Sony Discontinues Its Last DSLRs (engadget.com) 93
After helping make mirrorless dominant, Sony appears to have quietly stopped selling its A-mount DSLR cameras. Engadget reports: As first seen by SonyAlpha Rumors, the A68, A99 II and A77 II have been removed from Sony's website and are listed as "no longer available" from camera specialists B&H Photo Video. It's been pretty clear that Sony was no longer interested in making DSLRs (Sony's term is DSLT due to the fixed translucent mirrors), because the last model announced was the 42-megapixel A99 II way back in 2016. The only announcement of late was an adapter that would allow E-mount camera owners to use A-mount lenses. Meanwhile, Sony has drastically ramped up the features and number of mirrorless models, both in the full-frame and APS-C sensor categories. That has culminated in models like the 61-megapixel A7R IV high-res model, 12-megapixel A7S III for video and the hybrid, 50-megapixel A1 that does everything well. At the same time, rivals like Canon have made big steps with mirrorless models like the EOS R5, while also paring back on DSLR products.
I used a mirrorless 15 years ago... (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
...and I hated it compared to a DSLR. The screen inside the ocular was very low-res (that's certainly improved, but I guess you can still see the pixels), had horrible washed out darks and low dynamic range. The thing is that what you see in a DSLR ocular always has the same (or similar) luminosity as the reality. A screen CANNOT be as luminous and have the same dynamic range as the scene you're shooting. So maybe I need to try again, but I'm not sold on mirrorless; it seems more like a gimmick to sell new cameras (and force the photographer to change his entire lens lineup AGAIN) while saving money on the simplified internals (while of course raising the prices).
Their offerings have certainly improved, and I'm pretty sure they wouldn't have discontinued the DSLR range if their sales indicated that professional photographers (which were certainly the target for high-end DSLRs) had preferred them to mirrorless.
As for glass, they have adapters [dpreview.com] that will let you use A mount lenses with the E mount used by their mirrorless cameras.
Re: (Score:3)
... I'm not sold on mirrorless; it seems more like a gimmick to sell new cameras (and force the photographer to change his entire lens lineup AGAIN) while saving money on the simplified internals (while of course raising the prices).
Their offerings have certainly improved, and I'm pretty sure they wouldn't have discontinued the DSLR range if their sales indicated that professional photographers (which were certainly the target for high-end DSLRs) had preferred them to mirrorless.
As for glass, they have adapters that will let you use A mount lenses with the E mount used by their mirrorless cameras.
The OP was partly right with mirrorless being a way to sell new cameras. Like PCs, digital cameras had reached a point where it was difficult or pointless to improve them or add more features. Their resolution far exceeds that of normal monitors (let alone a phone screen), they have countless modes of operation, and they can take pictures in almost total darkness. All modern DSLRs are capable of taking perfect still photos as far as the human eye is concerned. In fact the marketing people had run out of f
Re: (Score:2)
I remember that one of the new flagship DSLR was tested, and was able to take some 3,000 pictures out of a battery charge (10% of them with the integral flash). ...), another 10x improvement would be pointless.
While the improvement from 300 to 3,000 pictures was most certainly appreciated (especially because you could have more power for heavier loads - bigger automatic lenses, radio command for external flashes,
Also, while some people might appreciate the move from ISO 800 (highest common on film) to ISO 6
Re: (Score:2)
Sony is not used by professionals unless they're sponsored by Sony. That's the issue. This was for hobbyists only.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
My understanding is that these days the goal is not so much to get the shot right first time, it's to capture enough information to edit it to perfection later. So the ocular isn't very popular, and while the screen might not give more than a preview quality image that's all people want, since they expect to edit it later on their computer.
The new Sony models are particularly good for that because they have developed a new type of sensor that allows the camera to capture multiple exposures very rapidly. Act
Re: (Score:3)
My understanding is that these days the goal is not so much to get the shot right first time, it's to capture enough information to edit it to perfection later.... while the screen might not give more than a preview quality image that's all people want ...
Whether true or not, the same consideration applies to both optical and electronic viewfinders. In fact, even for pros and the most keen enthusiasts, it will only be the occasional special shot that they would want to spend much post-processing time on.
The new Sony models are particularly good for that because they have developed a new type of sensor that allows the camera to capture multiple exposures very rapidly. Actually my understanding is that it's multiple sensors stacked. The camera can then blend multiple images into a single HDR one .... It's a bit of a revolution in photography, although at the moment the cameras are very expensive.
