Sony Expects Smartphones to Exceed DSLR Quality within the Next Few Years

[LazyGamer]

Unless somebody did DLSRs with AI for idiots like me, I doubt I would ever take a better picture with a camera vs a smartphone in my untrained hands.

Well, uh, they are. The latest autofocus algorithms are knock-your-socks-off effective. The ergonomics are a dream, and the lenses are fast-focusing and generally devoid of the kinds of problems that plagued the transition from film to digital.

And they also do real video really, really well.

 

[Grimlakin]

Well, uh, they are. The latest autofocus algorithms are knock-your-socks-off effective. The ergonomics are a dream, and the lenses are fast-focusing and generally devoid of the kinds of problems that plagued the transition from film to digital.

And they also do real video really, really well.

And you can get two lenses for the cost of one top tier smartphone.... and they weigh 5lbs each... And you'll want a tripod. Oh and the body is the size of a Chuck Norris boot. Don't forget the cramped neck and shoulders... Oh and if you want to switch real quick just buy another camera body for your other lens...

For pro's YES whatever type of pro camera is OBVIOUSLY and PAINFULLY better than a Smartphone.

BUT for everyone else that isn't interested in photography as a professional then Smartphones are the way to go... it's your phone it takes pictures and you can get some very nice shots with them. All without worrying about your Expensive phone and all of it's associated stuff.

What we are seeing happen I think is that the big cameras are going professional and exiting the market. For a long while DSLR's and like got cheap... you could enter as a hobby for a little bit of cash outlay and have fun taking pictures that looked great. Then you bought a mac because it's what the pro's used.... and got photoshop to adjust your images... and so on.

Now it's all built into a phone where you can edit it right then and there and post it on FB or whatever other social media platform, text it to grandma so she can see the kids playing with the animals at the petting zoo the whole deal. And yes I know there are cameras that you can do a lot of this with as well but they are inferior... not to mention people for whatever reason will spend thousands every few years on phones but never want to reinvest (as a hobbiest) in cameras that way unless they are deep in.

 

[MadMummy76]

Ease of use, zoom functionality with no additional purchase, portability, quality for the average consumer.

Those were never metrics of a DSLR. So it's not as much outpaced, as never been relevant. If someone wanted portability and ease of use over quality they didn't buy a DSLR even 15 years ago.

Unless you want timeless photos done at an event, or are into photography in general then really all of the hassle around buying a DSLR camera, lenses, additional batteries, stands, and everything else is just not worth it.

If that was your standard then DSLRs were never for you, as bridge and compact cameras "outpaced" DSLRs long ago in that department.

I invested a few grand (so CLEARLY not high end.) into my wife's DSLR interest some 8+ years ago. Now she doesn't even care about that because the newest phones take photos better than her skill could eek out of a a DSLR without needing to 'train up'. That and when you have the phone to play with the modern phones have many ways to emulate the abilities of a DSLR. Hell you can even take pictures in .RAW and do extended exposures and all of that fun stuff. + all of the stuff having it built into your phone includes.

As I've said I sold my DSLR because I bought into this, that smartphones are good enough. Worst decision of my life.

So yea... my few years ago is 8 ish years ago. And my Note 20 Ultra with it's 100 bla blah blah and built in 5x telephoto lens and umpteen other features makes her old DSLR with several lenses, tripod, extra batteries and memory cards, and so and and so on... seem old and and antiquated.

If I wanted to take a photograph I'd rather have my first DSLR from 2008 in my hand than any phone.

I have ZERO doubt someone with skill using the camera could take amazing pictures. But when we want pictures these days on the fly it's to preserve memories. Not to get the most accurate light/color soaked images that have perfect reality captured.

Each time I decided not to take my proper equipment with me on a trip I regretted it. As all the pictures turned out as dogshit. Having grainy, blurry, hazy images is worse than not having any images. There is no worse feeling to me than looking at my pictures after going home and realizing they are a waste of space. And unfortunately that's how most smartphone images turn out. The trips I captured with proper cameras I happily look at. The ones with a smartphone or any sub-par compact camera makes me want to shoot myself for being so dumb that I thought it will be good enough.

So I'll say again. A DSLR from a few years ago. (NOT cutting edge even then.) is outpaced by modern phones. Add in additional functionality and modern phones leave many DSLR and newer cameras in the dust.

If you are talking about ease of use, it's not as much outpaced, as that was never a priority with DSLRs in the first place.
A DSLR from 15 years ago is still better at taking photos even in point and shoot mode than any modern smartphone. You can try to change my mind, but you won't be able to.

 

[MadMummy76]

My old Nikon D90 is still a way better camera than anything in any phone on the market.

That said, smartphones have improved and overtaken it in some small areas.

For instance, when the D90 launched, it was one of, if not the, first DSLR's that could capture video. It did so very well in 2008, but 2008 was a very long time ago now, and nowhere was that more evident than when I recently compared video quality between my D90 and my Pixel 5a. The phone simply produced MUCH better quality here. Even with multiple strong light sources, I just couldn't get enough light for the camera to capture good quality video.

That said, DSLR's have an inherent advantage, and that is their size.

Video is an entirely other subject. And I think DSLRs were never very good at it, it was always a compromise. I tried to shoot video with my DSLR many times.

All I can say to anyone who wants to shoot video is to avoid DSLRs like the devil, they are great still cameras, but seriously compromised when it comes to video.

 

[LazyGamer]

For pro's YES whatever type of pro camera is OBVIOUSLY and PAINFULLY better than a Smartphone.

Well, so, you're not technically wrong when talking about 'pro' pro's, however, there's still a very large market between "fully pro" and "only needs a cellphone".

A decent example might be Fuji's X-mount system. Smaller than the Rebels and D3x000s of old with a range of cameras in extremely small sizes as well as extremely high capabilities, and lenses the same.

