
Goodbye, Cameras (2013) - donohoe
http://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/goodbye-cameras
======
bane
I'm a shoot-on-the-run travel photographer. If I had to guess I probably have
less than 5 seconds to setup and take the average shot. With a "real" camera,
you can get all the knobs and buttons and such down to muscle memory and with
a few manipulations usually get set to something you want. After taking
something like 100,000 photos with my current camera, I barely even look at it
to get it set how I want for a shot.

I've tried, _really_ tried to get into the habit of using the camera I have,
my phone camera. It's a decent 13MP, f2.2 camera with lots of familiar
settings, but it takes so _long_ to set up a shot with any of the camera apps
I've tried that I usually miss what I want. Or there's some kind of weird
"processing" delay after I shoot where the sensor stays on long after I've
taken the shot and I end up with a blurry stupid mess.

With my real camera, I'd say that I'm probably really happy with about 1% of
the shots I make, and decently happy with about 5%. With all the phones I've
used, those number easily get cut by a fifth.

The workflow is also, for some reason, fussier with my phone than my camera.
I'm usually traveling overseas when I shoot, so internet access is spotty, and
I can't wait for my phone to sync over some craptastic Italian hotel wi-fi.
Popping an SD card into my computer to transfer a day's shots off is much
quicker and easier. (and yes, I've toyed around with just connecting up my
phone to my computer to copy off of, but there's usually some kind of fuss
over it being seen as a USB drive so I can copy off of).

Also, bokeh, I can get such beautiful creamy effortless bokeh with my long
lens, and those photos look omg fantastic most of the time. My phone at best
requires me to get right up on something and then I just get a blur on
everything else. Whatever optical magic is happening in my camera, filters in
photoshop just don't make up for it.

~~~
leishulang
With the manual modes coming into Android and IOS recently, the weird
"processing" delay will be gone and there isn't really anything to justify
showing off your Leica in public.

~~~
tjr
Even if true, why should obsolete technology be banished from the public
sphere?

Should I avoid being seen in public with my mechanical wristwatch? My
mechanical metronome? My 2010 Mac Book Pro? My 1963 Fender Jazz Bass?

~~~
jfoutz
I'd go further and say, mechanical knobs dials and switches can be operated
without looking at them. with touch devices, i have to look at them, both to
find what i want to do, and verify what i wanted to happen, happened.

Fundamentally, they're not obsolete. These are features that can't be
duplicated without some clever additional device.

------
tsunamifury
After a brief stint as an photojournalist when I was younger, leaving that
behind to eventually work at Google, my budget recently allowed me to pick up
a Leica X.

I never really expected to love photography again, until I had the chance to
use one of these. Its everything a phone isnt... purpose-made, focused with
extremely high quality image reproduction.

Photography as a documentation process (I was here with these people) will
probably be completely taken over by the phone. But photography as a hobby or
a form of craftsmanship will never be taken over by the phone. Its a joy to
use a custom tool like the X -- and Leica is now making a great deal of profit
by selling the 'opposite of a phone camera' to millions of people wanting one.

The new Leica Q waiting list is months long and the vast majority of the
buyers are likely not professionals. Leica has uncovered for now, a lot of
people who don't want to use phones.

~~~
NovaS1X
If I could afford a Leica I would own one.

Thankfully Fuji has been more than willing to fill the gap for me with my
X-Pro1/X100S. Shoot raw, all the controls I need are there on the body, and no
bullshit.

Simple, enjoyable, and high quality.

My phone can't match that and it never will.

------
manishsharan
I would argue that when you look at the photos published by your friends on
Facebook, you can always tell photos shot by smartphone from photos shot on
DSLRs. Despite Facebooks compression, the difference is quite stark.

Also context has to be taken into account. When most people are shooting with
a smartphone, they are "collecting information". When people are using DSLR,
they are "making art" .

~~~
saturdaysaint
I've seen some iPhone 6 pictures on Facebook that blur the line, IMO. I'm sure
someone with a good eye could spot some areas with lesser contrast or detail,
but if they'd claimed that a professional photographer had taken these a few
years ago, I don't think anyone would question it.

Some my family uploaded in the last week (albeit tiny files with funky
artifacts)
[https://www.dropbox.com/s/qbw8bnbucujvaqa/image1.JPG?dl=0](https://www.dropbox.com/s/qbw8bnbucujvaqa/image1.JPG?dl=0)
[https://www.dropbox.com/s/ytethfobkiar308/image2.JPG?dl=0](https://www.dropbox.com/s/ytethfobkiar308/image2.JPG?dl=0)

~~~
bane
These are great shots, but there's _something_ about them that says "not a
DSLR" to me. I'm not sure if it's the color reproduction or the slight
chromatic aberration on everything (the clouds in the top half of the
landscape scream at me and the hard edge transitions from the child to the
chair and from the chair to the wall make everything look like photoshop
layers).

But I also think you're right, 90% of people won't notice or care, and that's
good enough. MP3 does a similar kind of reproductive job and 90% of people
don't care either. It's "good enough" and it lets everybody have cameras on
them at all times and that's what's important. You won't miss important
moments.

------
JoshTriplett
I do find it interesting that the transition from digital camera to phone
camera is at least as noteworthy as the one from film to digital. I've had a
film camera in my lifetime, and the huge win with digital is that I can snap
half a dozen pictures for every one that might turn out. But the huge win with
digital is that I more often actually do the one useful thing to be done with
photos: _share them_.

We took many thousands of digital camera photos, of which a vanishingly small
fraction ever left the camera. By contrast, photos I snap on my phone end up
in text messages, on Twitter, attached to emails, attached to bug reports,
used in presentations, or otherwise turned into something useful.

