TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

You do not need a DSLR to take nice looking photos, your phone will suffice

24 点作者 sricola大约 12 年前

25 条评论

mortenjorck大约 12 年前
I don't want to be Mr. Negative here, but each photo in the post is a decent example of the <i>inadequacies</i> of a phone camera. The first is a classic low-dynamic-range night shot that would be much better served by a large sensor that can do a higher ISO; the second is a nice attempt at some depth of field but is only a fraction of the bokeh you'd get with a wide-aperture prime lens; almost all of the daytime photos have pretty middling ranges and color reproduction.<p>Lastly, and this is the part I hate to be a jerk about, but the author is probably right, at least for himself right now. I don't think he'd stand to gain all that much from a higher-end camera today. With practice, though, further developing a critical eye, and understanding the photographic process, in time, he might be well-served by upgrading.
评论 #5585996 未加载
评论 #5585988 未加载
_pferreir_大约 12 年前
&#62; Why burden yourself with such a bulky device, not to mention the cost of it, when your good old phone can take just as good photos.<p>This is false. Any DSLR can do better than the author's examples. These are not "nice photos", I am sorry. I would be hypocritical if I said otherwise.<p>OK, I get it, you can take pretty nice shots with your phone, but you cannot compare it to what a DSLR can provide. Not to mention that DSLRs let you tune several parameters that can make all the difference.
评论 #5586075 未加载
评论 #5585948 未加载
jbeda大约 12 年前
I don't agree with this. While you might not need a DSLR, you can easily do better than the camera in your phone.<p>I recently completed a family trip and left my Canon 5D mark III at home. Instead I took the pocketable Sony RX100. It created some beautiful images and didn't get in the way on the family trip. It also did worlds better than the camera built in to my or my wife's phone.<p>Here is an image direct from the camera: <a href="http://bedafamily.smugmug.com/Other/public/i-SmCN6Hf/0/X3/DSC02018-X3.jpg" rel="nofollow">http://bedafamily.smugmug.com/Other/public/i-SmCN6Hf/0/X3/DS...</a>
评论 #5588188 未加载
评论 #5585882 未加载
评论 #5585920 未加载
koobz大约 12 年前
Claims you don't need a DSLR then produces a bunch of amateur photos as evidence.<p>I think computational approaches like the Lytro are the future. But right now, DSLR's still produce markedly better images thanks to faster lenses, larger sensors, shallow focus depths that create buttery soft backgrounds.<p>Some of those advantages, larger cameras will always have. At some point we'll probably ditch the anachronistic "reflex" part. The viewfinder gives you an inaccurate representation of the image anyway.<p>Smart phones are good enough for 98% of the photography that we do - vacation photos, drunk nights out with friends, that colourful homeless guy with neon tassels and a cowboy hat.<p>I can still easily tell a DSLR photo apart from a camera phone shot and it doesn't take pixel peeping either. Better dynamic range, sharpness, focus.<p>Still love my camera phone, in fact I don't even have a DSLR anymore. But I'm not going to pretend its anywhere near as good as a pro camera in pro hands.<p>Of course, we're geeks and love to expand our skills. One day we wake up and want to be a photographer dammit. So we buy a DSLR and take it to parties, dinner, public events. The big camera is a liability - you worry about dropping it or having it stolen. It also makes you look like a dork. Sometimes people give you flak for bringing a pro camera to no cameras allowed situations. When you do take pictures it feels like a ceremony. Of course, you have to nail the photo because you just spent 2500 on a camera. Every previously dismissible imperfection is now a bottleneck that prevents your camera and you, the ariste, from living up to their full potential. You need the external bounceable flash, the L series lenses, the filters and hoods.
blhack大约 12 年前
Some of you are missing the point here.<p>There are people who buy dslr cameras to take snapshots, and they do it because they think this will magically make their photos better.<p>And then these cameras never leave automatic mode, and never have the kit lens removed.<p>The point is that you don't need an expensive camera to take perfectly good shots [for most applications]
评论 #5586101 未加载
评论 #5585969 未加载
评论 #5586010 未加载
评论 #5586061 未加载
iharris大约 12 年前
I would say that a DSLR is useful for taking nice-looking photos <i>in more challenging situations</i> than a phone can (places with poor lighting, fast movement, or where depth-of-field or magnification are important). It's depressing that a lot of amateurs use a $700 DSLR on AUTO to take pictures of their lunch though.
评论 #5585937 未加载
esolyt大约 12 年前
&#62;Also, HDR is so 2007, natural photos are where its at.<p>The whole point of HDR is to create a natural image with natural colors.
