Smartphones versus DSLRs versus film: A look at how far we've come
connect.dpreview.com
connect.dpreview.com
I've actually been working with a team of former post-doc researchers who've been using SIFT flow techniques to estimate depth information in an image and apply filters to emulate different depths of field - effectively allowing for an image captured with a smartphone to look like it was shot with a different lens (see https://www.dropbox.com/s/7qhfgnwl08vtk63/compare.png?dl=0). We've got some pretty cool demos if anyone's interested.
Even manually Photoshoped images often don't look perfect.
I think we simply need more data, it can't be done convincingly with a single lens/aperture shot. Maybe with multiple shots/focus points, but even then, I'm skeptical.
We're also experimenting with other filters, not just Gaussian - it's the depth extraction part that we've been trying to innovate on.
> I've been able to pull the shop name off of a reflection of a guy's eye
Most needs, not occasional attempts to prove a point ;-)
We're at a point now where the latest M43 cameras can match the previous generation APS-C sensors (which exceed the 5dMk II, for example, in dynamic range and color depth, if not low light performance) -- if you're willing to lose a stop, that gets you below a 1" sensor.
I think Nikon's decision to make the 1-series was actually very good strategically (skating to where the puck is heading). I just think they've totally wasted their first mover advantage by failing to provide good bodies or lenses for enthusiasts. (I don't know why Nikon uses Aptina sensors instead of Sony -- it may be for the fast readout, since the first gen 1-series cameras could shoot full resolution at 60fps.)
Since you're doing research, I'm sure you've seen the Lytro cameras. Maybe if they manage to get that technology into phones, it could really change the world. Samsung is already doing some stuff like recording photos several ms before/after the button was pressed, so you can do minor time-stream corrections. It's not long before DOF corrections through hardware or software comes along.
Plus, I'm having more fun developing my pictures taken with my Nikon FM2 anyway.
Ironically, recenty the Nokia approach with supersampling seems to have paid off most regarding low-light and dynamic range performance of phone cameras (especially dynamic range, which this article didn't address). I hope the others will catch up.
[1] - http://googleresearch.blogspot.com/2014/10/hdr-low-light-and...
Of course, that would slow it down even further.
This is absolutely still an issue. Go to your local camera store and play around with even a low-end 'fast' camera such as the Canon 7D and you'll see in no uncertain terms just how fast good SLRs are. Even Micro 4/3 cameras are catching up now.
Shutter latency is the single thing keeping point and shoot cameras, or smartphone cameras, from truly dominating.
How many "missed moments" were due to having left you camera in the car or at home?
Maybe we mean different things, though. There is a time between the half-press of the shutter and obtaining focus, and that can be half a second to several seconds depending on conditions. I don't consider that shutter lag, though - is this what you're referring to? I mean the time it takes to go from that half-press to a full press and capture the image.
On a 5 year old cheap Panasonic pocket camera I find that this time, half-press to full-press, is nearly imperceptible. Maybe I'm just fortunate, or not as discerning, though.
There are outliers like the NEX-5 which had a shutter lag of over 100ms, even when pre-focused, but the modern mirrorless equivalents of the 7D achieve less shutter lag.
A DSLR has the intrinsic problem of having to wait for the mirror to move out of the way before the image can be captured. The mirror mechanism's speed is limited by the strength and flexibility of its materials (too fast and it'll break), and the power level of the actuator moving it. Not to mention the faster you move the mirror the more slap you will get, causing vibrations in the camera that affect image quality. There is a "limit of physics and material science" problem inherent in SLRs.
A mirrorless camera has none of these disadvantages - and it shows, even the vaunted Canon 1D has a shutter lag between 40-50ms depending on model, while the Sony NEX-5N has a shutter lag of 22ms.
The Canon 7D lordbusiness brings up clocks in at ~70ms. In fact none of Canon's DSLRs can get below 40ms.
The Olympus E-M1 comes in at 50ms, as is the Fuji X-T1. Mirrorlesses already outperform even high-end DSLRs when it comes to shutter lag. And they will continue to get faster as more mirrorlesses move to electronic instead of mechanical shutters.
