Hacker News Reader

Comment by aparticulate | Hacker News Reader

The largest market of photography dilettentes (like me) switched to phone. Most people just want a shitload of bokeh (real or software), sharp wide angle without a lot of distortion and ability to zoom without losing too much detail.

Besides, most Good Photographs are 90% technique/framing/instinct/editing NOT hardware. (Just get closer to your subject.) "The camera you have with you..", too.

So, that only really leaves Pro wedding, sports, and, journalists and that just isn't nearly as big a market as the golden age of late 00s DSLR Flickr hobbyism

View on HN

This isn't about killing off interchangeable lens cameras that look like DSLRs, its about killing off actual DSLRs

Theyre just getting rid of the inferior mirror technology, the thing that flips in front of the sensor, not conceding to phones

The entire sony a7 line, for example, is still going to be made

its kind of a troll discussion but its a good thing to happen because SLRs have been associated with a look or form factor too long and its time for that ambiguity and term to die.

Definitely true. I did photography as a hobby, but phones match or exceed the performance in many cases now. For example, low-light mode on phones outperforms older entry-level canon DSLRs (T3/T6) by default without having to twiddle with the settings. Of course, you could get better pictures with these cameras, but it takes time and a really good lense! So in other words, it’s just not ideal for quick pictures around the house.

I think there are two areas where phone cameras have a lot of room for improvement: sharpness and landscape.

By sharpness, I mean that if you zoom into any phone picture, it falls apart very quickly. There is a lot of software optimization hiding how a small sensor can’t actually do that well in the details.

By landscape, I mean if you take a picture of a mountain or object in the far distance, you’ll barely be able to see it in the phone because the lenses are so wide. It really makes nature pictures underwhelming :)

> low-light mode on phones outperforms older entry-level canon DSLRs

Shouldn't you compare with modern entry-level DSLRs? Otherwise of course, you are possibly skipping all technological improvements that DSLR cameras might have received over time.

There isn't a real comparison with low light mode on phones vs what the best SLRs can do at high ISO at night.

Phones are now using a combination of photo stacking and HDR in order to achieve pretty ridiculous low-light results.

You could certainly sit there with an SLR and bracket half a dozen shots and then stack/HDR them in post, but that is a lot more work and can't be uploaded to facebook/instagram seconds later ;)

I only agree on the seconds later and that's where it ends. Unless you are shooting for social media even old dslrs with a good lens outperform any phone in terms of final output. It takes offline processing but the result is almost always better. Phone photos definitely look nice but generally look nice on phone screens, zoom in a bit and all the magic is gone.

I just try to keep things in perspective, it's pretty wild how many pictures I took with my iPhone 4S because it finally had a reliably good camera.

If I can't take high quality pictures with a iPhone 12, that's a creative issue, not hardware. Low light capture is better than my DSLR ever was without a tripod, also.

Don’t get me wrong, it’s impressive that I can take a photo of my moving baby in dark situations and my iPhone will do image stacking to get an acceptable image - but it’s just that, acceptable. On a phone. Blow any of those up and they’re a smeary, noise-reduced mess.

I’d rather shoot at high ISO on one of my cameras and have some grain.

I think the point is more that someone who felt they needed an entry-level DSLR a few years ago can get better performance from their phone today, and doesn't need any camera.

>Shouldn't you compare with modern entry-level DSLRs?

Not if the quality of those older entry-level DSLRs was already good enough for most people, and even good enough to win photo awards, print and hang in galleries in many cases.

>Otherwise of course, you are possibly skipping all technological improvements that DSLR cameras might have received over time.

Considering the above, who cares, if their current phones already do a fine job as far as they are concerned?

In 2000-2005-up to around 2010 or so, the era of "potato camera phones", that wasn't yet the case, so casual Joes and Janes still bought the entry-level DSLRs of the time.

Nawww, you're missing the market here.

2000-2012ish, Casual Joes and Janes were buying Point and Shoots. Most folks only bought DSLRs if they were actually doing it as a hobby or decided to take Photography as an elective in college.

At the time, DSLRs were a worse video experience for casual users, if they supported video at all. Point and Shoots were anything from pocket sized to 'DSLR' sized and typically (but not always) accordingly scaled in relative capability.

