Oh but it is. The "leathery" texture imitates the one you find on those vintage DSLR/mirrorless, the "leica" branding is the giveaway.
This phone IS meant to imitate DSRLs and appeal to the DSLR crowd, whether you like it or not.
Oh but it is. The "leathery" texture imitates the one you find on those vintage DSLR/mirrorless, the "leica" branding is the giveaway.
This phone IS meant to imitate DSRLs and appeal to the DSLR crowd, whether you like it or not.
This. Phones are meant to be replacement to point & shoot. Maybe mirrorless travel compacts but that's a stretch (phones has to stay thin, so no optics)
That's a moronic statement, comparing RAW pictures with heavily post processed shit.
A RAW picture on lightroom with presets or manual postprocessing will always beat AI memery that tries to bring back inexistent details through mush and oversharpening.
This. Ai post proc makes unnatural fake colors. The phones now have memory and bandwidth. Give us access to the .raw's
That's a moronic statement, comparing RAW pictures with heavily post processed shit.
A RAW picture on lightroom with presets or manual postprocessing will always beat AI memery that tries to bring back inexistent details through mush and oversharpening.
But phones are taking images differently, basically 'lucky imaging' which (as far as I'm aware) DSLRs can't do. So in some ways, phone photos can be superior due to the software used WHILE taking the photo. Sure you can mimic it using software on a PC and taking a thousand RAWs with you DSLR.
Anyway, the BEST camera you own isn't your most expensive one, it's the one you have with you when you need to take a picture. You sure aren't taking your DSLR with you everywhere, are you?
I'm still using a Samsung Galaxy Note 8, I don't think will change it soon. But I'm curious, what phones have these leica lenses or some other brand like Zeiss, you know, what phones are being marketed as the best for taking pictures right now?
>what phones have these leica lenses or some other brand like Zeiss
AFAIK neither Leica not Zeiss make lenses phones.
What they typically do is license the use of their brand name next to cheap Chinese lenses.
They might have some involvement in the design of the lenses but that's pretty much it I think.
It should also be noted that those tiny phone lenses are close to the diffraction limit anyways.
The laws of physics simply don't allow them to be as sharp as larger lenses, no matter how awesome the design and manufacturing is.
Cope and seethe harder, have fun fumbling around with your bulky single-use device, by the time you get that thing turned on the moment will have passed and only the cell phone users will have gotten a shot of it!
>wait I gotta quit my app and launch the photo app >wait I need to select the macro/main/telephoto/front sensor >ok I need to tap again because it can't focus >no stop moving I have HDR enabled >wait nooo it's all blurry and grainy you're moving too fast >it's doing the HDR processing in the background, I have to wait a few seconds to do a second pic
meanwhile in the real photography world >aperture already set because you know what you're gonna shoot >shutter to 1/1000 >iso at 100 because the sensor is not some cropped 1000000 mpx shit >take 10 pics at once so you can select the perfect one >they all end up crystal clear, all details retained
Don't be mad, son, instagram will save your ass by heavily compressing your jpeg.
>aperture already set because you know what you're gonna shoot >shutter to 1/1000 >iso at 100 because the sensor is not some cropped 1000000 mpx shit >take 10 pics at once so you can select the perfect one >they all end up crystal clear, all details retained
You know how I can tell you don't know how to use a camera, without telling us you don't know how to use a camera?
I think it was meant against "geargays" who long after owning more and more expensive equipment instead of using what they have.
Just like phonegays dreaming about their next phone with even better camera when they barely even use their current phone camera.
You will never be a real camera. You have a tiny fixed lens, tiny noisy sensor, tiny flash. Your fake AI generated "depth of field" is an abomination, a mockery of God and real lenses. People may call you a "camera" to your face to be polite but real photographers laugh at you behind your back.
Shoot RAW Black person.
Everyone knows phone JPEGs are garbage, shoot RAW and process accurately. Basically just correct gamma, apply color matrix, adjust exposure if needed, and do no more. That's your qualuty.
Easily 75% as good as a DSLR at the base ISO, but the optics suck so they can only ever compete with shitty lenses.
No kit lens has a fixed f-stop, so no, it's worse.
also >bigger f stop equivalent is better
how to spot a nophoto
small sensors are "good" if you want compact devices, or crazy optical zooms with compact lenses, since you won't need a focal length as high as a full frame or APS-C. This is all your pics prove.
