just that. We shouldn’t discount creative folks being able to see differently with a smartphone. It’s just that there are shots that you won’t get be able to take with a small-aperture fixed lens on a smartphone sensor.
(This, and of course, applications where the bleeding edge of image quality matters.)
I used to think that, but the more I take pictures with my phone the more I disagree. My iPhone is very very good at taking iPhone pictures. That is to say all the places and people I take pictures of with my phone look the same. It's a lovely seductive sameness, don't get me wrong. But my phone "knows" what pictures it wants to take and takes them. It needs me less and less.
I don't think we're all that far away from having some sort of always on camera that cuts us as directors out of the "picture" entirely.
Eventually, your phone equivalent will tell you and your friends where to stand, what to do and what to say to get the most out of the location, people and activities you have at your disposal. You won't have any choice (unless you are in that small group that is effectively allowed to self direct your own videos for Tikstagram) if you want to be competitive at projecting a successful image.
Great for the folks shoveling content around, but maybe not what you want if you are trying to develop an individual vision.
That said for a quick snap where I'm just trying to document something my iPhone is awfully handy ; )
I don't think we're all that far away from having some sort of always on camera that cuts us as directors out of the "picture" entirely.
Eventually, your phone equivalent will tell you and your friends where to stand, what to do and what to say to get the most out of the location, people and activities you have at your disposal. You won't have any choice (unless you are in that small group that is effectively allowed to self direct your own videos for Tikstagram) if you want to be competitive at projecting a successful image.
Great for the folks shoveling content around, but maybe not what you want if you are trying to develop an individual vision.
That said for a quick snap where I'm just trying to document something my iPhone is awfully handy ; )
I actually think cameras in general take photos that look the same.
Painting on the other hand, that has individuality. The different pigments and brushes and brush strokes in the painting, that gives a sense of uniqueness.
In addition, you are more free to position people in paintings than with photographs.
Cameras are great for the folks shoveling content around, but maybe not what you want if you are trying to develop an individual vision.
Painting on the other hand, that has individuality. The different pigments and brushes and brush strokes in the painting, that gives a sense of uniqueness.
In addition, you are more free to position people in paintings than with photographs.
Cameras are great for the folks shoveling content around, but maybe not what you want if you are trying to develop an individual vision.
Whats the most recent phone you have tried to use in low light? The last two years of Pixels and Iphones (and maybe others, these are just the ones I have seen firsthand) are amazing in low light for a typical use case. I mean sure if you have a tripod and do a long exposure, its a different story, but thats a very different user.
I beat the crap out of my Canon Rebel T3i, I literally wore out the shutter after about 150k pulls on it, and replaced it with a Sony A7 III with a "G" lens, and while the pandemic was a large reason for it collecting dust, I am going on a "big" trip to a scenic place for the first time since prepandemic in a few months, and I am not sure its going to find a place in my bag. For the space and weight, my P6 Pro does a fantastic job.
The overlap in quality is enough that I see myself rarely using an ILC in the future, and the A7 III is likely the last one I will own unless they make some leaps forward to compete with smartphones.
I beat the crap out of my Canon Rebel T3i, I literally wore out the shutter after about 150k pulls on it, and replaced it with a Sony A7 III with a "G" lens, and while the pandemic was a large reason for it collecting dust, I am going on a "big" trip to a scenic place for the first time since prepandemic in a few months, and I am not sure its going to find a place in my bag. For the space and weight, my P6 Pro does a fantastic job.
The overlap in quality is enough that I see myself rarely using an ILC in the future, and the A7 III is likely the last one I will own unless they make some leaps forward to compete with smartphones.
It so happens I recently took a Pixel 6 Pro and a Canon 80D on a trip abroad. I used a rebuild of the stock camera app that does away with the automatic over-sharpening that the stock camera app has, and with the 80D, I used the EF-S 15-85 mm lens that (I believe) used to be the kit lens for the 7D. I also used the EF 70-300 mm non-L lens.
There is, in my opinion, no question that the 80D takes sharper pictures in daylight. It's just hard to beat a sensor that's that much bigger. The lenses, also, just have way, way more light gathering power.
Now, in dark places, at night, I used the P6P more, and that worked better than the 80D. But I'm glad I had the 80D for the big landscape shots and for the tight shots of people's faces.
The A7 III is way lighter and smaller than the 80D, and takes way better pictures. I would suggest considering finding a space for it in your bag. At least take a few pictures with both the P6P and the A7 III and view them at 100% to see if you're happy with the results.
There is, in my opinion, no question that the 80D takes sharper pictures in daylight. It's just hard to beat a sensor that's that much bigger. The lenses, also, just have way, way more light gathering power.
Now, in dark places, at night, I used the P6P more, and that worked better than the 80D. But I'm glad I had the 80D for the big landscape shots and for the tight shots of people's faces.
The A7 III is way lighter and smaller than the 80D, and takes way better pictures. I would suggest considering finding a space for it in your bag. At least take a few pictures with both the P6P and the A7 III and view them at 100% to see if you're happy with the results.
If you're willing to post process your images, the 80D will look way better for night pictures.
The problem is that there is no built-in function for it and you have to manually process each pictures. You might even need more than one tool if you want to take advantage of the same type of AI fakery that phone have.
The problem is that there is no built-in function for it and you have to manually process each pictures. You might even need more than one tool if you want to take advantage of the same type of AI fakery that phone have.
One thing I love about my A7S is the ability to tilt the screen and take candid photos of people while we're having a conversation. Also that thing pretty much shoots in the dark so I find that magic.
I regret not buying a Sony when I got my Canon 6D. Almost all of the lenses I use now are old/vintage and it sucks not having image stabilization for the extra 2 stops and a digital viewfinder to properly focus the lens. I almost resold my 6D many times in the past but I got too attached to it to ever pull the trigger.
Respectfully, I think you're still in the minority. The vast majority of people I know with young kids don't even own a dedicated camera, or rarely pull it out. Their phone camera is more than sufficient and much more convenient to use for them.
> Smartphone cameras work pretty well outdoors where there is enough light. DSLR and mirroless are hard to beat indoors in low light conditions.
I was sightseeing in the night and had my Nikon D7100 (crop sensor) with a good lens (up to f/1.8 iirc) and Samsung Galaxy S8+. After the first few shots, I put the dslr back to my backpack, the photos from the phone were much better. And that’s a pretty old smartphone!
I know newer Sonys have crazy ISO, also own a fullframe, but it’s just so easy to mess some setting up and end up with crappy photo from a dslr in those challenging conditions, and I’m no beginner when it comes to dslrs.
I was sightseeing in the night and had my Nikon D7100 (crop sensor) with a good lens (up to f/1.8 iirc) and Samsung Galaxy S8+. After the first few shots, I put the dslr back to my backpack, the photos from the phone were much better. And that’s a pretty old smartphone!
I know newer Sonys have crazy ISO, also own a fullframe, but it’s just so easy to mess some setting up and end up with crappy photo from a dslr in those challenging conditions, and I’m no beginner when it comes to dslrs.
>DSLR and mirroless are hard to beat indoors in low light conditions.
That's exactly the area where smartphones have been killing DSLR and mirroless for years now.
That's because of internal DSP processing, combining multiple frames, machine learning AI, etc, but to the consumer it doesn't matter: they get a clearer, more stable picture than what comes out of the DSLR/mirroless and with way less effort.
That's exactly the area where smartphones have been killing DSLR and mirroless for years now.
That's because of internal DSP processing, combining multiple frames, machine learning AI, etc, but to the consumer it doesn't matter: they get a clearer, more stable picture than what comes out of the DSLR/mirroless and with way less effort.
Some DSLRs have function of combining of multiple frames together as well (I think Nikon D500 and latest Olympuses as examples).
This is often called HDR.
The issue with combining images together is that it works for static objects well, but if things move -- it does not. So low-noise digital sensors still seem to offer much better results.
And certainly, startup-time (or app selection time) + focusing speed, is simply unmatched by phones compared to DSLRs or mirrorless with phase focus detection
I do think that Denoising images with AI/ML will be common place even in open source Image processing tools like Rawtherapee.
So DLSRs having APS-C or full frame sensors with lower megapixel count will do well if images are post-processed (or in camera processed) wit these AI tools.
In fact, I was thinking that buying a used DSLR from 2012 circa for 150$ bucks -- will yield similar results as a 2K camera or a 1k smart phone.
Phones are easier to transport/carry. That's has been their reason to take over the lens+camera systems.
But I think camera makers can make photo gear fashionable again :-). I am working on some ideas in that area :-)
This is often called HDR.
The issue with combining images together is that it works for static objects well, but if things move -- it does not. So low-noise digital sensors still seem to offer much better results.
And certainly, startup-time (or app selection time) + focusing speed, is simply unmatched by phones compared to DSLRs or mirrorless with phase focus detection
I do think that Denoising images with AI/ML will be common place even in open source Image processing tools like Rawtherapee.
So DLSRs having APS-C or full frame sensors with lower megapixel count will do well if images are post-processed (or in camera processed) wit these AI tools.
In fact, I was thinking that buying a used DSLR from 2012 circa for 150$ bucks -- will yield similar results as a 2K camera or a 1k smart phone.
Phones are easier to transport/carry. That's has been their reason to take over the lens+camera systems.
But I think camera makers can make photo gear fashionable again :-). I am working on some ideas in that area :-)
>The issue with combining images together is that it works for static objects well, but if things move -- it does not. So low-noise digital sensors still seem to offer much better results
The problem is mirroless/dslrs have much bigger sensors with slower readout, and much worse DSP capability than say an iPhone. They also use it much more conservative that a mobile phone marker too (which just cares to get a nice looking image to the casual user, not for fidelity and ultimate control).
So, mobile phones for low light can still get better post-processing results for moving subjects compared to any mirrorless/dslr "HDR" mode, through quicker intermediate shots taken and combined, and more DSP resources to devote to the task.
(Samsung, Google, and Apple also have much more money than Sony and Canon to spend on state of the art AI/ML applied research and DSP developers).
The problem is mirroless/dslrs have much bigger sensors with slower readout, and much worse DSP capability than say an iPhone. They also use it much more conservative that a mobile phone marker too (which just cares to get a nice looking image to the casual user, not for fidelity and ultimate control).
So, mobile phones for low light can still get better post-processing results for moving subjects compared to any mirrorless/dslr "HDR" mode, through quicker intermediate shots taken and combined, and more DSP resources to devote to the task.
(Samsung, Google, and Apple also have much more money than Sony and Canon to spend on state of the art AI/ML applied research and DSP developers).
Gloomy prediction: based on Samsung Moongate, the next logical step after the smartphone camera replacing the DSLR is AI replacing the smartphone camera. Or at least substituting for underlying camera quality. Take a 10MP image and have the AI fill in the detail. Or remove detail (see the google advert for editing people out of your holiday photos). Or put in some detail that wasn't there.
Smartphone photos are already heavily ML-processed, with actual details and colors being replaced by what the model thinks looks best. The moon thing was just the most blatant example.
I haven’t noticed any invented details or colors in smartphone photos that I’ve taken myself. Most of the claims of this that I’ve seen online are not very convincing. Of course you sometimes get artifacts from sharpening and de-Bayering, but those can occur with any digital camera.
No kind of camera sees "actual colors", and neither do your eyes; the actual colors are the same day or night but that doesn't mean you can see them at night.
When there is light, the colors you see depend on how well you're adapted to its white point.
When there is light, the colors you see depend on how well you're adapted to its white point.
new from Samsung. it's a black box perfectly square just to make Jobs turn over in his grave. there are no lenses, but it's the most incredible camera you've ever seen. it has a microphone where you tell it the image you want...
"I want to see a picture with me at the Grand Canyon with nobody else in the shot at sunset after storm has just passed with a rainbow in the background"
waits a few seconds, boom. post to social, get lots of envious comments about my cool vacation.
"I want to see a picture with me at the Grand Canyon with nobody else in the shot at sunset after storm has just passed with a rainbow in the background"
waits a few seconds, boom. post to social, get lots of envious comments about my cool vacation.
I can't decide if in the future we will be bloblike sloths in chairs like in Wall-E, or maybe it will be like The Matrix but you are plugged into a peleton bike.
where did you get the peleton reference from The Matrix? even the machines realized that was wasted. you spend your entire life cycle in a sensory deprivation tank with the computer telling you how much of a good time you are having. wasting energy on actually moving muscles is absurd! that's not thinking like a machine
I figured the peloton would be the method of entry for the machine. Start off with the rich people doing it for working out to make it seem sexy and cool (done), get everyone else on it (in progress), get your boss to buy pelotons for remote zoom calls (probably has happened), start buying energy from peleton users pedaling (will be pitched soon), offer drug to allow sleeping while pedaling and making energy, change formulation to prevent consciousness entirely while pedaling and remain pedaling until your knees explode and you are replaced on the bike by the machines with another drugged up biological generator.