评论 #5585768 未加载
aaronbrethorst大约 12 年前
A couple more tips:<p>* Creating a strong photograph is far less dependent upon what you're shooting with and more about what you're shooting. Instead of spending your cash on a Mark III or a Leica, take a photography crash course at your local photo school (Seattle people: <a href="http://pcnw.org" rel="nofollow">http://pcnw.org</a>) (see: times square and the bread)<p>* Don't be afraid to strobe your subject in the daytime. For example, in the second photo, I would've tried taking this in three ways: 1. as-is, 2. strobed, and 3. HDR. The background exposure is pretty good, but the flowers in the foreground are underexposed.<p>* Watch out for stray junk in the foreground. In the bridge photo, I'd crop out the errant flowers at the bottom of the frame (and straighten it).<p>* If you have a lot of gray sky in your photo, your camera is going to do its best to underexpose the photo. Watch out for it, expose for the foreground, and do post-processing if necessary (see the last photo of the bread).<p>And, on HDR: "Also, HDR is so 2007, natural photos are where its at."<p>Sure, shitty, haloed HDR is so 2007. If you do HDR right, though, no one will ever know. Here's my favorite HDR photo I've ever taken: <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/aaronbrethorst/3266221538/in/set-72157612028658986" rel="nofollow">http://www.flickr.com/photos/aaronbrethorst/3266221538/in/se...</a>
评论 #5586068 未加载
评论 #5586067 未加载
lttlrck大约 12 年前
The Golden Gate Bridge shot is not level, a common problem when shooting off an LCD at arms length. And to me it ruins it.<p>A wonder that it wasn't corrected in-phone, simple post-processing is one of the great features of phone-based photography.
Connaissance大约 12 年前
This article is the best illustration possible of the saying: "You don't know what you don't know".<p>Eg, the author's pics are pretty awful but he doesn't have the eye to see it.<p>A while back, I was setting up a shot and trying different approaches for several minutes with my DSLR. A friend laughed at me, whipped out his phone, took a pic, and showed me an awful picture saying "See? What's taking you so long?".
评论 #5586763 未加载
pduan大约 12 年前
The problem is, the example pictures aren't that great.<p>The first one lacks details in the darker areas, something a high ISO, fast lens DSLR setup would have no problem with. The second one is a standard macro shot but with a DSLR and a good lens, you'd get way more of a bokeh effect then what's seen. The third is crooked, probably a result of holding the phone arms length away. The fourth is really dark, because controlling exposure on a phone isn't that flexible.<p>The tips you give are the basics for any beginner photographer. I agree, people should not be walking around with DSLRs on auto setting; it's a complete waste.<p>But for those who do know a bit more about photography, a DSLR is magnitudes more flexible and efficient than a phone. Putting it on priority, adjusting ISO, f-stop, shutter speed, white balance, all of those things I use constantly with my DSLR.<p>Taking "nice" photos can be done with just about any camera nowadays. The really great, breathtaking shots are almost always taken with DSLRs (or medium format and larger).
tytso大约 12 年前
It really depends on what sort of pictures you are taking. If you are taking photos in low light, a better sensor (whether it's a full-frame 35mm or an APS-C sensor) will allow you take photos without using a flash in certain environments where using the cell phone would be hopeless.<p>There are also certain things you can do playing with depth of field that aren't possible with smaller sensors such as found on a cell phone. But it's also true that for most people, and for most shots, it doesn't matter. What does matter is that you have a something to take a photo with you; using a cell phone is just another variant of the old saying, "f/8 and be there".
nemo大约 12 年前
It depends on what you're doing with photography. The big selling point of a DSLR is interchangeable lenses, I have a telephoto, a macro, and a general purpose kit lens. I have macro shots of jumping spiders with amazing detail far better than any phone could possibly get, and shots of birds and wildlife that are better than any phone could possibly get. Wide angle lenses again will let you do things you can't do with a phone. In low light a DSLR will be much better - the tech. and larger sensor reduces noise. You have direct control over aperture, ISO, manual focus, shutter speed and various settings which experienced photographers use to get better photos. Also things like ring lights and speedlights can help a ton and aren't an option for phones.<p>Modern phones can take great photos, but the reason to opt for a DSLR are to get far better photos than a phone can manage for a lot of types of photography. No nature photographer is going to walk through the woods and be happy with a phone. Here's a photo of a bee hive I'd never try to shoot with a phone that was perfectly safe with my DSLR:<p><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/somebachs/8639569426/" rel="nofollow">http://www.flickr.com/photos/somebachs/8639569426/</a><p>This Waxwing shot would be impossible as well:<p><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/somebachs/8401678087/" rel="nofollow">http://www.flickr.com/photos/somebachs/8401678087/</a><p>And the spider photo:<p><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/somebachs/8626752660/" rel="nofollow">http://www.flickr.com/photos/somebachs/8626752660/</a><p>Yeah, I might just be posting photos since I like photography... But still, they are ones a phone couldn't take.
