Old “pro” cameras like full-frame SLRs are bulky though. That’s not always ergonomic to have.
And honestly, modern phones/gadgets with a lofic sensor (like Xiaomi or Hisense now, Apple soon) are absolutely crazy. They blow the dynamic range and shadow noise of old full frame sensors out of the water, and give new ones a run for their money:
Don’t get me wrong; you are preaching to the choir here. I love cameras. I am trading in my Canon and buying a Fuji or Panasonic ILC soon.
But I think its a mistake to underestimate modern smartphones based on how bad older phones were. The sensors have gotten big, their sensor tech is a few years ahead of dedicated cameras, and you can bypass the overprocessed look with 3rd party apps. That, and lofic is the biggest jump in sensor tech in a decade+, and its only coming to small sensor cameras for now.
Ricoh, Leica, Olympus. There are pro level compact alternatives. Ricoh’s are almost as small than a smartphone while being more ergonomic to use and better featured. The reason there needs to be such technologies as LOFIC for tiny sensors is precisely to compensate the size and achieve what larger sensors already achieved decades ago by shear force of being larger. But you don’t need to go that much larger, just a micro four thirds camera with mediocre glass from a decade ago already blows away anything that big tech put last year on flagship phone cameras.
Well each has its quirks. Leica is hilariously expensive. Ricoh is fixed lens, fixed focal length. I nearly got an OM-3 myself, but honestly it is big, and M43 lenses and sensors are starting to show their age.
I’d probably point the average person to an L10, an X-E5, an S9, or the A6700 with a pancake lens if they can swallow the price.
I think the S9 in particular is a glorious “smartphone replacement.” Its a full frame ILC, its connectivity app is fantastic, yet with a pancake lens it is no bigger than an OM or Leica.
MFT is far from dead though. Their glass is top tier even in the plastic bodies. And the point of buying a second hand old cameras is to not have to swallow the price. For most people just trying to replace a smartphone camera, even a fixed lens is a massive improvement. There’s a reason dedicated point and shoot like the PowerShot are coming back en force. I recently kit up with an old EM-1 and a pancake lens, and the thing is not only pro level features with good quality glass. All in all, it cost me less than $500 including postage. And though it won’t fit in my pocket, it weighs almost nothing and is absolutely tiny for the power it packs.
I dunno. The flood of cheap 3rd party lenses (Viltrox airs, Sirui snipers, Thypoch 24-50, Tamron…) kinda put old M43 lenses to shame, for less money, while being smaller and built for bigger sensors.
Native OM lenses are expensive. Sync IS doesn’t work with Panasonic.
I’m not sayings its a terrible mount like RF, but they are starting to lose the value and size advantage because there is so little R&D done for M43. You could get a much sharper image out of an old sony/nikon/fuji body + a $150 Viltrox Air.
Yeah, then do that. My point is that it doesn’t take a lot of money to surpass flagship smartphone cameras anymore. Plus Google is not obsessively looking at your dick pics that way.
My point is that it doesn’t take a lot of money to surpass flagship smartphone cameras anymore.
…It will soon though. Thats what Im saying.
Current Xiaomis and Hisense, and the next iPhone, are gonna be straight up better than a $1800 OM-3, hand down. At least outside of the supertelephoto range. Loifc is a HUGE deal, it is coming to most smartphones, and OM’s processing is stuck in 2015.
That’s where my doubt lies. Is it really gonna be better than a pro doing exposure bracketing? Because my point is that you don’t have to buy a brand new $1800 camera from last year. When a camera from a decade ago will excel that performance with only a tiny bit of practice and skill for a third of the price of a new phone. Phone cameras have gone a long way, but they are physically limited in ways that no new sensor can overcome. New material tech is not going to surpass basic light geometry.
Are 8 extra stops of performance going to justify a new AI riddled, surveillance and privacy nightmare device? When you can get 24, 30 or more stops of performance with a decade old tech. I don’t think so. The average hobbyist who wants better technical specs for photography would be misled if they looked at new smartphones and not into the recent past of digital cameras. And stop obsessing over OM, that’s a tangent on my comment and just my personal preference. A Sony, Canon or Fuji would fit just as well into the argument if that’s the buyer’s preference.
