GH5 How interested are you in a GH6 anymore?

[DLD]

And more on new phones - Huawei P50 Pro runs ~ $900-$1300, has a 50 MPX 23mm main camera and a 64 MPX 90mm telephoto, with a 3.5X periscope zoom and 100x digital, plus a wide-angle selfie cam. The camera is currently sold only in China and may appear in other places in 2022. But, since Huawei licensed its periscope zooms from Samsung (via CorePhotonics), one can expect a similar product from either Samsung or Xiaomi (which is the way for the Chinese to run around the various trade restrictions that Huawei has been placed on), Or both.

To sum it up, you get a high res sensor with a long reach in one body for less than GH-6. DxO has a separate smartphone rating page for the US users and non-US users. P50 Pro is their highest rated camera, significantly above iPhone13.

Who needs a stand-alone camera now?

Except for the pros.

 

[NorBro]

Most people don't buy phones for the camera tech.

New phones, updated models will be purchased by default because they are, well, phones - and the camera(s) inside them is just an extra feature.

You know I'm all for the mobile improvements, but for now the above only consists of words on paper, and people interested in a standalone camera are not going to automatically consider them immediately and switch.

We need to see the results for any of those words on paper to matter.

 

[DLD]

The Huawei reviews are good, placing them at the top of the camera smartphoniness.

The point I am making and the one I have been making for a while is that many of the stand-alone camera features have been duplicated or approximated sufficiently by now for the vast majority of the existing shooters to no longer need a stand-alone camera. And that destroys the photo-video hybrid industry at its core.

PS. A friend's son had his (much delayed by Covid) wedding a couple of weeks ago. I received a zillion photos and a few videos via Google Documents. My report is that the quality of the smartphone cameras far exceed the quality of the smartphone photographers.

 

[NorBro]

I do see what you're saying but I think you're speaking prematurely and you're bundling two different types of minds.

You see...there is absolutely no doubt that phones destroyed a major part of the camera industry, but it was only because regular people did not need to purchase a point-and-shoot or camcorder anymore for their casual photos and videos when they had their phones. The quality was more than good enough for their purpose.

But anyone who was still interested in a camera like the GH6 is not going to be immediately replacing that potential option with a new phone unless the IQ is just as good.

It's not...not yet.

___

Phone cameras don't need to get any better for regular humans. So when you ask, "Who needs a standalone camera now?"...well, the answer is likely less than 1% of regular humans. That ship has sailed and phones are #1 for them.

But the IQ is not as good yet for the person who is interested in a GH6, and companies are still hanging onto that thread.

Now if you're saying that the phones will eventually get as good as the GH5/etc then OKAY...I can see that but I'll still believe it when I see it.

And if and when that day comes then that will truly be the end of most of the photo-video hybrid industry as you say. But we are not there yet...

So those paper phone specs look great above, but let's see the results, you know?

 

[ahalpert]

Who needs a stand-alone camera now?

Except for the pros.

Pretty much.

I do think that people will see a much bigger gain in video IQ from a large sensor camera. Much or all of the low-light shooting capabilities of smartphones is owed to computational photography and combining exposures. Maybe eventually this could be done in video, but it's a steeper climb. I would think that a full-frame camera would always have an advantage over a smartphone for shooting video in low-light. And people shooting with smartphones are probably trying to use them in dark venues frequently. (But hey, there's always the on-phone light! Snicker snicker.)

which is not to say that those users would care enough to spring for a mirrorless. They won't. It's just that they'll notice the difference

Whereas when shooting photos, as long as they can actually get the shot with the phone (which is easy enough to do on a grip-and-grin), then the IQ difference is marginal. Probably undetectable consciously to most people

 

[stoneinapond]

All this talk about camera phone this and stand-alone camera that, but for me it’s more often about the lens. From what I’ve seen (which obviously doesn’t include everything) smartphone lenses are about accuracy. They can render detailed pictures but seem to lack soul. Put a lens full of character on a stand-alone camera and magic can start to happen. In the end it’s about what you want to capture. Accuracy or a feeling. Smartphones aren’t there with the feeling part yet, whereas cameras can do both today.

Just a thought.

