TLDR; Phone cameras are not as good as SLRs because of tiny sensor, tiny lens and fixed focal length. How do we improve them then? Well, put as many as 16 different sensor+lens combinations in a small body, capture multiple views simultaneously and then algorithmically combine them to generate picture that looks as good as SLR.
I think its cool idea and this is where smartphone industry is heading anyway, iPhone 7 being the first example. The key is algorithms to combine multiple views which can invariably introduce errors and artifacts for the trained eye. In extreme case, the entire back side of phone can be just rectangular matrix of 100s of lenses and sensor capturing the scene simultaneously and generate gigapixel image that can be viewed at variable focal length after the fact. That would be cool!
No, iPhone 7 is certainly not the first example of a multi-camera phone. There have been several multi-sensor phones, this year both Huawei (P9) and LG (G5) were launched with such. In an article on these devices it is noted that 'Apple's iPhone 7 Plus is rumored to be following their lead later this year'. Correct, Apple did follow their lead, especially Huawei's as the P9 does just what is described in the article: it uses multiple sensors to increase image quality.
Please don't perpetuate this myth of Apple being first with such and so. As a rule they are not first with anything, instead they see what others are doing and produce their own version of the idea. A refined version often, but that does not make it the first version.
I'm as "androidist" as you can get (owned an iDevice once, got it for free and sold it off still wrap-sealed), but even I flat out assume that when e.g. HTC does dual camera, it's a pointless act of attention grabbing (and indeed, the M9 returned to a conventional camera), whereas I am quite confident that Apple would not do it without some actual value delivered.
In the cited cases, not only tried, but actively used them. If you mean multicamera phone, no, never used one. Not from Apple or any manufacturer.
I think it's wise to consider that there might be more to "Apple did it first" than hype, specially since it's such a common praise/criticism: Apple II, Mac, iPod, iPhone.
Do other phones show real time preview? Do they look as good? Although far from perfect, are the photos good enough that you might want to share/keep it more often than not?
There certainly is more to 'Apple did it first' than hype. Those who claim Apple did it first often do so out of ignorance rather than hype. They simply assume that Apple is the leading innovator which is copied by others.
On you questions about other phones showing live preview or looking 'as good' (something which surely is subjective?) I can only advice you to look at test reports for mobile devices in the last few years. In most cases Samsung seems to top the list, both in the photo quality department as well as the (subjective) 'looks' category. A quick search for 'best camera phone' for the last two years and a tally of the results shows the Samsung Galaxy S7 (Edge or normal) to win in 2016, the Samsung Galaxy S6 and LG G4 in 2015. Apple does compete in this market and ends up performing above average but others do better.
So, to return to your statement about is being 'wise to consider that there might be more to "Apple did it first" than hype, specially since it's such a common praise/criticism'; yes, there is more to it, but it is not founded on the fact that Apple always make superior products. They make products of above average quality and sell them at an above average price to a captive audience which is convinced of the superiority of their choice above others. That conviction is not based on direct comparison with other products, it merely stems from their conviction of Apple being 'first' and 'best'. The captive audience is kept that way by the closed nature of Apple's product lines - hardware and software alike - which often makes it more expensive to 'switch sides' than to plunk down for the next iteration of iSomething or Macsomething
Huawei had sold 6M of the P9 in September. Apple sold 13M combining both models the first week last year, and they have not released sales this year, but it's supposedly down around 25%.
I'm not even sure what you mean with multimedia and multitouch. Are you suggesting other phones don't have it? Does iPhone have better "multimedia"?
It could be anything from better implementation to brand awareness and perception to marketing.
It is a big jump to just assume Apple's solution's popularity implies Apple has the better solution.
Edit:
LG's wide-angle solution pleased a lot of people (just enthusiasts? idk) because of the utility in taking shots of landscapes.
Apple's solution is also great for those moments you want to zoom in just a bit more without destroying quality completely.
Huawei's solution is excellent for capturing more detail with black/white though their software processing isn't great.
Personally I wouldn't mind a solution with 4 cameras: Cam 1 for regular shots. Zoom in and the Apple-style camera is used. Zoom out and the LG-Style is used. The black/white camera will be used where it makes sense to enhance the image or when you select a b/w filter.
This will invariably insight flame, but you did ask:
That Apple consumers aren't very informed consumers? I'm not knocking their products, but I know plenty of mainly Apple users that buy them because they are solid, middle-of-the-road products that don't require much thought. That's both good and bad.
Disclaimer: I have had iPhones, iPads and might buy a Macbook after todays reveal depending on featureset.
It's not Apple consumers, so much as the general public. I guarantee you that the average Android smartphone owner (if they even knew that dual cameras exist) thought Apple was the first to do so too. It's marketing. Positively for Apple, and negatively for the brands who have this tech and don't manage to get the word to the average person.
You make a big mistake in assuming owners of Android phones are more informed than Apple owners. Especially since Android owners outnumber Apple by quite a margin. You may be correct in assuming that the more informed consumer tends to purchase an Android device (though maybe not), but that doesn't lead to your conclusion.
You are right, it was a bit of a lizard response. I really don't judge people for either decision of hardware, but more by their justification of that choice. There are numerous reasons for going for either brand/model. But I do notice a lot of these threads tend to express the same (incorrect assumption) as GP, which kind of riles me up.
"Please don't perpetuate this myth of Apple being first with such and so. As a rule they are not first with anything, instead they see what others are doing and produce their own version of the idea. A refined version often, but that does not make it the first version."
I really don't understand why people are getting so worked up of company X of Y being first or debunking Apple myths....