Now do the opposite anon, let's take an APS-C with an f1.4 lens to do portrait shots and have "muh bokeh effect". The equivalent for your sensor would be f0.7, which does not exist. It's physically not possible to have a lens with such a small f-stop value. And if you were to compare with full frames, then it's worse. Meaning your smartphone will always have to rely on heavy postprocessing to have all those fancy lighting effects on the pictures.
Not even talking about low light shots which this small sensor still doesn't solve and have always been the problem smartphones had.
Also, well, lenses can be changed on cameras.
>your smartphone will always have to rely on heavy postprocessing to have all those fancy lighting effects on the pictures
and this is bad because? go take a look at imagen or dall-e2 - you couldn't tell the made up caustics from a real pic, so there's no difference
>you couldn't tell the made up caustics from a real pic, so there's no difference
Tell that to any photographer, and they will choke to death laughing.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>they will choke to death laughing.
And yet, they still couldn't tell that it's made up, just like they can't tell apart renders from photos.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>And yet, they still couldn't tell that it's made up, just like they can't tell apart renders from photos.
I am laughing at you right now.
>go take a look at imagen or dall-e2
They all look photoshopped.
There's always lighting inconsistencies or worse.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>And yet, they still couldn't tell that it's made up, just like they can't tell apart renders from photos.
I am laughing at you right now.
lmao, go shake hands with audiophiles
2 years ago
Anonymous
Na, audiophiles are dumb.
Vision is a much more precise sense.
Just because you have no idea what you're looking at, doesn't mean some random site that says photographers can't tell the difference is correct.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>some random site that says photographers can't tell the difference
some random site like arxiv?
2 years ago
Anonymous
Yeah, like arxiv.
I also personally love the low resolution images often used to sell GAN generated images.
How better to hide the flaws than to just resize down until you lose most of the fine detail?
2 years ago
Anonymous
you sound exactly like audiophiles >nooo those israelitricks like abx (fid) don't mean anything, I CAN TELL!!!1! so what if i scored bad on some israeli test >it was only a short sample, if it was longer i could surely tell
photogays can't tell a difference between a photo and a render, both imagen and dall-e2 shit out photorealistic images and can reproduce crap like caustics (I CAN TELL IT'S ARNOLD BECAUSE MUH CAUSTICS!!1! w-what? that was ground truth?)
of course you'll have some crappy output with artifacts, but not nearly as much as you'd like to think
2 years ago
Anonymous
>photogays can't tell a difference between a photo and a render, both imagen and dall-e2 shit out photorealistic images and can reproduce crap like caustics
Or can they? All we have is you saying that they can't.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>All we have is you saying that they can't
and FID paper from 2017 and every worthwhile model having humans rating it >i-it doesn't exist if i don't know about it
lmao, meme learning triggerring inner audiophool in all the photogays, priceless
2 years ago
Anonymous
>FID paper from 2017
So I found this paper and of course there was nothing about GAN generated images being so good people couldn't tell the difference between them and "real" images.
Instead it was about an improved method of ranking how close to a "real" image a generated image was because the previous method relied too much on human judgment.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>photorealistic images
Let's just remember that "photorealistic" was a label that was also given to the Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within movie.
>and this is bad because?
In camera is king. Why do you think modern films are so uncanny with all their cgi? Same principal. It's an educated, programmatic, guess at reality.
I think people really underestimate phone cameras. They'll never be able to match $5,000+ DSLR kits that can take crystal clear photography of asteroid impacts on the moon but compared to sub-$1,000 DSLRs they're pretty darn close, not 100% but 70-90% depending on the image sensor. That makes them INSANELY good value when you factor in everything else a phone does.
my ricoh gr III destroys all smartphones on the market
>not 100% but 70-90% depending on the image sensor
It's not 2010 anymore where phone cameras went blind hours before sunset. They've obviously gone through incremental improvements which added up over the years.
you're not getting a 6000x4000 image out of a fancy new smart phone. If you just want to put garbage on ig sure use a phone, but you're kidding yourself if you think your $1300 phone is on par with a $1300 camera + lens
normies don't care about quality or the exposure triangle so the phone is a better choice for them
2 years ago
Anonymous
Ok boomer
2 years ago
Anonymous
>6000x4000
Go off IG
2 years ago
Anonymous
I'd love to see you post a full resolution photo.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>9000x12000 >15.46MB
HAHAHAHA
That's actually a 12MP sensor you fricking moron. Literally.
12MP. That's not 108MP, it upscales to 108MP.
A cheap dslr is garbage Lmao. My phone takes better pictures in daylight than a cheap dslr. And in night time the dslr takes forever to snap a picture.