Watch the episode called 15 Million Merits from Black Mirror.
While I agree that ML-based image-enhancement and photography/videography assist at capture time will continue to offer highly useful capabilities, I don't agree when that argument is used to support the separate contention that mobile imaging will make larger format ILC/DSLR imaging irrelevant. The reason is that ML (and computational photography in general) is fundamental tech that can improve all categories of imaging. It's a metaphorical tide that lifts all boats equally from pro battleships and tankers to hobbyist racing sloops and yachts to consumer speedboats and jet skis.
(note: I'm setting aside the current misguided one-click "make it better" AI features as a temporary aberration that the marketplace of consumer tastes will correct. There's already backlash emerging around over-enhanced AI images on social media.)
(note: I'm setting aside the current misguided one-click "make it better" AI features as a temporary aberration that the marketplace of consumer tastes will correct. There's already backlash emerging around over-enhanced AI images on social media.)
This is already the case with cameras in consumer phones.
"subscribe to android photos plus to have all the ai applied billboards removed from your photos"
Too bad we can't get the opposite: a DSLR controlled by an AI that manipulates the camera parameters just as a human would, or an AI driven interface, that captures what you're seeing without an AI hallucinating or ML touching up the photo. Panasonic can't even get autofocus right.
Check out this AI camera control module: https://witharsenal.com/
It's not something I'd use, I usually want as much creative control as possible over all the settings and RAW conversion. There are too many permutations of parameters that "correctly" capture the scene according to different aesthetic aims. The reviews of the version 2 seem to agree, that it's useful, but not for experienced photographers with their own creative vision. But how then would the inexperienced ever develop a personal vision, using this?
It's not something I'd use, I usually want as much creative control as possible over all the settings and RAW conversion. There are too many permutations of parameters that "correctly" capture the scene according to different aesthetic aims. The reviews of the version 2 seem to agree, that it's useful, but not for experienced photographers with their own creative vision. But how then would the inexperienced ever develop a personal vision, using this?
Aren’t things like the focus stacking and better HDR already part of MagicLantern? The new things seem to be the deep colour and the crowd removal.
Oh, nice, that's pretty cool
I still use my Fujifilm XE-3 from time to time but use my Canon DSLR rarely--mostly for situations that benefit from very wide angle or telephoto lenses. And, yeah, if I'm going on a trip where I'm mostly only going to take some snaps, much less a local hike, I'll almost certainly just take my smartphone. And this is someone who still has a Flickr Pro subscription and used to spend many many hours in the darkroom.
I can imagine buying a new Fujifilm body but not sure I can imagine getting a new Canon at least so long as my current one works.
I can imagine buying a new Fujifilm body but not sure I can imagine getting a new Canon at least so long as my current one works.
Hey there, been reading the same page around the same time. The 300D was the last DSLR I bought not because it was bad, but because it was so good. Even 15 years later phones could not compare.
Yeup, I used to be a regular at dpreview a long time ago, certainly before I bought my first DSR the Canon 20d. But even before that when I was still buying point-and-shoots.
I probably haven't been back since about 2014, though, when I upgraded to a Fuji XT mirrorless system, which I haven't even used in five or six years now....
I probably haven't been back since about 2014, though, when I upgraded to a Fuji XT mirrorless system, which I haven't even used in five or six years now....
> another victim of the rapid pace of improvement in smartphones
The only think which improved on smartphones was the marketing. Cameras on smartphones are still crap. (see Samsung moon shots).
The only think which improved on smartphones was the marketing. Cameras on smartphones are still crap. (see Samsung moon shots).
What I don't get is why not spin off vs. just close?
I would've thought with everyone wanting to be youtubers camera sales would've picked up.
Faking the image quality through software is becoming more powerful than actually taking a good image, and people don't seem to care if the pixels on the screen are really what the optics saw.
They just want to take a pretty photo, and look at a pretty photo.
They just want to take a pretty photo, and look at a pretty photo.
Not sure, I bought my camera from Amazon a few months ago as a result of dpreviews.
You're spot on, this is _THE_SITE for extremely detailed analysis of of cameras/lenses/etc. I have no idea what will end up filling the gap of losing something like this.
I hope Chris and Jordan continue on their Youtube journey and make the content they've been making, but man, there's still a need for a detailed text based site with super indepth info about modern camera equipment.
Such a bummer.
I hope Chris and Jordan continue on their Youtube journey and make the content they've been making, but man, there's still a need for a detailed text based site with super indepth info about modern camera equipment.
Such a bummer.
While I agree that there is some valuable content on the site, there are certainly others to fill in the spots...
You want detailed look into equipment? Checkout Ken Rockwell's site[0], or byThom[1]
[0]: https://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/reviews.htm [1]: https://bythom.com/reviews--books/index.html
You want detailed look into equipment? Checkout Ken Rockwell's site[0], or byThom[1]
[0]: https://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/reviews.htm [1]: https://bythom.com/reviews--books/index.html
Ken Rockwell is a blowhard that copy/pastes info into every "review". His sharpness comparisons are laughable, as is his blatant fanboyism (which went from Nikon to Canon. It's funny to read the things he said about one brand 10 years ago and compare it to what he says about the same brand today). I would not put him into the same category as DPReview with a straight face. DPReview gave us the exposure latitude and high ISO comparison tools, which are wonderful for teasing apart differences in cameras. For example, I know the Z9 is 1 stop worse in high ISO noise performance than the Z7 due to its electronic shutter because I can see it in the comparison. That makes it easy for me to set my max ISO appropriately. Their reviews weren't perfect (I prefer Photography Life's, especially for the lens reviews--but they do principally Nikon reviews), but they were damn good.
Nobody does what DPReview did.
This is a sad passing, but reflects the general decline in ILC photography unfortunately.
Nobody does what DPReview did.
This is a sad passing, but reflects the general decline in ILC photography unfortunately.
Rockwell is entertainment sprinkled with some useful insight - but you have to be very careful with him.
K-Rock has more than 200% the opinions of a normal human and is more than half trolling in all his reviews, but at least he knows how photography works, which is better than all the comments on this page claiming ILC digital cameras take "actual pictures" and smartphones take "fake AI pictures".
Let's just say I'm not impressed with his compositions and his "color".
There are plenty of other people who do a much better job with their photography that I find more worth reading. DPReview were one, Photography Life, Cameralabs, and on the video side Nigel Danson (I don't like his clickbait thumbnails, but his content is top notch for landscape), and Backcountry Gallery for wildlife.
About the only good thing I can say about Ken is his admonition to get out there and shoot, which is what a newbie needs to hear. Doesn't need to be perfect, just get out there and get that practice in.
There are plenty of other people who do a much better job with their photography that I find more worth reading. DPReview were one, Photography Life, Cameralabs, and on the video side Nigel Danson (I don't like his clickbait thumbnails, but his content is top notch for landscape), and Backcountry Gallery for wildlife.
About the only good thing I can say about Ken is his admonition to get out there and shoot, which is what a newbie needs to hear. Doesn't need to be perfect, just get out there and get that practice in.
The problem is that he has all the correct opinions, but since he has every opinion, he also has all the incorrect ones.
But he's right when he says resolution doesn't matter even if you're making a billboard, SLRs are not the best kind of camera ever made and never were, and that normal people shouldn't get Leicas.
But he's right when he says resolution doesn't matter even if you're making a billboard, SLRs are not the best kind of camera ever made and never were, and that normal people shouldn't get Leicas.
Resolution matters if you're using it as a wallpaper or printing to look closely. I have photos I've cropped heavily and while I will cheerfully share them via text, they don't hold up to even display on a 4K monitor (~8 megapixels). Which is fine, but don't tell me resolution doesn't matter. It does matter. Though you can push it anywhere from a little to a lot if your target is low resolution anyway, like Instagram, or a billboard which covers a small fraction of your field of view. And if your lens isn't capable of resolving those fine details anyway then you can downsample happily and only miss out on a small amount of detail (see: every cellphone lens ever mated to a sensor with > 1 megapixel resolution).
Resolution isn't the only thing, and it certainly isn't more important than composition, lighting, and the moment. Resolution is something you can throw money at. It's a lot more expensive to throw money at composition and lighting, because those all require time and skill. The moment you can throw money at and just hold down on continuous-release-high. Sometimes it works out!
For the rest, SLRs are a way of capturing an image and one that makes a set of tradeoffs that has seen market success. There are others. Leicas are a fashion statement that is functional. They're like a much more expensive and more niche Apple. And like Apple, they do have a solid product for what they're shooting for, but that doesn't justify the price premium. Ken Rockwell's derision towards LeicaMan is amusing. I'll give him that.
But he's wrong about resolution. I've seen the difference between an 18-300mm consumer lens and a 100-400mm pro lens. I've seen the difference between the capabilities of the consumer camera body and the pro body that costs 5x as much. You're not paying for nothing, and it does make a difference. Is it worth the price differential and extra size and weight? That's a different question that has different answers depending on your tolerance for such things.
Resolution isn't the only thing, and it certainly isn't more important than composition, lighting, and the moment. Resolution is something you can throw money at. It's a lot more expensive to throw money at composition and lighting, because those all require time and skill. The moment you can throw money at and just hold down on continuous-release-high. Sometimes it works out!
For the rest, SLRs are a way of capturing an image and one that makes a set of tradeoffs that has seen market success. There are others. Leicas are a fashion statement that is functional. They're like a much more expensive and more niche Apple. And like Apple, they do have a solid product for what they're shooting for, but that doesn't justify the price premium. Ken Rockwell's derision towards LeicaMan is amusing. I'll give him that.
But he's wrong about resolution. I've seen the difference between an 18-300mm consumer lens and a 100-400mm pro lens. I've seen the difference between the capabilities of the consumer camera body and the pro body that costs 5x as much. You're not paying for nothing, and it does make a difference. Is it worth the price differential and extra size and weight? That's a different question that has different answers depending on your tolerance for such things.
I don't know him but I have to say I like Ken Rockwell's content. I wouldn't go to him for pixel peeping lens comparisons but for a general overview he's good.
There are also nowadays several good YouTubers in this field.
And of course there's TDP albeit Canon and Sony-only coverage there.
There are also nowadays several good YouTubers in this field.
And of course there's TDP albeit Canon and Sony-only coverage there.
On his About page, Ken Rockwell says
> To use words of Ansel Adams on page 193 of his autobiography, this site is my "aggressive personal opinion," and not a "logical presentation of fact." This website is a work of fiction, entirely the product of my own imagination and personal opinion.
and
> I have a big sense of humor, and do this site to entertain you (and myself), as well as to inform and to educate. I occasionally weave fiction and satire into my stories to keep them interesting. I love a good hoax.
and
> I have the energy and sense of humor of a three-year old, so remember, this is a personal website, and never presented as fact. I enjoy making things up for fun, as does The Onion, and I publish them here.
(All of that are his own words!)
If you enjoy his writing for entertainment, no problem. But don't take anything written there as fact.
> To use words of Ansel Adams on page 193 of his autobiography, this site is my "aggressive personal opinion," and not a "logical presentation of fact." This website is a work of fiction, entirely the product of my own imagination and personal opinion.
and
> I have a big sense of humor, and do this site to entertain you (and myself), as well as to inform and to educate. I occasionally weave fiction and satire into my stories to keep them interesting. I love a good hoax.
and
> I have the energy and sense of humor of a three-year old, so remember, this is a personal website, and never presented as fact. I enjoy making things up for fun, as does The Onion, and I publish them here.
(All of that are his own words!)
If you enjoy his writing for entertainment, no problem. But don't take anything written there as fact.
[deleted]
I liked him too when I started out and didn't know better.
There are other people out there and I recommend learning from them. Especially composition, lighting, contrast, and colors.
Take from Ken the advice to get out and shoot with whatever you have (it's good enough to shoot with if it was made in the last 15 years), ignore everything else he has to say.
There are other people out there and I recommend learning from them. Especially composition, lighting, contrast, and colors.
Take from Ken the advice to get out and shoot with whatever you have (it's good enough to shoot with if it was made in the last 15 years), ignore everything else he has to say.
Sites like these are also dying breeds with their days numbered. Informationally dense, text and figure, lightweight websites are not being made anymore. Sites like dpreview or Ken Rockwell are pretty clearly holdovers from days long gone and sensibilities long abandoned. Today, all that information that could be read in 5 minutes on dpreview is drip fed to you in video form from a gesticulating talking head, over 25 minutes with an advertisement every 5, wasting both data and time to likely only end up partially informing you compared to a dpreview or Ken Rockwell article.
I think of how video game walkthroughs have gone this way. It used to be you'd find exhaustive 300k text explanations of everything in a game. Now there is a "let's play" video that goes on for 40 hours, you have to find the right video to watch, then seek to the right place in that video, it's exhausting.
The one case I found the video was better was in a certain level where the way forward was to make a jump that didn't look possible and the video made it obvious.
The one case I found the video was better was in a certain level where the way forward was to make a jump that didn't look possible and the video made it obvious.