I personally couldn't care less (and I think most consumers) because I value a good working implementation before the fact that a brand is the first in anything. Why does that matter?
I really don't understand why people are getting so worked up of company X of Y being first or debunking Apple myths....
This is 'hacker news' which implies that a sizeable percentage of visitors are 'hackers', a species known for its appreciation of fact over fiction. Let the first be the first, and stay that way, even if a while later someone else comes along and does it again but this time with racing stripes and spoilers.
Here there be logic, cold hard facts and objectivity. Save the subjectivity and waffling for Emacs <-> Vi and the like.
It sounds like a good idea. But it may not be suitable for all conditions where people use a DSLR.
One example I can think of is macrophotography. In this case, the subject is simply too close to the camera to be covered by the numerous lenses of the Light camera. I'm also not sure if the mechanical mirrors can be moved fast enough for high-speed action photography; but it might be.
Of course, it is a very specific example. For general usage, the Light may be a compelling replacement for a DSLR.
For "normal" macro photographs, smartphone cameras are already doing an OK job. If you put a macro lens in front of your cellphone camera, it can be better.
Yea the closer you get to the object, the worse the picture. But on the upside you start to get pretty good 3d scanning. With multiple views from different angles you'd be able to create detailed 3d scans of small objects.
You may want to use this in video chat - each person's face will be rendered in high accuracy in 3D!
Unfortunately the screen is on the other side of the cameras...
While this approach won't get you good macro performance, with some tweaks the DoF from small sensors could be a real boon. If you could pack a few of these close together, especially in a small package, there's a wonderful opportunity for wide-angle macro photography.
I've been told about superresolution before, since, I'm waiting for smartphones to use it for pictures. The megapixel race produced such horrendous sampling and compression artifacts.
I found this article really engaging. His ability to explain the product and its guiding principles in laymans terms immediately destroys the many doubts that cropped up in my mind as I read. The lack of unneccessary jargon gave me an affinity to the product that I couldnt have got had he just appealed to the photophiles.
I still have questions but I thought his clear communication style was quite compelling to someone like me who only has a cursory understanding of photography.
It's a really really interesting idea - I'm looking forward to see how it turns out. If it really is as good as claimed (and actually makes it to market), I'll almost certainly buy one. However, I'll be buying one in addition to my existing DSLR equipment, not as a replacement.
The tech as presented in this article isn't really competing with DSLRs so much, as with m4/3 systems and things like the sony A7R series. The real reason for paying the size, weight and cost penalty of a DSLR these days is focus performance, near-zero lag and extreme flexibility - none of which this is going to be able to duplicate.
For example, with my DSLR, 500mm lens and large tripod I can capture the exact moment a bird dives into a river to spear a fish, perfectly frozen in time. That's simply not possible with this system, and extremely difficult with m4/3 and other small-sized equivalents.
So no, it's not going to outperform DSLRs. It might be a useful addition to your camera equipment, though.
1) m4/3 and similar cameras use EVFs (electronic viewfinders) instead of optical ones - these have inherent and percievable lag. It's getting better, but still present (and due to the way they work, it's unlikely to be eliminated in the near future). This means that what you see through the viewfinder is a bit behind what's really happening, making precise timing hard.
2) Focussing on fast-moving targets - espcially if the background is "busy" (i.e. has lots of contrast) is very hard for the camera (and user!) to get right. Most non-DSLR cameras use contrast-based autofocus, which is more accurate for still scenes, but slower and worse at dealing with demanding situations like the one I illustrated. DSLRs use phase detection sensors, which are much better at highly demanding situations like these (although slightly less accurate with still subjects).
Neither of these means that it's impossible - but it does mean that in situations like the one I described your success rate - shots that are in focus, and where the timing is correct - tends to be significantly lower than with a highend DSLR. When you're trying to capture a rare event (again like the one I described) that you only have one attempt at per day/week/whatever, a significantly reduced success rate is a really big problem.
The EVF lag is the primary reason I've stuck with DSLR over micro-4/3 until now. Every one I've tried, no matter how fast it's purported to be, has just enough lag to make me feel slightly queasy.
Another reason is that the EVF is a screen with all its inherent issues. A screen is its own light source, compared to a DSLR finder which is the sunlight bouncing off the scene via the mirror directly into your eye. Your eye via a mirror can see a much larger dynamic range than the EVF screen, and you can make a call on exposure based on that. That said, if the EVF was truly representative of what the sensor was picking up, it may actually be useful, but the EVF is almost certainly showing a quantized version of what the sensor is seeing, and when you get the image in Lightroom or whatever it'll be different to what you saw on the EVF.
RE 2) mirror-less cameras now use hybrid focus - both contrast and phase detection, also they have much more focus points to work with.
Plus shooting speed should also be quicker in mirror-less (not sure if super high-end DSLR is still close) - sony a6000 gives you 11 fps of continuous shooting rate
Some of them have started doing this - tech is always marching forward. However no mirrorless system in the world comes close to a highend DSLR. The Sony a6000 is probably the best mirrorless system I'm aware of right now for autofocus, but it still can't come close to what a skilled (for example) Nikon D5 user can do. There are a number of reasons for this, some of which are:
1) One dimensional phase detect sensors, rather than the (more expensive) cross-hatch ones used in DSLRs, which don't perform as well with movement or low light conditions.
2) Reduced processing power, lack of dedicated autofocus processing silicon, and less sophisicated data pipeline in general.