Personally, though unfortunately*, I'm using Canon's M line, which is even smaller than Fuji's, and still getting incredible results out of that tiny package - that couldn't be gotten with a smartphone.


(*Canon is poised to abandon this line for their crop RF cameras like the EOS R7 I mentioned earlier - though some of the better lenses from EF-M are likely to be transitioned to "RF-S" as rehousings, like the RF 18-150 that is shipping as the R7 kit lens - I have the EF-M version for my EOS M5)

 

[LazyGamer]

Video is an entirely other subject. And I think DSLRs were never very good at it, it was always a compromise. I tried to shoot video with my DSLR many times.

Well, video became available on DSLRs when sensor readout speeds became quick enough. Canon has lead the pack here, first through readout speeds and actually having a real-time feed to the display (if you've seen older Sony and NIkon DSLRs / DSLTs / MILCs, you know what it means to not have this), while Sony has provided more recent competition and Nikon looks to actually be catching up.

And they have just about everything figured out. The lenses are actually the biggest problem as photographic lenses tend to be tuned more for acuity, whereas cinema lenses (or video lenses in general, meaning broadcast lenses) tend to eschew absolute acuity for other optical corrections as well as being parfocal (for zooms, which means that the focus point doesn't change when the zoom ratio changes) and having little to no focus breathing (which means that the field of view doesn't change when focus changes). There are other optical traits that tend to differ a bit as well, such as handling of flare and chromatic aberrations.

And to put it simply, a fast zoom lens that is both parfocal and exhibits no focus breathing is not a cheap endeavor, even if it has the optical quality of a glass bottle!


Beyond glass, things like rolling shutter producing a 'jello effect' due to slow readout speeds (or just lack of global shutter) and focus and stabilization inconsistencies are still being ironed out, but are so very close that it'd be hard to tell for most video use. Assuming the limitations are mitigated, we're at the point where being able to tell the difference between a 'cinema' or 'video' camera and a photography-focused MILC is very difficult.

 

[Grimlakin]

Sounds like we have some photography aficionados here. And for you folks I will agree the smartphone won't replace your devices probably ever.

Just out of curiosity have you see what a note 20 ultra can do? Not saying it doesn't touch things up of that I'm not aware. But the pictures are really good IMO.

 

[Grimlakin]

A picture of a fallen tree for reference. Great outdoor lighting though.

 

[LazyGamer]

Just out of curiosity have you see what a note 20 ultra can do? Not saying it doesn't touch things up of that I'm not aware. But the pictures are really good IMO.

That phone specifically, no - but phone cameras really haven't advanced much in the last few years. Processing has, but we're really just waiting for Sony to push out another generation of tech. It's similar to the progress rate slowdown we've seen with CPUs.

View attachment 1643

A picture of a fallen tree for reference. Great outdoor lighting though.

So, I see two things on first pass:

a) nothing is actually 'sharp'

and

b) the loss of detail that smacks of JPEG processing is readily apparent (and may be causing 'a'...)

Problem is, you don't know if the detail was actually there or not - the processing makes that question unanswerable. What I can also say is that the great outdoor lighting means that the actual dynamic range in the scene is fairly limited, thus also covering for the small sensor, while the amount of light means that the camera doesn't have to rely on cumulative exposure processing techniques that are susceptible to subject and camera movement, or just plain using a longer exposure with the same limitations.

Main thing I can tell you is that the system around the sensor here is absolutely not up to supporting the sensor resolution on tap - whether it's the lens or the processing, or both. With larger sensors, you can absolutely outresolve the sensor with the rest of the system, and do so without using machine learning to fill in the 'blanks'.

 

[Grimlakin]

And hence the rub. To me that looks great. Lol

 

[MadMummy76]

Well, video became available on DSLRs when sensor readout speeds became quick enough. Canon has lead the pack here, first through readout speeds and actually having a real-time feed to the display (if you've seen older Sony and NIkon DSLRs / DSLTs / MILCs, you know what it means to not have this), while Sony has provided more recent competition and Nikon looks to actually be catching up.

And they have just about everything figured out. The lenses are actually the biggest problem as photographic lenses tend to be tuned more for acuity, whereas cinema lenses (or video lenses in general, meaning broadcast lenses) tend to eschew absolute acuity for other optical corrections as well as being parfocal (for zooms, which means that the focus point doesn't change when the zoom ratio changes) and having little to no focus breathing (which means that the field of view doesn't change when focus changes). There are other optical traits that tend to differ a bit as well, such as handling of flare and chromatic aberrations.

And to put it simply, a fast zoom lens that is both parfocal and exhibits no focus breathing is not a cheap endeavor, even if it has the optical quality of a glass bottle!


Beyond glass, things like rolling shutter producing a 'jello effect' due to slow readout speeds (or just lack of global shutter) and focus and stabilization inconsistencies are still being ironed out, but are so very close that it'd be hard to tell for most video use. Assuming the limitations are mitigated, we're at the point where being able to tell the difference between a 'cinema' or 'video' camera and a photography-focused MILC is very difficult.

Well, the biggest issue after video became available on DSLRs was focus to me. Autofocus just wouldn't work, and following a moving subject with MF is really not easy. But still better than the AF constantly overcorrecting, not to mention the loud AF motor in some lenses.

I think a camcorder still works better for video than a DSLR or MILC, although I have not tried the most recent models. But a good video lens for your milc / DSLR will cost about 2x as much as a decent camcorder, to get comparable results. So I stand by my statement, if you want to do video, don't buy DSLR / MILC.

 

[LazyGamer]

The most recent models have stupidly-sticky video AF.

The Canon ones will do it even with lenses like their RF 85/1.2L - wide open at f/1.2.