All higher end cameras have been able to do that for a while now, it's no longer revolutionary, and it is multiple shots taken with slightly different parameters or sensor position, not multiple sensors. My 5 yo Pentax DSLR can do it, and has a sensor is mad
Re: (Score:2)
This is what I'm talking about: https://www.sony.com/en/SonyIn... [sony.com]
It was only developed in the last couple of years and only a few models use it at the moment. Ignore my earlier post, in fact they are capturing multiple images from the same sensor but have developed a way to do it much faster than normal by increasing the data read-out speed.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
To paraphrase Ansel Adams (with something that is still valid to digital in principle): You can make a great print out of a good negative, but you can't from a bad one." Meaning, you need to get the shot right in order to make an excellent, or even good final print. It's in one of his books from the series, The Negative (1948), The Print (1950), and The Camera (1980). My copies have disappeared somewhere over the years and several moves, but this was one big take-away I had from them.
While he worked in wet
Re: (Score:1)
But with a DSLR what the screen shows is what the CCD is capturing, no? So if you can see it in the mirror, but not on your final image, isn't that just as bad?
Sure, it's not reflective of reality, but it is reflective of the captured image... and if you can adjust the image that's shown, it's going to be closer to what you captured than to what's actually in front of you.
I'm sure really high end photographers want a full DSLR, but they know that their CCD will basically be capturing EVERYTHING they can se
Re:I used a mirrorless 15 years ago... (Score:5, Funny)
While you can photograph vampires with a DSLR, you won't see them in the viewfinder (at least with low-end DSLRs that use mirrors - high end DSLR use pentaprisms and I'm not conversant on vampires and total reflection/pentaprisms)
Re: (Score:1)
Truly OCD photographers would probably use medium or large format anyhow - they are totally insane to use, but the results are spectacular.
Re: (Score:2)
Even a washed-out EVF was a fair trade for the vibration and slow shooting speed you get from that flapping mirror. And the viewfinders on today's mirrorless cameras don't have that problem at all.
Re: (Score:2)
For a time, DLSRs shot slower, but they focused faster. 60 fps is useless, if only a tiny fraction of the shots are in focus. But it was only a matter of time before mirrorless caught up.
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
The thing is that what you see in a DSLR ocular always has the same (or similar) luminosity as the reality. A screen CANNOT be as luminous and have the same dynamic range as the scene you're shooting.
The thing is, you don't really care about the thing you see through the viewfinder; what you care about is the image that ends up on the sensor.
Prior to taking the shot, DSLRs don't show you the image as the sensor sees it; instead you see the image that the mirror reflects into your eye. But the image on the sensor will be affected by things like ISO (or exposure compensation if you're using that) so you will only see the finished product after the shot is taken.
Mirrorless cameras show you the image that e
Re: (Score:2)
My mirrorless has the same button. And thanks to high ISO and stabilization, it's very usable.
Re: (Score:1)
Sounds like you aren't a very skilled or experienced photographer. You seem entirely dependent on the viewfinder pre-rendering an image that blows you away rather than having the skill to recognize the image you want. And, of course, you're take on 15 year old technology is irrelevant.
Re: (Score:2)
That may have been true 15 years ago, but not today. I've used m43 cameras for about 10 years, and on my old camera (Panasonic G3) this was indeed the case. However on a much newer (and higher end) Olympus OM-D EM1-2, it's not at all dark and washed out (unless what you're pointing your lens at is darked and washed-out looking).
Re: (Score:2)
I once used a Mamiya 645 1000s camera with a huge viewfinder, and now use a Fujifilm X-T3. While the Mamiya certainly had a very large bright viewfinder to focus from, the screen resolution and the viewer magnification of the X-T3 is bright and sharp enough to see if my focus is good.
Having said that, X-T3 has other advantages which a mirror does not have. First, the X-T3 can magnify the screen so I can fine tune the focusing even further. Second, I can show a histogram to see where the exposure is while
Re: (Score:2)
Having a mirror in your camera compromises the optics - period. It's an inescapable fact of physics. A mirrorless camera doesn't have to have that additional space between the lens and the sensor/film for the mirror and hence can give better results. There is a reason why rangefinder cameras never went away and this is one of them. The other being a less depth to the camera due to not having a mirror.
Basically current mirrorless digital camera's are the rangefinders of yesteryear, they are here to stay and
Re: (Score:1)
Hard disk are a very different type of product - you could easily observe the difference in a more modern platform via response times. Mirrorless still results in effectively the same JPEG/print as DSLR - that makes it hard to justify spending thousands on replacing bodies and lenses. We're just not yet to a point where mirrorless takes better pictures.
Re: (Score:2)
A mirrorless camera doesn't have to have that additional space between the lens and the sensor/film for the mirror and hence can give better results.
The distance between lens and sensor has nothing to do with the optical quality of the result The lens will be designed for that distance. The advantage of mirrorless in this respect is simply that the camera body is slimmer to carry around.