>thinks piece of dogshit phone camera can compete with dedicated camera >compresses an already terrible looking video into even more dogshit
you dumb Black person ape
Shhhh, stop being reasonable, this is IQfy, where slap fights over made up "facts" is more important!
The number one reason why I've used a DSLR over an iPhone camera, is RAW. Some iPhones have ProRAW now, which is better, but I haven't played with it, and there are third party apps that dump the sensor to a RAW file, and bypasses Apple's crappy filtering and adjusting, but where it counts - the actual quality of the sensor, my old ass Nikon just takes better pictures than any iPhone or Samsung phone, in ways that matter (that most of the spergs in this thread have no clue about.)
Some of the other reasons I have a DSLR is lenses, and real flash. Not an LED, but an actual Speedlight. It's important.
But, I'm a very casual hobby photographer, and I have pro photographer friends who help me learn and improve. For casual use, like "Look what I bought!" shots, phone cameras are perfectly fine. They're in a pretty good place these days, and complete overkill for most people, for taking casual photos. Compared to what most people had, before smart phones, which was disposable film cameras developed at Costco, people have access to much better cameras than any time in history.
I think a good analogy is a phone cameras is like a $20 harbor freight drill. If you use it on a construction site you're probably going to get fired on the spot but if you're just hanging up a couple of picture frames and tightening a couple of loose cabinet doors it's going to be almost as good as a super milwaukee drill with a 9001v XXL battery.
The moral of the story is you don't always need the best things in life, even if you're rich. Sometimes winning 3rd/4th place is okay.
>reeeee phones can't have a good camera! >just carry a full DSLR in a padded camera bag with a lens kit and set up a tripod whenever you want to snap a photo! >S-stupid phonegays, you'll never replace a DSLR!
You absolute genetic frickups win the award for being the most violently autistic morons I have ever seen. Holy shit. No one cares. People just take selfies and quickly snap point and shoot photos with their phones because its convenient.
>You absolute genetic frickups win the award for being the most violently autistic morons I have ever seen.
What level of irony are you on right now?
Read back your own post, this post and realize where you are, what you're doing, right now.
Right now.
The same way you do with a phone or flim camera - you take a series of shots and stitch them together. It's built into iPhone's camera app, but i was doing it manually with a tripod and Nikon years ago, with Photoshop for stitching. I have some panoramas of Alaska that came out beautifully.
I never understood the point of someone wanting to get a ridiculous phone with a frick huge camera. Just get a dedicated DSLR or a simple point and shoot you stupid homosexuals.
Convenience trumps fidelity. 92% of things you use a camera for don't truly merit needing a DSLR.
And if you're really going to be a sperg about it, then you'd at least be shooting medium format.
Full-frame digital is better than medium format film in everything except resolution
A shame we don't have cheap medium and large format sensors yet, they would make film obsolete finally.
>modern cellphones can't even create a 3000x2000 image from bright sunlight without it being a noisy, crushed, mess while my 10 year old APS-C DSLR can shit this out
oops my mistake. I swore I read they shared a lineage closer to cats than dogs. oh well I guess I just read lies on the internet. why would someone do that? tell lies on the internet?
2 years ago
Anonymous
You might've read that they're one of the few canines that has adapted to life with humans, but by numbers far outpaced by feral cats.
Comparison time.
My DSLR has a modest 1900mAh battery.
I can leave it turned on for days with barely any battery drain because unless you have live view on, or are focusing or taking photos it barely sips power.
From powered off to being ready to take a photo is a fraction of a second. Even the iPhone camera app takes longer to start up than my camera.
You will not get this kind of performance from laptop parts stuffed into a camera body. They're just not made for it. You could have a very customizable camera, because you could substitute hardware solutions for software, but you'll give up a lot of the general performance.
Every couple of months techbloggers start writing about how <new phone> is now better than a dedicated camera.
And every time I look at the full size sample images and find that they are denoised into oblivion en oversharpened to hell.
Has anyone even figured out how to stop the fake bokeh from bluring out glass items?
So with my phone I can just whip it out, not fiddle with any settings, tap a single time on the thing that I want to shoot and the app adjusts focus and lighting, hit the shutter and I have a picture that doesn't disappoint. AI postprocessing takes care that everything is visible, colors look decent, and I don't *need* to get it in lightroom. Reliably at least mediocre, sometimes good.
Is there a dedicated camera equivalent that is equally simple (indicate the subject and lighting/focus is automatic) and reliably gives at least mediocre photos?
Sure, for a picture of your lunch. A camera phone is perfect for that.