Old “pro” cameras like full-frame SLRs are bulky though. That’s not always ergonomic to have.
And honestly, modern phones/gadgets with a lofic sensor (like Xiaomi or Hisense now, Apple soon) are absolutely crazy. They blow the dynamic range and shadow noise of old full frame sensors out of the water, and give new ones a run for their money:
https://www.cined.com/dji-osmo-pocket-4p-lab-test-rolling-shutter-dynamic-range-and-exposure-latitude/
Don’t get me wrong; you are preaching to the choir here. I love cameras. I am trading in my Canon and buying a Fuji or Panasonic ILC soon.
But I think its a mistake to underestimate modern smartphones based on how bad older phones were. The sensors have gotten big, their sensor tech is a few years ahead of dedicated cameras, and you can bypass the overprocessed look with 3rd party apps. That, and lofic is the biggest jump in sensor tech in a decade+, and its only coming to small sensor cameras for now.
Ricoh, Leica, Olympus. There are pro level compact alternatives. Ricoh’s are almost as small than a smartphone while being more ergonomic to use and better featured. The reason there needs to be such technologies as LOFIC for tiny sensors is precisely to compensate the size and achieve what larger sensors already achieved decades ago by shear force of being larger. But you don’t need to go that much larger, just a micro four thirds camera with mediocre glass from a decade ago already blows away anything that big tech put last year on flagship phone cameras.
Well each has its quirks. Leica is hilariously expensive. Ricoh is fixed lens, fixed focal length. I nearly got an OM-3 myself, but honestly it is big, and M43 lenses and sensors are starting to show their age.
I’d probably point the average person to an L10, an X-E5, an S9, or the A6700 with a pancake lens if they can swallow the price.
I think the S9 in particular is a glorious “smartphone replacement.” Its a full frame ILC, its connectivity app is fantastic, yet with a pancake lens it is no bigger than an OM or Leica.
MFT is far from dead though. Their glass is top tier even in the plastic bodies. And the point of buying a second hand old cameras is to not have to swallow the price. For most people just trying to replace a smartphone camera, even a fixed lens is a massive improvement. There’s a reason dedicated point and shoot like the PowerShot are coming back en force. I recently kit up with an old EM-1 and a pancake lens, and the thing is not only pro level features with good quality glass. All in all, it cost me less than $500 including postage. And though it won’t fit in my pocket, it weighs almost nothing and is absolutely tiny for the power it packs.
I dunno. The flood of cheap 3rd party lenses (Viltrox airs, Sirui snipers, Thypoch 24-50, Tamron…) kinda put old M43 lenses to shame, for less money, while being smaller and built for bigger sensors.
Native OM lenses are expensive. Sync IS doesn’t work with Panasonic.
I’m not sayings its a terrible mount like RF, but they are starting to lose the value and size advantage because there is so little R&D done for M43. You could get a much sharper image out of an old sony/nikon/fuji body + a $150 Viltrox Air.
Yeah, then do that. My point is that it doesn’t take a lot of money to surpass flagship smartphone cameras anymore. Plus Google is not obsessively looking at your dick pics that way.
…It will soon though. Thats what Im saying.
Current Xiaomis and Hisense, and the next iPhone, are gonna be straight up better than a $1800 OM-3, hand down. At least outside of the supertelephoto range. Loifc is a HUGE deal, it is coming to most smartphones, and OM’s processing is stuck in 2015.
That’s where my doubt lies. Is it really gonna be better than a pro doing exposure bracketing? Because my point is that you don’t have to buy a brand new $1800 camera from last year. When a camera from a decade ago will excel that performance with only a tiny bit of practice and skill for a third of the price of a new phone. Phone cameras have gone a long way, but they are physically limited in ways that no new sensor can overcome. New material tech is not going to surpass basic light geometry.
Are 8 extra stops of performance going to justify a new AI riddled, surveillance and privacy nightmare device? When you can get 24, 30 or more stops of performance with a decade old tech. I don’t think so. The average hobbyist who wants better technical specs for photography would be misled if they looked at new smartphones and not into the recent past of digital cameras. And stop obsessing over OM, that’s a tangent on my comment and just my personal preference. A Sony, Canon or Fuji would fit just as well into the argument if that’s the buyer’s preference.