3) Greatly reduced user control. DSLRs, pro ones especially, have enormously sophisiticated control systems, and the ability to completely switch setup very quickly. There are a huge number of ways I can influence what descions the autofocus system makes on my cameras, and I use them to make sure the camera corretly interprets what part of what object it should be focussing on. I probably want the camera to be focussing on the head of the bird (rather than the wingtip, which is typically what a m4/3 system will go for), but that's unlikely to be in the exact centre of the frame, and definitely isn't the closest or most distinct object in the scene, so I need to tell the camera (very quickly and accurately) what it should do. Small mirrorless cameras with limited physical buttons and less tightly controllable focus systems make this very hard.
Highend DSLRs can also beat that continuous shooting rate - a Nikon D5, for example, will do 12fps (or 14fps with the mirror locked up). However frames per second isn't always relevent - you're going to be at 1/2000s minimum for this sort of shot, which means that even at 12fps you're capturing only ~ 0.6% of the time. If there's one specific moment you're targetting, even at very high fps, holding the shutter down is a bad strategy. It's useful in some situations (fps is important for pro sports photography for example), but it's often less important than a lot of people seem to believe.
I shoot with both a Pentax K-30 (a DSLR that you'd classify as pretty decent pro-sumer, but about 3-year-old tech) and an Olympus OM-D E-M5ii (a mirrorless m43 that is one of the best available for this technology - although the Sony has a better sensor). And a caveat to this: I'm a really crappy bird photographer, I do mostly landscape.
DSLRs, pro ones especially, have enormously sophisiticated control systems... There are a huge number of ways I can influence what descions the autofocus system makes
If anything, the control system in my m43 camera is more sophisticated. And the autofocus is a big part of that. Similar to many cell phones, my m43 camera has a touch screen that allows me to tap the part of the scene I'd like it to use for focusing. This is a better system than any DSLR I've used. I doubt that in autopilot it would pick the wingtip: because it's in motion it's likely to be less sharp than, say, the head.
Regarding the lag in the EVF, it's certainly noticeable. But I don't see that as a problem in this use case. My experience with capturing moving subjects is that you don't even try to get that one single perfect shot. Instead you're going to be in high-speed shooting mode, grabbing many images of the scene over at least a second or so, in order to pick the best of the set. In this case, the frame rate really is important.
Finally, there's a real advantage to a mirrorless camera for the landscape work I usually do. A lot of the shots I'm looking for are long exposures where it's imperative for the camera to be absolutely still (and I've found that your approach shouldn't be "use a tripod when necessary", but instead "always use a tripod unless it's impractical to do so"). Even the internal operations of the camera can introduce unwanted vibrations. Most DSLRs (unfortunately my DSLR is not one of these) allow you lock up the mirror, which is the largest offender, but that precludes use of the optical viewfinder. But even farther, my mirrorless m43 also allows switching to full-electronic shutter, so there's nothing mechanical at all to shake the camera; I'm not aware of any DSLR that has such a mode, although there may be something out there.
Please don't take this as any sort of put-down, but I definitely wouldn't regard the Pentax K-30 as "decent pro-sumer". It's an entry level DSLR. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that - some really excellent photographers use similar equipment and get amazing results - but it's not really what I was writing about. I also note that your m4/3 camera appears to cost almost double what your DSLR does despite having a smaller sensor (which is my far the most expensive part in any camera body), so it's not surprising it has rather more features.
The cameras I was really talking about are professional and semi professional tools - which right now is cameras like the canon 1dx II, nikon d5 (pro) and canon 5d III, nikon d810 (semi-pro). Pentax, I'm afraid, doesn't really have anything comparable right now.
The control systems of these bodies are very, very different to what you're used to - the learning curve is far steeper, they're less forgiving of mistakes, but in good hands are remarkably effective tools. They also cost rather more - between USD $2700 and $6500 for the body alone.
Holding the release down and choosing the best image of the set is a common way to capture images - as I explained however, if there's a specific moment you want to capture you're very unlikely to get it this way. If you're taking a series of shots of something moving and you just want the best one? Well then buffer size becomes at least as important, if not more so, than framerate. It doesn't really help if you capture 11fps but can only do so for one second when the person next to you can do 9fps for 20 seconds. I'd also note that many users of high-end DSLRs have spent this money partly because they are indeed able to get that single perfect shot, due to lots and lots of practice.
You're absolutely correct about mirror induced vibration being a real problem for some shots. Electronic first curtain shutters are actually present in some highend DSLRs (the nikon d810 for example) - but as you say, mirrorless systems tend to be excellent at landscape photography (although sadly tilt/shift lenses for mirrorless cameras are few and far between). The point I was attempt to make was that DSLRs are masters of flexibility - m4/3 cameras do some things exceedingly well, and some things not quite well. DSLRs tend to be good at pretty much everything, if you can live with the size, weight and cost. A great deal of professionals have both - mirrorless systems for the times when they work well, and a DSLR for everything else.
P.s. in response to your paragraph on wingtip focus I've a couple of points. Firstly, touchscreen focus is great for many things, but it REALLY is not going to help you capture a fast moving bird in flight. Secondly, the head and the wings are both moving, in multiple directions at once. Neither are differently "sharp" to the autofocus sensor. The reason wingtip focus is such an incredibly common error with birds in flight photography is because the wingtip is closer, depending on the angle may sometimes move in front of the head, has more contrast and tends to be bigger (depending on the species). All these factors combine, and thus why it's a very common issue. Note that you'll only see it if you have a pretty shallow depth of field - which you're less likely to have on a small sensor camera, or with a slow lens.
Pentax, I'm afraid, doesn't really have anything comparable right now.
Splitting hairs, but I don't think that's quite right. The medium-format 645D is a step above those you've cited (yet with a comparable price). And the recent K-1 (not to be confused with the K-01, nice job marketing guys) should be on par with the D810, etc. (see [1] and [2]). However, I'll grant that whatever else it might be doing with image quality, Pentax's autofocus systems have always been sub-par. They're improving, but so is the competition.