Now, try that with a composed shot of a waterfall, metering the light, and using a good wide angle. You can't even get close to a shot a DSLR is designed to take. DSLRs have never been sold nor designed for casual point and shoot stuff, it's for going above that and actually trying to make a composed shot. You know what people used before phone cameras? Point and click cameras like a Coolpix, which is about as much work to take a quick snap of your lunch as a camera phone.
Phone cameras have improved. They have a lot of use. But for fine art photograpy, or any kind of pro level photography, they simply don't compete. But they're not designed to. Just as how DSLRs weren't designed to take funny pictures of your cat.
Obviously, they are not meant to beat them.
But not everyone wants and needs to carry around a huge DSLR in their pocket all day just to take some simple pictures and i can't use my DSLR to use all sorts of apps.
Of course DLSRs will always have their use.
Why the salt? I have a full frame from fricking ebay for real photography, and this will be an improvement on phone cameras. Make it cheap enough and I'll get one, so even my drunk and or bullshit pics will be pretty good.
xiaomi and its parent company BBK Electronics have been trying to enter the western market for a while, it's important for them to not look like an aliexpress iphone wannabe phone. xiaomi's shtick was always having outrageous features to bring free attention and press. first example i remember of this was the mi mix.
the camera part doesn't need to be this big, the main 1" camera' isn't even the center one.
I'm going to keep shooting with ASP-C and MFT cameras. Anyways, there is more to photography than image sharpness and clarity. Sometimes to get the photo you want, you need to do worse, not better.
Picrel. The original raw looked fricking god awful, but processing it, I ended up with one of my favorite photos. Unless you are a professional doing this for money, take photos YOU like, not that other people like.
Never meant to idiot
Explain the "leica" branding then, homosexual.
KEK you serious?
Show me some Leica DSLR
Oh but it is. The "leathery" texture imitates the one you find on those vintage DSLR/mirrorless, the "leica" branding is the giveaway.
This phone IS meant to imitate DSRLs and appeal to the DSLR crowd, whether you like it or not.
>Leica
>DSLR
Anon, I....
Lol that's what I'm thinking. Regardless, anyone who knows anything about SLR, DSLR, Mirorrless, whatever, knows Leica's suck anyway.
This. Phones are meant to be replacement to point & shoot. Maybe mirrorless travel compacts but that's a stretch (phones has to stay thin, so no optics)
This. Ai post proc makes unnatural fake colors. The phones now have memory and bandwidth. Give us access to the .raw's
>Give us access to the .raw's
You've been able to save raws from any modern smartphone for years.
No DSLR will ever beat AI postprocessing
That's a moronic statement, comparing RAW pictures with heavily post processed shit.
A RAW picture on lightroom with presets or manual postprocessing will always beat AI memery that tries to bring back inexistent details through mush and oversharpening.
But phones are taking images differently, basically 'lucky imaging' which (as far as I'm aware) DSLRs can't do. So in some ways, phone photos can be superior due to the software used WHILE taking the photo. Sure you can mimic it using software on a PC and taking a thousand RAWs with you DSLR.
Anyway, the BEST camera you own isn't your most expensive one, it's the one you have with you when you need to take a picture. You sure aren't taking your DSLR with you everywhere, are you?
large format cameras can have AI postprocessing though lmao
Most DSLRs aren't large format cameras.
It does by default..
AI = Estimated Information
RAW = Real Information
AI can literally make shit up that look more real than real
you can't beat a DSLR lens, image processing and actual sensors are up in the air
a 15 year old dslr censor will btfo a smartphone censor purely because of its size
keep coping cameralet
>jeet posting
I'm still using a Samsung Galaxy Note 8, I don't think will change it soon. But I'm curious, what phones have these leica lenses or some other brand like Zeiss, you know, what phones are being marketed as the best for taking pictures right now?
Sony and Vivo. The you have the iPhone.
>what phones have these leica lenses or some other brand like Zeiss
AFAIK neither Leica not Zeiss make lenses phones.
What they typically do is license the use of their brand name next to cheap Chinese lenses.
They might have some involvement in the design of the lenses but that's pretty much it I think.
It should also be noted that those tiny phone lenses are close to the diffraction limit anyways.
The laws of physics simply don't allow them to be as sharp as larger lenses, no matter how awesome the design and manufacturing is.
I want to see a phone take a sharper image than a Sigma ART lens. I want to see them try.
(Gonna be my next lens. I've borrowed my friend's. I fricking love that lens.)
