Goodbye, Cameras (2013) | Hacker News Reader

Goodbye, Cameras (2013)

newyorker.com

29 pointsdonohoe46 comments

I'm a shoot-on-the-run travel photographer. If I had to guess I probably have less than 5 seconds to setup and take the average shot. With a "real" camera, you can get all the knobs and buttons and such down to muscle memory and with a few manipulations usually get set to something you want. After taking something like 100,000 photos with my current camera, I barely even look at it to get it set how I want for a shot.

I've tried, really tried to get into the habit of using the camera I have, my phone camera. It's a decent 13MP, f2.2 camera with lots of familiar settings, but it takes so long to set up a shot with any of the camera apps I've tried that I usually miss what I want. Or there's some kind of weird "processing" delay after I shoot where the sensor stays on long after I've taken the shot and I end up with a blurry stupid mess.

With my real camera, I'd say that I'm probably really happy with about 1% of the shots I make, and decently happy with about 5%. With all the phones I've used, those number easily get cut by a fifth.

The workflow is also, for some reason, fussier with my phone than my camera. I'm usually traveling overseas when I shoot, so internet access is spotty, and I can't wait for my phone to sync over some craptastic Italian hotel wi-fi. Popping an SD card into my computer to transfer a day's shots off is much quicker and easier. (and yes, I've toyed around with just connecting up my phone to my computer to copy off of, but there's usually some kind of fuss over it being seen as a USB drive so I can copy off of).

Also, bokeh, I can get such beautiful creamy effortless bokeh with my long lens, and those photos look omg fantastic most of the time. My phone at best requires me to get right up on something and then I just get a blur on everything else. Whatever optical magic is happening in my camera, filters in photoshop just don't make up for it.

I'm thankful to always be able to get a picture with my phone, as I'm not always going to lug around my DSLR all day. I'm also thankful it can do certain dark-area shots better than my DSLR(my iPhone is f/2.2 and my kit lens is f/3.5). But without the ability to go full manual and keep the shutter open among other settings for beautiful night time shots, or to switch up a lens and capture something from far-out with my 300mm telephoto, there's no way I'm giving up my DSLR.

have you try photo-stacking? Even star trace can be done beautifully.

If you mean photostacking to get HDR-style photos on a DSLR, I'm familiar with the concept but I don't have Photoshop to play around with. Most of the situations that I find myself dealing with high-contrast light, where I'd want to use HDR, tend to involve those which I don't have a lot of time to set up and capture multiple shots(i.e. selfies(yeah I know) with my SO in the shade of a tree with a great view behind us).

Not sure what you mean by star trace - are you referring to something like this? [0]

[0] http://www.dimijianimages.com/More-page1/star-trails-Botswan...

If you have gimp, there are a couple ways of doing HDR there as well. For quick and dirty stuff, I found the exposure blend plugin [1] to work pretty decently. For more complicated stuff, doing the exposure masking yourself [2] also leads to real good results. As far as speed, there are a few apps out there that will let you bracket and do an automatic hdr sequence out there if you have a phone with an IR diode, yeah it means fumbling with two devices, but the results would almost certainly be well worth it.

[1] http://tir.astro.utoledo.edu/jdsmith/code/exposure_blend.php

[2] http://www.instructables.com/id/HDR-photos-with-the-GIMP/

Thanks for the links! I'll have to try them out. I've worked with exposure bracketing before so I get the idea, I just never really tried doing the parts thereafter in software. I'll have to give this a try soon.

I also cart a "real" camera around with me when I go on vacation. My phone camera is pretty awesome for what it is, but nothing compares to a dedicated camera.

Bokeh is important. Low-light performance is important. RAW capture is important. High burst rate is important (I'm often taking pictures of kids--my "real" cameras take 5-6 FPS in burst mode, all at full RAW resolution). Real optical zoom and stabilization is important. Being able to control ISO, aperture, and exposure time is important. Having a flash you can bounce off the ceiling is important (and no, a phone flash isn't NEARLY strong enough). Time to first shot is important (my camera can take a picture within about 600ms of turning it on in programmed-auto mode).