I'll defer to your experience with birds; I admit to being crappy with that. But I think in your example of capturing the ultimate instant, autofocus does not enter the picture (so to speak). If you're worried about the EVF delay, the (lack of) speed of autofocus will put you right out of the ballpark. If you want that decisive moment, you're going to need to be pre-focused. Or are you tracking the subject continuously? I have particularly bad results trying that.
The point I was attempt to make was that DSLRs are masters of flexibility ... if you can live with the size, weight and cost
And indeed, those latter issues are a big tradeoff, as the OP notes and I've found myself - since I got the Olympus I've hardly used the Pentax at all. You can't just wave them off as caveats, they really are important. If I'm willing to use the kit zoom lens, I can actually fit the thing into a pocket, which is a big part of why I bought it. As the saying goes, "the best camera is the one you have with you".
But it's not just availability, it's also handling and agility. The weight of, say, a 300mm equivalent lens on a m43 body is a small fraction of the same for full frame. That translates into better stability when forced to hand-hold, or ability to move faster onto target even when on a tripod, which is important when acquiring and tracking a moving subject.
On the other hand, that same thing is a detriment for portrait photography with a m43. The same geometry that works well for long lenses means that it's difficult to impossible to achieve the short depth of field that you can get with a bigger-sensor camera. I think Sony may have that covered, but for reasons we needn't get into here, Sony products aren't allowed in my house.
[2] "Image Quality is where the K-1 definitely outshines the majority of its competition at this price point, with the camera giving one of the best Raw dynamic range results we've ever seen, falling just short of the industry-leading Nikon D810. Low light Raw image quality is a match for just about anything on the market, falling just short of the class-leading Sony a7R II." (https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/pentax-k-1/10 )
The 645D is a really great camera, but in common with all medium format cameras has very basic autofocus - indeed most modern m4/3 cameras would beat it in that regard. High speed autofocus is not why you buy a medium format camera! I love medium format - I'm quite seriously eyeing up the new hasselblad X1D - but in my view they are strictly for static subjects only - landscapes and portraits (plus other things like product and architectural that are pretty specialist and outside my area of expertise).
I think in many ways we might actually be in agreement, albeit from slightly different perspectives. Two notes though:
1) Weight is actually an asset for stability, assuming your support system is sorted properly (by which I mean a rock-solid tripod with a proper wimberley head). The weight dampens vibrations, and the support system means that it's perfectly balanced, and can smoothly track moving objects, even at speed (which helps the autofocus a great deal). I don't know anyone who'd attempt to handhold a D5 with an 500mm f4 lens - that's just not going to work :)
2) DxO scores aren't something I get overly excited by. The important things about a shot are firstly the composition, which has nothing to do with the sensor at all, and after that comes making sure that the things that are supposed to be in focus are critically sharp, which comes down to focus (and good glass) - but that's difficult to assign a numerical score to so DxO doesn't do that. Instead they obsess over incredibly minor differences in colour rendition (which after it's been through the awful adobe raw converter won't matter anyway), performance at ISO levels way too high to actually use, and differences in dynamic range way above what any printer can reproduce. Not that useful, at least to me.
The availability is indeed a valid point, and is basically why I'd buy this product should it turn out to do what it says it'll do. Having said that, I carry a heavy camera bag around with me a lot of the time, and for me that's a tradeoff I'm happy to make for the flexibility of being able to take lots of different kinds of shots when I'm out. That's really what I meant by this whole thread - the product mentioned will be fantastic for capturing some landscapes when I don't have the option of a full camera bag, but it's never going to be able to replace the camera bag. Which is why it's (for me) a DSLR addition, not a replacement.
EDIT: Forgot to mention - I 100% agree about the image quality, and that's what I meant when I said lots of amazing shots are taken by people with very similar levels of equipment. The high end pro bodies tend not to give you that much more image quality (some of them give you more resolution, but again, that's something that gets overhyped, and isn't always needed) - they give you more controls, more durability, more buffer and so on, but with the right talent, technique (and glass) you can take a NatGeo worthy image on a $500 camera, no problem.
That looks great! I'd love not to have to carry so much weight to carry around with me.
I do wonder if it might still struggle to keep up with the controllability of the pro DSLRs, which I discussed in a different reply, but until I can actually try one that's likely to remain an open question.
I responded to your above comment at [1] to say that I think the controls available in my OM-D E-M5ii are better than my DSLR. And t-he EM1ii will be taking the best parts of the E-M5ii and the E-M1.
Basically, my experience is that the control surface of my E-M5ii is superior to that of my DSLR, especially in the area of autofocus.
It also has some cool stuff that I've never heard of a DSLR doing. For example, my camera does exposure bracketing by automatically driving the autofocus servos; the E-M1 (and in the future, E-M1ii) take that to automatic in-camera focus stacking.
I will say that every manufacturer seems to have a different approach to how their various exposure priority modes trade off. Like when I'm in Aperture priority, how much does it change Shutter vs ISO? I dislike how Olympus does that, and actually think that Pentax's heuristics are the best I've seen. My point, I guess, is that the control systems are always just something you have to learn to work with given the way you think about the camera operation.
Short answer - focus performance tends to leave a bit to be desired as cameras go smaller. (Though this can -for some subjects - be compensated for by focusing on the place the action is going to be in advance.)
Also, long - as in really long - lenses are hard to come by in MFT. Most useful for wildlife.