Re: (Score:2)
A mirrorless camera doesn't have to have that additional space between the lens and the sensor/film for the mirror and hence can give better results.
The distance between lens and sensor has nothing to do with the optical quality of the result The lens will be designed for that distance. The advantage of mirrorless in this respect is simply that the camera body is slimmer to carry around.
Although I'd be inclined to agree shorter flange distance isn't the cause of better IQ, it isn't irrelevant and can be the case. OP just got the cause wrong, it's not the flange distance per se but what that shorter distance allows you to do in lens design and certain physics limitations easier to overcome. Also things like having deeply protruding rear elements like some RF cine mount and canons RF extenders which would cause mirror strike problems on dslr equivalents. I use Canons RF system where smaller
Re: (Score:2)
Modern DSLRs and mirrorless cameras use the same senosrs. So the darks and dynamic range are identical.
The only thing you get in a DSLR is an optical viewfinder, and that's only really useful for helping with focus.
Add in focus peaking, magnification to help with focus and the better representation of the end image (which may be far lighter or darker than shown by an optical viewfinder) mirrorless cameras offer a superior experience, make it easier to take good photographs and have the added bonus of being
Re: (Score:2)
Mirrorless Cameras: Too Good? (Score:4, Interesting)
I bought a Sony A7rii after finding an amazing deal on a used camera website. I love the thing, it's versatile, durable and aside from the terrible menus is gratifying to use and produces amazing photos and video.
I read a review of the camera that basically came to the conclusion that while the (professional photographer) reviewer was amazed by the featureset and quality of the camera, that he could not enjoy shooting with it because it was [i]simply too good in Auto mode to have any fun with the thing[/i]. The challenge of working with the various manual settings to get the image just right for any environment wasn't there because the damn thing adjusted itself so well in Auto that a superior image was attained in a much quicker time than shooting manually.
For someone learning, it's worth it to pick up an older professional DSLR like a Nikon D200 or D300 and learn with that and git gud at photography, and then perhaps graduate to a mirrorless. But if you just want to shoot and don't want to worry too much about the details and want good shots, Sony's stuff is honestly fantastic.
Re:Mirrorless Cameras: Too Good? (Score:5, Informative)
Tell the reviewer he's welcome to join me on an underwater photography trip if he wants, because there's shit all chance of automatic doing what you want.
The challenge I think is that if you want to do general landscape, or city photography, or people and such then yeah, we've now had a couple of decades of optimisation of auto mode for digital cameras that has pretty much made them point and shoot to get perfect results. It doesn't make manual useless though; certain types of photography or certain effects still need a good understanding of shooting on manual, the algorithms used to figure out the best settings for a shot in auto mode just fall apart in an underwater environment for example because they really can't adjust for the colour and light loss at varying depths and water conditions, they can't cater to particulate in the water creating backscatter with strobes and such, and of course I'm not saying they never will, maybe they will, but I don't see camera manufacturers focussing their energy on making automatic work in edge case scenarios like this.
This said I'm not entirely convinced the reviews has grasped the point of manual if he really believes that; it's not always about perfectly replicating what the eye sees, sometimes you want to force a shallow depth of field, focussing on say only the eye of an animal to draw it's gaze out in the photo, sometimes you want motion blur throughout the picture with only a single detail being frozen crisp and sharp with a flash, and I struggle to see how automatic can ever figure that out - it just doesn't know your intent as a photographer, so manual will always have a place IMO else you're just delegating artistic decisions on what you want to achieve from a photo to the camera; and the camera will always make the same decision regardless of the user.
I actually shoot mostly with an Olympus MFT (EM-1, MkII) because it's far easier to travel with, full frame needs larger underwater housings, and larger glass domes which aren't the best things at surviving air travel. I'd probably use a Sony FF on manual if I shot much in my home country and didn't have the worry of a 12 inch glass dome surviving airport luggage handlers, but I don't much, it's usually overseas. People can be a bit snobby about FF vs. MFT, but given half of Blue Planet II was filmed with a Panasonic GH5 I don't think anyone has ever accused Blue Planet II of being anything short of visually stunning so really it's all about how you use it (in fact, half of my best all time pictures underwater, including some which have won awards and have been used professionally, were taken with a cheap and simple compact).
Re: (Score:2)
For many, the answer is always. Why else have a DSLR? You think UW photographers can't use the viewfinder?
Re: (Score:2)
I wish I had saved the article because I can't find it again and I hope I'm not completely misrepresenting the reviewer's thoughts but I clearly remember that impression, on the aperture and shutter speed in particular. I've never been 100% happy with the autofocus on the A7rii, even if it is very good on the kit lens, I have an adapter for Canon lenses and it's hit-or-miss on whether AF will work reliably shot-to-shot, so I end up manually focusing a lot of the time anyway out of habit.
