Hacker News Reader

> The question is whether you actually need such a camera for anything. With a new smartphone that has multiple lenses, out-of-the-box photos will turn out MUCH NICER than from a camera, because initial processing is built into the software. Digital cameras don't have this. You need to take RAW and work pretty hard on it to make the photo look as good as what a smartphone delivers right away.

You’re completely neglecting to highlight Fuji’s film simulations. I use Fuji’s specifically because they produce excellent jpgs out of camera. Not really sure where your take is coming from, an xt3 on auto will blow any smartphone picture FAR out of the water.

For those who love the Fuji film simulation looks but can't or don't want to buy an overpriced-because-influencers camera, there are now apps that do great Fuji’s film simulation: https://apps.apple.com/us/app/rni-films-photo-raw-editor/id1...

This is not true. Yes, these are characteristic color grading profiles, but if you want your photo to actually look proper, you still need to process the RAW file and you can add the Fujifilm profile as an extra on top of that.

There's NOTHING special about these profiles. It's a matter of taste. If you're buying a mirrorless camera, it means you have ambitions to take photos at a reasonably high level. Nobody who wants to be at a high level will shoot JPGs.

It’s true that phones cameras are miracles of technology, especially considering their size. But I take a modern Fuji traveling because the modern phone camera look is so over-processed and distinct. There’s no faking the real optics a large aperture and sensor gives, the portrait mode on phones is still a poor imitation of the real thing.

Fuji then has the whole film simulation system with all their colour science from the last century. It’s a ton of fun, and the jpgs it produces are distinct and beautiful, and I believe better than 99% of people could achieve from post processing the raws, myself included.

The middle-age guy part is accurate though, I got it as a thirtieth present.

I don’t find this at all, even compared to my (now rather old) X-T1.

For quick shots to remember an event or night out, modern phone cameras are fine.

For anything that I’d call photography and actually want to print, display, etc. I rarely if ever get results I’m really happy with from a phone camera.

If you’re in any way interested in photography beyond taking a few snaps at parties and on holidays, I highly recommend getting a real camera. I’ve found the Fuji system to be great, from the lenses to the out of camera JPEGs and film simulations that mean you can pretty much avoid doing any significant editing or post-processing if, like me, you find that all quite tedious.

Yes, if someone's goal is to learn photography and they're also interested in it from a technical point of view, then these are definitely cameras worth considering. My main point is that if someone just wants to "take nice photos" they should seriously think about whether to buy a good phone instead.

This aligns with my experience as well. The bigger sensor does generate pictures that look more crisp in big prints or zoomed in. In theory it should gather more light, but in reality, phones stitch together multiple exposures, and frequently produce nicer low light images without much noise. For sharing on social media, it's hard to notice a difference. For me its event worse with the x100 since the wide lens doesn't have that signature compression and depth of field, so the photos don't really stand out that much, no wonder most x100 photographers rely on color filters (film sims) and high contrast to draw attention.

I know of no phone camera that can produce the portraits of an X100s 23mm lens at f/2.

Not sure what you mean by produce, it depends on lighting and photographer skill. Not like the 23mm is really a portrait lens either and f/2 isn't spectacular.

Here you're talking about shallow depth of field which is desirable for portraits. But show me a camera that will have in JPG the dynamic range that you have in a smartphone by default? Show me a camera that will have as LARGE depth of field as smartphones have thanks to their small sensor.

These are all pros and cons depending on the scenario, but a phone has one advantage - it's small and you have it always with you.

Gonna be honest: if you have to frequently use RAW to make Fuji photos look good, it may be a skill issue.

Wrong. If you have to frequently use film simulations to make camera photos look good, it may be a skill issue.

This comment exhibits the normal sort of hideous gatekeeping attitude that is common in photography.

Even if phone cameras were twice as good, for me its simply more fun to take pictures with my camera.