The often mocked Nikon 1 series is generally considered to have the best all-around PDAF of mirrorless cameras. It can track about the same as a DSLR (definitely faster than a 5D1, possibly faster than a 5D2).
It has a weaker native lens selection than M43 but it has a 70-300mm lens that translates to 190-810mm (factoring 2.7 crop factor) that birders love. It can also use adapted F mount lenses with decently fast AF (center point only).
On the other hand, the N1 series has so many other weaknesses (like being massively overpriced for what you're getting) that it's not a great system for most people.
I really don't even see a need for the complexity of one anymore.
The SLR camera was designed so that you could see the actual scene through the same lens that would be taking the picture. Mirror in place, light goes to viewfinder. Take a picture and the mirror moves so the light can go to the film instead.
But on a digital camera, there is a live view of the scene on the screen on the camera. Who wants to put there eye to the tiny viewfinder when they have a 3" display of the same thing. Without the need for a viewfinder, there is no need for a moving mirror inside the camera. Just project the image directly onto the sensor.
Do people with DSLRs still use the viewfinder? If so, why?
Autofocus is also a fairly important reason. The Autofocus in SLRs uses many dedicated AF points with a secondary mirror that connects to the phase detection sensor. This is faster and more accurate than what is used with Live view. In live view, Contrast Detect is used, which in most cases is still slower and less accurate, especially as the available light falls off (either from a darker environment, or from a lens with a smaller maximum aperture).
Lenses are a big factor too, at a certain point you are limited by the maximum resolution of the glass/sapphire/flourine whatever. High resolution / sensor area cameras run into this issue. larger lenses allow for larger sensors, which means lower demands on the glass. Typically, SLR lenses are nicer in the first place, or at least have higher end products available. For very high-end photography, you still see medium format cameras for this reason.
This isn't exclusive to SLRs. These days, all the top mirrorless cameras have on-sensor phase-shift AF sensor pixels across the entire frame. Also, not all cameras use contrast detect in Live View. For example, Sony's DSLRs were the first (and maybe only) DSLRs to use a secondary PDAF sensor for Live View. Yes, you can get slightly faster PDAF on an SLR, but the gap is very narrow these days. The often mocked Nikon 1 mirrorless series can AF track just as well as most consumer DSLRs.
>> Lenses are a big factor too
Once again, this isn't exclusive to SLRs. This is more about sensor size than whether the camera has a mechanical mirror box inside.
No, it is not, but, for a given price point, you will likely get faster AF with an SLR today than all but the most expensive mirrorless cameras. Especially with motion tracking. I know that there are some cameras that say they'll be faster, but having tested a bunch in the real world, I had a very hard time finding any that worked as well as SLRs in as wide a range of conditions.
>>This is more about sensor size than whether the camera has a mechanical mirror box inside.
Yes, though it is more complex than this. It also has to do with the distance from the sensor to the back of the lens. This doesn't require a mirror, but most mirrorless cameras are focused on reducing the size of the package, so they try to reduce this distance so they can shrink their lenses. This is not an absolute advantage of the SLR, but the form factor currently lends itself to this characteristic, while mirrorless bodies are typically trying to optimize for something else. (of course, many mirrorless cameras can use adaptors to full-frame SLR lenses, and the results can be great image quality, but typically bad performance on autofocus.)
source: Spent several days with A7R, A7R2, Canon 6D, 5D3, 5DSr. Tested lenses Canon 11-24, 40mm, 24-70ii, 70-200, sony 70-200. Ultimately bought the 5DSr, due to more reliable functioning, ergonomics, lenses, battery life, etc. Despite genuinely wanting to shed the weight.
>> No, it is not, but, for a given price point, you will likely get faster AF with an SLR today than all but the most expensive mirrorless cameras. Especially with motion tracking. I know that there are some cameras that say they'll be faster, but having tested a bunch in the real world, I had a very hard time finding any that worked as well as SLRs in as wide a range of conditions.
Practically speaking, most non-enthusiasts don't turn over their cameras every two years. So there are plenty of DSLRs in the wild that mirrorless cameras can outperform. My Nikon V1 (hardly a new camera) can outperform a Canon 5D1 in AF speed in just about any situation, and rightly or wrongly, my V1 is considered to be a joke by many enthusiasts.
It's about as fast as my APS-C DSLRs from 2008 and 2010 -- and keep in mind, that a DSLR from 2008 is probably more than fast enough for most non-enthusiasts today. Newer mirrorless cameras can perform about as well as slightly older consumer DSLRs in terms of AF. And for most people, it's a fair compromise for the size differential.
>> Yes, though it is more complex than this.
No disagreement there, but you're speaking from the context of an enthusiast. From a bigger picture perspective, most buyers of consumer DSLRs (which are the majority of DSLRs being sold) aren't pixel peepers. They just want better photos of their kids and pets, etc. Most of them could be easily satisfied with an iPhone 7+ with portrait mode or a Sony RX100MK1.
The benefits you speak of are very true for a segment of photographers but I question whether they apply to the person who simply wants better quality images than they get from their smartphone or cheap point and shoot.
>a DSLR from 2008 is probably more than fast enough for most non-enthusiasts today
I was selling some older DSLR equipment recently and it made me think that someone wanting to learn photography with a "real" camera today can do quite well with older gear. It won't autofocus as well or have as good a sensor but it can be plenty good to learn on. Lenses of course don't degrade in value quite as much but there are plenty of lenses that enthusiasts may sniff at but are plenty good for a beginner.
Thank you! I wasn't aware of the various methods to autofocus. It makes sense that having a mirror to send light to a dedicated sensor would be better.
I remember an older camera my mother used to have used some sort of ultrasonic device for ranging -- I remember it would make a 'click' sound anytime it was focusing.