 

[DLD]

All this talk about camera phone this and stand-alone camera that, but for me it’s more often about the lens.

Which is where the external add-ons like QX10 might come in - larger sensor, separate lens, not quote a two piece Venice but may suffice it even for the pros.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-F5D-7WRA8o

Of course, this was created by a camera, not a smartphone, manufacturer. And the technology was far more limited then than now.

 

[ahalpert]

I
And if and when that day comes then that will truly be the end of most of the photo-video hybrid industry as you say. But we are not there yet...

Eh, I dunno. If you really need to perform in the role (ie not miss a shot), then the design/interface/ergonomics really start to count. Zim asked me earlier why I would want a phone to have lots of extra buttons because it would become bulky. The answer is that I wouldn't. I want a camera to have at least enough bulk to be operable. I want a phone to fit in my pocket, be as light as possible, and easy to type on. The two devices are somewhat at cross-purposes.

Maybe someone will design a housing for an iPhone (have they done this already?) that connects to the phone and provides you with handgrips + DSLR-style wheels/dials for changing settings. Of course, there are a lot of other niceties that go into the design/operation of a camera. But the point is that IQ is only one aspect of delivering the shot.

 

[ahalpert]

Which is where the external add-ons like QX10 might come in - larger sensor, separate lens, not quote a two piece Venice but may suffice it even for the pros.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-F5D-7WRA8o

Of course, this was created by a camera, not a smartphone, manufacturer. And the technology was far more limited then than now.

at some point, this seems to be getting back to....being an actual camera

here's what that device looks like in practice:



he mentions that there's occasionally some lag between the lens and the phone. because they're connected via wifi...

i've got kids to feed. i won't be gambling their meal ticket on a wifi connection any time soon, all to save <$10k on gear

 

[stoneinapond]

.... not quote a two piece Venice but may suffice it even for the pros.

You ever do standup....? :grin:

But thanks for the trip down memory lane. I'd quite forgotten about the pair. As you say, a decade ago so perhaps the Phoenix could rise again. And point taken, manufactured using the history, knowledge, and culture of a traditional lens maker.

 

[NorBro]

Eh, I dunno. If you really need to perform in the role (ie not miss a shot), then the design/interface/ergonomics really start to count. Zim asked me earlier why I would want a phone to have lots of extra buttons because it would become bulky. The answer is that I wouldn't. I want a camera to have at least enough bulk to be operable. I want a phone to fit in my pocket, be as light as possible, and easy to type on. The two devices are somewhat at cross-purposes.

Maybe someone will design a housing for an iPhone (have they done this already?) that connects to the phone and provides you with handgrips + DSLR-style wheels/dials for changing settings. Of course, there are a lot of other niceties that go into the design/operation of a camera. But the point is that IQ is only one aspect of delivering the shot.

You'll have shot your last wedding by the time it happens so no worries, but it's going to happen, for sure.

 

[ahalpert]

You'll have shot your last wedding by the time it happens so no worries, but it's going to happen, for sure.

Ha. Let's hope so. But I guess what I'm getting at is that I wonder if smartphones are really as transformative as people say. I think they accomplish a few things:

1. Kill the market for P&S cameras, hurting the bottom line of standalone camera manufacturers. (But obviously this is a boon for phone manufacturers.)

2. Further lower the bar of technical knowledge for taking a photo (but maybe not THAT much lower than P&S cameras already had it?)

3. Make it very affordable for someone without means to take high-quality photos and video (especially since they may have already bought a smartphone for other reasons)

But beyond that, I'm not sure if it changes the craft of professional photography that much, either the gear or the practice. Lots of that gear you'll need to still have, or to have a smartphone version of. And, as DLD said, phones can already deliver much nicer pictures than their owners can take because camera placement/angle is so important. (Not to mention setting up the stuff in front of the lens.)

 

[NorBro]

I don't know the answer...

But common access to cameras has only existed for about 50,60 years so it's a pretty new art form in the grand scheme of things.

Maybe an Art History/Fine Arts major here could tell us how other arts have changed or disappeared.

When you and I have these talks (love 'em), you're always thinking about next week and I'm always thinking about next century.

___

Basically, who said anything about holding a camera and using one like we do today?