Hell, a cheap non-AF 50mm prime will out-shoot a cell phone, in sharpness. There just isn't enough glass in a cell phone.
What do they need ? It's just a regular phone
I don’t even want a camera on my phone.
>DSLR
sweetheart we be using mirrorless
Cope and seethe harder, have fun fumbling around with your bulky single-use device, by the time you get that thing turned on the moment will have passed and only the cell phone users will have gotten a shot of it!
>Phonelet mad
>wait I gotta quit my app and launch the photo app
>wait I need to select the macro/main/telephoto/front sensor
>ok I need to tap again because it can't focus
>no stop moving I have HDR enabled
>wait nooo it's all blurry and grainy you're moving too fast
>it's doing the HDR processing in the background, I have to wait a few seconds to do a second pic
meanwhile in the real photography world
>aperture already set because you know what you're gonna shoot
>shutter to 1/1000
>iso at 100 because the sensor is not some cropped 1000000 mpx shit
>take 10 pics at once so you can select the perfect one
>they all end up crystal clear, all details retained
Don't be mad, son, instagram will save your ass by heavily compressing your jpeg.
just double press the power button on my phone and i get into the camera app... super easy and useful to quickly snap a pic
>aperture already set because you know what you're gonna shoot
>shutter to 1/1000
>iso at 100 because the sensor is not some cropped 1000000 mpx shit
>take 10 pics at once so you can select the perfect one
>they all end up crystal clear, all details retained
You know how I can tell you don't know how to use a camera, without telling us you don't know how to use a camera?
>people with cameras don't have phones
You will never take a photo that matters to anyone, be shared with anyone, or seen by anyone but you. Nobody cares.
Ironically that picture shows someone with a DSLR on a strap.
There is absolutely no reason not to wear that every time you go out.
morons take this to mean "phone cameras are the best camera because it's always on you" when what he meant was "any camera is better than no camera".
I think it was meant against "geargays" who long after owning more and more expensive equipment instead of using what they have.
Just like phonegays dreaming about their next phone with even better camera when they barely even use their current phone camera.
No. He said it while using a toy camera as part of a challenge.
You will never be a real camera. You have a tiny fixed lens, tiny noisy sensor, tiny flash. Your fake AI generated "depth of field" is an abomination, a mockery of God and real lenses. People may call you a "camera" to your face to be polite but real photographers laugh at you behind your back.
It has a 1inch sensor, curious how it will compare to something like the RX100VII
The optics are already worse. And knowing xiaomeme, their postprocessing will be absolute trash.
Shoot RAW Black person.
Everyone knows phone JPEGs are garbage, shoot RAW and process accurately. Basically just correct gamma, apply color matrix, adjust exposure if needed, and do no more. That's your qualuty.
Easily 75% as good as a DSLR at the base ISO, but the optics suck so they can only ever compete with shitty lenses.
sexy as frick
Already beats most APS-C cameras + kit zooms
Nice bait
>bait
you sure about that?
100% bud
No kit lens has a fixed f-stop, so no, it's worse.
also
>bigger f stop equivalent is better
how to spot a nophoto
small sensors are "good" if you want compact devices, or crazy optical zooms with compact lenses, since you won't need a focal length as high as a full frame or APS-C. This is all your pics prove.
Now do the opposite anon, let's take an APS-C with an f1.4 lens to do portrait shots and have "muh bokeh effect". The equivalent for your sensor would be f0.7, which does not exist. It's physically not possible to have a lens with such a small f-stop value. And if you were to compare with full frames, then it's worse. Meaning your smartphone will always have to rely on heavy postprocessing to have all those fancy lighting effects on the pictures.
Not even talking about low light shots which this small sensor still doesn't solve and have always been the problem smartphones had.
Also, well, lenses can be changed on cameras.
>your smartphone will always have to rely on heavy postprocessing to have all those fancy lighting effects on the pictures
and this is bad because? go take a look at imagen or dall-e2 - you couldn't tell the made up caustics from a real pic, so there's no difference
>you couldn't tell the made up caustics from a real pic, so there's no difference
Tell that to any photographer, and they will choke to death laughing.
>they will choke to death laughing.
And yet, they still couldn't tell that it's made up, just like they can't tell apart renders from photos.
>And yet, they still couldn't tell that it's made up, just like they can't tell apart renders from photos.
I am laughing at you right now.
>go take a look at imagen or dall-e2
They all look photoshopped.
There's always lighting inconsistencies or worse.
lmao, go shake hands with audiophiles
Na, audiophiles are dumb.
Vision is a much more precise sense.
