It’s kind of sad to see only one or two people with SLRs at any “vista point” I visit because it brings back memories of talking with other amateur photographers and sharing our profiles on sites like trek earth or whatever.
But I'd say "serious photography" is about where it's always been, maybe a little reduced. It's always been expensive to have a proper setup. The huge difference is that the new consumer stuff (phones) are just much much better than it used to be (point and shoots).
There's still a big difference though between what you can get out of a phone and what you can do with a "real" camera. I have never seen anything out of a phone that can match what you can do with a full frame and a fast 55 or whatever. Sure you can add fake depth of field in software but I'm not sure it will ever be possible to really duplicate in a phone. Especially the interface - phones just don't have the physical controls you need to play some of the tricks "real" cameras can do, like grabbing focus or white balance from somewhere else then holding it as you compose your real shot. At some point just the lack of dedicated buttons is holding you back. I know there's apps that can give you more control than the default apps but with a physical body I can set up that shot in 1 second.
I actually felt this acutely just last night. One of my friends went all out with halloween makeup and wanted me to take some pictures, but I only had my phone on me. They came out OK, pretty good even, but I know for a fact I would have been able to do much better with my half-broken old a7sii and a decent lens. Much, much better. But it's the camera you have with you...
I have a very basic Sony mirrorless camera gathering dust somewhere.
I used to much better photos even on just that.
Far from it, it’s just that phone cameras are good enough to replace DSLRs or full-featured P&S for most users.
DSLRs are pretty much dead. The handful of pros I know either have or plan to transition to mirrorless. Or, a few shoot medium format.
Most of my friends have at least one mirrorless. Sometimes several. Along with a stack of both current and vintage lenses. But, they’re a well-to-do crowd with hipster tendencies, so YMMV.
My parents had several film SLRs over the decades. But when their Pentax was stolen on a vacation in the late-90s or early-00s, they didn’t replace it. They got a compact P&S and now rely on their phones. The SLR was only ever used for snapshots, not photograhpy as a hobby.
Personally, I grew up using their SLR plus a pile of cheap or disposable P&S. Then a few compact digitals. Bought my first DSLR in my mid-20s to get better family shots. Transitioned to a mirrorless about 10 years ago, have two bodies and a pile of lenses, but 90% of the time just use my phone. The cameras only come out for events, vacation, or on the odd occasion the mood hits.
Recent sensors have AF phase-detect sensors built into the image sensor, by splitting one "pixel" into two sensors (and having lots of them; sometimes in Canon sensors more than half of the pixels have this functionality; on some cameras you can extract the raw image including the different data on those pixels for bigger resolution). The difference between phase detect and contrast being that a phase-detect sensor will give exact values on how to adjust the focus, whilst contrast detection needs focus hunting in small adjustments, so it's slower.
Gordy details, but the image helps see:
https://photographylife.com/how-phase-detection-autofocus-wo...
On camera sensor focusing was slightly different “contrast detection”. My understanding is modern cameras integrate those phase detection sensors on the image sensor itself. It might effect image quality but nobody notices and focus is fast and reliable. It’s tech that works well so generally nobody cares how it works.
https://www.usa.canon.com/learning/training-articles/trainin...
The AF on my a7 III is nothing short of miraculous compared to any mirrored camera I've ever used, even in light where I'm shooting at 128k ISO, 1/125, 2.0f. Quick and accurate locks every time.
I shot 1000+ photos over 3 hours at an event last week, and honestly I couldn't even tell you how much battery I used. Because I wasn't paying attention, because it's a non-issue. Even if it was, batteries are cheap, small, and easy to swap.
Take a look at the Nikon Z9, which is a professional mirrorless and shutterless camera.
It can take essentially infinite shots without wearing out. DSLRs need maintenance every few hundred thousand shots, which sounds like a lot, but some pros take 10-20K per day. Timelapse videos especially are murder on DSLRs and can take big chunks out of the shutter mechanism lifetime.
The lack of moving parts means it can be totally silent and take full-res shots at 30 fps without mirror blackout. Lower-res shots can be taken at an astonishing 120 fps, which allows photographers to capture fleeting moments that would be missed otherwise.
Focus is as-good, if not better than any other DSLR in the world. E.g.: eye-tracking auto-focus is generally not possible on DSLRs because they can't use the full-resolution sensor while the mirror is down, and eyes are too small to recognise with the phase-detect array.