As far as I'm concerned, we (people/robots) will be taking photos with their eyes, not boxes they have to hold like some 2022 simpletons.

 

[ahalpert]

Well, you could look at how the dageurrotype and other single-plate photo technologies were supplanted by the emulsion and that by digital. (Although you still have craftsmen practicing each of those older forms.) In each case, it was an easier, lower-cost technology that was easier to duplicate and distribute finding favor with practitioners.

But painting is one of the oldest artforms, and it's still going pretty strong. Certainly the prices of new paintings can be crazy. And it's still considered an inherently more valuable medium than photography or many others, at least at the auction block.

Generally, I agree with you that if you look at any human behavior that relies on technology and consider how it would be most easily performed by the human -- eventually technology will supply that method. Taking photos with contact lenses or something? Sure, why not. You do run into limitations of physics in some facets of a process, and it's hard to predict what will be overcome by new inventions and what challenges will be insurmountable.

I saw an article recently -- I can't find it now -- about scientists taking photos of objects around corners or behind an object. Basically they emitted some light or radiation and then recorded how it came back to them and were able to piece together what was out of view by the way it scattered the light. I have no idea how well it worked. But when I read that, I thought wow this is some star trek ****. They're always looking at things from the bridge of the ship and you're like how the hell would they have an angle on that view.

 

[NorBro]

Painting is unique, but I'm curious about its future as well. I've wondered in the past how many ways there are to paint and which ways don't really exist anymore, or aren't too common.

Kind of like how many ways there are to take a photography and which tools may eventually vanish (like film cameras).

Sometimes I fall asleep to Bob Ross.

 

[DLD]

You ever do standup....? :grin:

But thanks for the trip down memory lane

Going back down the memory lane to the 1984 Olympics and the Vanessa Williams Ms. America scandal. (a naked swim in Hugh Hefner's grotto is not an Olympic event)

As to 2-piece, as Abe said, at some point it does begin to look like an actual camera. But these days, one can think of a small one-handed jib holding the interchangeable camera module with either a wired or wireless connection. The other potential is not just an interchangeable lens mount but an interchangeable sensor camera.

Down the memory highway at 60 MPH.

 

[Zim]

Going back down the memory lane to the 1984 Olympics and the Vanessa Williams Ms. America scandal. (a naked swim in Hugh Hefner's grotto is not an Olympic event)

As to 2-piece, as Abe said, at some point it does begin to look like an actual camera. But these days, one can think of a small one-handed jib holding the interchangeable camera module with either a wired or wireless connection. The other potential is not just an interchangeable lens mount but an interchangeable sensor camera.

Down the memory highway at 60 MPH.

The Army has it figured out. The GH25 will have something like this

 

[ahalpert]

Panasonic says gh6 release is delayed until at least early 2022

 

[Thomas Smet]

Panasonic says gh6 release is delayed until at least early 2022

Considering its the 16th today and a lot is closed for Holidays after next week I kind of figured that was a given. I haven't really expected the GH6 to come out this year now for a few months. The important take away from their announcement is that yes it is still coming. Eventually. In the future. Some day. Before I die. Before the world ends or the sun goes supernova.

 

[ahalpert]

Painting is unique, but I'm curious about its future as well. I've wondered in the past how many ways there are to paint and which ways don't really exist anymore, or aren't too common.

I have no idea, but a lot of the changes in practice seem to be in terms of technique rather than technology. Pigment, oil paint, brushes -- I'm sure there are some technical innovations and that artists have different preferences for materials. But I think the bigger difference is usage. I know that the old masters used to have a science of layering paint in order to reflect light in a certain way such that it carried color from the underlayers optimally, something like that. And there are stylistic changes like impressionism, which many modern painters still use. So basically same tools, different styles.

Painting is no longer the best or cheapest means of recording a scene, so it's been totally supplanted by photography for documentary purposes. But you still have courtroom drawings. (I guess when they don't allow cameras?) Rich people still commission oil painting portraits of themselves.

Or look at music -- probably the oldest human artform? Drums and flutes probably haven't changed that much. The economics (ie rampant unchecked piracy) currently favor electronic solo artists. But I don't think that the fundamentals have really changed, just the style and theory. New instruments get invented now and then, but based on the same principles.