Just because you have no idea what you're looking at, doesn't mean some random site that says photographers can't tell the difference is correct.
>some random site that says photographers can't tell the difference
some random site like arxiv?
Yeah, like arxiv.
I also personally love the low resolution images often used to sell GAN generated images.
How better to hide the flaws than to just resize down until you lose most of the fine detail?
you sound exactly like audiophiles
>nooo those israelitricks like abx (fid) don't mean anything, I CAN TELL!!!1! so what if i scored bad on some israeli test
>it was only a short sample, if it was longer i could surely tell
photogays can't tell a difference between a photo and a render, both imagen and dall-e2 shit out photorealistic images and can reproduce crap like caustics (I CAN TELL IT'S ARNOLD BECAUSE MUH CAUSTICS!!1! w-what? that was ground truth?)
of course you'll have some crappy output with artifacts, but not nearly as much as you'd like to think
>photogays can't tell a difference between a photo and a render, both imagen and dall-e2 shit out photorealistic images and can reproduce crap like caustics
Or can they? All we have is you saying that they can't.
>All we have is you saying that they can't
and FID paper from 2017 and every worthwhile model having humans rating it
>i-it doesn't exist if i don't know about it
lmao, meme learning triggerring inner audiophool in all the photogays, priceless
>FID paper from 2017
So I found this paper and of course there was nothing about GAN generated images being so good people couldn't tell the difference between them and "real" images.
Instead it was about an improved method of ranking how close to a "real" image a generated image was because the previous method relied too much on human judgment.
>photorealistic images
Let's just remember that "photorealistic" was a label that was also given to the Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within movie.
whew, lad
>and this is bad because?
In camera is king. Why do you think modern films are so uncanny with all their cgi? Same principal. It's an educated, programmatic, guess at reality.
How about depth of field
How about the bokeh
derivative
your pic doesnt show anything being beat, wtf?
>23mm f5.1
Would you like some molasses with your phone camera?
>chink shit
1v1 me right now
I think people really underestimate phone cameras. They'll never be able to match $5,000+ DSLR kits that can take crystal clear photography of asteroid impacts on the moon but compared to sub-$1,000 DSLRs they're pretty darn close, not 100% but 70-90% depending on the image sensor. That makes them INSANELY good value when you factor in everything else a phone does.
wrong moron. the best phone camera doesnt even come close to a $50 used beat to shit DSLR
>not 100% but 70-90% depending on the image sensor
It's not 2010 anymore where phone cameras went blind hours before sunset. They've obviously gone through incremental improvements which added up over the years.
https://www.express.co.uk/life-style/science-technology/1116326/Google-Pixel-3-Canon-80D-DSLR-camera-comparison-smartphone-review
They're still all terrible.
you're not getting a 6000x4000 image out of a fancy new smart phone. If you just want to put garbage on ig sure use a phone, but you're kidding yourself if you think your $1300 phone is on par with a $1300 camera + lens
normies don't care about quality or the exposure triangle so the phone is a better choice for them
Ok boomer
>6000x4000
Go off IG
I'd love to see you post a full resolution photo.
>9000x12000
>15.46MB
HAHAHAHA
That's actually a 12MP sensor you fricking moron. Literally.
12MP. That's not 108MP, it upscales to 108MP.
A cheap dslr is garbage Lmao. My phone takes better pictures in daylight than a cheap dslr. And in night time the dslr takes forever to snap a picture.
>Bait or hopelessly dumb?
I can't tell anymore.
From 1.79MB down to 40KB. Zamn, VP9.
>thinks piece of dogshit phone camera can compete with dedicated camera
>compresses an already terrible looking video into even more dogshit
you dumb Black person ape
my ricoh gr III destroys all smartphones on the market
Can confirm. I have the GRiiix. It murders anything my iToddler 13 Pro Max or my Huawei P40 Pro can shit out.
Shhhh, stop being reasonable, this is IQfy, where slap fights over made up "facts" is more important!
The number one reason why I've used a DSLR over an iPhone camera, is RAW. Some iPhones have ProRAW now, which is better, but I haven't played with it, and there are third party apps that dump the sensor to a RAW file, and bypasses Apple's crappy filtering and adjusting, but where it counts - the actual quality of the sensor, my old ass Nikon just takes better pictures than any iPhone or Samsung phone, in ways that matter (that most of the spergs in this thread have no clue about.)
Some of the other reasons I have a DSLR is lenses, and real flash. Not an LED, but an actual Speedlight. It's important.
