Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That is good to know about the optical viewfinder. I've found the difficulties with the DSLR EVF in broad daylight frustrating. The Galaxy's EVF seems fine no matter how sunny it is though. But at least this info. helps me for when I'm using the DSLR in sunlight.
Yeah, Frostnip he clearly knows more than I do about photography. Once I clarified that I believed the Galaxy has better in-camera creative effects than entry-level DSLRs do, I don't think there was anything we disagreed on.
The thing is, they're not really "in-camera effects." Your cell phone is a tablet computer. You're simply using the attached computer to apply a digital filter, as opposed to uploading it to a separate computer to process/edit. (If your DSLR has Bluetooth or wifi I expect you can beam it's higher quality pics to the Galaxy and do the exact same thing to them, if that preset filter is really what's making your shot "better".) This can definitely be more convenient for a quick shot, but from what you say, it sounds like the shot is only "better" because it's more aligned with your personal aesthetic preferences, not because the image is higher quality by an objective measure. So perhaps more accurate to say that the camera phone is better for you , I think. Which is cool, people should do what works for them, but I'd never advise someone who was serious about landscape photography to use a cell phone in lieu of a good stand-alone camera.
Resolution is the big factor for me. I take pictures of small things (I'm a miniaturist), and can't blow up the phone pix to be able to see details.
Smartphones have 8MP or so and take great close-ups. But maybe you are talking REALLY small stuff. The tap to focus and exposure on good smartphones is pretty amazing.
Some of the best pics I have (even today) were taken by a 5MP Sony DSC-F707.
This is downsized to 3MP - and IMHO still looks quite good.
I think resolution is most important when the final product is going to be printed at a fairly large scale.
One thing I would add is that one huge advantage in using a DSLR in bright sunlight is the ability to use the optical viewfinder rather than the lcd screen. Holding a camera out at arm's length, whether it's a cell phone or DSLR, looking at an lcd screen in direct sunlight makes it very difficult to see, much less frame, an image. With the optical viewfinder, or EVF for that matter, there's no reflection of things behind the screen, no "blanking out" of the screen, etc.
Yeah, I pretty much exclusively use the optical viewfinder, both because of battery longevity, and because of the issues you mention. I really only use the LCD screen when I'm having to position the camera at an angle where it'd be awkward to put my eye to the viewfinder.
Smartphones have 8MP or so and take great close-ups. But maybe you are talking REALLY small stuff. The tap to focus and exposure on good smartphones is pretty amazing.
Some of the best pics I have (even today) were taken by a 5MP Sony DSC-F707.
This is downsized to 3MP - and IMHO still looks quite good.
I think resolution is most important when the final product is going to be printed at a fairly large scale.
The thing is, they're not really "in-camera effects." Your cell phone is a tablet computer. You're simply using the attached computer to apply a digital filter, as opposed to uploading it to a separate computer to process/edit. (If your DSLR has Bluetooth or wifi I expect you can beam it's higher quality pics to the Galaxy and do the exact same thing to them, if that preset filter is really what's making your shot "better".) This can definitely be more convenient for a quick shot, but from what you say, it sounds like the shot is only "better" because it's more aligned with your personal aesthetic preferences, not because the image is higher quality by an objective measure. So perhaps more accurate to say that the camera phone is better for you , I think. Which is cool, people should do what works for them, but I'd never advise someone who was serious about landscape photography to use a cell phone in lieu of a good stand-alone camera.
I see. Perhaps "immediate, in-device" effects is what I meant. No, my DSLR doesn't have wifi unfortunately. I wouldn't make a generalization like the cell phone is better for me for landscape photography. It really just depends on whether it's a situation where getting a top-notch picture is important enough to me that I'm willing to transfer the SL1's raw image to another my computer and then spend significant time editing it in Lightroom.
I don't mean to nitpick since you clearly know more about photography than I do but I'd still say that having higher image quality by "an objective measure" is not automatically a win for the DSLR. It just depends on what objective metric is used. Clarity, sharpness, ability to be edited? That all goes to the DSLR. Contrast and saturation (without editing from a separate device)? Creative effects without use of a separate device? That goes to the cell phone IMO. Yes, with time and effort you can get a better final product with the DSLR though. You could say that serious photographers are willing to do this and it's not serious photography if you want an immediate, in-device result. I take like 2000 pics a month though and don't always want to go to the effort of editing on my computer. It really just depends on how much time I have and how motivated I am.