Re: (Score:2)
I found that autofocus performance depends a lot on the lens on mirrorless cameras. The kit lens isn't going to cut it no matter how much you spend on the camera.
"Smart" adapters are hit and miss. If you have focus peaking, on your camera, that is a pretty good compromise for getting getting good focus on fast manual lenses.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes! I also shoot primarily with MFT... I feel like FF people who talk about MFT don't seem to understand how much smaller the GLASS is for this system, too. I can throw my camera with a 50mm or 90mm equivalent Oly prime on it in my jacket pocket.
I bring my FF camera for "events," but I nearly always have my little MFT.
WRT to automatic settings: I pretty much never get what I want out of full auto settings on any camera. Something's always a bit off from what I'd prefer. Or really off. Exposure, focus point
Re: (Score:2)
My biggest problem with MFT is the compromise in light gathering for the small sensor. I also keep an MFT in my backpack any time I leave the house, but even a pretty decent 25mm F1.7 is losing 2 full stops for being on that small sensor. It's not a big deal for landscapes or shooting outdoors but it's not ideal for portraits.
Re: (Score:2)
There's also the matter of limited manufacturer support, since Panasonic is off doing L-mount and Olympus is not Olympus any more. Black Magic is still out there doing whatever it does, and I guess there are a few of the usual third party suspects (Rokinon? Meike?) but it seems like support is kind of scant.
I mostly shoot photos of people and moreover a shoot in less than ideal lighting, so I do have a bias, but I also get how fun it is to have a tiny and useful camera as well. It's rough to see it as the
Re: (Score:2)
"Tell the reviewer he's welcome to join me on an underwater photography trip if he wants, because there's shit all chance of automatic doing what you want."
Looks like you're counting on no one here having experience with UW photography. You are wrong. Furthermore, you are implying that a camera with good "automatic" would not be useful underwater, again you are wrong.
"...the algorithms used to figure out the best settings for a shot in auto mode just fall apart in an underwater environment..."
Not always.
Re: (Score:2)
Even DSLRs are like that... if you put them into one of their automatic shooting modes. I spent a whopping $200 on a used DSLR and it's capable of producing amazing results by just turning the knob and pressing the shutter button.
But if you want a proper viewfinder, then frankly there are no other options but a DSLR. There are plenty of situations where the in camera viewfinder screen doesn't do what you'd like it to do.
If you just want to point and click and/or shoot video then obviously you buy a mirrorle
Re: (Score:2)
Just curious, have you used one of the nicer Sony FF mirrorless cameras and used the viewfinder? My A7rii's viewfinder is pretty damn good, I actually prefer it to a DSLR viewfinder. I honestly feel more comfortable, I'm getting more of an idea of what the camera is picking up and what the end result is going to look like once processed by the optics, rather than a view that is completely disconnected from the actual imaging system of the camera. I'm probably exposing some sort of ignorance and lack of prof
Re: (Score:2)
I think perhaps you haven't used a high end mirrorless camera in a while. On my high end Canon mirrorless camera (I have an R5), there's a VERY fractional moment where the display freezes as a shot is saved off the sensor, and the display - whether viewfinder or the screen - is exactly the image that will be saved. Canon at least has also been able to move some of the adjustments to the lens as well as the body with RF-system lenses, which is something I've come to appreciate.
My camera has a 5.75 million do
Re: (Score:2)
I got a mirrorless Fujifilm for shooting video. At the pricepoint I was looking at, that and a Canon DSLR were the best reviewed with the Fujifilm having the edge for video, the Canon having the edge for photos. Cannot confirm, since I only have one. Turns out I prefer the zoom mechanism on Canon cameras (the Fujifilm is electronically actuated motors, not direct coupling), but the camera is very good.
I've tried it for photos too and honestly as a rank amateur, it seems to get very nice results. Auto mode i
Re: (Score:2)
I bought a Sony A7rii ... I love the thing, it's versatile, durable and aside from the terrible menus is gratifying to use and produces amazing photos and video. ...I read a review of the camera that basically came to the conclusion that while the (professional photographer) reviewer was amazed by the featureset and quality of the camera, that he could not enjoy shooting with it because it was [i]simply too good in Auto mode to have any fun with the thing[/i].
There are good things about Sony mirrorless cameras, lightness being one, but there is a general consensus that the menu system is dreadful. Might explain why that reviewer was discouraged from using the camera except in the "Auto for Dummies" mode. I have a DSLR, not Sony, which has about a million different mode combinations, but I use it in manual most of the time; I grew up with manual cameras.