I have RAW capture on my phone if I use the right app, and some control over exposure, but none of the other options.

If I want to document something and I don't have a real camera handy, sure I'll pull out my phone.

Android 5 gets the time between pulling the phone out of my pocket to first shot down to 7 seconds, which still isn't nearly fast enough. My old Canon 10D took 3 seconds to first shot, and I often missed shots as a result.

When traveling I usually carry around a micro-four-thirds camera with a couple of lenses; very small, very fast, and great low-light performance (as well as all the other features listed above).

> my camera can take a picture within about 600ms of turning it on in programmed-auto mode

Yes, thank you for mentioning this. I have an older Nikon I get great shots with and from power on to picture is about as fast as I can raise the viewfinder to my eye. There's just no comparison to any phone I've tried and most point-n-shoots are about 2-3x as slow.

With the manual modes coming into Android and IOS recently, the weird "processing" delay will be gone and there isn't really anything to justify showing off your Leica in public.

Even if true, why should obsolete technology be banished from the public sphere?

Should I avoid being seen in public with my mechanical wristwatch? My mechanical metronome? My 2010 Mac Book Pro? My 1963 Fender Jazz Bass?

I'd go further and say, mechanical knobs dials and switches can be operated without looking at them. with touch devices, i have to look at them, both to find what i want to do, and verify what i wanted to happen, happened.

Fundamentally, they're not obsolete. These are features that can't be duplicated without some clever additional device.

Welcome to HN, where I have heard sincere claims that someone who pulled out a "Thinkpad Thinkpad from 10 years ago in a full Starbucks if you like, but most people wouldn't enjoy doing it - and even apologize for it, if they got curious stares."

From: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6322397

The lenses your phone has, made by the lowest bidder, will not match a good zeiss lens, or even soviet lenses. You'll also be stuck with whatever the phone maker has decided is a good enough aperture because there's not an easy way to change the aperture size on a device that small. So the depth of field will always be exactly the same. No tiny apertures leading to crisp fields where everyone's in focus, no wide open images where the one, and only one, object you want to study is in focus. So yes, there are quite a few justifications for a discrete camera even after phones fix their processing delays. A smartphone will displace the snapshot camera used 10 years ago, but it's not going to be physically possible to replace the versatility of a changeable lens camera.

Even the Nokia Lumia "42" mp phone-camera was just far, far too laggy to use. Microsoft was on the right track, requiring a dedicated camera button (they later killed this off). But the software and everything else meant I'd still miss most shots.

> Whatever optical magic is happening in my camera

... is called 9 mechanical aperture blades. Apertures are magic, until you study optics and it suddenly all makes sense.

After a brief stint as an photojournalist when I was younger, leaving that behind to eventually work at Google, my budget recently allowed me to pick up a Leica X.

I never really expected to love photography again, until I had the chance to use one of these. Its everything a phone isnt... purpose-made, focused with extremely high quality image reproduction.

Photography as a documentation process (I was here with these people) will probably be completely taken over by the phone. But photography as a hobby or a form of craftsmanship will never be taken over by the phone. Its a joy to use a custom tool like the X -- and Leica is now making a great deal of profit by selling the 'opposite of a phone camera' to millions of people wanting one.

The new Leica Q waiting list is months long and the vast majority of the buyers are likely not professionals. Leica has uncovered for now, a lot of people who don't want to use phones.

If I could afford a Leica I would own one.

Thankfully Fuji has been more than willing to fill the gap for me with my X-Pro1/X100S. Shoot raw, all the controls I need are there on the body, and no bullshit.

Simple, enjoyable, and high quality.

My phone can't match that and it never will.

I would argue that when you look at the photos published by your friends on Facebook, you can always tell photos shot by smartphone from photos shot on DSLRs. Despite Facebooks compression, the difference is quite stark.

Also context has to be taken into account. When most people are shooting with a smartphone, they are "collecting information". When people are using DSLR, they are "making art" .

The biggest difference probably is who's behind the camera. People that buy a DSLR will also read a bit about how to take good pictures and practice.