I swear I'm not trying to be argumentative, but if you're getting poor contrast and saturation in-camera with a functional DSLR (I'm assuming you're shooting jpg), it's pretty safe to say your settings are incorrect for the conditions. Many people do find it easier to shoot first then correct later, but it is possible to get it right the first time, particularly with landscape shots where there's no rush.
Unless someone likes fussing around with digital editing (it can be fun to play with) there's no inherent need to spend a lot of time editing DSLR shots. Unless it's a shot I screwed up that I want to save, a tricky panorama stitch, a shot that needs a lot of special polishing (e.g. a portrait where I'm helping someone's skin look nice, or a photo that's going to be blown up huge), or something of that sort, I spend very little time editing/processing in most cases. The big exception for me are action shots, where I tend to get overexcited and snap snap snap recklessly just to capture the subject, then need to tune up the photo in Lightroom to make it presentable, but that's down to my lack of skill at that type of photography, not a weakness of my camera.
I swear I'm not trying to be argumentative, but if you're getting poor contrast and saturation in-camera with a functional DSLR (I'm assuming you're shooting jpg), it's pretty safe to say your settings are incorrect for the conditions. Many people do find it easier to shoot first then correct later, but it is possible to get it right the first time, particularly with landscape shots where there's no rush.
Unless someone likes fussing around with digital editing (it can be fun to play with) there's no inherent need to spend a lot of time editing DSLR shots. Unless it's a shot I screwed up that I want to save, a tricky panorama stitch, a shot that needs a lot of special polishing (e.g. a portrait where I'm helping someone's skin look nice, or a photo that's going to be blown up huge), or something of that sort, I spend very little time editing/processing in most cases. The big exception for me are action shots, where I tend to get overexcited and snap snap snap recklessly just to capture the subject, then need to tune up the photo in Lightroom to make it presentable, but that's down to my lack of skill at that type of photography, not a weakness of my camera.
Well, as far as I understand it, raw images are meant to be flat or neutral so that you can edit them however you want to. If a scene is important enough to me to use the DSLR, I usually shoot raw and edit later. However, if I go to the the specialized scene settings and tell it to shoot vivid or intense, I can definitely get better contrast and saturation. I wouldn't call it poor but I still don't think it's as good as the immediate result the Galaxy gives.
we shoot raw and as flat and neutral in camera as we can . that allows us to capture as strong a signal to noise ratio as we can . even shooting raw the jpeg preview you view in camera has the histogram effected by contrast and saturation.
you can have the histogram showing you are hitting the walls but the raw image can actually be pushed farther right than indicated if you use a lot of saturation and contrast when shooting raw . that is because the histogram is actually based on an embedded jpeg in the raw file . the embedded jpeg has the histogram effected by the amounts of saturation and contrast you add while the raw file does not .
adding much saturation and contrast in camera will push the histogram farther right than you actually are in the raw file .
by shooting flat and boring in camera the histogram gives us a bit more room before hitting the walls .that gives us a very wide latitude for noise free post processing later .
looking at our in camera shots you would never know the finished product was the same boring looking photo it started life as .
Last edited by mathjak107; 07-30-2017 at 05:46 AM..
we shoot raw and as flat and neutral in camera as we can . that allows us to capture as strong a signal to noise ratio as we can . even shooting raw the jpeg you view in camera has the histogram effected by contrast and saturation.
you can have the histogram showing you are hitting the walls but the raw image can actually be pushed farther right than indicated if you use a lot of saturation and contrast when shooting raw . that is because the histogram is actually based on an embedded jpeg in the raw file .
that will push the histogram farther right than you actually are in the raw file .
by shooting flat and boring in camera the histogram gives us a bit more room before hitting the walls .that gives us a very wide latitude for noise free post processing later .
looking at our in camera shots you would never know the finished product was the same boring looking photo it started life as .
Sometimes I just want an immediate result, and I think the Galaxy is better for that. Other times I love intense editing. Creating a transformation like this attached pic can be fascinating although it takes a lot of time. I have Lightroom presets but they're only a starting point. I still adjust every dial (including the colors) manually to put them where I think is best. I then use the localized editing brush to alter specific areas of the image. (And despite all that time, I see I didn't get the border between the building and the sky perfect in one spot.)
while we use our big nikon gear for more challenging shooting conditions or macro work , for instant results and travel my wife and i use a pair of fuji x100s .
we use the cell phone cameras occasionally but not for any planned photography outings .
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