qwertz123大约 12 年前
While these are "nice" pictures, it's still obvious that these are taken with a crappy camera and that a good DSLR, combined with someone who know how to use it, could create significantly better results.<p>Of course I love the fact that today I always have my phone with me for snapshots that I would have missed otherwise but my phone is no replacement for my better cameras (a sony rx1 and my canon 5d that I both enjoy a lot) and it won't be for the foreseeable future.<p>Go ahead and take your wedding pictures with your iphone and let me know what you think of that decision 10 years from now.
jamescun大约 12 年前
&#62; The number of amateurs walking around with a DSLR shooting in auto, is staggering. Why burden yourself with such a bulky device, not to mention the cost of it<p>Fashion.<p>DSLR's can be constituted as part of the hipster/nerd/geek/preppy fashion trend of today. So a lot of people striving for this look will plump the money and put up with the inconvenience to make their look complete.
bsenftner大约 12 年前
My point here is really only of interest to hackers-who-hack-with-images: mobiles suck; Get any, ANY DSLR for your imagery.<p>When you want to do anything with the photos other than look at them, a mobile phone camera is a complete joke. Today, people use photos for a lot more than pretty pictures to illustrate link-bait.<p>Imagery for 2D &#38; 3D textures is one, and a growing use is 3d reconstruction. (Disclosure: I develop 3d reconstruction technology.)<p>Images taken with the lowest entry DSLR are an order of magnitude higher quality in almost every measure than the highest quality, most expensive mobile phone camera. The greater quality translates into higher precision information recovery from its photos. The difference is the size of the lens and the greater information it captures - information beneath our perceptions, but not beyond trained and plain-old human-written algorithms' perceptions.
shaydoc大约 12 年前
You can pick up used DSLR's really cheaply these days, may aswell have one, might fuel an interest in finding out about Av &#38; Tv modes, and white balance...plus lens' are what really make the big difference....I mean a canon EF 85mm 1.2 is gonna take a hell of a shot....<p>DSLR's take wonderful photographs, they are not comparable to a phone camera. Sure if you are taking snaps, I can sort of relate to the point, but do not denegrate DSLR's.<p>And yes,don't buy a DSLR to use it in Auto mode, you at least need a passing interest in amateur photography, or a penchant for art...<p>Here's a snap with my canon 500D, <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/casa_de_shay/5941345438/lightbox/" rel="nofollow">http://www.flickr.com/photos/casa_de_shay/5941345438/lightbo...</a>, the bouquet is just great on the camera, can only dream of owning a 5D
评论 #5586029 未加载
blt大约 12 年前
Bullshit. My iPhone 4S is unusable in anything less than cloudy daylight.
评论 #5585917 未加载
rufusjones大约 12 年前
I can't believe everyone here missed the point. The cheapest DSLR costs $400. It's not convenient to carry. It does ONE task. If you don't know how to use it, it won't take great pictures.<p>The author is saying "If you spend some time learning to use the camera in the device you already own, you can get acceptable results and save the money."<p>It's like my saying "The typical family member doesn't need a new computer. They can do everything they need to on a $50 lease turn-in with a couple of gigs of memory added."
ctdonath大约 12 年前
For most photos taken by most people, a cellphone camera is fine - mostly because, as noted, it's the camera you have when you need one.<p>The pictures shown are indeed a testament to how good such cameras are. Such cameras are not, however, (relatively) large frame high color depth imagers with quality lenses - and it shows to those who know what they're looking at.<p>Yes you can get nice looking photos with a cheap camera. Framing &#38; leveling the subject is a great place to start.
k-mcgrady大约 12 年前
The biggest problem I have with my phone camera is that it only works well on close shots. Take a picture of anything more than 5-10m away and it looks terrible. I'm no photographer and only ever used 'decent' point and shoots (£100-150) with an optical zoom. I sold mine when I got the iPhone 5 but I'm considering getting a POS again.
marban大约 12 年前
At that size or low ISO, almost every picture looks OK. I assume the OP never stretched the capabilities of a real camera.
评论 #5585914 未加载
msoad大约 12 年前
I own a Sony NEX and it's a good balance between a huge DSLR and mobile phone camera. I like it a lot.<p>This marketing video is so true about this:<p><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&#38;v=gW9alBidf3w" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&#38;v=...</a>
phamilton大约 12 年前
Taking pictures of my 18 month old son is miserably with a phone (iPhone 4S and Nexus 4). The kid just moves too much. A DSLR, even in Auto mode, makes it far easier to capture what he is doing.
toomim大约 12 年前
But this dude's photos suck.