Is there any reason for a non-professional to own a camera ?

Using camera kills your battery, easier to carry a separate camera

File: Lofoten Norway_Real Photo.jpg (920KB, 2048x1123px) Image search: [Google]

920KB, 2048x1123px

>>56591789
iPhones are already better than Nikon and Canon when it comes to HDR. A lot of people are replacing their traditional cameras for iPhones.

>>56591843
Your argument is dumb, namefag. You can easily compensate the battery loss with even the smallest external battery and keep the whole package tinier and lighter.

>>56591789
In terms of replacing point-and-shoots, yes. DSLRs? Hell the fuck no.

>>56592374
Fuck off retard. The only thing you're losing is your 80x zoom. Everything can be replicated perfectly with software. Since every photographer already has photoshop why waste money on fat black cameras when you application can create the effect better in addition to everything else it does

>>56591843
My phone (6s) lasts longer than my dslr nikon 400derkalerk

>>56591789
You think your camera phone are pictures are fine until you actually use a real camera.

Mirrorless cameras are very small except for the lens and look so much fucking better that you will hate all your cell phone pictures if you ever use one to document a trip

>>56592493
I did exactly this on my backpacking trip to my ranier last month. 6s vs 1000$ dslr only difference was zoom and blur shite

>>56592454
Goddamnit, why are 90% of DSLR users photography-illiterate?

File: DSC_5549.jpg (350KB, 1467x986px) Image search: [Google]

350KB, 1467x986px

>>56591789
If you're seriously interested in photography, I think that's reason enough to own something like a DSLR or a mirrorless camera. With these options, you have an automatic mode as you do with a phone, but that's not your only option. Manual modes teach you about light, aperture, shutter speed, ISO, white balance, and all of the fundamentals that make a good picture. With a phone, you may have a few manual settings, but it's mostly a point-and-shoot affair that isn't really mentally stimulating.

If you take the same image with an iPhone 6 and a Sony A6000 and load them into Lightroom, you'll notice not only a difference in the image quality outright, but also a difference in how much you can manipulate the image before the quality of the image is affected. The more you blow-up or zoom into the image, the more you'll see a difference in quality, too.

tl;dr: Get a real camera if you want to get the most out of photography as a hobby or want to have very large pictures that look great. I don't know you, but I have a feeling you'd like a mirrorless camera more than a DSLR.

>>56592599
DSLRs do have a much steeper learning curve.

>>56593200
/thread

>this thread again

>cucks thinking their smartphone shit can even compete with entry level point and shoots.

>>56592454
Why waste money on a laptop or building a desktop when an Ipad can do everything?

Nobody else ever has any other use cases.

>>56591946
>A lot of people are replacing their traditional cameras for iPhones.
Yeah, all those tech illiterate housewives are ditching their DSLR's they never bothered to learn how to use, its time for hobbyists and professionals alike to follow suit.

File: hueHDR.png (1MB, 943x614px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 943x614px

>>56591946
I've seen a lot of stupid shit said on /g/ but I think you take the cake, friend.

1) iphone cameras are not as good as a decent camera
2) there are many hobbies which might require a person to take a picture of something and upload it online for various reasons. for example if you're a /tg/ cheetohbeard into the warhammer 40k tabletop wargame, you might want to upload pics in Work In Progress threads for critique of your miniature painting. I swear the blood god if I see another iFaggot upload an upside down phone pic in shit resolution I'm gonna Emperor's Peace a nigga

if you can't immediately think of a reason why want a camera then you probably don't need one dummy

>>56591789
Is there any good reason to own a desktop computer now in the age where flagship smartphones will give you amazing processing power?

>>56592699
good photographers can shoot great pictures from any device

also, memes

This is the dumbest thread I've read through here in quite a while. A hallmark achievement for /g/. Not only is the OP's question retarded as all fuck and not deserving its own thread, the some of the unironic replies here elevate this shit to another level.

>>56591843
>what is a powerbank.

>>56592699
You mean like 90% of the people who own pretty much every product in existence? Wow, what a surprise!

For the average person? Yes, the best flagship smartphone cameras replace the type of camera they would otherwise buy. Unless you're some type of hobbyist or professional then you're not going to be spending enough in the first place to get a camera good enough to really matter (not that people at this level care enough to see the difference in the first place). Phones can take some great pictures, for sure, but top tier cameras still have their place and you'll definitely see the difference in situations like >>56593200 mentions.

Personally, I see no reason why I would ever buy a camera now. While I think smartphone photos hold up in pretty much every situation nowadays, you can definitely tell when, say, someone with the same kind of hobbies as you is shooting with a nice camera.

>>56591946
>down syndrome, the post

>>56591789
Professional cameras do not burst into flames

Yes, if its Job related for example if You work for an online retailer and say You are looking for some practice or if You are into online sales, especially big ticket items.

File: DSC_5662.jpg (1MB, 1600x1060px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1600x1060px

>>56594297
And some still work after being on fire.

>>56591946
>iShill

>>56594199
Fair point m80

Also 99 pals

>>56592454
>Since every photographer already has photoshop why waste money on fat black cameras when you application can create the effect better in addition to everything else it does
If this is true then why do people like >>56591946 and >>56593377 have such a hard time making their photos look like real life?

The main problem with most photographers when it comes to post processing is that they often go for the effect, rather than the real, because people just want to see something that looks cool.

If you want to make something that looks cool then the camera (and lens) itself isn't even the most important tool, it's the software.
If you want to actually capture the moment and have it look as true to real as possible than camera and lens are the most important.