In any case, Point and shoots are what got killed in the last decade, or rather, got moved to niches. It's still the best option for certain things (e.x. Superzooms like Sony's RX10 IV or Nikon's P1000) Whether DSLRs/MILCs get niched out remains to be seen.

Both comparisons are interesting, IMO.

Phones naturally get replaced every two years or so, for lots of reasons most of which have nothing to do with the cameras.

DSLRs are expected (by me, anyway) to last for decades. Mine was made in 2009 and still looks and functions just as if it was brand new. Since they last so long, lots and lots of people still have DSLRs as old as mine and want to know how they compare to the recent phone camera that they also have.

Yeah, that's always dissapointing. Realistically, this is only an editor issue, no viewer can even zoom into a photo on Instagram etc. Even the sharpest Ansel Adams print is subject to the same JPEG compression artifacts. Not sure if the modern hobbyist/entry level print much these days.

It's still so nice to zoom deep into my crisp old shots.

Ansel Adams and the New Topographics are meant to be seen in a museum. Or at least in a book. Definitely not on Instagram.

These days, those who print their photos are usually:

- Couples after finishing their pre-wedding photo sessions

- Photography enthusiasts. Some even still have their own darkroom.

The rest? Nahh. Printing is a waste of money. We have social medias, which are cheaper and faster.

> who print their photo

Print? Who is even looking at photos after taking them. But photos are also used as input for other graphics that can be printed - which is now also less common for reasons you have already mentioned.

By low light mode on phones I assume you mean image stacking. This requires a stationary subject.

Intrinsically, phones are still far behind simply because of the physics of having a tiny sensor. https://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/COMPS01.HTM has a comparison tool that includes both phones and DSLRs. The newest phone I found was the iPhone 11 from 2019. For comparison, I chose the Canon 40D from 2007 (4 years older than the models you list) as the oldest model with the same test scene available. It's a 2007 cropped sensor DSLR. The shot of the 40D at ISO3200 absolutely destroys the iPhone 11 at ISO2500 (try reading the bottle labels). The 50D from 2008 has a 12800 image available and it still easily beats the iPhone at 2500.

> By low light mode on phones I assume you mean image stacking. This requires a stationary subject.

Which is a misconception. The entire point of stacking in smartphones is to handle lots of movement in a robust way, and it's surprisingly good at that. You can actually perform similar stacking manually for a camera, the algorithms are well known and there are applications to do just that, for example [1]. There's less benefit on a normal-sized sensor since it can perform much better with a single shot as you pointed out, but there are still valid uses for it in certain scenes where even proper cameras struggle, see [2].

[1] https://github.com/martin-marek/hdr-plus-swift

[2] https://www.timothybrooks.com/tech/hdr-plus/

That's the low end of the market basically. It's no different than picking up a cheap compact camera a few decades ago. I had one (a Kodak) and I knew absolutely nothing about photography. Point, click, bring the film roll to the store, and whatever you got back was it. Not very different from giving full control to Apple/Google over the creative outcome. And they do a decent job of course. They do some amazing things with the very limited sensors and lenses that these cameras have. But there are limits to that of course.

Pro cameras start at a few thousand dollars. Clearly not for everyone but they always were that expensive. And that's before you consider the lenses. The type of person that spends 2000 dollar on a lens that only works in very specific situations is never going to be satisfied by an iphone.

Most amateurs with ambition fall into the pro-sumer segment that yearn for more than a cheap lens + sensor in a mobile phone can give you but are not necessarily interested in spending thousands of dollars on their hobby. There are plenty of options for those people. I bought a Fuji X-T30 in 2020; a typical entry level camera for people that like to have some level of control over the whole photo taking process.

It was about the same price as an iphone and it definitely takes better photos if you know what you are doing (and probably even if you don't) because of basic physics. The lenses are bigger and better. Some of the lenses you can buy are actually way more expensive than a typical iphone. Also, the sensor is bigger. It's just more light and information being gathered before destructive post processing happens. And you have more control over the process. Not for everyone. But those people still exist.

You don't have to spend anywhere near that money, though.

When you're spending over 2000 dollars, you're at the point where you're either in a very niche category, or you're paying for convenience.