It is MUCH more stable to shoot looking in the viewfinder with the camera pressed against your face than holding it out in front of you at arms length. There are smaller SLR cameras now that are mirrorless and use a variety of means to provide a viewfinder because it is still a much better way to shoot.
:-) Unfortunately none of the other names for mirrorless/interchangeable lens like EVIL really stuck while SLR is really an anachronism because it was in contrast to twin lens.
Exposing the sensor at the last moment (when the mirror moves into position and the shutter opens) results in decreased noise compared to live preview. I think this has to do with residual charge and heat on the CCD. Also, in some situations an LCD is hard to see, whereas the optical viewfinder has no lag, has fantastic picture quality, and looks right through the lens, which is great for all sorts of situations.
I actually tried googling for a source for what I was saying and didn't find anything. It's what I've always heard, and it makes sense.. but everything I found was talking about other issues with noise (and talking about audible noise from the mirror movement, heh.)
For some, it's a matter of preference. But there are good arguments for it - the viewfinder isn't limited by display resolution, for example. On the other hand, modern mirrorless cameras are marvellous, too. For example, the camera can bring your attention to areas that exceed the camera's dynamic range (and would thus be too bright / too dark), or highlight exactly which bits are in focus.
So the digital versions are getting better, but there are still reasons to use an analogue viewfinder. It's not as clear-cut as you think. I encourage you to try it out!
Fidelity and ergonomics. In addition to a DSLR I also use a Fujifilm X-E1 with an electronic viewfinder. It's much preferable (IMO) to hold a viewfinder near my eye, blocking out external light, with my elbows stabilized against my body than to hold an LCD panel out in space squinting to see the image in bright sun.
In addition, although I use the X-E1 a lot for travel, the DSLR's optical viewfinder is still superior optically and the camera as a whole is faster, more responsive, etc.--in part because it's bigger and the designers have more space to work with.
I do think we're headed toward a point where electronic viewfinders will tend to replace optical ones but I doubt we'll replace looking through viewfinders.
It's the delay between the live image and the image on the screen. For certain situations ( like wild / nature photography / sports ) , this _is_ a limiting factor.
big deal with the DSLR: until very recently, if you wanted a large high-quality sensor you needed a DSLR (or medium format, but that's a totally different can of worms and level of pricing). They still are ahead in high-performance auto-focus systems and selection of really good lenses, but mirror-less cameras are getting closer and closer there as well.
The vast majority of enthusiast and pro users uses the viewfinder regularly, if not exclusively. Professional mirror-less cameras basically have to have a (digital) viewfinder.
* The 3" screen is a lot smaller compared to the image you can see through a viewfinder, and doesn't fill your field-of-view as much. Fixed with digital viewfinders.
* thus, many people find it quite hard to get a good impression of the image with a screen.
* The screens have limited resolution and delay. Resolution is especially a problem with digital view finders.
* In many DSLRs, using the screen limits the auto-focus performance.
* In bright conditions, the back-screens are hard to see. (Esp. if it is a touch screen with smudges on it ;))
Having both options is great, digital displays add a lot of features as well: focus-peaking, brighter image in low-light, easier to use the camera held high or close to the ground. Mirrorless cameras with digital viewfinders are becoming more and more popular, but the viewfinders won't be going away.
1. Full manual control. I can dial in exactly the combination of f-stop and exposure that I want.
2. Manual focus. With a split-ring screen in the viewfinder, focus can be very precise and exactly where I want it. Both for getting the right part of the image sharp, and controlling depth of field.
3. Interchangeable prime lenses. Changing lenses makes a big difference in the results. Different lenses do different things: a fisheye, a wide-angle, a macro lense; each is really great in one particular area.
4. Lots of accessories. You can turn a DSLR into a decent rig for shooting pro quality videos or a low budget film, if that's your thing. You can add extra batteries, extra storage, and so on.
DSLRs are generally worse than mirrorless cameras when it comes to live view on the rear LCD, because of the mirror and "double-clutching" to activate. With a competitive mirrorless camera, which may get more to the heart of the question, use of the electronic (not optical) viewfinder and live view is pretty equal.
So why would one use the EVF over the LCD? I think the most common answer is, "being able to actually see in bright sunlight."
The diopter is also a big reason to use an OVF/EVF.
I have to wear reading glasses now, so it's an inconvenience to use the LCD.
BUT, I have found that touch screen LCDs that support tap to focus+shutter mitigate that problem. In normal circumstances, I don't need precise focus (faces tend to be big enough) that I can still get decent shots even though the LCD is blurry to me.
Great idea, but did I miss the Results Section (data which shows it actually outperforms DSLRs)?
"Are SLRs actually better?". The author talks about some of the ways. Noise, color range, accuracy, autofocus, lens selection and focal range are just a few of the ways.
Take a picture of a sunset with both types of cameras and you'll immediately see the difference. Even on my iphone 6s the colors end up all wrong because the sensor gets overloaded. Reds come out orange. Bright orange areas come out yellow. You can see banding between colors. The photo looks very different from the sunset you see with your eyes.
With our few years old canon DSLR it comes out much closer to what we actually see.
It might, depending on the usage. The Light camera captures the same image using multiple sensors, which may work out to the same, or higher resolution to a single DSLR sensor.
One interesting thing the multiple sensors on the Light can do, which a single DSLR sensor can't, is to capture the same scene with multiple exposure settings, as mentioned in the article. Combining these different exposures together may allow for higher contrast (HDR) images to be captured.