For someone learning, it's worth it to pick up an older professional DSLR like a Nikon D200 or D300 and learn with that and git gud at photography, and then perhaps graduate to a mirrorless. But if you just want to shoot and don't want to worry too much about the details and want good shots, Sony's stuff is honestly fantastic.
All modern interchangeable lens cameras have a manual mode (with advisory metering). I would dispute your ter
Re: (Score:2)
A Canon R5 has a 2 megapixel, ~12mm^2 EVF. At that kind of density, I truly don't think anyone with normal vision will be able to tell a difference between optical or electronic view.
Re: (Score:2)
Curious: how well does it work in low light with movement and rapidly changing light levels and flashing lights?
Re: (Score:2)
It's legitimately fine. Even at 25000 ISO, you're getting a useable picture, and nothing optical is offering usable 25k ISO to begin with.
I actually shoot a lot at a nightclub. It's dark and flashy. I'm still getting good pictures. I have to run them through some noise reduction but it's still workable, even with F2.8 zooms.
Re: (Score:2)
I love the thing, it's versatile, durable and aside from the terrible menus is gratifying to use and produces amazing photos and video.
I agree with everything you say here.But there are two things many reviewers gloss over that mostly overcome the random menus:
1) You can have several sets of saved setting combinations (I think six, but I only use two). Just rotate the dial to the combination you need for outdoors, low light, fast action, etc.
2) Put the individual settings you change most often in the quick menu at the bottom - focus mode, exposure mode, etc. The other stuff is rarely changed anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
I've actually assigned most of the things I use the most to the quick-access buttons and other customizable buttons on the body.
Re: (Score:2)
Sony's stuff is okay but not fantastic. They are a company that was never really interested in Cameras in the first place beyond making sensors and producing point and click toys. They saw a buck to be made and bought Minolta to enter the market and have been very much a follower the entire time.
Personally for the point and clickers thinking of getting into some "real" gear I recommend Olympus. If I were starting off today without the weight (both figurative and literal) of a 20 year collection of Nikon F l
Re: (Score:2)
Sony's stuff is okay but not fantastic. They are a company that was never really interested in Cameras in the first place beyond making sensors and producing point and click toys. They saw a buck to be made and bought Minolta to enter the market
Indeed, they bought into the DSLR market when it was booming in the early 2000's. Today, that market is shrinking, almost imploding, and there is a question over whether Sony will remain interested. They could easily switch their manufacturing capability to a more buoyant market as their name would carry them anywhere in the consumer world, unlike eg Nikon and Fuji which are really locked into cameras as a brand name. There has been pressure from a major Sony shareholder for them to exit camera manufacture.
Re: (Score:2)
It's hard to commit to anyone at this point. Nikon and Canon both were losing money in the camera business as well.
But good point about cameras not stopping to work. My 15 year old D200 still works. Well technically so does my 40 year old Nikon FE, though decent film is a bit more difficult to come by :-)
Quickshots (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
At least on the phones I tried to take pictures with until now, the flash is a total disappointment. While not good, a compact camera could have a much better flash than a mobile phone.
Also, compact cameras have better ergonomics than a mobile phone - even though I've seen people using 10 inch tablets to take pictures, so this point is probably moot anyway.
As for zoom, some mobile phones come with multiple lenses including a 0.7x wide angle up to a 10x zoom lens (for a 15x zoom). Meanwhile, the compact supe
Re: (Score:2)
The low-light capabilities that flagship phones have make flash rarely needed. If you need better, you might as well get out a full size DSLR or mirrorless.
Low light on phones is terrible! (Score:2)
The low-light capabilities that flagship phones have make flash rarely needed. If you need better, you might as well get out a full size DSLR or mirrorless.
I dispute that claim. If we were in the same room, I'd challenge you to a photo-off. :) Your flagship phone vs my mid-range full-frame camera.
Interestingly enough, it's even an apples to apples comparison in cost terms. I pay 3x as much, but keep my lenses for 20 years and my bodies for 5 years....so over the same time period, I pay a lot less.
However, take a photo at night...if you can even get your flagship phone to take a pic, it will be extremely blurry and noisy. In fairness, my Canon R6 with
Re: (Score:2)
I was pitting a flagship phone against a compact camera. Read the context.
It's like you intentionally missed "If you need better, you might as well get out a full size DSLR or mirrorless."
Re:Quickshots (Score:5, Informative)
Some people still find smartphones to be cumbersome to use for taking pictures. It's easy to get it wrong as a result, especially if all the buttons are functions on a touch screen.
