The thing that I like about "single purpose cameras" is the affordances - knobs, sliders, buttons. Some of them are maddening, sure, but being able to hold it up with two hands and compose, adjust, and execute is so much better than doing it with a phone.
Usually. On January 14, 2023 7:24:41 PM PST, Udhay Shankar N via Silklist <[email protected]> wrote: >On Sun, Jan 15, 2023 at 7:46 AM Thaths <[email protected]> wrote: > >I want to push back on the proposition that a single-purpose camera is >> better than a smartphone camera. On two fronts: >> >> 1. It depends quite a bit on the type of photography. Things like wildlife >> photography, macro photography, astrophotography, etc. are better done >> (today) with a single purpose camera. But family photos, travel photos, >> street scenes, etc. are very do-able on smartphones (and the fact that you >> have it on you at all waking moments means that you can shoot a lot more). >> > >I have no argument with this. In fact I started the thread with the >proposition that a smartphone is 'good enough' but for serious use one >needs a specialised tool. In this case, I would imagine that smartphone >lenses will forever be of lower quality/capability than camera lenses, >primarily because of form factor constraints. > >2. The software that drives single purpose cameras stinks. They are years, >> possibly even decade behind smartphone camera software. And smartphone >> camera software is only getting better, while the likes of Canon, Nikon and >> Sony seem to be crawling forward. >> > >I wonder if camera firmware can be flashed. > >Udhay
-- Silklist mailing list [email protected] https://mailman.panix.com/listinfo.cgi/silklist