At 600 dollars, you can get a full-frame Sony A7ii (used). At that point, you can get a 30$ adapter and use manual lenses, and you'll get a very competent collection from 24mm all the way to a 135mm 2.8 for an additional ~500$. This will last you forever, but you won't have any autofocus.

If you want autofocus, you can spend 150$ on a used EF-E adapter, and buy a 50 1.8 for 100$, the venerable 80-200 2.8 for 400$ or so, and a normal zoom for 200-400$ (I got the Tamron 28-75 for 200$). At that point, you'll get essentially any image you could want, at a stellar quality, for 1500$ or so, with autofocus and image stabilization.

Past that point, you're either trying to do something extremely specific, or paying for more convenience. The gear itself will outlast you if you don't do anything stupid with it, and you will get more image quality than you can ask for, and absolute and complete control over every step of the photographic process, for less than the price of an iPhone 13 Pro Max. And if in ten years you get tired of it, you can sell it for at least half the price you paid for it.

>That's the low end of the market basically. It's no different than picking up a cheap compact camera a few decades ago.

It's quite different, market-wise, as in that today that "end of the market" it's 80% smartphones, and the previous "low end of the market" for compacts is as good as dead (and even a big part of the enthusiasts that bought cheaper DSLRs in the 00s and 10s is now content with just a smartphone).

Last year, I was going to buy ~$800 camera. I upgraded my iPhone instead.

I spent <$800 on a DSLR back in 2014 or so, and it still takes better pictures in most situations than the newest iPhone/pixel.

Better in the situations where you are lugging it around, forsight to change lenses etc. I was reminded of a photojournalist who took great shots with an early iPhone to North Korea https://www.npr.org/sections/pictureshow/2013/03/05/17349916... Fidelity doesn't matter that much.

What percentage of pictures do you take using your DLSR versus your phone?

For me, it turned less than 1% versus 99%.

Nearly 80% of the photos that I have taken since 2011 have been on my mirrorless camera that I've only had for nine months. The phone wins when it is all you have and there is something extraordinary to capture, but it has never compelled me to put effort into taking photos like the camera has.

Me too, and that's an important point ... but for the photos I put on my website and still look at later, the proportion is more like 50%.

Approx 1% of photos taken is with the DSLR. But approx 20-25% of quality photos (i.e. those that I share or post) are from the dslr

Until you hate noise. Noise makes phones a non-starter (the sensor is too small). Or until you're in non-standard lighting conditions, like a dark night. A year ago I found a mantis on my balcony[1]. I tried to make photos of it with my phone and my compact camera, and all of them were crap due to noise. Several months later I bought myself a DSLR and now I can take pretty good photos in very different lighting conditions. I plan to go further in that direction still and get myself a full-frame camera to get even better photos.

Also, stabilising a full-blown camera in hands is a lot easier than stabilising a smartphone.

[1]: Mantises aren't really a thing in this part of the world.

I was just reading Master and Commander series of books. There is a great scene where Maturin (the surgeon/naturalist) is taking notes while watching a pair of Mantis's mate; they continue while the female bites off the male's head. Now that's the photo we hope you capture!

Completely agree. My DSLR is mostly gathering dust these days - the things I bought it for that phones could not do well at the time were primarily landscapes, low-light photography, and wildlife. My current phone has a wide angle lens that does a great job with landscapes. Phones over the last few years have gotten very good at low light. DSLRs still win here, but not by enough to make it worth lugging around (with a tripod, too).

Wildlife is my only remaining use case where the DSLR is still the only viable option as I generally can't get very close to the subject. This seems too niche to keep an entire market afloat, though.

I'll also still lug the DSLR out if I have a shot planned out that I want to nail or when I'm asked to take photos of someone's kid. Having the ability to work with raw gives a lot of options for fixing lighting and colors. Today's phones do a fantastic job of getting you 80% of the way there automatically, though.

I find that the experience of taking photos with an actual camera (be it mirrorless or DSLR) is vastly more engaging and enjoyable than with a phone.

I agree entirely. However the experience of lugging around a camera bag is vastly less enjoyable.

Look into something like a Fujifilm X100V or Leica Q2 (depending on your budget)

A camera should be nice and compact, then it won't be a hassle to have it with you.

The problem with modern cameras is they are heavy, bulky, junk build quality, have awful menu systems and don't play nice with your phone or your computer. What a wombo-combo of pain, just to get a nice photo!

