Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Hey all, I have been a Fuji fan for 8 years now. I love my cameras and have managed to get some great photos from them over the years.


Just for the record, up until recently I have hated when people post phone camera pictures on facebook and forums etc.

One thing I have noticed is the gap between a 'Real' cameras and a phone cameras has gotten closer. Even though its always easy to tell the difference, I think to the casual viewer they would never really notice or care. The  photo message is protrayed regardless of a few small differences.

I have always looked down on phone camera photographers and still do, BUT I have decided to ditch the real one and become a phone cam person myself.

I am finding the whole portability thing an issue, and I like that I can slip a phone into my pocket. I also notice that phone cameras are more forgiving of bad setting errors, especially when you need to take a quick unplanned picture.
I think the smarts in a phone have gotten to a point that its prety hard to take a dud shot. On the contrary the im still way too slow on the manual adjustments for a SLR. 
Carrying lots of big lenses is also a drag, not to mention the weight etc. 
Im also finding it hard to justify updating my camera when the body can cost 2 or 3 times as much as a phone that can do 80% of the work.

So why am I writing this? Why dont I just dissapear into the sunset quietly? I think Im just leaving Fuji some feedback. It might be interesting to stray away from the traditional path of SLR and look at products easier to carry.  For example, Id like to see a camera that was flatter but was also a phone. It was designed primarily  as a camera first and a phone second. Something that meant we have superior quality photography that didnt also mean we had to carry two items around. The compromise could be a fatter than normal phone. This would allow for a bigger battery as well.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just responding here because I kind of went the opposite way. Three years ago, I decided to invest in a Samsung flagship-level phone, primarily for the newer camera technology, so I could be reasonably happy with the quality of the camera I would always have with me. It's worked out great in general and saved a lot of trouble and weight when traveling, although as someone alluded to above, I would have been disappointed if I went to a zoo.

But this year I realized that sometimes I just want to Take Pictures, and that could go almost anywhere, so I got me an X-S10 and all sorts of modern accessories so now I can hook it to my microscope, telescope, or micro focusing rail as well as get pro-quality pictures and video with great lenses. And I'm having a great time!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

I too went the other way around.

I took family pictures on iphone for a few years. Pics quality was quite disappointing. And the choice of lens ? None.

It all depends on the kind of pics one wants to photograph. For street photography, the phone could be an advantage as the photographer could go unnoticed. But for portraits, studio work, wedding, landscape ... i'd stick with something like the X-T3, X-T4, Xpro3. For portraits, I am looking forward to seeing what the XF 50-140mm f/2.8 can give. I read and heard a lot of good things about it.

No matter what, keep shooting.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A few years ago, Olympus launched the Air. A very small M43 mount+sensor where your phone could clip-on. The mount could take the excellent but small Zuiko lenses and the M43 sensor was way bigger than any smartphone sensor. The idea was not too well executed, but in fact it would have been a great travel package. Just the Air, one or two Zuiko lenses and your smartphone. I guess to expensive for most smartphone-only shooters and to quirky for traditional amateur photographers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Similar Content

  • Posts

    • I also use a Nikon to GFX Fringer and it works very well.  24mm f/1.8 vignettes so best used on 35mm mode.  50mm f/1.8 covers the entire frame very well with no issues and is a superb little lens. 105mm Sigma vignettes slightly but is perfectly usable. 300 f/4 likewise the 105.  I have a 70-200 f/20+.8 incoming to test so will report back but I'm expecting a little vignetting.  Even in 35mm mode the image is still 60MP and if you're prepared to manually crop and correct you can get 80-90 MP images.  I also have a C/Y to GFX adapter.  The 24mm Sigma Superwide vignettes strongly. Ditto 28-80 Zeiss Sonnar. 80-200 f/4 Sonnar is perfectly usable. All work fine as 35mm mode lenses.  I also have an M42 adapter which I tried with the Carl Zeiss Jena 135mm f/3.5 with good results. 
    • Thank you. I will research it.
    • Ahh, the infamous brick wall photos… 😀 According to internet lore, if the dng converter does not properly apply the corrections, you can have it apply custom profiles that should work for you. How to do that is waaaaaay outside of this comment’s scope, but there are plenty of sites listed in the search engines that step you through the processes. Best wishes.
    • Jerry Thank you very much. That is extremely helpful. It seems that the camera and the lens have the latest firmware update, so it appears that the corrections should be applied automatically. The lens arrived this afternoon and I took some quick test shots, in which the correct lens information appeared in the EXIF files, so that sounds good. I used Adobe DNG converter to convert the Raw (RAF) files, and then opened the DNG files and saved them in PSD format. However, with a beautiful, clear, cloudless blue sky, there were no lines near the edges to check if distortion had been corrected. Another day I plan to photograph a brick wall. Thank you for your help.
    • Typically you need to make sure the lens is compatible with the camera, i.e. check the lens compatibility charts for your camera, then make sure the respective firmwares are updated so older issues are resolved. After that, each lens has a manufacturer’s profile which will be embedded into the raw file meta data for the images captured using that lens. From there, it is up to the raw conversion software to apply the lens correction to the image. Different converters do that differently, some automatically, some only if a setting is turned on. For in-camera jpegs, the on-board converter does the corrections automatically, assuming the camera recognizes the lens, it applies a generic profile otherwise. I do not know if that can be turned off or not.
×
×
  • Create New...