But, I'm a very casual hobby photographer, and I have pro photographer friends who help me learn and improve. For casual use, like "Look what I bought!" shots, phone cameras are perfectly fine. They're in a pretty good place these days, and complete overkill for most people, for taking casual photos. Compared to what most people had, before smart phones, which was disposable film cameras developed at Costco, people have access to much better cameras than any time in history.
I think a good analogy is a phone cameras is like a $20 harbor freight drill. If you use it on a construction site you're probably going to get fired on the spot but if you're just hanging up a couple of picture frames and tightening a couple of loose cabinet doors it's going to be almost as good as a super milwaukee drill with a 9001v XXL battery.
The moral of the story is you don't always need the best things in life, even if you're rich. Sometimes winning 3rd/4th place is okay.
>Sometimes winning 3rd/4th place is okay.
You sound like a disappointment haha
>t. tightens loose cabinet doors with a super milwaukee drill with a 9001v XXL battery
If you're using sub-full frame camera, phones are simply better when not needing telephoto, fisheye or macro (which 99% are not)
But Samsung uses a focus chart on all their phones, so you can take pictures of the moon.
you don't even know what DSLR stands for
>inb4 you google what DSLR stands for
i love how it LOOKS like it BTFOs the silly three-lens phones we have now
phenomenal advertisement through design alone
>reeeee phones can't have a good camera!
>just carry a full DSLR in a padded camera bag with a lens kit and set up a tripod whenever you want to snap a photo!
>S-stupid phonegays, you'll never replace a DSLR!
You absolute genetic frickups win the award for being the most violently autistic morons I have ever seen. Holy shit. No one cares. People just take selfies and quickly snap point and shoot photos with their phones because its convenient.
You are this close to getting the point if this thread.
>You absolute genetic frickups win the award for being the most violently autistic morons I have ever seen.
What level of irony are you on right now?
Read back your own post, this post and realize where you are, what you're doing, right now.
Right now.
This looks sexy, where do I buy it?
your mom's fat clit
Like 90% of my pictures are just funny pictures of my cat, so I don't really care.
How do you take panorama photos with DSLRs?
You take multiple photos and stitch them together in Photoshop or ICE, the same way you smartphone is doing it.
The same way you do with a phone or flim camera - you take a series of shots and stitch them together. It's built into iPhone's camera app, but i was doing it manually with a tripod and Nikon years ago, with Photoshop for stitching. I have some panoramas of Alaska that came out beautifully.
only the yellow box is the main 1" sensor camera
the rest is just other cameras and lights
It's actually the one in the centre. What you have highlighted is the periscope lens.
Nope, MKBHD confirms it too, the primary camera is the one on the side.
The middle is the ultrawide, the telephoto is the top (in OPs image)
That's the zoom camera you dumb dumb
Nope see
Already did
I never understood the point of someone wanting to get a ridiculous phone with a frick huge camera. Just get a dedicated DSLR or a simple point and shoot you stupid homosexuals.
do they even sell DSLR's anymore?
Of course they do. Bigger is better in optics and smartphones can never be as good as real cameras until they are the size of real cameras.
*Mirrorless.
Convenience trumps fidelity. 92% of things you use a camera for don't truly merit needing a DSLR.
And if you're really going to be a sperg about it, then you'd at least be shooting medium format.
Full-frame digital is better than medium format film in everything except resolution
A shame we don't have cheap medium and large format sensors yet, they would make film obsolete finally.
>modern cellphones can't even create a 3000x2000 image from bright sunlight without it being a noisy, crushed, mess while my 10 year old APS-C DSLR can shit this out
cute dog did you frick it?
>fox
>dog
>foxes aren't canines.
oops my mistake. I swore I read they shared a lineage closer to cats than dogs. oh well I guess I just read lies on the internet. why would someone do that? tell lies on the internet?
You might've read that they're one of the few canines that has adapted to life with humans, but by numbers far outpaced by feral cats.
>MY HECKIN' PHOTON COUNTS
i mean yeah actually it's good
Take your shitty 1-inch sensor and frick off phonegays
Real men have full frame
>marketing says 1 inch sensor
>it's not even 1 inch diagonally
I know it's a holdover from vacuum tube cameras, but god damn I hate marketing israelites so much
You gotta go up to the APS-C before you get more than 1" diagonal (APS-C is 1.11" diagonal)
And then when they try and change it to be more accurate people will REEEEE just like with intel's nanometer change.
What's stopping a camera company from taking a laptop cpu, ram, nvme drives and work it into a camera?
Shit's real cheap, hardware wise.