If you can afford a Q2, all of those problems are addressed.

Modern cameras are like writing corporate software in Java. Leica Q2 is like writing short programs in Python. Phones are like using Squarespace to build a website.

Hm, I quite like your analogy! I actually just got into photography not too long ago with an R5. Thinking about it now, it really does feel some sorta "corporate." I also considered the fujifilm xt4, all the reviews make me feel as if that'd be a Pythonic kind of camera.

After falling in love with the whole photography universe, I hope one day I can experience the COBOL-like world of film. I did grow up when film was around, in the 90s and all that, but my family was too poor and I only ever messed around with disposable cameras and Polaroids. Polaroids themselves are a whole other insanely awesome universe to explore.

I find the experience of going trough 300 raw images and developing them the worst part of using DSLR and why I prefer modern phones with AI based image processing.

But you can’t argue with dslr results though. And when we talk about pro sport photography, well exactly same demands for large aperture, large and variable focal length, high iso with low noise, fast focusing and fast shooter speeds also apply to us amateurs taking pictures of our kids in poorly lit indoor sport events.

I had a huge backpack full of DSLR gear in the early 2000s. I still have a backlog of unprocessed RAW images I need to get through... =)

If I spent 10hrs a day for 365 days in a row I wouldn’t get through my backlog (easily way over 500k photos), but that’s not really the point. I don’t need to process and post every photo I take, many are either just for me or alternate takes that I might want someday. Looking through photos I took 10 years ago is one of my favorite activities and I often find hidden gems that I had dismissed before in the moment when originally gone through.

I do the same thing, I follow Johnny Harris' method[0] mostly. Basically I pick a random date (or an iOS provided "memory") and go through a bunch of photos related to that event. Then I delete all the useless ones, like the 99 takes I did of a sunset, and just keep the best ones.

[0] https://youtu.be/GLy4VKeYxD4

I find this argument nonsensical. Cameras don't force you to take 300 images, nor shoot RAW. As someone who shoots on film, I hear this all the time from people who try to justify why they shoot on film (...and then blow through ten rolls of Portra).

I should explained that I mostly shoot kids, birthdays and their sport and other events. Strictly on amateur level, but for this kind of occasions it's quite beneficial to take 300 shots since it all happens in the moment and you'll have a lot of misses to end up with 30 keepers.

Also, jpeg straight out of camera can be ok if you're controlling circumstances and have time to take test pictures and adjust parameters. And not change entire scene in a seconds. Once I went to RAW I could never come back. Now you don't have to worry about white balance or even exposure in the heat of moment. It allows you to really save a lot of these shots which would be lost in jpeg. Price you pay is staring in 300 raw images afterwards.

I must admit this affects my desire to use DSLR in the first place. I tend to use only if absolutely necessary.

I dropped to a micro 4/3rds setup for walking around for this very reason. The lightest body and 2-lens setup I could configure was about 5-6lb depending on how many spare batteries I wanted to carry as well.

My 4/3rds setup with flash, 5 lenses, and a few batteries was only 2.2lb. I don't even notice I'm wearing it.

I did this, 2013-2019ish. Unfortunately there has been so little development in m4/3 sensors over this time period that my iPhone has replaced it for all scenarios except occasional extreme-tele. The improvement in quality offered by even the best m43 camera and glass over the latest phones just isn't worth the effort to me anymore at focal lengths below 200mm-ish, or I want to do something that requires a traditional camera "hot shoe" like external lighting.

The latest and greatest m4/3 camera today doesn't really take still pictures any better than an Olympus EM-5 from 2013 (the increase from 16 to 20mp makes little "real world" difference), cellphones improved _enormously_ over the same period. With a modern iPhone, I get an extreme wide angle, "standard" and reasonable portrait focal length lens all in one device, with the files in Lightroom immediately after taking them. Yes you can argue for days about "fokeh" vs the real thing, but m4/3 isn't the platform you want to be on if rich bokeh was your primary objective in the first place. I've also yet to find a three lens kit that covers the range of a modern iPhone I can fit in my jeans pocket too, even in m4/3!