They've thrown in 4K and 8K HDR video capture as well, because why not, and this works with the viewfinder. That's not possible on DSLRs because the mirror blocks the viewfinder in video mode.
I’d much rather use two Z6iis. The only reason I haven’t upgraded is because I’m anticipating a Z6iii soon and I’d love for it to be ~33mp as I think that’d be the sweet spot for me.
The autofocus advantage is huge, and the viewfinder is typically much easier to see. Yeah, I need to swap batteries at least twice as often. One battery still makes it through a 2 hour portrait session just fine.
Battery life is solved, you get 1000+ shot with modern mirrorless, batteries are $20 a pop
And the bodies are relatively cheap at ~$2000 (half that for a previous generation or enthusiast grade body). Lenses tend to start around $1000, go up to $10k, and a pro will have 10 or more of them.
My wife learned in the digital era, but has recently got into film with a couple of 35mm cameras and now a Rolleiflex 120-format twin-lens reflex from family friends.
She struggles with, but likes, the ideas that you have to think much harder about your shots with film (especially 120: 12 shots per roll!), and that you have to keep records of your shots in a notebook or similar, because you won't see them for a while. She loves the different effects of the different film types.
The result has been moving from a 1:15 keeper ratio to closer to a 1:6 or 1:4 ratio.
Film cameras are heavy, though. Something in carbon composite would be nice. And possibly a dual-media camera: take a preview on digital, then if you want, take the shot on film.
https://doragoodman.com/goodlab-project/goodman-zone-medium-...
My wife uses Olympus (micro four-thirds) digital, which is much lighter. Olympus make (made?) some great lenses.
The Rollei T is great but I was fed up with the crank issues on my 3.5 MX-EVS and bought an inexpensive 'cord. What kept me away from the T was the >1 kg weight and also the price. The 'cord is 830 grams but the viewfinder is qiute dim and not usable in weak light.
I too use a digital micro four thirds camera, but a Panasonic with the Leica 15 mm f1.4 and the first edition 20 mm Lumix lens. It's not much lughter than the 'cord
> And possibly a dual-media camera: take a preview on digital, then if you want, take the shot on film.
Here are some guys using an analog version of your idea to preview their product shots:
Whenever I shoot on film I definitely have a much higher keep ratio, but a much smaller overall keep volume.
It's simply not practical, either time/money/physically, to shoot on film the same amount and things that I do digital.
For quick snaps of moving wildlife, or tricky light, or a quick snap, the iPhone is incredible, and often she has a very sharp shot before I have the lens cap off and start thinking about shutter speed, etc.
The iPhone photos are great for fb or insta or anything on small screen. The immense difference comes when I load photos into Lightroom and get to work, upping shadows, cropping or reducing highlights. They’re not even remotely the same. And all of that is just with one all purpose lens on the Sony. Throw a BIG zoom on the front and the comparison is a thousands times different... or a nice wide fast lens and again, whole different ball game .
Of the many hundreds of My photos That have run in print magazines, maybe two or three have been from a phone.
I don’t think a print worthy shot like this comes off phones (yet)
https://www.instagram.com/p/CersLuLBfCz/?igshid=YmMyMTA2M2Y=
But enthusiasts who wants to practice the craft of photography are thriving. Cameras have never been this good, especially for their price.
If you earn your living through photography, things are of course different.
As someone who used to lug around the D700 everywhere I went years ago (I stopped when I got my Olympus mirrorless), this complaint from someone about D8xx in studio use blows my mind.
I use my mirrorless camera and a supertelephoto lens for things my phone just can't capture: birds and many distant animals.
Photography never went away.
In fact, we share and post way way way more videos and images than before. No development time means you can get all 5000 photos that you snapped online with data everywhere!
https://www.diyphotography.net/why-i-dont-use-dslr-cameras-a...
https://www.dpreview.com/articles/4296660253/5-reasons-why-i...
Of course there are also a lot of situations where big-sensor, interchangeable lens cameras still excel, such as low light, telephoto, shallow depth of field, and resolution. So my Sony also gets a lot of use.
Photography isn't dead. Smartphones have just become serious photography tools.
For contrast Toronto is choke full of people with SLR and mirrorless cams. Not that there are not enough people taking pics with smartphones either. What is virtually gone (from my perspective) are those small point and shoot cameras,