------
klodolph
And yet, physical camera size still imposes some limitations. Aperture size
affects the amount of light, and in extreme cases we are close to counting
individual photons. Aperture size also affects sharpness, with smaller
apertures providing less resolution. Cameras are dead, but not to enthusiasts
or pros.

------
exelius
Phones will never _fully_ replace cameras; though I concede hobbyist
photographers can get decent results out of a phone these days. But anyone
trying to create a unique image just has so many more options to adjust with a
DSLR (and even more options than that if you shoot with film).

Unless you're a professional or doing "art" photography, these days you really
don't need much more than a cameraphone. And even then, a 5-year-old midrange
DSLR with a few lenses is more than enough gear. But the images from a phone
just don't look as rich, or have as much dynamic range thanks to the small
sensor. They can do some neat tricks to approximate an SLR 80% of the time,
but for the other 20% you still need a real camera.

~~~
toomuchtodo
Phones will keep eating cameras until only the high end cameras are left for
pros, similar to what's happening with desktops and phones/tablets.

"Good enough" really is good enough.

~~~
VLM
Another example: GPS units. I have a handheld that cost less than my phone,
runs 48+ hours continuously on a set of two AA batteries (that I can replace
in about 30 seconds) and it floats and operates in water and is physically
indestructible, and its very sensitive in heavy foliage. I almost never use it
anymore. The phone is a complete piece of junk in every comparison, but its
usually with me and map upgrades don't cost $125, so ... Once in awhile I load
it up for a big geocaching binge or when camping/hiking, that's about it.

------
flurdy
I have a very nice DSLR, well a micro 4/3 (Lumix G3) if pedantic, which can
take amazing photos, even with my limited skills. But these days I use it
maybe twice per year as it is never in my pocket.

99% of all my photos are with my iPhone 6+ including the best one of my
daughters first school day last week. I took some with the DSLR at home, but
the best light (and pose) happened on the walk to the school which I was not
going to lug a great camera with me on.

Maybe I would use my DSLR more if I got an Eye-fi card or similar so it can
automatically sync to Dropbox/iCloud but for now it is reserved for the
occasional event only.

~~~
Nelson69
You just need to carry it, keep it in the nap sack or brief case or whatever,
make a point of getting it out. Practice with it... You sort of want a mid-
range beater at first, you don't want your dream camera, you want one that you
know you'll beat up and replace.

Now the camera industry isn't the fastest moving, but all this means is DSLR
and pocket cameras need/will to get better. I can see the low-end pocket
cameras will disappear; phones are effectively that. I just can't see the
various camera companies going down without a fight and arguably the people
that buy and use $4000 cameras aren't the same market is those the buy galaxy
phones. The bottom is getting better at a rapid clip though...

------
Luyt
You'll never get good _bokeh_ from a tiny telephone lens. A big (and fast)
lens is needed for that. There are laws of optics that will ensure cameras
will never disappear ;-)

~~~
vernie
Maybe not physically but novel sensors (depth sensors, multi-camera arrays)
and image processing algorithms make it possible to simulate these effects to
a degree that would satisfy most users.

------
Puts
The reason a smartphone cannot compete with DSLRs yet is because of exposure
settings. With a phone you always capture the light of the subject, while what
you really want to do if you want to capture a feeling or atmosphere is to set
the exposure according to the light source and let the subject reflect that
light and atmosphere. If I had this granular control of exposure however, I
would have no problem to ditch my DSLR.

------
msoad
I was lucky to try iPhone 6s Plus this weekend. We compared its photos with
iPhone 6 and Galaxy edge as well as a point and shoot camera. The new iPhone
took nicer photos. The "Live Photo" thing was also a fun addition.

I'm not saying it can replace your DSLR but it's getting more and more
unnecessary to buy a separate camera with these mighty phones we have.

------
sgt101
When I use my Nokia phone camera I get nice results. When I use my wife's D750
(she's a pro, the 810 and D4's are to heavy) I am astonished at the images it
produces, especially with a fast 50mm or 85mm lens. The lens is probably the
thing, it fills pictures with light like breath. But - others probably have
other opinions...

------
emptybits
This was the nodder for me: "cameras transitioning into what they were bound
to become: networked lenses"

------
l33tbro
Hmm. I agree that the pixel count on phones is crazy and making a lot of
cameras redundant these days, but it is still all about the glass when it
comes to creating high-end images. There's a reason why Zeiss, Canon, Cooke
etc have lenses in the 10s of thousands of dollars mark.

~~~
Luyt
Indeed, more pixels doesn't necessarily mean more quality. A Canon 400D (10
Mpixel) with a kit lens has only an effective quality of 6 Mpixel.

~~~
artmageddon
Just curious, how do you figure that? I have a Nikon D90 with an 18-105mm
f/3.5-f/5.6 lens.

~~~
klodolph
Lenses have published MTF specs which you can fudge into optical resolution
specs. It's a bit subjective, but it works. (MTF curves carry a lot of
information, and squashing it into a single lp/mm resolution means drawing a
cutoff line on a graph which is inherently curved.) Sometimes you publish a
couple different resolution values, for different contrasts. The actual MTF
curves are more objective and directly reflect system measurements, which is
why those are the ones published, instead of resolution specs which are easier
to interpret. You can do the tests yourself at home fairly easily.

------
buffoon
I drag a Nikon D3100 everywhere. I've had some amazing shots from that even
though it's a cheap DSLR. 50mm Nikor DX lens keeps it light.

Even the best phones make a poor camera. Laggy, awful dynamic range, awful
autofocus and unpredictable.

------
pcurve
Going from Nikon D70 to the GX1 was significant downgrade in terms of image
quality.