I've seen some iPhone 6 pictures on Facebook that blur the line, IMO. I'm sure someone with a good eye could spot some areas with lesser contrast or detail, but if they'd claimed that a professional photographer had taken these a few years ago, I don't think anyone would question it.

Some my family uploaded in the last week (albeit tiny files with funky artifacts) https://www.dropbox.com/s/qbw8bnbucujvaqa/image1.JPG?dl=0 https://www.dropbox.com/s/ytethfobkiar308/image2.JPG?dl=0

These are great shots, but there's something about them that says "not a DSLR" to me. I'm not sure if it's the color reproduction or the slight chromatic aberration on everything (the clouds in the top half of the landscape scream at me and the hard edge transitions from the child to the chair and from the chair to the wall make everything look like photoshop layers).

But I also think you're right, 90% of people won't notice or care, and that's good enough. MP3 does a similar kind of reproductive job and 90% of people don't care either. It's "good enough" and it lets everybody have cameras on them at all times and that's what's important. You won't miss important moments.

I do find it interesting that the transition from digital camera to phone camera is at least as noteworthy as the one from film to digital. I've had a film camera in my lifetime, and the huge win with digital is that I can snap half a dozen pictures for every one that might turn out. But the huge win with digital is that I more often actually do the one useful thing to be done with photos: share them.

We took many thousands of digital camera photos, of which a vanishingly small fraction ever left the camera. By contrast, photos I snap on my phone end up in text messages, on Twitter, attached to emails, attached to bug reports, used in presentations, or otherwise turned into something useful.

And yet, physical camera size still imposes some limitations. Aperture size affects the amount of light, and in extreme cases we are close to counting individual photons. Aperture size also affects sharpness, with smaller apertures providing less resolution. Cameras are dead, but not to enthusiasts or pros.

Phones will never fully replace cameras; though I concede hobbyist photographers can get decent results out of a phone these days. But anyone trying to create a unique image just has so many more options to adjust with a DSLR (and even more options than that if you shoot with film).

Unless you're a professional or doing "art" photography, these days you really don't need much more than a cameraphone. And even then, a 5-year-old midrange DSLR with a few lenses is more than enough gear. But the images from a phone just don't look as rich, or have as much dynamic range thanks to the small sensor. They can do some neat tricks to approximate an SLR 80% of the time, but for the other 20% you still need a real camera.

Phones will keep eating cameras until only the high end cameras are left for pros, similar to what's happening with desktops and phones/tablets.

"Good enough" really is good enough.

Agree completely. But photography has a strong nostalgia quotient with old gear. A 40-year-old Hasselblad that takes amazing photos, and is worth more than it was 10 years ago.

What's also happening is that DSLRs are taking market share from even more high-end pro cameras (Leica, Hasselblad digital) and video cameras due to their more approachable form factor. So "good enough" can cut both ways (though the loss from the hobbyist market dropping out is far bigger than the gain from the high-end).

Pros and prosumers. What we're seeing is a real hollowing out of the middle. DSLRs and other interchangeable lens cameras are still selling pretty well and there's still some business at the high-end of the P&S space (differentiated by bigger zooms or larger sensors etc.) or other specialty cameras (e.g. waterproof/ruggedized). But there's not a lot of reason to buy a cookie-cutter low-end or midrange P&S these days. I use my interchangeable lens camera but it's been a few months since I've bothered to take my Canon S100 (highish end but older P&S) anyplace even though it's very compact.

Another example: GPS units. I have a handheld that cost less than my phone, runs 48+ hours continuously on a set of two AA batteries (that I can replace in about 30 seconds) and it floats and operates in water and is physically indestructible, and its very sensitive in heavy foliage. I almost never use it anymore. The phone is a complete piece of junk in every comparison, but its usually with me and map upgrades don't cost $125, so ... Once in awhile I load it up for a big geocaching binge or when camping/hiking, that's about it.

I have a very nice DSLR, well a micro 4/3 (Lumix G3) if pedantic, which can take amazing photos, even with my limited skills. But these days I use it maybe twice per year as it is never in my pocket.

99% of all my photos are with my iPhone 6+ including the best one of my daughters first school day last week. I took some with the DSLR at home, but the best light (and pose) happened on the walk to the school which I was not going to lug a great camera with me on.