I think in some cases, many people just like the "ritual" of using an interchangeable lens camera as much as they practically get any better images than with a decent phone, which is fine! For some reason it's not fashionable in photograhy circles to admit this, I guess the fear of looking like a dilettante etc.

The 20mp 4/3 sensors have noticeable advantages in dynamic range and high-ISO noise compared to the 16mp sensors. It's not just more pixels. A new ~23mp sensor with further performance improvements should show up this year in the Panasonic GH6 and an unnamed camera from the company formerly known as Olympus, though it's not clear if or when it will make it to more pocket-friendly models.

Perhaps, but I have a Panasonic G9 (20mp) and a EM1 Mk1 (16mp from 2013) the differences, while measurable to some degree in benchmarks, in day to use are really not that noticeable at all. The m4/3 industry relies effectively just on Sony now for sensors as Olympus/Panasonic do not make them, and there is not that much commercial incentive for Sony to invest more - this is why we only get a sensor feature bump when the Sony sensor catalog finally gets a new installment in 17x13mm.

I noticed a big difference going from a Panasonic G7 to a GX9. It gave me a stop more usable ISO and a lot more ability to bring up the shadows when editing.

Obligatory Chase Jarvis quote: “The best camera is the one that you have with you.”

I think the problem here is general purpose phone design/cheap optional cases. I would absolutely love a camera-like industrial design and a real/artificial shutter "snap". I hope this improves

SLRs even more so

Personally I really enjoy doing analog photography. As the feedback loop is very long, technique is important. Also, since the number of pictures is limited, I always have to ask myself the question: is there actually a picture here?

Analog has all the tactile aspects I miss from DSLR and more, I definitely take more analog than I used to.

I also think there's a noticable gulf between fake analog and real, even on screen. The most skillful photoshop creations still looks totally off to me.

Phone + an old analog camera is an incredible setup imo

It’s true that most people switched because convenience and marginal cost usually beats quality. That’s how we went from landlines to “can you hear me now.” But I have the latest iPhone and a low end SLR and the SLR blows it out of the water for photos of my kids. All but one of the photos on our wall are from the SLR even though 90% of our overall photos are from the SLR.

>Most people just want a shitload of bokeh (real or software)

Software bokeh isn't really that good though. It's especially apparent with things like hair, which is unfortunately a lot of the edge area if you're taking portraits.

It drives me crazy too. I think iPhone portrait mode has really rough results but people seem to use it. Honestly most DSLR bokeh photos were bad ten years ago too. (for different reasons)

Take a look at Google image results for "bokeh". These are not exactly Kubrick-tier bokeh. https://www.google.com/search?q=bokeh&sxsrf=AOaemvIRaTBieq-l...

ie hobbyists have very low standards.

> Software bokeh isn't really that good though.

I think one of the problems is they don't simulate it correctly. They segment the person with a neural net and then blur the rest by a constant arbitrary amount.

Ideally it should estimate the depth map of the scene and simulate different amounts of blur outside the DOF.

Here's a RealSense-based software bokeh I wrote that interpolates between 2 levels of computed bokeh. If I didn't have to render at 30fps I would actually just compute it on a per-pixel basis.

https://github.com/dheera/bokeh-camera

The thing is, the people who use software bokeh don't care about how bad it looks. They see a blurred background and they are happy.

And then people like me come along, point out how bad it looks and all the flaws present and their view on quality of software blur is changed (at least for some time).

I agree. DSLR manufacturers never really took phone camera seriously. This hit me when my SO decided to buy a new IPhone over a Sony alpha for her YT channel.

And Canon and Nikon is particular were/are mostly hardware companies who catered to professionals desiring complete creative control. Sure, they stuck on all the various auto modes for the casual users who wanted to use a "real" camera which in all fairness gave them better results than the alternatives even if they weren't exercising a fraction of the camera's capabilities.

However, with the last few generations of smartphones, it's really pretty silly to be using a DSLR with a kit lens on full auto. Even food porn or snapshots in low light--which was one of the last day-to-day things that phones really didn't do well--is remarkably good on phones these days.

There's a huge segment of prosumers missing from your list - aspiring content creators. If you look at the numbers someone like Peter McKinnon is putting up on youtube, you realize there are millions of people out there learning how to use mirrorless + DSLR kits for things like twitch, youtube, ecommerce, etc.