Interchangeable media is still helpful for some people as well, especially if you're on vacation. I can get 64gb SD cards dirt cheap pretty much anywhere that I can buy alkaline batteries. A lot of smart phones either have no interchangeable media or make it such a task to handle that they might as well not have it.
The compact camera also untethers the user from the battery life of their phone, which can be important on long days or long trips.
The compact camera also has familiar controls that are easy for quick photos; a lot of users can whip out a compact camera and get several pictures of moving or distant objects quickly without having to even look at the screen; very few people can do that with a smartphone.
Compact camera settings don't tend to change dramatically year-to-year, while smartphone software for cameras occasionally does; this again goes in to being able to take shots rapidly.
Re: (Score:2)
The compact camera will still carry on for some time, and here are a few reasons why.
Some people still find smartphones to be cumbersome to use for taking pictures. It's easy to get it wrong as a result, especially if all the buttons are functions on a touch screen.
Interchangeable media is still helpful for some people as well, especially if you're on vacation. I can get 64gb SD cards dirt cheap pretty much anywhere that I can buy alkaline batteries. A lot of smart phones either have no interchangeable media or make it such a task to handle that they might as well not have it.
The compact camera also untethers the user from the battery life of their phone, which can be important on long days or long trips.
The compact camera also has familiar controls that are easy for quick photos; a lot of users can whip out a compact camera and get several pictures of moving or distant objects quickly without having to even look at the screen; very few people can do that with a smartphone.
Compact camera settings don't tend to change dramatically year-to-year, while smartphone software for cameras occasionally does; this again goes in to being able to take shots rapidly.
The form factor of a real camera is much better for picture taking than the phone is.
But the old adage still holds true - "The best camera is the one you have with you"
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Some people still find smartphones to be cumbersome to use for taking pictures. It's easy to get it wrong as a result, especially if all the buttons are functions on a touch screen.
...
The compact camera also has familiar controls that are easy for quick photos; a lot of users can whip out a compact camera and get several pictures of moving or distant objects quickly without having to even look at the screen; very few people can do that with a smartphone.
I wonder if this is just a user training issue. On my phone and -- I believe -- on all Android devices, I don't need to use the touchscreen controls at all to take photos. Double-clicking the power button opens the camera app and clicking the volume down button takes a photo.
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder if this is just a user training issue. On my phone and -- I believe -- on all Android devices, I don't need to use the touchscreen controls at all to take photos. Double-clicking the power button opens the camera app and clicking the volume down button takes a photo.
Slight correction: Either volume button takes a photo.
Re: (Score:2)
The compact camera also has familiar controls that are easy for quick photos; a lot of users can whip out a compact camera and get several pictures of moving or distant objects quickly without having to even look at the screen; very few people can do that with a smartphone.
I wonder if this is just a user training issue. On my phone and -- I believe -- on all Android devices, I don't need to use the touchscreen controls at all to take photos. Double-clicking the power button opens the camera app and clicking the volume down button takes a photo.
I just tried that on both my personal (Motorola G7) and work (iPhone 12) phones. Neither of them started the camera app when I double clicked the power button, whether the phone was locked or not. I know there is some wacky gesture I can make to start the iPhone camera without unlocking it but I can never make said gesture repeatedly.
I think that's another thing that sets the compact cameras apart. If you have ever used a point-and-shoot camera, you can very nearly use any point and shoot with minim
Re: (Score:2)
I would add: compact cameras take vastly better quality photos in most cases. I have a Canon Powershot S120 (I think I got it in 2014) that has taken some of my favourite photos ever. It generally kicks the shit out my Pixel 3 and had been even competitive against my 50D DSLR!
I routinely use examples of it blown up on a big screen to compare them with friends 'amazing quality' iPhone photos and they are often stunned at the difference.
The computational photography shit smartphone do is incredible; does amaz
Re: (Score:3)
I am surprised that the quickshot/compact cameras are still sold.
"Traditional" compact cameras won't be sold for much longer. Among the smaller brands, Nikon are dropping theirs, Pentax already have, and it remains to be seen what the new owners of Olympus will do with them.
The bottom has dropped out of the compact market and the surviving "quality" camera brands are aligning on the pro and high end amateur market, and they are struggling to survive even there. The cameras that do survive are going to become very expensive because it seems that the compact camera sa
Re: (Score:3)
My most recent phone has a optical zoom in addition to a digital, and seems to have all the features of a compact camera.
I bet you a dollar it doesn't get as many photos on a charge as a dedicated camera.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I bet you a dollar it doesn't get as many photos on a charge as a dedicated camera.