Honestly though, video walkthroughs are an improvement (navigation aside). It's hard to describe a situation entirely via text, and having that plus a short video showing the exact situation (e.g., finding a collectible in a weird location, strategy for defeating a boss, etc.) makes things so much clearer.
I've had instances where a walkthrough with pictures still wasn't enough and had to find a video showing me something and it only became clear after that.
I recall as a kid that the Zelda OOT water temple was nearly impossible to navigate with a gamefaqs guide. Video back then would have been so much easier.
I've had instances where a walkthrough with pictures still wasn't enough and had to find a video showing me something and it only became clear after that.
I recall as a kid that the Zelda OOT water temple was nearly impossible to navigate with a gamefaqs guide. Video back then would have been so much easier.
I wonder if you could start writing guides on Substack to monetize them.. I think the real problem here is that writing a 300k textbook on GameFAQs gets you a chance at winning some swag, but 40 hours of YouTube videos can actually pay out in the form of money
Then again, even though World of Warcraft sites pay guide authors, the guides are super formulaic and low quality... even though I despise video content, I end up getting most of my detailed info that way
Then again, even though World of Warcraft sites pay guide authors, the guides are super formulaic and low quality... even though I despise video content, I end up getting most of my detailed info that way
Try the GPTs they might know the game tricks and adapt to your specifics without search, of course if the info is prior to 2021.
It's going to tell you exactly how to compose your pokemon team to beat a gym that doesn't exist in the game
My son made it all the way through one of the older games doing all the fighting with one Pokémon, developing others just to host skills like cut. I have been disappointed with recent fire Emblem titles because level trumps the weapons triangle.
I was thinking about information extracting the GameFAQs for certain Hyperdimension Neptunia games to make a knowledge graph so I could figure out the dependency graph of what dungeons I would have to go to to get the items to craft the items that I need to craft an item I want. But then again, I’m a weeaboo.
> Informationally dense, text and figure, lightweight websites are not being made anymore.
I want you to be very wrong, but I guess you're sadly mostly correct.
Informationally dense, text and figure, lightweight websites is all I want, those are the only useful ones.
I want you to be very wrong, but I guess you're sadly mostly correct.
Informationally dense, text and figure, lightweight websites is all I want, those are the only useful ones.
Cue "it's all so tiresome" from Empire of Dust
Fred Miranda was a useful set of reviews of lenses from their members.
Now it’s mostly forums Which makes sense. Once you have the gear…
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/index.php
I used dpreview in the past. They had detailed technical reviews, side by side test shot comaparisons. Really a first class site. They will be missed.
Now it’s mostly forums Which makes sense. Once you have the gear…
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/index.php
I used dpreview in the past. They had detailed technical reviews, side by side test shot comaparisons. Really a first class site. They will be missed.
DP Review's reviews have the benefit that they use the same methodology, so comparing one camera with another was easy. For example, I can do side by side comparisons of how much noise there is at ISO 1600.
Those sites are a fraction of DPReview's content.
In all seriousness, where is DPReview's content going? Forums of over 1,000,000 posts. Solid reviews of older cameras. All gone, hopefully to some archival site.
It's really surprising to see that content just disappear. Reminds me I need to backup my hard drive...
In all seriousness, where is DPReview's content going? Forums of over 1,000,000 posts. Solid reviews of older cameras. All gone, hopefully to some archival site.
It's really surprising to see that content just disappear. Reminds me I need to backup my hard drive...
Please do not recommend Ken Rockwell.
Try Fred Miranda
Try Fred Miranda
> I hope Chris and Jordan continue on their Youtube journey […]
Joining PetaPixel in May:
* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f6T3qWI2c-Y
* https://petapixel.com/2023/03/21/chris-niccolls-and-jordan-d...
And their "The end of DPReview" video:
* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YLikDUacsC8
They'll planning a few 'closing videos' before things are completely shutdown.
Joining PetaPixel in May:
* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f6T3qWI2c-Y
* https://petapixel.com/2023/03/21/chris-niccolls-and-jordan-d...
And their "The end of DPReview" video:
* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YLikDUacsC8
They'll planning a few 'closing videos' before things are completely shutdown.
There’s still https://www.lenstip.com/. English version of Polish site optyczne.pl. What’s funny, team from this site criticized dpreview for being not scientific enough.
petapixel,
flickr groups
there is 500px (this is more image oriented)
100asa -- for more professional photographers, and
photrio.com for the film camera, and film-development crowd.
I do not like petapixel -- because they ask me to register with google or discuss not interested in any of those...
I am surprised that dpreview was owned by Amazon. Never knew about this.
100asa -- for more professional photographers, and
photrio.com for the film camera, and film-development crowd.
I do not like petapixel -- because they ask me to register with google or discuss not interested in any of those...
I am surprised that dpreview was owned by Amazon. Never knew about this.
It's weird they plan to shut the site down instead of just leaving it up with its existing content. Paying writers and camera reviewers is expensive, but hosting the site isn't (when you're Amazon).
> Amazon used to NEVER cancel projects that customers were using. They just straight up Did. Not. Do. It.
FWIW, Amazon killed Amazon Flexible Payments in 2015. They ostensibly replaced it with Amazon Pay, but they didn't offer any kind of migration path for existing users/accounts (which felt very much like a Google thing to do) and, frankly, the services were fundamentally different: the former was more like a better version of PayPal, while the latter is more like a worse version of Stripe.
I had a lot of contact with the team as this happened as I was their biggest user on mobile devices for years, and they begged me to move to their new product, but they were really screwing me by shutting down the old service in the way they did--deleting the account history and customer connections rather than just figuring out a new way to use them--and the new service not only comparatively sucked but was way more expensive (trying to command the Stripe premium, forcing me to rely solely on PayPal, which is much cheaper for small payments if you ask for their micropayments pricing).
But like, Amazon Flexible Payments was amazing. They seriously had a pricing model that automatically scaled into separate buckets all the way down to tiny tiny tiny fractions of a single cent (on which they changed like 25% with no fixed component) when using your balance, while supporting all of the standard use cases for large ($12+) payments that Stripe is good at, having the API prowess of AWS attached to the flexibility of PayPal but using your Amazon.com account's payment information. But like, it had seemed as if they internally lost all the engineers working on that project and could no longer fix even basic things like their email template. It definitely soured the otherwise excellent long-term support experience I've had with Amazon services.
FWIW, Amazon killed Amazon Flexible Payments in 2015. They ostensibly replaced it with Amazon Pay, but they didn't offer any kind of migration path for existing users/accounts (which felt very much like a Google thing to do) and, frankly, the services were fundamentally different: the former was more like a better version of PayPal, while the latter is more like a worse version of Stripe.
I had a lot of contact with the team as this happened as I was their biggest user on mobile devices for years, and they begged me to move to their new product, but they were really screwing me by shutting down the old service in the way they did--deleting the account history and customer connections rather than just figuring out a new way to use them--and the new service not only comparatively sucked but was way more expensive (trying to command the Stripe premium, forcing me to rely solely on PayPal, which is much cheaper for small payments if you ask for their micropayments pricing).
But like, Amazon Flexible Payments was amazing. They seriously had a pricing model that automatically scaled into separate buckets all the way down to tiny tiny tiny fractions of a single cent (on which they changed like 25% with no fixed component) when using your balance, while supporting all of the standard use cases for large ($12+) payments that Stripe is good at, having the API prowess of AWS attached to the flexibility of PayPal but using your Amazon.com account's payment information. But like, it had seemed as if they internally lost all the engineers working on that project and could no longer fix even basic things like their email template. It definitely soured the otherwise excellent long-term support experience I've had with Amazon services.
Yeah I'm sure there are counter-examples. My experience is that I worked at Amazon from 2012-2020, and I recall trying to shut down a project in maybe 2013 and it was _incredibly_ tricky.
Indeed. The interchangeable lens camera market has stabilized (on a revenue basis at least), but it seems unlikely to ever again be a fast growing consumer market. That said, we're talking about a pretty affluent community of users. Keeping the site up in some basic way would have been a relatively cheap way to keep generating the positive brand image the site generated in that community.
I wasn't exactly overflowing with happy thoughts about Amazon before this move, but the sudden shutdown isn't helping. I suppose their exec staff is doing us a favor by reminding us all to support more regulation of behemoths like these...
I wasn't exactly overflowing with happy thoughts about Amazon before this move, but the sudden shutdown isn't helping. I suppose their exec staff is doing us a favor by reminding us all to support more regulation of behemoths like these...
What regulation would have helped here? “No buying a website with the intent to develop it but then changing your mind”?
Sites like DigLloyd ($), PhillipReeve, FredMiranda, ReidReviews ($), and LensTip are still ticking and far more detailed in their analysis. Note the drift toward individuals and sometimes payments (which seem to be sufficiently-accepted). A ton of content has shifted toward YouTube as well.
They ran an online discounted fashion outlet called MyHabit some years ago. I used it often and I'm sure there were at least ten more like me.
But they shuttered it.
But they shuttered it.
Sad news. I've never bought a digital camera without first checking that website. Invaluable resource. I've been following their youtube channel as well for a few years as well and they just did an episode on this: : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YLikDUacsC8
This does make you wonder if this was the only possible outcome for Amazon or whether they are just too indifferent/lazy to make an effort to sell this to somebody else. I bet there would have been interested parties that could have taken over. It's the kind of bean counter move where the effort of finding out the answer to that question was balanced against the potential benefits (millions?) and disregarded for some reason. I don't buy the notion that this was not salvageable. It's an institute and a great brand with a loyal following. That has got to be worth something.
From the sounds of it, not all is lost, the two people behind the youtube channel sound like they will just continue on their own. They grew the channel to 400K+ subscribers. So that's not nothing. I hope Amazon does the right thing with the content of dpreview.
This does make you wonder if this was the only possible outcome for Amazon or whether they are just too indifferent/lazy to make an effort to sell this to somebody else. I bet there would have been interested parties that could have taken over. It's the kind of bean counter move where the effort of finding out the answer to that question was balanced against the potential benefits (millions?) and disregarded for some reason. I don't buy the notion that this was not salvageable. It's an institute and a great brand with a loyal following. That has got to be worth something.
From the sounds of it, not all is lost, the two people behind the youtube channel sound like they will just continue on their own. They grew the channel to 400K+ subscribers. So that's not nothing. I hope Amazon does the right thing with the content of dpreview.
This was always the likely outcome given the decline in camera sales. They're not going to be making money hand over fist with hockey-stick growth, which is what it takes to justify your existence at a company like Amazon.
I'm surprised they ever bought DP Review in the first place. As a purchase it makes no sense for a company like Amazon.
I'm surprised they ever bought DP Review in the first place. As a purchase it makes no sense for a company like Amazon.
Probably it was all to report reduction in headcount.
Sure enough the camera market has drastically shrunk, but even then it is bizarre to have the singular most popular website/community in the industry, with a treasure chest of 25 years of content, only to wipe it out like it never happened.
As for this faith being "in the stars" as so many suggest, note that until very recently they had open positions. And as far as I know, plans to rebuild the entire site. It wasn't exactly on its way out, rather it seems a casualty of the current economic panic in tech.
Even if this was meant to be, the ramp down is close to criminal. Extremely short notice, no interest in selling it to another party, no plan to keep it online long term, no archival. Nothing.
This part of the web which I hold dear to my heart is on its way out. Long form, quality content, deep community (most of the time). Not only have smartphones disrupted photography itself, it has also changed content consumption. From long form to short form. Quantity over quality. And community engagement is shallow.
Discovery is under pressure as Google, Facebook, the like starve the web. The rise of AI chat bots will nuke the remaining debris.
It's quite telling that the site's 2 main reviewers (which are great) can fairly effortlessly move on as they were clever enough to build a following on their Youtube channel. You see a similar effect when journalists build a following on Twitter, in a way they become independent of their employers.
It's just another sign that independence will wreck you. Google and social media are the traffic controllers of our digital existence. You play on their platforms or you cease to play at all.
At least, you'd be on a safe and stable platform? Well, no.
As for this faith being "in the stars" as so many suggest, note that until very recently they had open positions. And as far as I know, plans to rebuild the entire site. It wasn't exactly on its way out, rather it seems a casualty of the current economic panic in tech.
Even if this was meant to be, the ramp down is close to criminal. Extremely short notice, no interest in selling it to another party, no plan to keep it online long term, no archival. Nothing.
This part of the web which I hold dear to my heart is on its way out. Long form, quality content, deep community (most of the time). Not only have smartphones disrupted photography itself, it has also changed content consumption. From long form to short form. Quantity over quality. And community engagement is shallow.
Discovery is under pressure as Google, Facebook, the like starve the web. The rise of AI chat bots will nuke the remaining debris.
It's quite telling that the site's 2 main reviewers (which are great) can fairly effortlessly move on as they were clever enough to build a following on their Youtube channel. You see a similar effect when journalists build a following on Twitter, in a way they become independent of their employers.