Another big market for dslrs is studio photography. I haven’t come across speedlite/studio strobes that can sync with a phone (tbh I haven’t looked either!)

A pro camera with a speedlite pointed at a white ceiling world produce amazing indoor pics everytime, unlike a phone which would be dependent on ambient light quality.

Phones have surely gotten better, but boy have they gotten bigger. The iPhone Pro Max is more than halfway to the weight of a X100V, and only 100 grams lighter than my Olympus. I still like having a small phone with me all the time and a camera sometimes. It's nice to not have to have the greatest camera phone available because it's all you're going to shoot with.

Plus, phones are just never going to manage decent shots on any focal length that's not wide as hell. I know they have long lenses now, but they are crazy slow and useless in anything but direct sunlight. I mostly take photos of people and almost never choose to shoot wide. Phones cut me right out of how I want to shoot. I've actually started putting a long prime on my camera and using my phone at the same time if I want a landscape. Works pretty darn well.

There is still also a niche market for underwater photographers. Housings are available for some smartphones now but the photos are mostly crap due to small sensors and poor integration with external strobes.

Go Pro results look stunning, come in tiny housing, affordable. Anything more elaborate is no longer hobby-tier.

Nope. Go Pro still images look terrible once you go deeper and lose a bit of natural light. They don't really work with external strobes either. But for video they do fine as long as you have good lights.

The preferred hobby tier underwater still camera is now the Olympus TG-6 with a cheap plastic housing.

Sorry but no - if by underwater you mean diving, and not putting your hand 0.5m underwater or similar depth snorkeling. Gopro has tiny sensor and crappy lens and it shows, even if you set the bar of quality as low as phone screen-only.

You can end up with reasonably nice pictures from time to time, I've ended up with dozens from all activities I've mentioned (and that's using gopro hero 2 with custom housing in the past, now newer variants), but you will lose many more moments due to rather poor device performance.

Depends on the hobby. Maybe some people have niche hobbies like using ULF cameras the size of a box truck.

The key word is niche. The area that these companies can ONLY afford to cater to. The Canon Rebel users of yore, taking slightly out-of-focus holiday snaps are totally lost to phones.

Don't forget wildlife photography. I have a Canon 100-400mm lens on a DSLR and wildlife photography with it is a really rewarding hobby. Don't use it for anything else really.

Yeah, I do wildlife photography as a hobby. Cellphone cameras will never catch up, especially bird photography. That 100-400 lens will bring subjects 1/4 mile+ away right in front of you in great detail. Software can't make up for the gap in data that sensors and lenses bring.

I joke that the number of photos I take is inversely proportional to the expense of my camera system. I shoot most of my photos on my iPhone these days. I sometimes use my Fuji mirrorless system that I have a few lenses for if I want to be a little more serious on a trip--or I'm taking photos for an event, and I have a Full-frame Canon with both very wide and very long glass that I rarely use these days.

What exactly is a "good photograph"? Are we purely talking about the artistic aspects (composition, etc.) and disregarding the technical ones (sharpness, etc.)?

I've seen some amazing photos done with crappy cameras (or phones - i.e. an old iPhone4). But I imagine the same photographer would take much better photos with a brand new DSLR (or mirrorless!) than with an iPhone4.

...again, unless the term "better" used in the context of these kind of discussions is supposed to disregard the technical aspects of a photograph.

If I hired a top photographer big bucks to photograph my wedding, and he/she showed up with an iPhone4 saying that they are confident with it, I'd be very wary...

40x optical zoom point-and-shoot, baby! The only reason I have a dedicated camera anymore. I keep it in a little belt pouch when I'm traveling or even hiking. I want to capture moments, but I don't want it to be my hobby.

Agreed. I like phones for photography, the image quality and the optimizations, features are great, but they have shitty ergonomics compared to a real camera. The thing with the phone is that it's always on me and that's what matters in the end.

I used many cameras, film and digital from compacts to one of the best 6x7 medium format rangefinder. Just pulled the trigger on a Leica DG 15 mm for micro four thirds, which will probably be my main lens from now on.

It also seems to me that the future is with phones, because manufacturers keep pushing the envelope on phone camera performance.

And as fewer people buy standalone cameras, research in better camera will focus on phone camera, since that's where the market is.

