Is it still worth buying a separate digital camera (system camera) today?
Can photos taken with a system camera (price range ~2,000 EUR) really be distinguished from photos taken with high-end smartphones with the naked eye?
(1 votes)
Loading...Hi I have been thinking about studying in the Bundeswehr and then joining the fire service in the higher service after my studies. Now I have two questions: 1. Does studying with the Bundeswehr cost money or is it free and do you also get a salary while studying? 2. What would be good subjects…
Hello, I bought a camera for my vacation. Since I'll be flying, I wanted to ask if there will be any problems with security. If it matters which camera it is:Canon eos M50 Thanks 🙂
Can Alexa Echo, in combination with the app, also be used as a hub to control smart home devices?
Hey everyone: I have an iPad keyboard case. Is there a way to control the GarageBand keyboard/piano with this ABC keyboard? So, if I press "A," for example, a sound will play from the keyboard/piano? Greetings!
I once got a system message on my iPhone saying that my passwords had been discovered in a data breach, so I immediately changed them. Now I've had a new iPad for a few days, and I just got the same message again. Should I even take this seriously? I'd have to change all my…
Good day everyone Does an electric motor break down faster if it delivers more power than stated on the nameplate? I have an electric scooter that has a maximum output of 500 watts, compared to 250 watts normally. But in an app, I see that it reaches a maximum of 600 watts when accelerating and…
It always depends on what you want to photograph.
Try to take a picture of a starry sky with a smartphone. This will look good in the rarest cases.
Personally, it’s about the “artistic” aspect. If I just want to make a snapshot, the phone is enough. But if I want to take photos off the automatic mode, the phone doesn’t get me anything.
When my good phone wasn’t broken, I used it sometimes as a second camera, practically if you want to quickly take n photo with different focal length without changing the lens.
However, it is definitely worth having a camera if you want to photograph seriously. Just because you have more possibilities with regard to lenses etc.
In addition, many smartphones have high-resolution sensors but you may not get the full resolution as a file. With my pixel, every photo comes out as a 12MP file, even if the sensor can be significantly more. This also makes sense in principle, but if you want to edit a photo and crop a higher resolution file is of course better.
And you just don’t have the same control over aperture. Smartphones have fixed aperture. Aperture is what I’d like to introduce when I take photos next to the exhibitor. And since smartphones have small sensors you simply don’t get this DoF effect on the main camera without digital manipulation.
So, yes, you can make good pictures with smartphones, smartphones are definitely practical to photograph and you almost always have them. They are also quite suitable as second camera sometimes. But for serious creative photography they cannot replace a proper camera. Who says buy you a good smartphone instead of a good camera, he has no idea.
Of course, every digital camera for 150 EUR is superior to a smartphone, but whether you can photograph or not, this is not the camera. Nor could you buy a super expensive brickwork and then hope that the house you want to build will be super-toll. It won’t.
It’s a bit on the photo, but in most cases, an experienced viewer sees the difference clearly.
A high-quality camera with a corresponding objective is and remains an elaborate optical device. Although the image produced is not completely recorded by a relatively large sensor without electronic corrections, it is almost as it is. The most obvious effect is a lower depth sharpness.
Smartphone cameras have tiny sensors and tiny lenses. This results in an enormous depth of focus, which can have advantages in the near and macro range, otherwise it hardly corresponds to the human visual habits. Also, such tiny lenses cannot be corrected as well as system lenses with many lenses for a long time. The tiny sensors get out. All of this is already being compensated electronically today, but you see it.
All the forefront, either because of too much depth sharpness, or because of an unnatural sharpening course when this deficiency has been electronically eliminated. In addition, there are artifacts coming from sharp drawing, smoothing, noise suppression etc.
Whether the whole “living” is either in the financial sense or in the ideal sense, everyone has to decide for themselves.
I haven’t had a single smartphone yet, where the camera only convinced me in a way
So what zb would have got none of my phones you can see every single hair on the elephant lady
Great difference, if you want to further edit the photos (excerpts, alienation, shift, astrophotos, etc.) is not far from the smartphone. To this end, the low light intensity, which is only electronically “lightened”.
There are various lenses, you wouldn’t even use a phone Approximately get the same photos. It doesn’t even appeal to the camera.
Here’s an example. Nothing is photoshopped except colors bissl adapted:
A 2000€ system camera with 24 megapixels still hits every cell phone with 108 MP. Especially in bad light conditions.
Just to cnip a smartphone is enough. However, if you want to capture a variety of situations, each camera (both mirror reflex or system) should be far superior. Even as cheap as the Canon EOS 1200D.
Weather, daytimes, snapshots in fast movements, different depth effects, flashlight (not such a small LED), light-strong lenses for different distances, OPTISCHER Zoom (nix with just magnifying picture detail).
The cell phone cameras today are really great for everyday life. With special motifs or lighting conditions, they do not reach system cameras.
A correct camera cannot be compared to mobile phones. Even if the images look very good or similar at first glance, the excellent handling and thus the intuitive photography of cameras will never have cell phones. And most influence on the photo does not have the camera, but the photographer.
There is no 2000 camera for this, as there is already a 300 Euro entry system camera and Kitlinse to see a difference in most areas.
And yes, the photos are clearly distinguishable in many areas (not necessarily in the case of landscapes with sufficient light, but otherwise already)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUPofkOgoA8&t=25s
If you enter the areas that a smartphone does not reach, then yes.
Otherwise:
If the image composition is already Murks, the recording device does not matter.
If you can post the following images with your smartphone, we can talk about the existence of system cameras again: