>tfw this era of humanity will be mostly documented through

>>58667540
Better than not documented at all

>>58667540
what is nice about it, (((they))) can't control truth anymore

DSLR would never have documented to the extend that smartphones have, because they are less mainstream

>>58667540
>shitty grainy camera
is your phone 10 years old OP?

>>58667540
Still much better than filmshit was.

And the higher end cameras are still out there.

>not having a $17,000 professional camera setup for taking pictures of your tendies

As opposed to not at all

>>58668252
Costs more like $1k to get something okay and $3-5k to get something professional. Bug everyone is too poor cause income inequality is a bitch.

Mainstream camera tech has been shitty for decades.
>polaroids
>$10 point and shoots
>disposable cameras
>1.3 megapixel cameras

>>58668291
Nah, it used to be (few) pictures on grainy ass shit film.

I can't wait for kids to have to watch LiveLeak Compilations in their history class.

>>58668334
This.

For the majority of people a modern phone has a better camera than they've ever owned. Only people who do photography as a serious hobby or profession have better cameras for the most part.

Hell, the only reason for me to get a DSLR is for astrophotography. For everything else I just use my phone.

Still better photos than were taken in the previous generations.

>>58668315
PS: Not a yearly cost either. Its probably that once every 4 or more years.

You'd think with most people only having a handful of hobbies more would get one of these. But nah. Everyone is poor. Crazy shit, this world...

>>58667540
Still a whole lot better than the Era of Shitty Compressed Blocky Video we had from 2003-2008

>>58667540
yes i'd rather prefer photos being taken on $3 disposable cameras

>>58668223
Filmshit is better than most cameras today. You must have not had a very good camera or you just never learned to take good photos.

>>58667540
>>tfw this era of humanity will be mostly documented through shitty grainy camera phone pictures and vertical videos
>Camera phones were a mistake
As opposed to what? Shitty run of the mill compact film camera?
Great.

>>58667540
noise =/= grain

grain = good
noise = bad

I somewhat miss film ;_;

fuck I dig through old photo albums with those shitty, low quality pics but they make me feel so warm inside.

flicking through shitton of pictures on your phone can't compete

>>58668432
MF and LF with high end $20+ a shot methods were okay.

Everything else was and is shittier than a good modern smartphone, never mind DSLR or MILC.

Also, used the high end of Minolta for a while back then.

>>58668463
Of course it can, you are just not sufficiently older yet.

Grandma was happier with her older negatives now digital than her newer photo albums.

>>58668463
>shitty, low quality pics

What are you talking about? If you owned a decent 35mm analog camera back in the day the quality would still be better than pretty much any cellphone camera or compact digital camera today.

>>58668140
Ofc (((they))) can (((they))) elected the current Pro-(((them))) president in the history of united States

What sort of faggot wants to document the past anyway?

>>58668535
If you owned a decent cellphone you would realize cellphones are clearly better than film shit was.

>>58668719
More practical, yes. Better quality, no.

>>58668728
Better quality, yes. Also actually decent color accuracy and all that.

>>58668728
Way better quality.

File: sensor sizes.png (210KB, 1200x769px) Image search: [Google]

210KB, 1200x769px

>>58668796
>>58668806

You don't know what you're talking about. The equivalent of a 35mm analog camera is roughly a digital camera with a 35mm sensor and those run well into the thousands of dollars.

Your fancy $800 cellphone has a <5mm sensor. Any 35mm camera, both analog and digital will blow it out of the water.

Megapixels is a marketing buzzword and you shouldn't judge quality by it.

File: lmfao.png (52KB, 848x453px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 848x453px

They really don't.
Dual laser auto focus and 30fps 4k UHD HDR means my shitty phone camera is better than most expensive DSLR on the market.

>>58668884
just ignore him, he's /g/'s official clown

File: IMG_20170126_183822.jpg (3MB, 4128x2322px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 4128x2322px

You underestimate how good phone cameras have become.

pic related was taken with a j7 samshit phone I got on black friday for like $80.