It's not resolution which is the limiting factor for small sensors; in fact many of them have higher per-sensor resolution than a DSLR. It's the fact that as you push more and smaller detector-sites into a such a small array you experience more and more noise, which means the image quality degrades rapidly with falling light.
There's a balance between size of detector-sites and array density and any technology that reduces small sensor noise can equally be applied to large sensors with larger detector-sites in order to maintain their advantage.
The best analogy I encountered was to consider each detector-site as a 'light-gathering bucket'. A big bucket can catch more photons and hence has a higher SNR than a small bucket once you deduct cosmic rays and read-out errors etc. So a medium-format 21MP is better than an APS-C 21MP array which is better than a phone-sized 21MP array. It doesn't really matter how many small-arrays you point at one target because it's the SNR at the individual detector-sites that matters.
~~
TLDR: this camera can never compete directly with a DSLR on raw photo quality but will offer other interesting capabilities that DSLRs can't.
> It doesn't really matter how many small-arrays you point at one target because it's the SNR at the individual detector-sites that matters.
This is quite incorrect. Detector noise is a combination of thermal/electrical/quantum effects and is essentially decorrelated. The image information captured by the sensors is not.
That means that taking the mean of N images improves the SNR by sqrt(N). You can do this over time (and deal with motion artifacts) or you can do this by using multiple detectors at the same time.
There is a physical limit of how many large detectors you can fit inside the physical body of a DSLR. At some point, it will more efficient to combine multiple smaller detectors instead.
Noise is much more noticeable in dark areas of an image, so having a method to produce a HDR image will naturally improve the noise.
So, I think this camera could quite easily compete directly with a DSLR on photo quality - but a good DSLR will easily be better in low light conditions.
>> So I fail to see how this camera what outperform a DSLR.
It might be better to look at it with a less narrow perspective. If you're a hardcore photographer, what you are saying is absolutely true.
But a lot of "normals" want DSLR-like quality without bulk.
A lot of people buy DSLRs because they want better quality photos and more flexibility, but after the honeymoon period, they get tired of lugging a big camera with them.
This is probably why Sony's RX100 series has done so well.
"The best camera is the one you have with you" -- that's typically someone's smartphone. If you can give a consumer a camera that size that roughly performs like a DSLR, it will probably make a lot of people happy.
A lot of people will still default to their smartphone because that's good enough and they already have one. But I agree that there's definitely a potential market for a pocketable "computational photography" camera if its capabilities can't (yet) be folded into a smartphone.
Personally, I don't carry my Canon S100 with me much any longer mostly because my iPhone is good enough for snapshots and, if I want to do "real" photography, I have a couple of interchangeable lens options. But I'd be in the market for something that was clearly better/more versatile than my phone that would fit in my pocket.
> You buy a DSLR because it has a large sensor that can capture lots of light and detail.
35 mm imaging is traditionally referred to as "small format" film. You typically buy an SLR (or DSLR) because you're making a bunch of compromises to image quality because of price or convenience or similar factors. If you weren't, you'd be using a digital medium format, or large format film and a specialised scanner.
This is another option on that scale. The DSLR is hardly the pinnacle of photography, except perhaps for high-speed action.
Digital medium format is basically dead; the Canon 5DS (51MP) killed it. Why would you pay ten times the money to get the same resolution but also have to shell out ten times the expense for every lens, with ~no resale value, rental, repair or second hand market, and higher weight and bulk to boot? You arguably get slightly higher dynamic range, but bracketing solves that in 90% of cases.
And to add just a bit:
- "resolution," as measured in megapixels, ain't the thing
- the "I can bracket to get similar results" argument for full-frame over medium format could just as well be used for APS-C over full-frame, MFT over APS-C, 1" over MFT, etc. Meanwhile, everything from FF on down has a huge user base, which prefers their unique set of cost/size/performance tradeoffs.
Your comment is confused. Bracketing increases dynamic range (ie. "range encompassing the darkest non-black shade to brightest non-white shade recordable by the sensor") not resolution. Current era DSLRs are already far higher resolution than required for most outputs (even large format printing)... there is really little utility in seeking higher resolutions than modern prosumer limits (~50MP) at this stage.
That may be true but if ~nobody buys them (which is basically guaranteed unless a major price drop occurs - which is unlikely as their entire raison d'être is "high resolution", which requires expensive hardware), then who cares?
Now that the Sony A7 series has "democratized" full-format mirrorless, ILC camera folks are buying it in droves. And because of things like lower noise, shallower depth of field, and increased dynamic range. Not megapixels, which is especially evident with the 12MP high-sensitivity A7S line.
Just a few years ago, the same comments about MF could have been made about FF. Even if it stays a high-end niche, rather than getting cheaper and broader like FF recently has, major and new endeavors in the space highlight the extent to which the format is the opposite of dead.
Fair points, but because the sole traditional purpose of MF/LF is higher resolution and prosumer/35mm FF resolutions are now far above requirements for any normal output, I still feel it is 'dead' as a market.
Totally agree that huge prints are the historical reason for MF and higher. These days a high-resolution LCD is the most common medium of display, and most people with serious gear can't help but pixel-peep their images at 100%. I think that, shallow depth of field, and lower noise are the biggest drivers for bigger sensors at this point.
I'm not sure about the DOF argument; however I would say that any advantage offered by larger formats is largely countered by the significantly broader and cheaper lens selection on 35mm FF.
Noise may increase based upon sensor density, however it is pretty much irrelevant in sensor selection given that mass market stuff is so much more advanced in high sensitivities (through hardware and software).
My personal impression is that unless you plan to shoot >3600ISO shots with medium format (which nobody does: probably it's not even offered on those sensors), you are going to get superior quality for 1/10th of the price (or less) with the prosumer 35mm/FF stuff (not to mention the other benefits such as lens selection).