Maybe I would use my DSLR more if I got an Eye-fi card or similar so it can automatically sync to Dropbox/iCloud but for now it is reserved for the occasional event only.

You just need to carry it, keep it in the nap sack or brief case or whatever, make a point of getting it out. Practice with it... You sort of want a mid-range beater at first, you don't want your dream camera, you want one that you know you'll beat up and replace.

Now the camera industry isn't the fastest moving, but all this means is DSLR and pocket cameras need/will to get better. I can see the low-end pocket cameras will disappear; phones are effectively that. I just can't see the various camera companies going down without a fight and arguably the people that buy and use $4000 cameras aren't the same market is those the buy galaxy phones. The bottom is getting better at a rapid clip though...

You'll never get good bokeh from a tiny telephone lens. A big (and fast) lens is needed for that. There are laws of optics that will ensure cameras will never disappear ;-)

Maybe not physically but novel sensors (depth sensors, multi-camera arrays) and image processing algorithms make it possible to simulate these effects to a degree that would satisfy most users.

"The best camera is the camera you have with you."

I sometimes carried a digital camera (or before that a film camera) on vacations. I carry a phone with a camera everywhere I go.

A small lense + depth awareness (via IR array, for example) can produce beautiful virtual bokeh, on par with $2000 lenses. All cellular phones will have this capability in the near future.

Instagram became hugely popular by letting people take pictures that were already kinda crappy and crap them up even further with a variety of noisy, wince-inducing novelty filters before passing them along. So subtlety and nuance are qualities that most people who take pictures have already left way, way behind.

The reason a smartphone cannot compete with DSLRs yet is because of exposure settings. With a phone you always capture the light of the subject, while what you really want to do if you want to capture a feeling or atmosphere is to set the exposure according to the light source and let the subject reflect that light and atmosphere. If I had this granular control of exposure however, I would have no problem to ditch my DSLR.

I was lucky to try iPhone 6s Plus this weekend. We compared its photos with iPhone 6 and Galaxy edge as well as a point and shoot camera. The new iPhone took nicer photos. The "Live Photo" thing was also a fun addition.

I'm not saying it can replace your DSLR but it's getting more and more unnecessary to buy a separate camera with these mighty phones we have.

When I use my Nokia phone camera I get nice results. When I use my wife's D750 (she's a pro, the 810 and D4's are to heavy) I am astonished at the images it produces, especially with a fast 50mm or 85mm lens. The lens is probably the thing, it fills pictures with light like breath. But - others probably have other opinions...

This was the nodder for me: "cameras transitioning into what they were bound to become: networked lenses"

Hmm. I agree that the pixel count on phones is crazy and making a lot of cameras redundant these days, but it is still all about the glass when it comes to creating high-end images. There's a reason why Zeiss, Canon, Cooke etc have lenses in the 10s of thousands of dollars mark.

Indeed, more pixels doesn't necessarily mean more quality. A Canon 400D (10 Mpixel) with a kit lens has only an effective quality of 6 Mpixel.

Just curious, how do you figure that? I have a Nikon D90 with an 18-105mm f/3.5-f/5.6 lens.

Lenses have published MTF specs which you can fudge into optical resolution specs. It's a bit subjective, but it works. (MTF curves carry a lot of information, and squashing it into a single lp/mm resolution means drawing a cutoff line on a graph which is inherently curved.) Sometimes you publish a couple different resolution values, for different contrasts. The actual MTF curves are more objective and directly reflect system measurements, which is why those are the ones published, instead of resolution specs which are easier to interpret. You can do the tests yourself at home fairly easily.

And more pixels on a small sensor means bad news in low light. Just see what modern DSLRs a capable of at crazy ISO—phone cameras are nowhere near.

I drag a Nikon D3100 everywhere. I've had some amazing shots from that even though it's a cheap DSLR. 50mm Nikor DX lens keeps it light.

Even the best phones make a poor camera. Laggy, awful dynamic range, awful autofocus and unpredictable.

Going from Nikon D70 to the GX1 was significant downgrade in terms of image quality.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com