It's just another sign that independence will wreck you. Google and social media are the traffic controllers of our digital existence. You play on their platforms or you cease to play at all.
At least, you'd be on a safe and stable platform? Well, no.
The lack of archival is the biggest problem I have with any of this.
Imagine if Wikipedia were taken offline in 2048, with one month notice.
Imagine if Wikipedia were taken offline in 2048, with one month notice.
This is not "panic" in tech just corporate politics. Some middle manager wanted to shutdown this site for several years and didn't have the approval of higher managers or consensus with others. It's the same with Amazon Smile program. It's meaningless for Amazon in terms of cost, and imho it causes much more harm in communities like non-for-profits in the case of Amazon Smile or photography hobbyists in the case of DPReview.
"This is not "panic" in tech just corporate politics"
You're quite confident in the thing you just made up. The CEO of Amazon literally has written an announcement detailing the process where they comb through their various businesses and making cuts, where they openly state that these are due to suddenly worse economic conditions.
You're quite confident in the thing you just made up. The CEO of Amazon literally has written an announcement detailing the process where they comb through their various businesses and making cuts, where they openly state that these are due to suddenly worse economic conditions.
Wow... I've been reading their comprehensive reviews and news for over 15 years. DPR got me into DSLR videography as a hobby which I've spent well over $10k on – much of it at Amazon. This really sucks as I don't know of another source I consider as authoritative for objective, thorough reviews and analysis of not only product but technologies and trends.
Super disappointed in Amazon for not at least keeping the 25 years of content online. If nothing else, recent reviews will be valuable for another 1 to 2 years and instructional content for at least 5 years. A bigger loss is that the overall site content documents much of the first 25 years of serious digital photography – an important and unique historical record due to the consistency of the editorial focus and review format. And Internet Archive is unlikely to capture it well due to so much CMS-based chart and hi-res RAW content in test reviews.
(BTW, I don't agree with those saying mobile photography/videography has (or will soon) make DSLR/mirrorless irrelevant. As useful & impressive as mobile imaging is, larger formats and interchangeable lenses still enable important capabilities for pros, semi-pros and serious hobbyists that mobile can't.)
Super disappointed in Amazon for not at least keeping the 25 years of content online. If nothing else, recent reviews will be valuable for another 1 to 2 years and instructional content for at least 5 years. A bigger loss is that the overall site content documents much of the first 25 years of serious digital photography – an important and unique historical record due to the consistency of the editorial focus and review format. And Internet Archive is unlikely to capture it well due to so much CMS-based chart and hi-res RAW content in test reviews.
(BTW, I don't agree with those saying mobile photography/videography has (or will soon) make DSLR/mirrorless irrelevant. As useful & impressive as mobile imaging is, larger formats and interchangeable lenses still enable important capabilities for pros, semi-pros and serious hobbyists that mobile can't.)
> I don't agree with those saying mobile photography/videography has (or will soon) make DSLR/mirrorless irrelevant.
I like to go backpacking. I used to always take my Full Frame Camera and a couple of lenses, after several years of going with the same crew, they finally convinced me that I should just leave the extra pounds behind and use my phone.
I won't do it again. The difference in the image quality, if you actually look at it, and not just scroll it, is night and day, and from my understanding of optics there is no way that it will ever be comparable.
In my personal opinion if you are trying to make photographic art, to really capture beauty, a smartphone camera is incredibly limiting. You can do it, just like you can make art with a disposable camera, however the rendering is too utilitarian and the ability to capture fine details will always be lacking. You can get moments quite well, perhaps even better than a ILC, I find "Live" photos particularly charming, and moments can be very beautiful. But again, my subjective opinion on aesthetics is that to capture things that are already very beautiful in their own right, like a landscape at sunset, a waterfall, or a Stag in the woods require fairly precise equipment–not algorithmic de-noising.
I am extremely sad about DPReview closing, it is an extremely valuable resource for comparing lenses. I will forever hold this against Amazon.
I like to go backpacking. I used to always take my Full Frame Camera and a couple of lenses, after several years of going with the same crew, they finally convinced me that I should just leave the extra pounds behind and use my phone.
I won't do it again. The difference in the image quality, if you actually look at it, and not just scroll it, is night and day, and from my understanding of optics there is no way that it will ever be comparable.
In my personal opinion if you are trying to make photographic art, to really capture beauty, a smartphone camera is incredibly limiting. You can do it, just like you can make art with a disposable camera, however the rendering is too utilitarian and the ability to capture fine details will always be lacking. You can get moments quite well, perhaps even better than a ILC, I find "Live" photos particularly charming, and moments can be very beautiful. But again, my subjective opinion on aesthetics is that to capture things that are already very beautiful in their own right, like a landscape at sunset, a waterfall, or a Stag in the woods require fairly precise equipment–not algorithmic de-noising.
I am extremely sad about DPReview closing, it is an extremely valuable resource for comparing lenses. I will forever hold this against Amazon.
Yeah, I agree with this. Last big trip I did, I brought my heavy full frame camera but still took a few hundred photos with my smartphone.
The iPhone photos (about 1 year old iPhone Pro) look fine, and are a great documentation of a lot of the interesting things I saw but which I didn't care to take pictures with the SLR (interesting things out the train window, shops and restaurants I went to, random things on the street, etc.). The SLR pictures are just something else though, and I had the eight or so best of them printed in large format to hang on the wall after I processed them, and I also show them to people on my iPad.
I guess the phone photos are all most people care to take, and that's fine. But I wouldn't just take a phone because I do want to actually make that art, and it really does make an incredible difference. I showed somebody some of the processed DLSR photos on the iPad and they were confused, thinking they were just iPhone photos I'd taken, saying "Why are these, like, good?". There's just something about a real lens and a full frame sensor that even non-photographers can immediately spot.
The iPhone photos (about 1 year old iPhone Pro) look fine, and are a great documentation of a lot of the interesting things I saw but which I didn't care to take pictures with the SLR (interesting things out the train window, shops and restaurants I went to, random things on the street, etc.). The SLR pictures are just something else though, and I had the eight or so best of them printed in large format to hang on the wall after I processed them, and I also show them to people on my iPad.
I guess the phone photos are all most people care to take, and that's fine. But I wouldn't just take a phone because I do want to actually make that art, and it really does make an incredible difference. I showed somebody some of the processed DLSR photos on the iPad and they were confused, thinking they were just iPhone photos I'd taken, saying "Why are these, like, good?". There's just something about a real lens and a full frame sensor that even non-photographers can immediately spot.
I find something like the Ricoh GR III a great compromise - APS-C sensor, brilliantly sharp lens, tons of control, in the body of a small P&S.
This really is an issue with many online magazines/boards/etc. with a treasure trove of information that shut down on a whim. I understand that continuing to operate the site and produce content isn't profitable, but the cost of running an official read-only archive is a drop in the bucket for the corp.
Having a third party archive and distribute such a large amount of copyrighted content also starts to get legally iffy. When the Bioware RPG forums shut down there was a lot of debate from the users on the best ways to save the content and distribute it in a legal fashion. There are movies and shows out there which were written off by the studios and are only available illegally. Honestly the official owner should take the initiative and ensure that future generations can enjoy the content - but of course they don't care and will just move on to other ventures.
Having a third party archive and distribute such a large amount of copyrighted content also starts to get legally iffy. When the Bioware RPG forums shut down there was a lot of debate from the users on the best ways to save the content and distribute it in a legal fashion. There are movies and shows out there which were written off by the studios and are only available illegally. Honestly the official owner should take the initiative and ensure that future generations can enjoy the content - but of course they don't care and will just move on to other ventures.
It’ll never be irrelevant, but like medium format it’ll become niche. Even more heavily skewed to professionals.
So 10x-100x smaller than in photography’s hay day. (My guess is 1980-2000’s.)
So 10x-100x smaller than in photography’s hay day. (My guess is 1980-2000’s.)
screw amazon, lets keep it ourselves! https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35284510
Here's a 2007 article from when they were acquired by Amazon. It seems at the time this made sense. Jeff Bezos identified the website as the source of truth in the digital camera field and sought to own that source and have it direct customers to his website. The founders were naturally overwhelmed and busy as founders of any company are, and were promised resources to make their jobs easier and let them build out the features they wanted (anyone know what these were? as far as I know dpreview has been about the same as its always been in terms of features).
https://www.dpreview.com/articles/1690663587/amazonacquiresd...
Today, maybe it no longer makes sense from Amazon to hold onto dpreview. Maybe the source of truth for most people has moved on from high quality texual sources, to other sources. Perhaps these are youtubers who amazon supplies affiliate links instead in order to capture this market. It goes to show to never trust the hand that feeds you to look out for you, you can and will be cut once its deemed convenient and prudent, and the larger the company you hitch your wagon on the more likely are they to behave like a cold large company.
https://www.dpreview.com/articles/1690663587/amazonacquiresd...
Today, maybe it no longer makes sense from Amazon to hold onto dpreview. Maybe the source of truth for most people has moved on from high quality texual sources, to other sources. Perhaps these are youtubers who amazon supplies affiliate links instead in order to capture this market. It goes to show to never trust the hand that feeds you to look out for you, you can and will be cut once its deemed convenient and prudent, and the larger the company you hitch your wagon on the more likely are they to behave like a cold large company.
> Jeff Bezos identified the website as the source of truth in the digital camera field and sought to own that source and have it direct customers to his website.
I wonder if that's the key point. It was Jeff's project, and like Alexa, is no longer protected now that he's no longer there.
I wonder if that's the key point. It was Jeff's project, and like Alexa, is no longer protected now that he's no longer there.
The rise of youtube is the cause to me. Websites that specialize in niches are not as profitable since Youtube pays so much better due to their ads. Along with the huge userbase and easy content search.
Today people go to youtube first for reviews
Today people go to youtube first for reviews
I cannot believe that was 16 years ago!
RIP. I'm really sad about this, and it's actually something that finally makes me question the Amazon monopoly. Amazon spends so much money on meh (IMO) Prime Video content yet can't keep this site online as an archive.
I know that phone cameras have taken over the market in the last decade. For wide-angle lenses, they're great, but iPhones can't quite keep up (yet) with 200-300mm telephotos so I still browsed the site regularly.
I'm sure some YouTubers might pick up the slack but I hate still camera YouTube reviews because you can't download the files or check image quality for yourself (DPR has this studio scene where you could compare image quality at 100% side-by-side with different cameras at different ISO's).
I know that phone cameras have taken over the market in the last decade. For wide-angle lenses, they're great, but iPhones can't quite keep up (yet) with 200-300mm telephotos so I still browsed the site regularly.
I'm sure some YouTubers might pick up the slack but I hate still camera YouTube reviews because you can't download the files or check image quality for yourself (DPR has this studio scene where you could compare image quality at 100% side-by-side with different cameras at different ISO's).
THIS makes you question it? Not any of these:
- Blatantly ripping off products listed on their site, using sales data from those products as decision making on which products to steal.
- The monopolization of every market they enter
- Their search listings are garbage, amazon centric and filled with junk
- Anti-competitive practices such as pricing agreements for products on amazon, when listed on websites other than amazon
- They downright treat their employee's as serfs, nearly across the board.
- Blatantly ripping off products listed on their site, using sales data from those products as decision making on which products to steal.
- The monopolization of every market they enter
- Their search listings are garbage, amazon centric and filled with junk
- Anti-competitive practices such as pricing agreements for products on amazon, when listed on websites other than amazon
- They downright treat their employee's as serfs, nearly across the board.
As an end user, a lot of Amazon's criticisms are invisible to consumers.
- Amazon screws up and sends a poorly packaged product which is damaged? They just ship another one.
- Amazon starts creating "Amazon Basics" branded items? Either I buy it if it's a good price, or don't if it's not. Amazon Basics actually helps fight against the flood of cheap Chinese junk by creating a branded product of acceptable quality.
Stuff like anti-competitive practices or poor treatment of employees isn't even noticed by most consumers. This isn't like Walmart where both the customer experience and the corporate experience are equally poor.
Taking away existing products (like DPR) or slow shipment of items DOES visibly affect the average consumer.
- Amazon screws up and sends a poorly packaged product which is damaged? They just ship another one.
- Amazon starts creating "Amazon Basics" branded items? Either I buy it if it's a good price, or don't if it's not. Amazon Basics actually helps fight against the flood of cheap Chinese junk by creating a branded product of acceptable quality.
Stuff like anti-competitive practices or poor treatment of employees isn't even noticed by most consumers. This isn't like Walmart where both the customer experience and the corporate experience are equally poor.
Taking away existing products (like DPR) or slow shipment of items DOES visibly affect the average consumer.
"Amazon Basics actually helps fight against the flood of cheap Chinese junk by creating a branded product of acceptable quality."
I am sorry, what? Where do you think those cheap cables and whatever else they sell are from? Hand made by a grandma in rural Washington State?