That depends on the use case. A couple years ago I took a train ride across the country, taking photos from the observation car with a P&S camera. The shutter latency was absolutely infuriating.
On the other hand, when I'm doing a landscape on a tripod with remote shutter release, I wouldn't even notice if it took an extra second or two.
IMHO, the biggest thing is control, of which shutter latency is just one facet. All the other stuff about aperture, ISO sensitivity, pre-focus, etc. come into play in various use cases.
Just switching the camera 'on' takes too much time.
My M3 lags 16ms, but you need to focus it yourself obviously, my flagship Canon is slower at 40ms, but has autofocus and hammers out images at an insane amount per second.
My fuji viewfinder cam is infuriatingly slow compared to the beast above, but I feel I have only myself to blame for any missed moments.
There are modern high-megapixel sensors (2-3x) in much more compact cameras with 2-3x the high-ISO performance and 2-3 stops more dynamic range. If that's not a drastic improvement what is?
http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Sony-A60...
The idea that the MP race has given us worse cameras seems very prevalent but doesn't seem to be based on fact. The current crop of Sony full-frame sensors shows that very well:
http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Sony-A7S...
The 36MP sensor is better in all respects than the 24MP one. The 12MP sensor has great high-iso performance at the cost of resolution, dynamic range and color quality.
http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Sony-A7R...
I could definitely use the 2 stops more dynamic range and the 5x high-iso performance for day to day shooting. I'd love to have the good video as well sometimes. The 3x resolution wouldn't be too bad either from time to time, although it would take a bigger toll on the processing side (storage for the files and CPU usage for the raw conversion).
"Step into candlelight, [...] the iPhone trails the DSLRs by about 10 years, and the Nokia about 8. "
I mean, I'm all for well-applied snobbery and picking the correct tools for the job. But, come on. A 30-second perusal of cute family photos on Facebook and a comparison to the photo album you used 15 years ago will tell you exactly what these devices are good for.
http://www.photigy.com/selecting-the-right-lens-for-iphone5-...
Sadly photography is still very much a physics game, and while there is some room for improvement in sensor tech, and cheating e.g with multiple exposures, even a ten-fold increase in dynamic range and sensitivity wouldn't make large sensors obsolete.
You need chunks of glass at the moment regardless of sensor size. I carry a basic DSLR around with me (D3100) and a decent but cheap lens (AF-S DX 18-55) and a shit smartphone. They cost less than a good smartphone and the results are amazing.
Wouldn't it take a lot to merge the images when they are completely different, like a stereo image?
And there are entire arenas of photography that aren't even possible on a smartphone - wildlife photography is pretty much the zone of the 800mm+ lenses.
Really - so much of photography is about the lens, and honestly, except for low-light photography, the average $2k digital body from 2005 will get the job done today.
I would only use my DSLR if I knew I would need to photograph some circumstance that my P&S couldn't handle. I know this makes me a black sheep within the photography community and there are lots of people who like to make fun of me for it, but the reality is that unless you're trying to get a specific shot, a versatile, general-purpose lens is all you take with you on your DSLR anyway, and you're better off using the lighter, smaller, cheaper P&S.
It's also much smaller and lighter than the chunky 18-55 the camera probably comes with.
The Canon 50mm 1.4 is in this range - you need to be very good to avoid the super-sharp DoF.
Personally, the best benefit of a DSLR is the external (bouncable) flash. That's something that smartphones aren't going to solve anytime soon.
Apart from that, you're only letting in around three more stops of light than a kit lens and half a stop more than a cheap 50mm prime. You can almost always work around that with some combination of (i) underexposing, (ii) using a slower shutter speed and (iii) bumping up the ISO.
People used to say the same things about f1.4 lenses before digital, but the fact is that shooting at ISO 800 you can get the same overall sensitivity/quality balance at f4 with a digital camera that you could at f1.4 with a film camera.
If you spend all your time trying to shoot fast moving completely-flat things in the dark -- and you can somehow focus fast enough at f1.4 -- then maybe f1.4 is useful, but that isn't representative of most photography.