Photos taken on something like the V20 would look pretty close to DSLR photos.

Now I'm not saying throw away your DSLRs and just use your phone but on most occasions a phone camera will suffice especially those high-end ones like on the V20.

>>58668728
>>58668796 (cont'd)
Just to further show my point
What you got on a better than average hobbyist film camera (not the best, but more than people usually carried):
https://www.flickr.com/photos/141273886@N07/25522352224/

(~$100 in China) Budget smartphone from ~two years ago:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/96936248@N05/14363909542/

iPhone 6s (stand-in for quite many phones who are equally good now):
https://www.flickr.com/photos/53400673@N08/25879239006/

Bonus: Mirrorless camera that probably has under 1/10 of the TCO of your film setup back then if you were a weekend shooter:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/steffenz/17000675448/

And there are MILC and DSLR more than twice as good without even going over ~$4k.

File: camera.jpg (260KB, 712x696px) Image search: [Google]

260KB, 712x696px

>>58669116
This is what happens when you have more megapixels than what your sensor can handle.

>>58669289
You're not even cropping the RAW.

And this still looks better than it would have on 99.99% of color film shots.

>>58669520
> sterile
Actually realistic, as it was. You know, photography.

Go use shitty instagram filters or other filters like from the now free Google Nik if you want your photos to have that "special" look that isn't like reality was. It can do the same thing.

The whole difference, if any, is that you now have to admit that *you* made a shitty image and spruced it up with an effect. Rather than the camera doing it.

>>58669289
That, JPG quality is set to 90% (to fit in 4chan's file size limit), and this camera doesn't too well in low-light areas.

Anyway in the end I guess it's convenience vs quality when it comes to phones vs DSLRs. With phones like the V20 that line is starting to blur desu.

Camera phone sensor tech like hdr+ is able to actually reduce per-pixel noise on the sensor (by taking multiple shots, merge & median) which is something both older CCD/CMOS and even DSLR sensors cannot do because of the slower shot-to-shot time.

It is a software solution to a hardware problem but a damn good one.

>>58668884

>no mention of canon in that photo

i can smell the nikonfagging from here.

i went to /p/ for years, i can't stomach the place now.

anything below aps-c a shit.

older dslr's are dirt cheap, anything from a t2i rebel onward is fine for 99% of people, and you can find those bodies for like 200 bucks. 7D bodies are like 400 now, i paid 1200 for mine used years ago.

full frame dslr prices never go down to reasonable levels and the older 1D bodies have crappier sensors than more recent aps-c sensors.

save up your pennies and find a 5D mk III used for the best bang/buck in FF, the 7D is still the best bang/buck in APS-C.

File: R1-00219-0009.jpg (1MB, 1981x1379px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1981x1379px

>>58668476
Okay. I was wrong then. I still use my nikon f3 and will until it's unaffordable (not reasonable).
I took lots of neat photos like this one I took when I was really young. It just looks fine to me.

>>58669727
> With phones like the V20 that line is starting to blur desu.
Not entirely.

I mean, they catch up to older DSLR or MILC, but then the newer MILC or DSLR have gone ahead already.

However, OP and the filmfags have nothing really to complain about, phone shots are actually good and there is no particular downside to the average P&S or whatever else people would have realistically used if phone cameras didn't exist.

>>58669762

>muh hdr

how old were you when you fell into the HDR hole and how long did you stay in there?

pulling and pushing a stop here and there is one thing, going full ken rockwell is another.

>>58669823
used to to exposure bracketing on my D80 and D300s, usually 3 shots but occasionally 5. Microcontrast and all kind of a pain but I liked the ability to layer them out myself in Photoshop because I am shit at composition.

On my Pixel XL I never turn HDR+ off, because it results in strictly better photos.