I am sorry, what? Where do you think those cheap cables and whatever else they sell are from? Hand made by a grandma in rural Washington State?
Amazon Basics are cheap and low quality, but they're at least curated. Amazon doesn't just slap their brand on any random shit, so you at least know that your phone charger will meet safety standards, for example.
I don't often intentionally look for cheap, low quality stuff to buy, but when I do, I'd buy an Amazon Basics item over a UEVYUF (or another <insert fake dropshipping brand here>) item every time.
I don't often intentionally look for cheap, low quality stuff to buy, but when I do, I'd buy an Amazon Basics item over a UEVYUF (or another <insert fake dropshipping brand here>) item every time.
I'm rather sure that Amazon is a company that strictly makes the world a worse place.
That hurts a lot, I got in way past the point where it was acquired by amazon, but the forums were always a very nice place to interact (with its lots of weird and single-focused people, as every forum, that gives it charm). The reviews for most cameras made in the last 20 years were invaluable and very detailed, although lately they certainly struggled to maintain the quantity of content they put out in the past.
I cannot imagine that cutting the maybe 30 people (tops) required to maintain the site and push content will make a difference in Amazon revenue; but removing this great online resource is sure to sadden thousands of users.
I cannot imagine that cutting the maybe 30 people (tops) required to maintain the site and push content will make a difference in Amazon revenue; but removing this great online resource is sure to sadden thousands of users.
Former DPReview News Editor (who left after getting news of this back on January 18th) here: There were 8-10 members of the editorial team that were full time and a small group of freelancers. Add in about 8-10 more devs, who cycled in and out for the most part. So, 15-18 people, tops. By my rough math once, our entire operating cost for the year was about 10-12 minutes worth of Amazon revenue.
Worth noting this math is based on estimated numbers from what I roughly knew people’s salaries were and what server costs were roughly estimated at. I had no first-hand knowledge of the numbers, as I wasn’t allowed to view that info as a contractor.
Is it true that they're not going to sell the assets, and just shut everything down? If I had connections to an investment banker, I'd be trying to see if there's an in with Amazon...
I wasn’t privy to that information even before I left (Feb), but from what a few people who were/are privy to that information have told me, it doesn’t appear as though Amazon is at all interested in selling off the IP. So yea. Just shut it all down. Which is a fucking shame.
I've seen a few of these bonehead decisions in my career. Typically it happens because "MBAs are eating the world" -- someone with the idea that the number of things you have needs to be made smaller makes a ranked list of all the things in their area. Then they run "head -7" on the list.
I saw this happen long time ago when a company I worked for decided to close a product division because it was the fifth most popular i the company. The people working on that product left, formed a startup, did the exact same thing and made $$$. Today the product category is a tens of billions industry.
I saw this happen long time ago when a company I worked for decided to close a product division because it was the fifth most popular i the company. The people working on that product left, formed a startup, did the exact same thing and made $$$. Today the product category is a tens of billions industry.
I think they should go to LTT instead. They're both Canadian, and the name is less relevant than the brand.
If they got it ironed out before April 10th, they probably could put a link to it.
If they got it ironed out before April 10th, they probably could put a link to it.
It might be intentional then. Instead of having that content out there again where they will presumably have to pay affiliate commissions to the new owner, they must've calculated it's more profitable to just get rid of it.
In this case why not keep the old content online at least? And continue paying affiliate commissions to themselves?
From their announcement, that appears to be their plan. They said they will keep the site up for an limited amount of time. It's speculation on how long "limited" is. Months, years? There might be some clues with how quickly they shut down alexa.com "In December 2021, Amazon announced that it would be shutting down its Alexa Internet subsidiary. The service was then discontinued on May 1, 2022." which would put it at 5 months.
5 months seems not much time for a platform like this. I recently bought a lens that has been released 3 years ago; a gear review written today could provide useful information for much more than 5 months.
[deleted]
I wonder if the problem is they are shutting down 50 other sites that are similar to this, for other types of products. Cutting 1 doesn't make much of a diffference but cutting 50 certainly does.
I assume a full site mirror will be submitted to the @internetarchive? Because it would be insane to pull 25 years of detailed information that cannot easily be found elsewhere off the internet just because your dad doesn't want you living at home anymore.
Probably not. This is an incredible knee jerk. It's closing with 2-3 weeks notice.
This does not reflect well on Amazon. This could be sold, spun out, archived, given back to the founders, or many other things. 20 days is not enough time to do anything worthwhile, though.
This does not reflect well on Amazon. This could be sold, spun out, archived, given back to the founders, or many other things. 20 days is not enough time to do anything worthwhile, though.
Small note: this doesn't reflect on Amazon. Barely anyone knew Amazon owns them, and once the site's gone, no one who didn't use dpreview will look unfavourably at Amazon for it. This was a great website that most of the world didn't use which is why Amazon can just pull the plug with literally no repercussions =(
Unfortunately I agree-- no repercussions at all. I've been visiting the site basically from the beginning and had no idea Amazon bought them. I guess I missed that one blog post from 2007.
It's such a shame.
It's such a shame.
> no one who didn't use dpreview will look unfavourably at Amazon for it
True, but many tech nerds (who make decisions about services like AWS) visited dpreview.
Right now, I won't use GCP or anything related to Google in business settings because of about a dozen similar decisions which impacted me. There's a finite budget of decisions like this which a company can make before people lose trust, and it impact business.
True, but many tech nerds (who make decisions about services like AWS) visited dpreview.
Right now, I won't use GCP or anything related to Google in business settings because of about a dozen similar decisions which impacted me. There's a finite budget of decisions like this which a company can make before people lose trust, and it impact business.
Not them. But the archive team have been made aware and are gathering in #dprived on hackint IRC.
I'm suggesting "we do it ourselves" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35284510
Been a reader for all 25 years, sad.
It has been slowly dying since AMZN purchase, and I wonder why they did in first place.. maybe were paying too much out to DPR in affiliate link income? lol.
The larger problem is long-form written word reviews are dead due to the ad monetization models favoring video content. So now we all need to sit through 40min YouTube videos of blathering.
It does also seem like yet another signal that FAANG is killing off all the weird "how does that make any money" side projects they've collected over the last 10-15 years.
It has been slowly dying since AMZN purchase, and I wonder why they did in first place.. maybe were paying too much out to DPR in affiliate link income? lol.
The larger problem is long-form written word reviews are dead due to the ad monetization models favoring video content. So now we all need to sit through 40min YouTube videos of blathering.
It does also seem like yet another signal that FAANG is killing off all the weird "how does that make any money" side projects they've collected over the last 10-15 years.
This is sad because the forums on that site have been a great help to me. For a long time I would use it as an example of why "forums aren't dead".
I can see though how the reviews might not be a viable business. My RSS reader learned not to show me many reviews about that site because I have a Sony, could care less about what new lenses are out for Nikon and Canon, and since I have a pretty good set of lenses I'd even feel overwhelmed keeping up with developments in the Sony world.
I can see though how the reviews might not be a viable business. My RSS reader learned not to show me many reviews about that site because I have a Sony, could care less about what new lenses are out for Nikon and Canon, and since I have a pretty good set of lenses I'd even feel overwhelmed keeping up with developments in the Sony world.
Phil Askey's Photo Review (DPReview's old name) was a pioneer in camera reviews even in back 1998/99 when I first encountered it. I remember it was run from Singapore with the url philaskey.net/~photo or something. He used to review cameras in such clarity and detail that it was so popular among digital camera nerds.
Huge loss!
Huge loss!
I was trying to remember the old name. I believe it was just Phil running a blog solo? Content was slow to appear but incredible quality when it did.
It would be great if someone took it back to its roots.
It would be great if someone took it back to its roots.
Found Phil's interview -
https://www.dpreview.com/interviews/5323285840/phil-askey-fo...
http://photo.askey.net/
https://www.dpreview.com/interviews/5323285840/phil-askey-fo...
http://photo.askey.net/
What a trip down memory lane, thanks for this. I was running a hardware review aggregator site in the 90s, and dpreview and the above provided quality content. When search engines were not great and link sharing / exchanges were useful, what a time it was.
TIL they've been owned by Amazon since 2007 https://www.dpreview.com/articles/1690663587/amazonacquiresd...
Will miss this site a lot :(
Will miss this site a lot :(
This is a little bizarre.
Some of you may not know that Amazon went through a phase of buying the #1 site in every space. DPReview is the one for cameras. There were others (eg IMDB). Amazon's strategy seemed to be to drive traffic to their site by buying these sites.
Digital camera sales fell off a cliff. I think they peaked at about 2010-12. Now we're at less than 10% of those sales, possibly less than 5%. Of course because of phones. I still like specialist cameras that do things phone can't (eg 300x zoom, 1000fps recording). But these are now niche products.
it seems strange to shutter the site however. How much upkeep does it really require? You can pause actual reviews so all you have to do is add new cameras when they're released, which isn't that often these days. You can even close the forums if you don't want to moderate them.
it's similar to the Google Reader argument: it simply can't be that expensive to maintain.
Some of you may not know that Amazon went through a phase of buying the #1 site in every space. DPReview is the one for cameras. There were others (eg IMDB). Amazon's strategy seemed to be to drive traffic to their site by buying these sites.
Digital camera sales fell off a cliff. I think they peaked at about 2010-12. Now we're at less than 10% of those sales, possibly less than 5%. Of course because of phones. I still like specialist cameras that do things phone can't (eg 300x zoom, 1000fps recording). But these are now niche products.
it seems strange to shutter the site however. How much upkeep does it really require? You can pause actual reviews so all you have to do is add new cameras when they're released, which isn't that often these days. You can even close the forums if you don't want to moderate them.
it's similar to the Google Reader argument: it simply can't be that expensive to maintain.
Dpreview.com died when they got taken over by Amazon. Maybe the forums were worthwhile for a while after that, but the main site sure wasn't. Bigcorps just don't get what makes their acquisition targets tick.
And it's not the first time that a niche-expertise site was killed by a conglomerate. I'm still pretty salty about Google strangling Zagat, to mention just one similar case.
And it's not the first time that a niche-expertise site was killed by a conglomerate. I'm still pretty salty about Google strangling Zagat, to mention just one similar case.
Of course they get what makes them tick. But they also don't care what makes them tick, they care about whether they generate (temporary) income. The biggest bigcorps don't even care what the thing itself is about, they just look at "what's the return if we buy it, and if so, what will make us more money: keep running it, dismantle it and use parts of it to improve other parts of our company, or shut it down once the revenue dries up".
Bigcorp operate like ant colonies, and run based on what's best for them. It's literally the defining aspect that separates small business from big business. In the former, people are in control. In the latter, the business is in control.
Bigcorp operate like ant colonies, and run based on what's best for them. It's literally the defining aspect that separates small business from big business. In the former, people are in control. In the latter, the business is in control.
I'm sure there would be a line-up of good-willing buyer(s) for DPREVIEW.
This is an exceptional portal with second-to-none depth of photo technology coverage.
It feels like something is missing in "we're closing" message. Cost is not the problem these days.
Pending lawsuits?
Blackmail from deep pocket disgruntled vendor?
This is an exceptional portal with second-to-none depth of photo technology coverage.
It feels like something is missing in "we're closing" message. Cost is not the problem these days.
Pending lawsuits?
Blackmail from deep pocket disgruntled vendor?
I don't see why at least they don't keep it in read only mode for longer - e.g. a few years - until the content becomes obsolete. This will alienate many Internet dwellers and make the Amazon brand sink even lower.
Surely it doesn't cost them much.
Checks date - it's not April 1st. This is incredibly sad - and also makes me angry how big corporations like Amazon can destroy communities just like that.
DPReview wasn't just about in-depth camera reviews which they pioneered and excelled at but also about the forums where photographers of all level of skills and interests would come together to share their passion and thoughts. This more than anything else would be a massive loss.
What's next? IMDB?
DPReview wasn't just about in-depth camera reviews which they pioneered and excelled at but also about the forums where photographers of all level of skills and interests would come together to share their passion and thoughts. This more than anything else would be a massive loss.
What's next? IMDB?
dpreview had a great feature which is hard to find elsewhere: You could see at a glance at what date each manufacturer released each model of their hardware. This was so useful because you could then predict when new releases would come out and you'd get a sense of what was the cutting edge. At a glance you'd know which models were the "latest". I will miss this! Making sense of models of hardware from different makers is very time consuming.
Wondering if anyone knows an alternative site for this...
Wondering if anyone knows an alternative site for this...
And compare features between models to see actually what has changed with each revision.
This is one of the sites I still looked on camera reviews, sad to see this go. I never really cared for "community" reviews, or the user generated content, but the ones made by their team. I wonder what the review team is going to do? Usually how these end up is that those old habits are hard to kill, and the review team will return if not with the same name then under different name. I don't know how they owned things, but best would be to give out the site for their team, remove all the community features etc.