With a nifty-fifty on it ($100), I was able to make poster-size prints that looked perfect (no jaggies) at 1-foot viewing distance.
6 megapixels!
So yep, totally agree that the body will get the job done.
You also need quite a lot of skill to be able to make the sensor look bad. For me personally, if something doesn't look good, it's my fault. I missed focus or exposed poorly.
That said, my camera sucks so bad in low-light. 5D MKII here I come...
No question, the Canon wins in everything except ease of use. I don't use it to take a snapshot of some street food dish, I reach for my phone. But for walking around Taipei street markets at night the iPhone doesn't come close. The low light performance of a large sensor with a wide-aperture lens is superb, even with a camera that's now 10 years old (still going strong!).
Pictures with my phone often go straight to social media.
Pictures with my camera are curated and I only choose the best ones. Maybe 2% are ever viewed by another living human.
Maybe in 2-3 years a 2/3" sensor will fit just as well, too. Again, I'm talking about no compromises in design. I know there are already 1" sensors in some smartphones such as the Panasonic Lumix DMC-CM1 [2], but despite myself being fine with buying such a phone, I assume most OEMs or smartphone customers have no interest in those.
[1] - http://www.sonymobile.com/global-en/products/phones/xperia-z...
[2] - http://www.panasonic.com/de/consumer/foto-video/lumix-kompak...
It helps that the phones are getting bigger. The camera in my Nexus 5 is a ton better than in my old Blackberry Pearl, but the phone is also twice the horizontal size.
The lens will be a bigger problem, though...
Developing film is fun too, kind of nerve-wracking because you're pouring in chemicals blind but then you open it up and pull out this lovely strip of negatives and you can see it all came out OK.
For under $2000, you can get a new 6x7 rangefinder with fixed lens and you'll pull tons more detail out of a slide or negative that large than you would out of a 35mm slide/neg.
If you're willing to buy used (and why wouldn't you considering they're using digital cameras from 2003 in this review) you can get an awesome medium format or large format system for under $1000.
But if prints are the desired end result, it's still less than $10 to develop and print a roll of 35mm film. What's the price and cost of an inkjet, paper and ink carts?
Then again, if all you're doing is taking quick snapshots to upload to instagram, just use whatever smartphone you have and don't bother buying an actual camera.
http://1.static.img-dpreview.com/files/p/TS250x0~cms_posts%2...
http://4.static.img-dpreview.com/files/p/TS250x0~cms_posts%2...
In fact there is no actual detail that is visible in the one image but not the other (especially given the "smudging" from the noise reduction). The small difference in contrast (if this isn't just due to a change in lighting conditions) is easily fixed in Photoshop. All of this is to be expected given that both lenses are being used at f8 here, and any half-decent lens will give good sharpness across the whole image at that aperture.
I noticed the infamous symbol (two arrows surrounding a friendly "10") on the bottom of most of the DSLR camera models currently on sale from major manufacturers (Nikon, Canon, Sony) - with the possible exception of Pentax.
Planned obsolescence would be if the camera manufacturer specifically design to product to stop working in a specific time frame. They might do this for commercial, legal or safety reasons.
From what I can tell, it's an estimate of the time after manufacture that the item can be safely recycled, and is independent of the useful lifespan of the item. And it seems that for legal compliance the manufacturers usually use a standard number suggested for the product category rather than actually calculating the specifics for the item: http://www.electronicsweekly.com/directive-decoder/china-roh...
If Pentax doesn't have the symbol, it's probably because they are not manufacturing or selling in China, rather than a difference in the construction. If the construction was different (and if they were adhering to the protocol) they'd have an 'e' inside the arrows rather than a number.
At low ISO the image quality is amazing, at high ISO it's very noisy. Also, the red channel is much noisier than the blue one.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ab/Absorptio...
Or, gotten sucked into this article, more like.
In bright light outside, I expected a fair fight between the phones and DSLRs. In dim light, I expected the DSLRs to eat the phones for breakfast.