My use case for long battery life is taking pictures at construction sites for the job. I've been using my phone lately, it is definitely not as good as the crappy compact office camera in many ways, including flash capabilities and especially battery life (except that Sony's crappy proprietary batteries are getting too old, along with the camera, and my boss is too cheap to buy a new compact camera with better electronics)
Re: (Score:2)
Im someone who actually takes the time on vacation to enjoy their vacation.
What makes you think you get more enjoyment out of your vacation than people combining it with their hobby?
Maybe change your username to JudgyMcJudgeface.
Also not sure what this has to be with Japanese tourists. Are we a bit racist too?
it is apparent that their vacation was dedicated to proving to friends back home they took a vacation.
You show other people vacation photos? Man I'm glad I'm not your friend. You seem to have a very judgement and incredibly narrow minded view of other people. I can therefore imagine why you don't understand why products you don't use exist.
Re: Quickshots (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Cell phone cameras are good, really good. Make no mistake, the low end of the compact camera world is being hollowed out by them. Almost no new products are being released there, most companies are just selling through stock or making very minor changes for a new name.
But have you ever tried to print a cell phone photo? They look amazing on screen, but they tend to fall apart in print. At least for now. Give it a few years...
Re: Quickshots (Score:2)
Not everyone has the latest phone. In my family, we're using two LG V20s, one Galaxy S5, and one Blackberry Classic. (I have one of the V20s: ever since I ported a root exploit to it, it does everything I need in a phone, except for better camera, and I don't see a need to upgrade.) They are all good for outdoor photos without much zoom or motion, but easy to beat in other cases with a dedicated camera.
(Our camera fleet is aging, too. In current use, we have a 1939 35mm Voigtlander, a Canon G7, and Lumix G1
Re: (Score:2)
In my experience, cell phone cameras distort the image too much, though a lot of the cheap point-and-shoot cameras are no better. Not very noticeable for a lot of amateur photos of people or nature, but annoying to me when photographing things with straight lines.
Re: (Score:2)
Programs like Lightroom have lens correction profiles for some phone lenses that can deal with things like lines not being straight.
Re: Quickshots (Score:2)
Last real camera I bought was for work. No cellphones allowed... I had to replace the DSLR that had died a death from acid fumes. I found the high-end point and shoot cameras were just as good as DSLRs for almost all the typically-DSLR-y tasks, with less faffing about. Really, the one I bought had macro focus down to 1cm with no lens changes needed, good video capability, usable manual focus, and good low-light performance and speed. Literally better than any SLR for technical
re: use for compact cameras (Score:2)
The biggest use-case for the cheaper point and shoot cameras I saw was for schools. For a kid taking a photography class in high school, they need some consistency with all the students using a product that works the same way. They can't just have everyone using whatever camera might be on their cellphone (and many times, they want the phones put away completely during class).
My kid used a Canon Powershot in her class.
Re: Quickshots (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
My 14 year old Canon G10 [wikipedia.org] outshines my iPhone 11Pro in a wide number of areas. Thing is, you won't notice most of the
oh boy (Score:2)
No Way... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Some Slashdot wisdom appreciated! (Score:3)
When Sony took over Konica-Minolta they figured out that they couldn't compete with Canon and Nikon in the DSLR-bodied cameras with interchangeable lenses, although the SLT cameras were pretty decent, especially if you compare their features to their price back in 2012 or so. I bought the a57 back then and it had a ton of features that would have cost me several hundreds of euros more in a Canon or Nikon camera. But the main problem with those cameras was that they were not made by Canon or Nikon. So Sony launched the e-mount lineup, trying something completely different. Boy the lenses sucked at the beginning, especially the long ones, but they got good pretty fast... This led to the invevitable abandonment of the a-mount technology in favor of the e-mount.
I have a bit of decent prosumer-level glass using the a-mount made by Tamron. Should I jump in to buy the last available a99II? I'm not sure. I could get a new e-mount with the adapter, but those adapters are expensive! Honest advice is appreciated!
SLR is steam age technology. (Score:2)
This development has been obvious to me for at least 20 years.
I never really understood the oxymoron of digital SLRs and even the ongoing silly focus on single-lens I don't quite get either.
What's the point of all the fuss if your capture isn't a chemical film?
Digitally calibrated lens arrays are the way to go for digital still images and I never understood why they didn't start becoming the norm some 18 years ago, when digital sensors became somewhat feasible in resolution. Generic cheap-ass smartphones to
Phone image quality are like earbud sound quality (Score:5, Informative)
I presume DSLRs were a thing and were around for so long because photographers still wanted to use their heavy and expensive 35mm lenses, and/or didn't trust digital image processing.