This is so ffffing sad to read. I've only recently become an active user of the forum, as it's the last island of active Samsung NX mirrorless camera users (some of which run Linux), and it was really great to have a polite and civil discourse with other nerds sharing the hobby.
That reminds me of another great loss. I wish Samsung hadn’t ended the NX line. The NX1 was an amazing camera and Tizen was adapted perfectly for it IMO.
What bums me out about this is that the site will disappear. For people like me who collect cameras and review them online, DPReview is a gold mine of info on cameras from the digital age.
No Internet Archive mirror?
ArchiveTeam are planning on working on one, they probably welcome help:
https://wiki.archiveteam.org/index.php/DPReview
https://wiki.archiveteam.org/index.php/DPReview
Good, but from previous experience they don't make these archives available to the general public.
AFAIK this is mostly incorrect. First the crawler archive URLs to files in WARC format, which are uploaded to archive.org, which then imports the files into the Wayback Machine. For ArchiveBot jobs, you can find the WARC files for the completed jobs for any domain from the ArchiveBot completed jobs website. For other types of jobs, including custom ones like DPReview.com the process is similar but involves more machines due to their more distributed crawling process. It all ends up in the Internet Archive Wayback Machine though.
https://archive.fart.website/archivebot/viewer/ http://archiveteam.org/index.php?title=ArchiveBot
https://archive.fart.website/archivebot/viewer/ http://archiveteam.org/index.php?title=ArchiveBot
Woops, forgot the end bit. There is only one non-public archiving job that I know of, and that is for YouTube videos only.
Sad news, this was my favourite site 15 years ago when I was into photography. It was the only website that you can read clear spec about cameras and see a gallery of photos taken by it.
Quite shocking, why not just sell it or cut staff. The site has to have significant monetary value.
They have an estimated 5.2 million unique visitors per month. It's definitely still a valuable publication, it's crazy they are shutting it down.
And it’s in a segment with high cost, high margin products. Site is worth millions in terms of ad revenue and/or affiliate income alone.
It's my go-to site before buying any camera related stuff.
But I guess it's not making any money for Amazon.
Do you know what kind of website would make money?
The buzzfeed style equipments websites. Those full of lists of top 10 best vlog/instagram cameras/tripods. Each item on the list starts with some affiliated links, beneath them are some bullets of pros cons, and every couple of graphs there is a google ads.
I feel exhausted reading them.
Please can anyone recommend alternatives?
But I guess it's not making any money for Amazon.
Do you know what kind of website would make money?
The buzzfeed style equipments websites. Those full of lists of top 10 best vlog/instagram cameras/tripods. Each item on the list starts with some affiliated links, beneath them are some bullets of pros cons, and every couple of graphs there is a google ads.
I feel exhausted reading them.
Please can anyone recommend alternatives?
That's what the people want.
Reading is a dying art. No time; everyone is too busy and the Internet is too vast. It's all about videos and twitter-sized text.
Reading is a dying art. No time; everyone is too busy and the Internet is too vast. It's all about videos and twitter-sized text.
This is incredible.
Have we really come to an era where so few people care about cameras and taking good pictures that it warrants a shutdown of _the_ camera review site?
Have we really come to an era where so few people care about cameras and taking good pictures that it warrants a shutdown of _the_ camera review site?
I am shocked. I'm about to release (...well it's technically released but not yet finished) a product in the photography space, cameralenspicker.com. I saw DPReview as the #1 "competitor" in the space, and reading this is well... like hearing your #1 competitor is dead. It really makes me wonder where this industry is headed if they're shutting down.
Why is so much of the good stuff from the internet disappearing without being replaced?
Sites like these are almost like living fossils. They evolved in a completely different environment than today, and therefore nothing like them can evolve again today. When it first started, DP review was just doing what plenty of other blogs were doing in terms of longform, informationally dense content, because when the founders looked around at similar stuff to compare from that's what they saw, iterated on, and created.
Today, the environment is different. If you want to get an audience on your stuff today, you aren't going to make a dpreview or a kenrockwell.com, because when you look around you don't see that stuff very much. You see seoified crap articles, and information drip fed over 20 mins on youtube with advertising in between. Such is the game today and how it must be played if you are to receive any views at all and get that initial userbase.
Today, the environment is different. If you want to get an audience on your stuff today, you aren't going to make a dpreview or a kenrockwell.com, because when you look around you don't see that stuff very much. You see seoified crap articles, and information drip fed over 20 mins on youtube with advertising in between. Such is the game today and how it must be played if you are to receive any views at all and get that initial userbase.
Ken Rockwell invented the use of SEO crap content in this space to sell cameras, lenses, and accessories.
- Great thing gets created by passionate, independent team
- Thing becomes popular
- Megacorp takes notice and offers eye-popping amount of money to acquire thing (or doesn't have to because the founders are in over their heads anyway with how popular thing has become)
- Megacorp shuts down thing because it is a distraction from their other things which are printing unimaginable amounts of money
- Rinse and repeat
Consolidation of the entire internet into the hands of a few megacorps isn't just a problem because of their outsized influence.
- Thing becomes popular
- Megacorp takes notice and offers eye-popping amount of money to acquire thing (or doesn't have to because the founders are in over their heads anyway with how popular thing has become)
- Megacorp shuts down thing because it is a distraction from their other things which are printing unimaginable amounts of money
- Rinse and repeat
Consolidation of the entire internet into the hands of a few megacorps isn't just a problem because of their outsized influence.
people wont pay for good when mediocre is there for free
If anyone is looking for a somewhat comparable replacement, https://www.rtings.com/camera is the best I know of. Their monitor and TV reviews are amazing too (that's how I found out about them a few years back).
> What will happen to my content?
> You can request a download of all the photos and text you’ve uploaded to the site. This will be available until April 6th, after which we will not be able to complete the request.
Would be nice if they'd organized to make sure content lived on at the Internet Archive?
> You can request a download of all the photos and text you’ve uploaded to the site. This will be available until April 6th, after which we will not be able to complete the request.
Would be nice if they'd organized to make sure content lived on at the Internet Archive?
I sure hope archive.org is on top of this. This is about as big of an archive emergency as there can be.
DPReview has been a constant companion for the photography nerd for a LONG time now. It will be missed.
Looks like the Amazon acquisition finally caught up. Sad, as DPR was a great resource and had an interesting community, at least until about 7 years ago when they started leaning in more to video content and less into deeply-technical reviews and discussions.
It's a real pity that Amazon isn't allowing the team to take the site and continue to manage it. Crazy that in these times it makes more sense to lay off and shut down a site like DPreview.
Shame.
It’s probably hard as digital cameras have been replaced quite a bit by phones. I used that sight for many point and shoot camera purchases. The reviews were good and it had a good summary of all the cameras that were out there.
There’s still the “Fred Miranda” board, but that’s more user lens reviews and a little dated. That site has shifted to focus on photos more than gear, which makes sense.
http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/
It’s probably hard as digital cameras have been replaced quite a bit by phones. I used that sight for many point and shoot camera purchases. The reviews were good and it had a good summary of all the cameras that were out there.
There’s still the “Fred Miranda” board, but that’s more user lens reviews and a little dated. That site has shifted to focus on photos more than gear, which makes sense.
http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/
Their test scene and side-by-side comparison across camera settings was a great feature. I would never have purchased any of my standalone cameras if it hadn't been for DPReview.
I used to visit this site a great deal but I haven't been there in years. I don't even know how many years.
Other than generally Amazon doing layoffs my guess is interest in equipment that they talk about has dropped greatly and specifically because of smartphone cameras (Iphone in particular in my case). I have an expensive Sony Camera (several thousand for the body with a $2000 lens and other lenses) and haven't used it in years. I just use the Iphone. And I am someone that had a darkroom years ago and really enjoyed photography (and made money selling pictures even). It was a big deal to me to take pictures. But it was more exclusive since most people didn't have a professional camera.
Photography has changed in the sense that back when I did and enjoyed it there weren't any digital aids or easy ways to make pictures look good. Or be able to just take as many pictures as you wanted in all sorts of light conditions. And that was actually part of the fun for me. I mean even my Sony camera can't fix pictures like the iphone can on the fly.
The iphone (I've had all of them now an iphone 14 pro max is what I use) is just good enough to provide enjoyment.
Other than generally Amazon doing layoffs my guess is interest in equipment that they talk about has dropped greatly and specifically because of smartphone cameras (Iphone in particular in my case). I have an expensive Sony Camera (several thousand for the body with a $2000 lens and other lenses) and haven't used it in years. I just use the Iphone. And I am someone that had a darkroom years ago and really enjoyed photography (and made money selling pictures even). It was a big deal to me to take pictures. But it was more exclusive since most people didn't have a professional camera.
Photography has changed in the sense that back when I did and enjoyed it there weren't any digital aids or easy ways to make pictures look good. Or be able to just take as many pictures as you wanted in all sorts of light conditions. And that was actually part of the fun for me. I mean even my Sony camera can't fix pictures like the iphone can on the fly.
The iphone (I've had all of them now an iphone 14 pro max is what I use) is just good enough to provide enjoyment.
The thing with this website is that it is one of those leave it until you need it situations. 10 years ago or so I was in the market for a new digital camera, and used their site heavily during that search. Of course, being a prosumer camera, it still takes great photos 10 years later, so I haven't been in the market.
There was a time where upgrading your digital camera constantly was necessary, because sensors at the time struggled in low light and you saw some really big gains for a while especially in the entry level. That said, even a 2005 5dmk1 is still a great camera today as elderly as it is compared to any other piece of consumer technology, and blowing up its 12 mega pixels into a huge print down the side of a building will probably still look a lot better than doing the same with a new phone with twice as many pixels. Having pro cameras last a long time of course hurts sites that favor a customer base that is constantly changing gear and checking in.
There was a time where upgrading your digital camera constantly was necessary, because sensors at the time struggled in low light and you saw some really big gains for a while especially in the entry level. That said, even a 2005 5dmk1 is still a great camera today as elderly as it is compared to any other piece of consumer technology, and blowing up its 12 mega pixels into a huge print down the side of a building will probably still look a lot better than doing the same with a new phone with twice as many pixels. Having pro cameras last a long time of course hurts sites that favor a customer base that is constantly changing gear and checking in.
I think this is a more common thing than people realize, people who have quite a bit of expensive camera gear and have been into the whole thing since the film days but yet are simultaneously really happy with a smartphone.
For me multi-lens phone cameras was the thing that really tilted things. I know initially I was infatuated with SLRs and DSLRs because of the big fancy lenses, especially the long ones out beyond 200mm.
But over time I realized the vast majority of my favorite photos were all getting taken with lenses < 100mm in focal length, and I simultaneously got bored with the whole "bokeh" stuff and narrow depth of field. That's what made it so hard to avoid using the phone more and more often.. a super wide, a moderate wide, and a short telephoto cover so much.
It can be hard to argue against a good smartphone + a small drone as a travel photography kit.
For me multi-lens phone cameras was the thing that really tilted things. I know initially I was infatuated with SLRs and DSLRs because of the big fancy lenses, especially the long ones out beyond 200mm.
But over time I realized the vast majority of my favorite photos were all getting taken with lenses < 100mm in focal length, and I simultaneously got bored with the whole "bokeh" stuff and narrow depth of field. That's what made it so hard to avoid using the phone more and more often.. a super wide, a moderate wide, and a short telephoto cover so much.
It can be hard to argue against a good smartphone + a small drone as a travel photography kit.
I was in the same boat. Large Canon Full frame with IL lenses. What got me in the end was the bulk and the worry about the camera being stolen, broken, and then dealing with the media. I find I take a lot more photos all the time with my iPhone 13 Pro Max as I always have it with me.
Amazon is the worst
After 2 day delivery became 5 day delivery I canceled my Prime. (I get deliveries from Japan faster than I get them from a warehouse in the next state.) I am in the middle of cancelling all my recurring bills from AMZN (Pillpack, AWS) and I recommend that you do the same. I can't wait to hear them say on CNBC that Prime cancellations exceeded additions.
Same here. After 15 years I cancelled it.
Also their market is now full of counterfeit and Chinese crap that you can buy cheaper on AliExpress.
BHPhotovideo is the place I do most of my electronics shopping these days.
Also their market is now full of counterfeit and Chinese crap that you can buy cheaper on AliExpress.
BHPhotovideo is the place I do most of my electronics shopping these days.
Honestly they need to just get ahead of the fakes and hook their site directly to aliexpress. There are honestly some great xiaomi products that are very cheap, but to get them cheaply I need to order on aliexpress which could be fast, or it could be 4 months with a 100 unit minimum order. On amazon you can also find xiaomi products, but they aren't labelled xiaomi and they end up costing 4x as much as what the same product costs on aliexpress, so I pass on them.
If amazon tore down the wall, I could actually be sure I am ordering a true xiaomi product from them and I could probably get it closer to what it costs on aliexpress. Walmart has this same issue actually, somewhat worse because its easier returning things with amazon since they evidently don't care how or why you are returning things.