So, how do they compare? I thought I knew. It turned out that I was completely wrong. Read on to find the answers.
In what way was he completely wrong? DSLRs eat the phones for breakfast in dim light, while they have a narrowish margin (against Lumia 1020) in bright light. The first page sets you up for a surprise, but it never comes.
Of course, the lens you put on the DSLR makes as big a difference as you're willing to invest. That's why they'll never really be comparable.
For a layperson, I don't think this is true. It takes a professional to extract the extra difference between say, a 50mm f/1.8 (~$100) and 50mm f/1.2 (~$1500). In fact, if I handed them both to a newbie, I'd expect them to do better with the 1.8. Myself included.
That said, the f/1.8 is a bit exceptional, especially for its price.
> Note that the scales for the DSLRs and the phones are different and not directly comparable...
It looks like graph is misleading at second glance too. :) Author is comparing the steepness of the curves, which is closely related to scale. If you change the scale for phones you can make their progress much slower.
Not saying the phones won't reach DSLRs in terms of image quality, just that this graph should not be interpreted in this way.
https://developer.android.com/reference/android/hardware/cam...
Do they have any advantages left over those integrated in mobile phones or have they become obsolete?
it is becoming more and more a niche, but there is room to evolve.
If you're comparing a phone that has high-end specs in every way, plus a good camera, and costs $600, that camera should be better than most $200 compacts at this point.
I think the game is over for compacts, even if all you can afford is a $200-$300 subsidized phone, and not a high-end one. My new Moto G 2014 takes quite good pictures with very little noise.
Not only is the game over for compacts, but many people who perhaps before would've bought a sub-$1,000 DSLR to take vacation pictures, now don't feel the need to do tat anymore if they have a current-generation high-end phone that costs $600-$700, even if that $1,000 DSLR would be significantly better.
The $600 phone cameras have become "good enough" for many people, except for those perhaps that have no trouble buying a $600 phone and a $1,000, or $2,000 or $3,000 DSLR to take with them in vacations.
If I were the CEO of a camera company, I would've started focusing on the smartphone market 3+ years ago, from multiple angles: making my own "cameraphone" (such as Lumix CM1), selling "low-end" lenses for smartphones (that should still be significantly better than the ones others make for smartphones right now, that don't have experience in high-end cameras), and through other type of know-how/technology licensing that would help smartphone companies accelerate how good their phone cameras become - with my company cashing in on all of that.
Out of Sony, Nikon, Canon, Panasonic, Samsung and so on, Sony is perhaps the best suited to do that. Not only are its smartphone sensors already highly popular, but it's also one of the top high-end camera makers. They also have their own smartphone company, so they have smartphone know-how, while others like Nikon or Panasonic don't. They could have so much synergy from that.
Unfortunately, Sony's strategy in this is complete crap. The fact that their smartphone sensors are the most popular is probably mostly a coincidence, or inertia from bygone times, because none of the other strategies match it.
Instead of making its own ultra-high-end cameraphone, Sony makes dumb camera accessories that nobody wants to use. Nokia received a lot of praise for its big bold 1020 camera, which had a halo effect on all of its other smartphones, too. Instead of trying to be recognized as having the best cameras, at least in the Android world, Sony rarely reaches top 3, because of bad software. And things are somewhat okay at the high-end, but all of their other phones have terrible cameras (both software and hardware).
Sony is in a unique smartphone/camera intersection and they aren't anywhere near close to taking full advantage of it. Apple continuously beats them, even though Apple uses Sony's own sensors that are one or even two generations behind Sony's current smartphone sensors. To be honest, that's a complete disgrace. If I were Sony's CEO and I'd be in charge of such a disgrace for a few years already, I'd probably quit myself in shame - especially if I was Japanese (who, I think still care about honor and such things?) - and let someone better take charge.
If you need a 3x zoom lens in a $200 camera this is what you want. So while not obsolete, it's likely the segment being eaten quickest by smartphones.
Put the other way around: if you can live with a fixed lens then $200 likely gets you something that has higher image quality than a phone, due to larger sensor and higher quality lenses.