You couldn't be more wrong. The vast majority of DSLR owners have never owned a 35mm camera. Go to a park on a nice day, you'll see tons of DSLRs. Ask them about their 35mm experience. If they're under 50, which most are, I guarantee you few have had a 35mm film SLR, let alone lenses worth keeping. Your argument is about 20 years old
Your statement is poorly informed. Quite simply, but a decent monitor, open your latest iPhone image and the same image taken with professional camera from the same year. Try taking a photo indoors...you'll see a massive difference in image quality. I do this all the time with friends who say "my phone takes as good of pictures as camera" We both take an image and open it up in 27" monitor. They're all surprised at how much better the camera images are. It's very noticeable, especially on indoor photos (beach photos look good no matter what camera you use).
Professional cameras don't exist because pros have never seen an iPhone. They exist because pros and enthusiasts like me have. Open up your image on a screen larger than a small phone and the difference is quite stark. No bride would pay a pro to take iPhone photos based on quality alone.
Interchangeable lens cameras are not a masturbatory exercise like listening to music on vinyl. We're not hipsters. We just actually look at our photos after taking them. A full frame sensor makes a MASSIVE difference in anything less than full sunlight, like a photo indoors. Open up an iphone pic and it's blurry and noisy. Why? The qualities that make a good phone make a terrible image sensor and no one would ever want a phone with a heavy full frame image sensor. Tiny phone sensors cannot capture as much information as professional ones.
It's analogous to earbuds. No matter how many advancements, earbuds are limited to their small size. They may sound "good enough," but will never sound as good as nice headphones or speakers.
In regards to your sensor array comment, once you get a decent sized sensor, the size becomes an issue. The angles introduced will cause anomalies. It's easy to merge sensor data 2mm apart. Try doing it 40mm apart. Also, imagine the size/weight. It would be commercially impractical. However, even that aside, there's a huge market for product photography and video that will pay top dollar for impractical designs that give an image quality advantage.
If my argument isn't persuasive, think of hollywood. They innovate all the time. If a multi-sensor array could do what you think it does, some big budget blockbuster would do it. James Cameron, George Lucas, or the Wachowskis would be ALL OVER IT. The would pay top dollar for an experimental camera for some summer blockbuster. The L16 failed because it didn't produce images that justified its complexity. Believe me, if it did, all professional cameras would be an L16 with a better battery and grips. Photographers embrace change better than most groups. If they could do their job better with something cheaper and lighter, they certainly would. We own heavy cameras and heavy lenses because they really take better pictures.
Re: (Score:1)
I get that all the time. I have a Canon DSLR. I see them at the time thinking - why is that old guy clinging onto his big old camera. Then people look at my pictures and then the ones they took on their Iphone and Androids. They're like - why are your pictures way the hell better?
Re: (Score:2)
Yep i get this loads. I often wait a few weeks before sending someone photos from an event. They are always blown away by the quality and artistic possibilities. That computer simulated bokeh looks terrible when compared to what a kilogram of glass and 50mm sensor can produce. The best way i've found of getting my mates on side is showing them the model photo shoots i do. They quickly appreciate photography then... ;)
Re: (Score:2)
I doubt I hold the record in this respect, but I might not be far off. In a number camera/cell phone discussions, I have mentioned my old Nikon D3, bought used from a relative. In its day, it was a professional-level camera, but that day was about 20 years ago. I always get a good laugh from the cell phone crowd when I mention its specs, including the full-frame, awe-inspiring 12 megapixel sensor. The laughter ends abruptly when we compare photos of a couple of frequently photographed local landmarks.
Re: (Score:2)
Digitally calibrated lens arrays are the way to go for digital still images and I never understood why they didn't start becoming the norm some 18 years ago, when digital sensors became somewhat feasible in resolution.
Several reasons, including weight, cost, processing power (and accompanying battery demands), the need for complex optical paths or multiple sensors, the inherent mismatches between different lenses, focus, depth of field and authenticity.
It's much easier and cheaper to design, build and use a basic camera with an interchangeable lens.
simple Sony cannot compete in DSLR (Score:2)
Canon is largely discontinuing its DLSRs too (Score:3)
I think what is not common knowledge is that only recently did electronic viewfinders get a fast enough refresh rate to rival a mirror. The early EVFs would give you motion sickness. So now, the argument for a mirror has largely disappeared, but that's a relatively recent innovation. Canon moves much slower than I'd like, but they've finally realized the future is mirrorless and they're very slowly correcting their sins of the past. Their cloud connectivity is VERY slowly getting better. They now have first party flashes with rechargeable batteries (It's embarrassing to cart around AAs and a charger everywhere). Their recent lenses are AMAZING, like the full-frame F2 zoom. I wish they had done these things 5 years earlier, but the Camera companies have finally awakened to the fact that they actually have to compete with phones, not just each other.