If amazon tore down the wall, I could actually be sure I am ordering a true xiaomi product from them and I could probably get it closer to what it costs on aliexpress. Walmart has this same issue actually, somewhat worse because its easier returning things with amazon since they evidently don't care how or why you are returning things.
Walmart stands out as one of the few retailers that are as bad as AMZN.
Them and Adorama. AMZN is the last place I look for things, not least for the awful experience of wading through all the fake product listings. (So many posters make excuses for this, such as AMZN couldn't afford to police product listings, but I don't see Ebay or craiglist flooded with nonsense listings)
What I'm seeing is that the early adopters who got Prime early on are the first ones to quit.
What I'm seeing is that the early adopters who got Prime early on are the first ones to quit.
>After 2 day delivery became 5 day delivery
Where do you live? I hear this repeated on HN a lot, but every person I know IRL doesn't have this problem (ie family spread across multiple states). Hell, in the last ~2 years, other than high-demand stuff in the pandemic like Clorox wipes, most of my orders have been _next_ day delivery, nevermind 5 days.
Where do you live? I hear this repeated on HN a lot, but every person I know IRL doesn't have this problem (ie family spread across multiple states). Hell, in the last ~2 years, other than high-demand stuff in the pandemic like Clorox wipes, most of my orders have been _next_ day delivery, nevermind 5 days.
Agreed. If I'm buying anything of value online, I want to buy from someone who actually understands and cares about what they're selling.
I'll happily pay a bit more for the ability to shop and learn and get product support.
I'll happily pay a bit more for the ability to shop and learn and get product support.
I was just thinking about this site the other day. I was on a trip with an older DSLR Nikon D3200 and a Samsung S21 Ultra. Most of the time I had to look at metadata to tell which photos came from which, a fact that I found staggering. I thought back to how critical DP Review was 10–15 years ago and how much our phone cameras have closed that gap. Remarkable.
100%.
I stopped using SLRs back in 2010 or so. Phone cameras weren't good enough to surpass them by then, but I knew that this is the direction that everyone was going and lugging around a camera while traveling was a pain.
Fast-forward to today, where you can get excellent photos and videos in almost all light conditions thanks to huge advances in computational photography and bigger lenses.
The only advantage that SLRs bring are interchangeable lenses. Not sure how strong that moat will hold up though.
I stopped using SLRs back in 2010 or so. Phone cameras weren't good enough to surpass them by then, but I knew that this is the direction that everyone was going and lugging around a camera while traveling was a pain.
Fast-forward to today, where you can get excellent photos and videos in almost all light conditions thanks to huge advances in computational photography and bigger lenses.
The only advantage that SLRs bring are interchangeable lenses. Not sure how strong that moat will hold up though.
Well, shoot. This one hurts. One of my favorite no-nonsense places to get info or just browse. And smartphone cameras are getting good but they're not remotely close to real cameras. Had a 13 max until my new/much better s23 ultra and the best shots on either absolutely pale compared to my Lumix G3, now quite long in the tooth.
This is a little disappointing. Shipments of interchangeable lens cameras (the bread and butter of dpreview) have been going down since 2010 due to the increasing quality of cell phone cameras. However, at this point, both shipments of interchangeable lens cameras and lenses are stabilizing and growing slightly. And at about 6 million camera bodies and 10 million lenses per year these shipments are not insignificant. Especially considering that the average prices of these units are pretty hefty.
So my point is it is still a pretty significant industry and it still deserves a review website. That is one of the unfortunate things of large companies buying niche sites like dpreview. They look at everything at the 10 000 feet level and kill the website even if demand for it still exists. I do hope the dpreview editors find a way to continue their work at a new site in the near future.
So my point is it is still a pretty significant industry and it still deserves a review website. That is one of the unfortunate things of large companies buying niche sites like dpreview. They look at everything at the 10 000 feet level and kill the website even if demand for it still exists. I do hope the dpreview editors find a way to continue their work at a new site in the near future.
> Shipments of interchangeable lens cameras... have been going down since 2010 due to the increasing quality of cell phone cameras.
I'm a bit skeptical of that. Phones almost eliminated the market for the lower-end fixed-lens cameras that made up the majority of camera sales. People mostly bought those because they wanted to capture memories and share interesting things they saw with their friends and families. Phones do a fine job of that now, and are more convenient. Most of those customers never bought interchangeable lens cameras.
ILCs are for people who want to do photography in some sort of serious sense. Phones won't replace ILCs for that market any more than a multitool replaces a set of screwdrivers for a mechanic. The biggest thing stopping people from buying new ILCs is old ILCs.
I have a seven year old Olympus. If I spent $2200 on the new one, I'd get a bit faster burst rate and an autofocus system that's better at tracking certain subjects. If I switched to a different system in the same price range I'd get slower burst rates in most cases, but a bit better noise performance and dynamic range. I could sell my current camera body for about $500, making that a $1700 upgrade for... not a whole lot of improvement.
I'm a bit skeptical of that. Phones almost eliminated the market for the lower-end fixed-lens cameras that made up the majority of camera sales. People mostly bought those because they wanted to capture memories and share interesting things they saw with their friends and families. Phones do a fine job of that now, and are more convenient. Most of those customers never bought interchangeable lens cameras.
ILCs are for people who want to do photography in some sort of serious sense. Phones won't replace ILCs for that market any more than a multitool replaces a set of screwdrivers for a mechanic. The biggest thing stopping people from buying new ILCs is old ILCs.
I have a seven year old Olympus. If I spent $2200 on the new one, I'd get a bit faster burst rate and an autofocus system that's better at tracking certain subjects. If I switched to a different system in the same price range I'd get slower burst rates in most cases, but a bit better noise performance and dynamic range. I could sell my current camera body for about $500, making that a $1700 upgrade for... not a whole lot of improvement.
Sad news.
A guy named Ken Rockwell runs a solo operation publishing reviews of cameras and lenses across the DSLR / mirrorless ILC market.
https://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/reviews.htm
Example review of the recently released Canon R7 (a nice mirrorless camera I own):
https://kenrockwell.com/canon/eos-r/r7.htm
Note that his review style is to start with sample images, and then kick off his prose/text review. So you have to scroll a few pages until the "Introduction". That starts here:
https://kenrockwell.com/canon/eos-r/r7.htm#intro
A guy named Ken Rockwell runs a solo operation publishing reviews of cameras and lenses across the DSLR / mirrorless ILC market.
https://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/reviews.htm
Example review of the recently released Canon R7 (a nice mirrorless camera I own):
https://kenrockwell.com/canon/eos-r/r7.htm
Note that his review style is to start with sample images, and then kick off his prose/text review. So you have to scroll a few pages until the "Introduction". That starts here:
https://kenrockwell.com/canon/eos-r/r7.htm#intro
Ken Rockwell's reviews are not really comparable to the in-depth reviews that DP Review built their reputation on, though.
Here's their review of the Canon R6 m2 for comparison (unfortunately they haven't done an in-depth review for the R7 so I can't provide an apples-to-apples comparison):
https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canon-eos-r6-mark-ii-in-dep...
DP Review also has a YouTube channel that is separate from their website reviews, and offers a more casual and entertaining format. He's their video review of the R7:
https://youtube.com/watch?v=0Zb0WjQKILY
Here's their review of the Canon R6 m2 for comparison (unfortunately they haven't done an in-depth review for the R7 so I can't provide an apples-to-apples comparison):
https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canon-eos-r6-mark-ii-in-dep...
DP Review also has a YouTube channel that is separate from their website reviews, and offers a more casual and entertaining format. He's their video review of the R7:
https://youtube.com/watch?v=0Zb0WjQKILY
I agree. I was just providing an alternative given the reality.
Yup fair enough. Another reviewer that I like is Gordon Liang of Cameralabs. He's mostly a YouTuber these days, but he also runs a website that I think is pretty good:
https://www.cameralabs.com/
I expect that Jordan Drake and Chris Niccolls from the DP Review YouTube channel will also be starting a new channel.
https://www.cameralabs.com/
I expect that Jordan Drake and Chris Niccolls from the DP Review YouTube channel will also be starting a new channel.
Chris and Jordan have already announced that they will be continuing with PetaPixel and things will be done basically the same way, just as it was when they were with The Camera Store.
Ken Rockwell is a complete blowhard asshole - it doesn't take long to find weird racism, extremely biased opinions, and bad advice. Does he still only shoot in JPGs?
Damn, I did not know this was part of Amazon. I assumed it essentially printed money from affiliate links.
It's Amazon's Reader moment.
The articles were great. The comments/forum sections were one of the levels of Hell.
I am guessing that all these businesses that looked 'cheap' to the money-making, investor-darlings machines (the FAANGs) -- will now get closed.
The inflation apparently, does not just affect the currency value -- it also corrects the value of salaries compared to the outcome.
I am also expecting that 80% of the companies behind the 2,600 apps in this list: https://theresanaiforthat.com/ will close those efforts down within 2 years.
The next iteration of businesses/sites that come in place of dpreview -- will be ad-ridden, small budget enterprises like
emulsive.org
The inflation apparently, does not just affect the currency value -- it also corrects the value of salaries compared to the outcome.
I am also expecting that 80% of the companies behind the 2,600 apps in this list: https://theresanaiforthat.com/ will close those efforts down within 2 years.
The next iteration of businesses/sites that come in place of dpreview -- will be ad-ridden, small budget enterprises like
emulsive.org
A real shame. I've been visiting dpreview since 2000.
Just a couple of days ago, I noticed all their review videos on front page featured the same presenter, and it gave impression they're down to just a couple of people running the site.
Just a couple of days ago, I noticed all their review videos on front page featured the same presenter, and it gave impression they're down to just a couple of people running the site.
The video reviews ("DPReviewTV") are a mostly-independent team who did the same thing previously as "The Camera Store TV" and have already announced a deal with Petapixel.
https://petapixel.com/2023/03/21/chris-niccolls-and-jordan-d...
https://petapixel.com/2023/03/21/chris-niccolls-and-jordan-d...
https://om.co/2023/03/21/amazon-shuts-down-dpreview/
> The saddest part of the shutdown is Amazon’s decision to keep the site in “read-only mode for a limited period” after the shutdown on April 10th. That is a shame considering how valuable a resource has been for the internet from the beginning. It is even more disappointing because Amazon is the largest cloud provider in the world, and letting this live on wouldn’t even cost them a damn thing.
> The saddest part of the shutdown is Amazon’s decision to keep the site in “read-only mode for a limited period” after the shutdown on April 10th. That is a shame considering how valuable a resource has been for the internet from the beginning. It is even more disappointing because Amazon is the largest cloud provider in the world, and letting this live on wouldn’t even cost them a damn thing.
If all users requested their data and then pooled it together, we can build a simple version of DPR to keep things alive. And maybe even build it into a new/modern version. I've put together a quick google form to see if people want to try this plan https://forms.gle/2aGQtnQGw6SJCqVE7
Obviously there's much more content than user data.. but i'm sure we can keep it alive too
Obviously there's much more content than user data.. but i'm sure we can keep it alive too
I've now laid out the plan in better detail here https://www.reddit.com/r/DataHoarder/comments/120wkz4/lets_j...
RIP DPReview. Great place to consume in-depth camera and lens reviews and get input from real users through the forums.
I can proudly say I had an image selected as a winner in one of their annual "best photos of the year" contests.
I can proudly say I had an image selected as a winner in one of their annual "best photos of the year" contests.
I just checked and my account shows posts and replies from 2002-2014. 2014 is about 2 years after I bought my last non-smartphone camera (I bought a Panasonic GH2 in 2011 or 2012). As much as I love high-quality photography, I've been able to make do with my iPhone ever since.
So in that sense it's not surprising to see dpreview go away, as I am likely similar to many others in my changing habits. But I really hate that it's going offline. So much knowledge is captured in those forums -- not just specs and tech but technique and ideas. What a shame. Wish it was staying up but dormant.
So in that sense it's not surprising to see dpreview go away, as I am likely similar to many others in my changing habits. But I really hate that it's going offline. So much knowledge is captured in those forums -- not just specs and tech but technique and ideas. What a shame. Wish it was staying up but dormant.
Very sad. I remember how happy and impressed I was when I first visited this site many years ago. It was a true pearl hidden among all the low-quality links that searching for "camera reviews" produced.
This has been my go-to source for reviews and user opinions on cameras for 20 years. This really sucks. I hope they find some other site where they can at least continue the forums.
This is one of the first review sites I got into, and really set the standard for what I came to expect from reviews. I fell into and out of photography a lot but I was always left wanting... this, exactly this in whatever other tech things I was interested in.
I learned a lot reading the review, and trusted them a lot. I just recommended them to a sibling a week ago for a camera rental. These days I don't get emotional or attached to websites (or companies) but this one hits, and hard.
I learned a lot reading the review, and trusted them a lot. I just recommended them to a sibling a week ago for a camera rental. These days I don't get emotional or attached to websites (or companies) but this one hits, and hard.