Overheating causing reduction in image quality and Sony cameras refusing to work until they cool down.
Comparison time.
My DSLR has a modest 1900mAh battery.
I can leave it turned on for days with barely any battery drain because unless you have live view on, or are focusing or taking photos it barely sips power.
From powered off to being ready to take a photo is a fraction of a second. Even the iPhone camera app takes longer to start up than my camera.
You will not get this kind of performance from laptop parts stuffed into a camera body. They're just not made for it. You could have a very customizable camera, because you could substitute hardware solutions for software, but you'll give up a lot of the general performance.
Battery life. My Nikon will shoot most of a day on a single battery, adding a computer, it might last...10 minutes?
Every couple of months techbloggers start writing about how <new phone> is now better than a dedicated camera.
And every time I look at the full size sample images and find that they are denoised into oblivion en oversharpened to hell.
Has anyone even figured out how to stop the fake bokeh from bluring out glass items?
So with my phone I can just whip it out, not fiddle with any settings, tap a single time on the thing that I want to shoot and the app adjusts focus and lighting, hit the shutter and I have a picture that doesn't disappoint. AI postprocessing takes care that everything is visible, colors look decent, and I don't *need* to get it in lightroom. Reliably at least mediocre, sometimes good.
Is there a dedicated camera equivalent that is equally simple (indicate the subject and lighting/focus is automatic) and reliably gives at least mediocre photos?
Sure, for a picture of your lunch. A camera phone is perfect for that.
Now, try that with a composed shot of a waterfall, metering the light, and using a good wide angle. You can't even get close to a shot a DSLR is designed to take. DSLRs have never been sold nor designed for casual point and shoot stuff, it's for going above that and actually trying to make a composed shot. You know what people used before phone cameras? Point and click cameras like a Coolpix, which is about as much work to take a quick snap of your lunch as a camera phone.
Phone cameras have improved. They have a lot of use. But for fine art photograpy, or any kind of pro level photography, they simply don't compete. But they're not designed to. Just as how DSLRs weren't designed to take funny pictures of your cat.
Obviously, they are not meant to beat them.
But not everyone wants and needs to carry around a huge DSLR in their pocket all day just to take some simple pictures and i can't use my DSLR to use all sorts of apps.
Of course DLSRs will always have their use.
>a DSLR
They're on the way out anon, it's all about mirrorless now.
the Sony alpha mirrorless cameras run on Android, checkmate
Android is an operating system.
I don't see your point.
snoy's xperia phones can use them duh
Sony a6000 (etc.) cameras OS is Android, if I wasn't clear (yes it was a shitpost)
>1 inch sensor
>it's, in fact, 0.68 inches
And even the marketing is a lie
Why the salt? I have a full frame from fricking ebay for real photography, and this will be an improvement on phone cameras. Make it cheap enough and I'll get one, so even my drunk and or bullshit pics will be pretty good.
WTF where did the trees go
apple wallet ran out of funds, trees removed during post-processing.
>phone cameralets
>dslrlets
>35mmlets
Maybe when you grow up, you can experience the raw power of 4"x5" large format.
xiaomi and its parent company BBK Electronics have been trying to enter the western market for a while, it's important for them to not look like an aliexpress iphone wannabe phone. xiaomi's shtick was always having outrageous features to bring free attention and press. first example i remember of this was the mi mix.
the camera part doesn't need to be this big, the main 1" camera' isn't even the center one.
Whatev's
I'm going to keep shooting with ASP-C and MFT cameras. Anyways, there is more to photography than image sharpness and clarity. Sometimes to get the photo you want, you need to do worse, not better.
Picrel. The original raw looked fricking god awful, but processing it, I ended up with one of my favorite photos. Unless you are a professional doing this for money, take photos YOU like, not that other people like.
You could have at least removed that spot in the sky.
Left intentionally. That camera was having serious sensor issues. It was very imperfect. That is part of why I love it.
what noob. no one is arguing against post-processing. and sensor size is about reducing image noise, not increasing sharpness
>calls others noobs
>post no photos
Thinking about upgrading my S21 Ultra to this Xiaomi. Just not sure if it will work in the states (T-Mobile)
Imagine being a pleb that uses anything smaller than a 35mm sensor.
Where do I buy this beast?
Only available in China
Why do you morons care so much when almost all of you never even leave your basement. What are you getting this mad over? Dicks pics?
>Why do you morons care so much when almost all of you never even leave your basement.
Project harder.
Looks like i hit home 🙂
Two strikes.
Will you strike out?