>>58668461
Don't get technical with me *C3P0 voice*

File: JapanSudo35mmSeries.jpg (608KB, 1280x1593px) Image search: [Google]

608KB, 1280x1593px

Shot with a 30$ Chink cam. No competition for my Micro 4/3 camera but still amazing for the price and size of the sensor.

File: shinjuku.jpg (571KB, 1920x1440px) Image search: [Google]

571KB, 1920x1440px

>>58669899
The first scene with an Olympus EPL-1

>>58669810
>I still use my nikon f3 and will until it's unaffordable (not reasonable).
Well, it's your money and workflow and time.

I mainly cared about the wrong idea that smartphones, never mind modern MILC/DSLR are worse alternatives. They're basically not.

If you switched to a modern equivalent, I don't think your images would get worse either, your camera operating skills still mostly apply on a modern DSLR/MILC.

> I took lots of neat photos like this one I took when I was really young. It just looks fine to me.
It's a bit grainy, underexposed, falsely colored and so on. But for purposes of retaining a memory, why not? I think you probably did good in that sense.
[Never mind you didn't even have a reasonable other choice back then.]

Thinking people *now* would do better and maybe ore shots with such cameras is however completely wrong. It costs too much, and the results are ultimately worse.

>>58669289
Pictures have to be good enough, not perfect.

>>58668377
>Only people who do photography as a serious hobby or profession have better cameras for the most part.
Unless you want to be "that guy" that brings his DSLR when they go out.

File: specs-sensor.jpg (143KB, 1200x875px) Image search: [Google]

143KB, 1200x875px

>>58669727
That grain isn't jpeg compression.

>>58669929
>Pictures have to be good enough, not perfect.
I'm not saying phone cameras aren't more than adequate for day to day photos, but you can't say their the same as better cameras and just ignore the defects.

>>58668223
hassy here

go home young man, you would find things here your dreams could not contain

>>58669929
> Unless you want to be "that guy" that brings his DSLR when they go out.
You're always "that guy" if you do anything at all that isn't completely lazy. Don't let it stop you. It's worth it either way.

Never mind we got MILC that are as powerful as DSLR and in-between in size now.

That said, if you're fine with your smartphone, it's not surprising either. They are doing good.

File: the_cold_hikikomori_lyfe.jpg (1MB, 4032x3024px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 4032x3024px

>>58669964
That looks still pretty bad on the right side.

>>58669899
What the fuck. That's pathetic, even for a $30 camera.

>>58669964
It's partly due to jpg compression. 90% will fuck your shit up more than you think. RAW photos vs compressed ones are very different, unfortunately my J7 does not have RAW photo output but something like the V20 does.

The main thing is how good the sensor performs in low light. Not all phone sensors are the same despite the sensor size. V20 for example performs very well in low light compared to my samshit j7.

>>58668669
>>58668140

Are you talking about the Lalilulelo?

>>58669964
How old is that fucking comparison image, and what is it even comparing?

Here's a low light shot from the current Google Pixel XL:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/aydoganaykanat/30094367666/

The Pixel XL kinda does better than your "large-sized" sensor.

Yes, you'd be right that a FF camera like an A7S II will do better, but honestly, people are not going to just buy that one instead. And if the "large-sized" sensor image is what you suggest you wanted, you got it on smartphones now.

>>58668123

There are some things should be wiped from the human collective memory hivemind

File: 1455480254254.jpg (135KB, 600x800px) Image search: [Google]

135KB, 600x800px

>>58670144
True but I think the problem lies itoddlers. Not only is the image sensor on those thing absolute dogshit but most pass their photos through things like snapchat thus making things even worse than they already are.

>>58670192
>live in an era where digital phone cameras are decent enough
>filter that shit through instagram filters and other bullshit

JUST

I think that more than noisy grainy pictures, vertical videos are the true cancer of current media creation.

>>58668315
>this is what /p/ really believes

go gearfag somewhere else