Lots of people here saying they used to visit this site regularly. I'm curious as to what they got out of it (some people say they used to visit the site daily). I can see the value when you're looking to buy a camera, and reading reviews makes sense to me in that very narrow context. Besides that, why visit a camera review site daily? How frequently were people buying cameras? Professional photographers, sure, I can see the appeal.
Research before buying, troubleshooting after buying. I'm not a pro but a diehard enthusiast so most months I don't visit it but when sorting out gear I can spend days on this stuff and most of it is on DPR because that's the only place where people congregate specifically to discuss gear's obscure features and niche applications like astrophotography. Can it do bracketing and interval shooting together? How bad is rolling shutter? Can I adapt this old lens to that body, what about flange distance? Do you want to find out before you shell out $2000 that you have saved up, or after?
I've spent a fair bit of time on the site, but only on the reviews. Sounds like the forums were where the real action is/was.
If you needed it you knew it. You would Google something and the only result would be from a DPR thread. I didn't go to the forum specifically or even registered there.
I enjoyed photography and camera handling tips, explored and troubleshooted my cameras and their countless options, as well as the general discussions as on any forum.
Daily is unrealistic - how many days of a year they have update for a particular interest? - but regularly when you are interested in cameras, following product news even if you are not buying right now, or soon, it is good. To be informed!
I did so several years ago (once or more per week). Now... not so much. Less time for photography. If I had more time, this could have been different.
I mean, I kind of get it. Back when I was looking to buy a camera, I was on the site quite a bit.
For me, the equivalent place to hang out, read reviews or discuss techniques were the forums of home-barista.com in the late 2010s. Lots of coffee innovations now commonplace came from there. I wasn't necessarily looking to buy an espresso machine or a grinder, but it felt like a place where people more knowledgeable than me in an interest of mine were pushing the boundaries, out in the open.
For me, the equivalent place to hang out, read reviews or discuss techniques were the forums of home-barista.com in the late 2010s. Lots of coffee innovations now commonplace came from there. I wasn't necessarily looking to buy an espresso machine or a grinder, but it felt like a place where people more knowledgeable than me in an interest of mine were pushing the boundaries, out in the open.
As a relic and few remaining photo enthusiast I will not buy any photo or related gear from amazon.com anymore. End of story. 23 years I've been on dpreview always daily. I loved watching dpreviewTV too. (doubt the 'Camera Store' in Calgary will be able to take them back)
This is ridiculous for a company as rich and huge as amazon. Go shut down IMDB next so I won't buy any movies from you anymore either.
This is ridiculous for a company as rich and huge as amazon. Go shut down IMDB next so I won't buy any movies from you anymore either.
This is likely a deliberate blow to Google. Web search for detailed camera reviews will suffer . The remnant traffic will hit Amazon
Com product page.
In years past this was one of my favorite sites (from before the Amazon acquisition). Then A few years ago they blocked one of my posts. I don't remember the specifics, probably I included a link to another site. Anyway suffice to say the post wasn't commercial or spammy or negative. I deleted my account and never visited the site again. It was quite hard to delete my account iirc.
I really hope Amazon considers spinning off DPreivew.
This was one of the best sites ever, if you were into photography, or worked at an imaging company (both, in my case).
I'll miss their detailed analyses.
I'll miss their detailed analyses.
Wow, that sucks. I had a deep parasocial relationship with Chris and Jordan. Hope they continue their youtube content somewhere else.
Damn, the forums were useful in debugging some problems I had with old inkjet paper. Got a nice history lesson about old HP papers.
There’s a larger story about consolidation on the web and longstanding franchises getting folded into others are going dark.
The economics of cameras have changed but I fear that the market for independent reviews has cratered and made it much more difficult get honest unbiased information.
I checked: I’ve been active on DPreview for 19 years.
The economics of cameras have changed but I fear that the market for independent reviews has cratered and made it much more difficult get honest unbiased information.
I checked: I’ve been active on DPreview for 19 years.
[deleted]
Very sad to hear this, such a gem of a site with so much in depth professional camera reviews.
I can't imagine this even registers anywhere on Amazon's financial statements, such lack of care for the commons to decide to just close this down (not that I'd except anything more really of that company).
I can't imagine this even registers anywhere on Amazon's financial statements, such lack of care for the commons to decide to just close this down (not that I'd except anything more really of that company).
Wait what? How is it possible considering that the site is one of the most well-known resources for camera/lens reviews?
"The site will remain active until April 10, and the editorial team is still working on reviews and looking forward to delivering some of our best-ever content. "
Are they taking it offline too?
"The site will remain active until April 10, and the editorial team is still working on reviews and looking forward to delivering some of our best-ever content. "
Are they taking it offline too?
Goes to show nothing lasts forever. Sites like dpreview were great, but probably not monetizing like it did in the earlier days of the web. People get their superficial reviews from Amazon product pages and silly "top 10" sites and don't really care for the indepth analysis.
I wonder if this will affect the YouTube channel I love, Chris and Jordan!
just reading the petapixel article: it does :(
just reading the petapixel article: it does :(
Coincidentally, Petapixel is bringing Chris and Jordan on under their YouTube channel, so they will be back in May
This is absolutely shocking. Shutting down the site for DSLR enthusiasts. Just ... amazing.
I learned a lot from DPReview about photography, but I also learned a surprising amount from them about what excellent writing looks like. Sometimes I read long reviews about cameras that I wasn't even interested in just because the writing was so good.
ArchiveTeam are starting a project to put this on archive.org, I expect they will welcome help.
https://wiki.archiveteam.org/index.php/DPReview
https://wiki.archiveteam.org/index.php/DPReview
What does help look like?
Pastebin lists of URLs that you know of and send the links to them to the IRC channel.
There may also be a bunch of coding to do, I don't know enough about ArchiveTeam to tell what needs doing, but its probably either URL enumeration or similar.
Also because of rate limits, the job will need a lot of IP addresses. These will be gotten by individual users running the Warrior. So if you have a suitable machine/network for that, please take a look:
https://wiki.archiveteam.org/index.php/Warrior
There may also be a bunch of coding to do, I don't know enough about ArchiveTeam to tell what needs doing, but its probably either URL enumeration or similar.
Also because of rate limits, the job will need a lot of IP addresses. These will be gotten by individual users running the Warrior. So if you have a suitable machine/network for that, please take a look:
https://wiki.archiveteam.org/index.php/Warrior
I don't understand why they can't just keep it online as a static site.
That stinks. I was just using them in the past few weeks researching new lenses.
Been reading since 2008 or so, after I started playing around with old DSLRs and posited an upgrade to a D200. Will be a ad to see it go. One of the few websites I still check daily.
Hopefully somebody builds an archive at least.
Hopefully somebody builds an archive at least.
Well that is a shame!
That site is a part of industry and digital photography history!
The incredible rise of the dSLR and digital compact cameras was astonishing. Then to have the industry smashed by the iPhone and Android is equally so.
That site is a part of industry and digital photography history!
The incredible rise of the dSLR and digital compact cameras was astonishing. Then to have the industry smashed by the iPhone and Android is equally so.
With all the data that is available on DPReview one could have made a nice product. Something like the IMDB for movies or Discogs for music releases. It is sad to see that it should just be closed down …
I'm working on something similar to that (https://cameralenspicker.com)
If they're really gonna shut down, I'd better backup their site and maybe use an AI summarized version of their content for my site.
If they're really gonna shut down, I'd better backup their site and maybe use an AI summarized version of their content for my site.
I'm actually proposing that we do!
Hope there is someone inside current DPreview web team who is going to put complete site (codebase, db, storage) on torrent... That would be really nice (run DPreview locally in docker). :)
Sucks. Got a great advice on the camera there. Loved the YT videos. I doubt it'll be the end, though, as there seems that there's still need for such site (or at least I hope so).
A shame. DPReview is hands down the most methodical and thorough review platform for digital cameras. I wonder if there's enough time to mirror the content on such short notice.
When I was a camera buyer this was the site to go to if you wanted the best information and opinions. Shame to see it go but the camera market now isnt what it was 15 or 20 years ago.
What is required to transition the site to community ownership?
Wow; had no idea that Amazon purchased DPreview. End of an era.
Just wondering, How much is Dpreview actually worth and what is the cost of operating it?
This is sad as we continue to see old, professional, decent online publishing decline.
This is sad as we continue to see old, professional, decent online publishing decline.
Why not find a buyer? Plenty of traffic and monetization
Why shut the site down? Why not spin it off? I'm sure it could survive as an ad-supported site, as it used to before being taken over by Amazon.
It’s not exaggerated to say DPReview is an important bit of history. Wonder if anyone will go archive them before it’ll vanish forever?
It’s really sad.
It’s really sad.
I'm guessing (but only have anecdotal info) that Amazon more broadly is taking the broom to many little things.
I'm not surprised but sad. They were amazing. To the point at which I wondered how they were profitable.
Why does amazon even own Dpreview.com?
This is great sadness, especially now that Mirorless and DSLR are picking up in popularity again.
I have such fond memories of searching and reading to choose my next lens maybe a 1.5 decades ago.
Would it be possible to freeze the site in place? Is it archived by the IA and the Wayback Machine?
What a shame. I'm by no means a photographer but I found their reviews incredibly helpful.
This is somewhat of a shock. Hopefully this does not bode ill for the future of camera technology.
I don't think I'll miss it. This is what happens when you sell out to Amazon, haha.
maybe time for some enterprising/interested individual at https://www.reddit.com/r/DataHoarder/ to start going through...
As someone working for a slightly older, different language competitor: ouch.
Is there more context? Or any un/official reason behind the decision?
History need the site info to be kept.
dpreview was my main source for getting into photography. I was a faithful reader for many years.
Major bummer. What a great resource.
"No such bucket" error?
You know what they say: Capitalism Breeds Innovation! /s
Definitely sad as this is a site that has been around and is/was an important early website.
However I don't really think it's much of a loss for photography. DPreview was always pushing the whole equipment acquisition as the goal part of photography that always seems so weird. They would regularly talk about how you needed some new camera and willfully ignore alteration to your technique that got better results without needing the new equipment. Their forums and comments were always ultra dramatic and controversial with all kinds of brand bashing & cheerleading and other stuff that had little to do with photography.
I think it was OK at first as all the tech was new, as time went on it became more and more counterproductive.
I actually think smartphones getting people off the train of ever fancier cameras every few years actually helped photography due to:
- Better UI
- don't need to relearn a new camera constantly
- Always have the phone, so everyone got more practice
- Forced use of prime lenses made more people start moving around to frame their photos
- People started to forget about the tool and just use it
I'm still holding a pretty high value amount of camera gear, probably higher value than any other hobby I have. But it doesn't get used as much, and I"m constantly thinking of selling it off. I guess a lot of that being a result of no longer really caring about the specific types of photos the expensive camera gear facilitates.
However I don't really think it's much of a loss for photography. DPreview was always pushing the whole equipment acquisition as the goal part of photography that always seems so weird. They would regularly talk about how you needed some new camera and willfully ignore alteration to your technique that got better results without needing the new equipment. Their forums and comments were always ultra dramatic and controversial with all kinds of brand bashing & cheerleading and other stuff that had little to do with photography.
I think it was OK at first as all the tech was new, as time went on it became more and more counterproductive.
I actually think smartphones getting people off the train of ever fancier cameras every few years actually helped photography due to:
- Better UI
- don't need to relearn a new camera constantly
- Always have the phone, so everyone got more practice
- Forced use of prime lenses made more people start moving around to frame their photos
- People started to forget about the tool and just use it
I'm still holding a pretty high value amount of camera gear, probably higher value than any other hobby I have. But it doesn't get used as much, and I"m constantly thinking of selling it off. I guess a lot of that being a result of no longer really caring about the specific types of photos the expensive camera gear facilitates.
100% this.
Not only will I not miss it, I'm glad it's going, I found the reviews to be extended advertising for camera manufacturers and retailers, and the forums were packed with know-nothings arguing over cameras they'd never used.
Not only will I not miss it, I'm glad it's going, I found the reviews to be extended advertising for camera manufacturers and retailers, and the forums were packed with know-nothings arguing over cameras they'd never used.
It feels like this kind of layoff is part of an end of an era. Amazon used to NEVER cancel projects that customers were using. They just straight up Did. Not. Do. It. I once had to get approval from my VP's VP because we wanted to turn off a product with eleven daily users. 11. The number after ten.
A whole lot more than eleven people used DPReview, and they provided a service that I'm not sure is well replicated from other sources. A loss for the internet, and it makes me sad that these kinds of quasi-public-good projects are getting canned across the industry.
I get that big companies are not retirement homes for nerds but... with as much profit as the profit centers bring in, there was a little wiggle room for passion projects. Now it feels like that wiggle room is being squeezed right out of the industry as we all brace for the recession that hasn't quite shown up yet.