Can you be any more disgusting?
That last name is actually Jewish
" Reminds me of a preview I saw where a girl's hiding under something while the serial killer is looking for her, she's on 911 with the operator when signal is lost. The operator hits callback, and the phone ringing points the killer straight to the girl, and he kills her while thanking the 911 operator for helping him locate her."
What's a "preview"? A movie trailer?
"That is the failure of the education system."
Really? Parents have nothing to do with raising their children at all?
"felonies on your rap sheet stays forever,"
Are you sure?
Alright. Got it now.
As regards the ability to continuously take multiple shots per second: believe me, it is a huge advantage of DSLRs. Just try it (a hummingbird in flight, or even stationary object with VR on/off, etc.) and you'll understand why it's so important. I use it all the time. Cellphone cameras can't do it (yet probably, but I don't see how they will - short of making them bigger).
Nope. It shows my plan "UNLIMITED TALK & TEXT 1GB $60 SMARTPHONE" and the only option is "See how The MORE Everything Plan can meet your wireless needs. Please note that if you change to The MORE Everything plan, you will be unable to return to your current plan." which is actually $10 MORE than the current plan for the same minutes/texts/data.
Sorry, I haven't paid attention to the GP's posting and jumped the gun.
P.S. As for the "purported superiority" of cameras: only a person who knows nothing about photography would argue that cellphone cameras are as good as "real cameras" for anything but the basic stuff. Their main advantage is that you have it on you at all times. I enjoy listening to music using an mp3 player/in-ear buds in the gym, but when I want the "real sound" I go with a "real" audio system (Monster cables optional
No. They have everything to do with "an inherent advantage to a dedicated camera that improvements in technology won't eliminate." For instance, it's impossible right now to make the sensor more sensitive keeping it at the current size - that's limited by the laws of physics. AFAIK they've been working on it for the last ten(fifteen?) years with no luck.
Alright. I understand your point better now and mostly agree. Though I still don't get why anyone would want to make a timelapse video or stitch photos right in the field. Seems like a one-time gimmick to me. Most people will use it once or twice and forget about it. Also, the people who post-process a lot, always have their laptops in their cars/hotel rooms.
Of course there's a lot of new features appearing on cellphones. Cellphone manufacturers have to fight tooth and nail for a tiniest share of the market and will resort to anything. The camera manufacturers are relatively safe in their market niches (they make more on lenses and support, as well as space/military contracts) although they try to keep up with the casual crowd (by adding video, etc.). They will all probably go the route of Leica, Mamiya, Hasseblad, etc. - for the pros or the rich only.
Exactly. Mod up.
"Also, that's really slow for a DSLR."
Hence "it's old and slow" in my post.
Also, I don't shoot sports, so it's just fine 99% of the time.
I don't have time to read it thoroughly and so far I'm not sure what to make of it. Can it be a joke? What he wrote - like "the skill of a photographer matters more than the equipment" and ""Amateurs worry about gear; professionals worry about money; masters worry about light." - is certainly correct if lacking depth, but his photos are simply horrible. I do better with a cheaper camera, and I'm a mediocre photographer. The first one, at the very beginning was ok, but the rest... Just wow.
It is indeed possible to take good pictures with a cellphone, as long as the goal is simple and the conditions are right; and it is easier to make bad pictures with a pro camera if one doesn't know what they are doing. But comparing an iPhone to a 5D is ridiculous. It's like saying that a Camry is almost the same as a Shelby Mustang GT500.
"a typical DSLR which would need a tripod and post processing to make a movie from stills."
Have you actually used a DSLR within the last 5 years? People use them to make pro movies now.
"still a major post-processing effort on many DSLRs"
Have you actually tried it yourself?
"but UI not as good."
Stop using GIMP and try Photoshop
"connection to Social media"
Ooooohh, you got us! Because what photographer doesn't want to post every shot directly to instagram?!
You sound like an office user who can't understand why we need servers
"Even if I'm missing something I can't imagine that this is an inherent advantage to a dedicated camera that improvements in technology won't eliminate."
Google "sensor size", "f-stop", "frame rate", "shutter speed", "iso".
"I can take my phone out of my pocket and snap a picture in less than 6 seconds (just tried it)"
Stand back, guys, we have a pro here. Was it your food? What filter did you apply? Did your instagram buds like it?
"I guess there's a speed advantage to being "always-on" that cameras can't match."
This has just proved that you really shouldn't be telling anyone anything about cameras
First, any serious DSLR is left _on_ (and can stay on for years). I replace the battery on mine about every 10k shots (or once a year).
Second, 6 seconds for any DSLR is an eternity. If I set mine to Auto, I can take a shot in 2 seconds (it takes a little over a second to wake up) and then take 12 more within the remaining 4 seconds (it's old and slow), but that would be stupid because...
Third, only morons gauge the quality of the gear by how quickly they can whip it out and shoot. The people who actually deserve to be called "photographers" (which I don't btw) worry about other things first (just check any book on photography).
PS. Sorry for the snarkiness, but you're really out of your depth.