Noise that is significant at standard output formats (HD, screen resolutions, normal sized prints) really only kicks in at super high ISOs (easily ISO1000+). This wasn't the case a few years back, but certainly is now. Pixel peeping is almost completely pointless for standard output formats, regardless of consumer enthusiasm. With currently offered resolutions, it's frequently pointless even with heavy cropping.
Not so sure, for a lot less than $1699 you can buy some very good micro 4/3 cameras which would probably give this a run for its money in low light settings. micro 4/3 is not quite "tiny", but judging from the picture of the founder holding one up, neither us this (despite what the headline claims).
The largest part of a micro 4/3 or a DSLR is the lens usually, and this thing goes around that, so I'd say it's seriously smaller. We can just speculate at this point about the low light performance though, I can't wait to see some proper review.
You can consider a fixed lens 1" sensor compact like a Sony RX100. It's got half-decent low light performance. It may not beat a 2016 consumer level DSLR for low light, but it's probably comparable to a 2008-2010 Rebel.
SLR or mirrorless lenses that do 28-150 equivalent are pretty heave and bulky. The worst bit is that the camera body and the lens are perpendicular so the size of the full system (measured as a bounding box) becomes pretty extreme.
This system has a big benefit in that the optical axes are along the camera body so the flatness is preserved. I remember a few (single lens) digital compacts that did this in the past.
There's a mobility premium since this fits in your pocket. Much smaller than an A6300 with pancake lens. You could potentially jog with this in a wildlife refuge, then take bird shots.
Low light shooting is an often underappreciated aspect of modern DSLRs. Way back when I'd go through all sorts of chemical gyrations to get decent results at 1600 (ASA at the time) out of B&W film. Now I can easily get to 6400 or more out of my DSLR at pretty high fidelity by moving a dial.
One part of the article is especially about how cheap the lenses and the sensors that he is using are. So, I expect the manufacturing costs to be only a fraction of those needed for DSLR. So, I would expect the price to be a fraction of those of DSLRs too.
Yeah, I've used my d7100 at night in near pitch black to take pictures of the deer I can hear, but can't see. The sensitivity of modern sensors while maintaining low noise is pretty amazing.
Not so. It's easy to make a really good small lens - the article mentions that the modern smartphone lenses are dirt cheap and diffraction limited. It's really hard to make a large lens diffraction limited. The advantage of the DSLR is the sensor.
I wasn't suggesting a debate, rather stating a fact.
Any sensor these days beats the sensor, for example, in a Nikon D100, yet the photos made with those machines with professional lens are still better than most the "really good" mini lens.
Yes, you can mimic bits and pieces with software, sometimes, but in most cases there are decades of engineering behind the more expensive lens which will take a long while to be beaten.
Diffraction is not the only issue you need to address in a lens, and not everything is easier to deal with when it's miniaturized. Besides, most "legendary" lens are actually loved for their mistakes and flaws in their optics.
Not GP, but the D100 was introduced in 2002. Sensor technology has progressed a lot since that day - noise reduction has become much better, so has autofocus, etc etc.
Because it's 36x24mm in size and needs an optics bench (aka "lens") in front of it to produce a worthwhile image. You could put all that into a smartphone and have it work, but what you'd end up with would be a smartphone the size of a DSLR.
> etalon: a device consisting of two reflecting glass plates, employed for measuring small differences in the wavelength of light using the interference it produces.
Is this used in a DSLR? I know they use phase sensors for autofocus, but had never heard this term before.
RAW would be an interesting challenge for this camera. As soon as the camera carries out the overlaying and merging of the sensor data you're no longer in RAW territory.
Presumably the OS could store each sensor's RAW data along with sufficient metadata to allow post-processing software to do the stitching after the fact.
It's an impressive feat of engineering but I'm having trouble seeing the point. Does it actually take better photos than the latest generation of compact cameras that have legitimately good optics and sensors? I don't doubt that it's better than a cell phone camera, but if you're going to carry another device then why not bring one with a real zoom lens?
It claims to be as good as a DSLR.. which is better than a compact. We'll just have to wait for some actual tests and reviews that will substantiate the claims. I'm optimistic, even if the first version might not be there, this development seems to be going in the right direction with probably a lot of room for improvement.
If it's only as good as a compact, then I'd think it's still a better option due to the selective DOF that it is supposedly able to do. But then it's definitely on the pricey side, so it's questionable if it's still worth it.
This one is arugably a camera in the "latest generation of compact cameras". It competes with them since it's a separate device, and it competes with the highest end ones, such as the Sony Rx-series and the Fuji x100t.
I wonder whether this technique could be adapted to produce a something like a digital equivalent of the Fuji/Hasselblad XPan camera, or a 617 camera (with an aspect ratio of about 3:1).
The stumbling block with conventional sensors is that no one wants to commit to a production run of an odd shape of sensor.
I think we can all agree that multiple camera/lenses and smart algorithms, essentially computational photography, is the way to beat the physics of the small sizes of our phones.
However, the article has many words and not a single photo from the said camera, which I found disappointing
This is exciting development, going in just the right direction. Divide and conquer!
If the first prototype proves to be at least close to DSLR image quality, it will be a revolution.
I think its cool idea and this is where smartphone industry is heading anyway, iPhone 7 being the first example. The key is algorithms to combine multiple views which can invariably introduce errors and artifacts for the trained eye. In extreme case, the entire back side of phone can be just rectangular matrix of 100s of lenses and sensor capturing the scene simultaneously and generate gigapixel image that can be viewed at variable focal length after the fact. That would be cool!