A phone camera is like a multitool. While it can replace a computer or a camera for 80% of the tasks, doing real work still requires a computer or a camera. There are also physical limitations, as in physics. You won't see too many sports or wildlife photographers doing their job with a phone, but for the majority of people who take selfies and snaps of their food, babies and cats, it's perfect. Also for the creative types and new media.

Dedicated cameras, with all their compromises, are just more fun to use.

Photography to me isn't just about the final output, but the experience getting that photo.

> the golden age of late 00s DSLR Flickr hobbyism

Even though I do miss parts of that era, the mirrorless cameras we get nowadays are great, and can do so much more. Even the APS-C cameras today can do just about anything you need a camera to do, and manage to be reasonably compact.

> Most people just want a shitload of bokeh

There was a point in time when people wanted this because it looked professional, but now bokeh is a dime a dozen.

I think these days people want it because it isolates a subject without them having to do work in thinking of a good composition that isolates the subject with other techniques (e.g. contrast, color, and so on).

It’s not always about work. When I’m shooting weddings f/1.4 is a staple because unless it’s the portrait portion of the day I have no control over the background, apart from my own positioning.

The room the girls get ready in is always a disaster, for instance.

Oh yes. Been there done that. And I used to shoot a lot of other events and it was definitely helpful.

I think your opinion is shared by a lot of people, but at the same time, "DSLR hobbyism" is alive and well, it's just shifted to Instagram.

That being said, as another dilettante, I take WAY MORE pictures with my very heavy camera system (~7000 a year) than with my phone. It's because phones can't come close to the the focused experience of having a camera in your hand.

As far as Good Photographs being 90% technique/framing/instinct/editing, that's true. But phones don't allow you to get near the level that's possible in those categories as an interchangeable lens camera.

Let's say I want to do some street photography. On an interchangeable lens camera, I have a choice to go between 18mm to 300mm+ in focal length, and if I compensate with my position for the main subject, I can get very very different framing. I don't have this lattitude with a phone, where I can go from 13mm to 77mm, but where I have to sacrifice a lot of the little quality lattitude I have outside of three discrete positions. That's only in sunny situations. If you're inside or of it's a bit dark out, you can't use the telephoto lens, and you have a tiny native range from 13-26 or so on most phones, because the quality is so atrocious for longer focal ranges in less than stellar conditions that cropping a wide angle is better.

As far as fake Bokeh, it's great for simpler portrait. However, if I want to use the defocus more subtly or in a more complex way than sharp foreground/blurry background, tough luck. This isn't hypothetical, multiple layers of depth is a good way to get a better sense of pop that just adding on more blur. Most of my all-time best photographs use mildly defocused elements in the foreground to create and organic frame for the subject, which is then followed by a slightly blurred background again. This way, you can have an organic framing of your subject without distracting from it, and creating an increased sense of depth.

You say "just get closer to your subject", but that removes a lot of compositions. Your position dictates the perspective you have, and your focal length dictates your framing options. So if I have to get really close to my subject, I just lost a lot of my creative power in how I want to frame my image!

Then there's instinct. When you are this limited in your freedom and creative choices, you can never fully develop your instincts.

Then there's editing. To get a usable image out of a phone camera, you need a massive amount of editing that simply cannot be done by a human. As a result, you can only get a fraction of the manual editing latitude of a bigger sensor camera. The lower actual resolution also hurts your ability to edit a lot.

So while I agree that Good Photos are only 10% hardware, using a phone camera means you also have a sacrifice a lot of the rest of the 90%.

True, for any non hobbyist, smartphone is more than sufficient. You take some pictures, do some editing, and post them to family Whatsapp group or Instagram. Mission accomplished. All done on the same pocketable gadget. Let's how the fancier Sony A7 RIV or Hasselblad XD handle that :)

You want bokeh, long exposure, HDR, etc? Smartphones are obviously won't compete in image sensor size, but they have powerful CPU. Say hello to computational photography: https://vas3k.com/blog/computational_photography/

>Just get closer to your subject

Fine advice but when combined with the distorting wide angle lenses on phones it's counterproductive

It is also true that hobbyists love gadget, even if they don’t really change their hobby capabilities.

Rarely do I find a take that overlaps 100% with my own but here we are.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com