What the fuck

The CMOS sensor in a smartphone is between 1/16th to 1/8th the size of a full size sensor. A cellphone will never be able to take a full resolution picture no matter how many scalled megapixels you cram into it. Also lenses. Cellphones can emulate some thing, but an SLR has gives you more control over your aperture, iso, shutterspeed, lighting, wb....

I'm guessing you're a selfie loving roastie.

>modern smartphones takes even better pictures than these bulky boxes
get your eyes checked grandpa

TROLL LINE

everyone posting under this line has been trolled

===========================

and above it too

Professional photography work. DSLRs are able to take crystal clear images even in low light and can capture fast moving objects with little to no noise assuming the user knows what he's doing with things like ISO, aperture, shutter speed, metering, ect ect.

would have more technical know how in this regard so I suggest you go there.

Attached: 1429864313714.webm (425x315, 97K)

I know i'm wading into troll infested territory by stepping below this beautiful wonderful line, but what about the middle of it?

> would have more technical know how
user, I...

Despite the bran circlejerking they know more about tech specific to cameras than we ever will. All Jow Forums can tout here is "muh megarpilels" or "muh zoom" without any regard to things like low light noise.

Smartphone photos look great. On a smartphone.

Dump them into photoshop or Lightroom on a proper monitor and you’ll see the difference.

Plus smartphones can’t do RAW.

Nothing beats a pentaprism.

I dunno man, I've shot weddings and portraits, newborns all that fun stuff and I find /p/ to be shit for any actual discussion.

>smartphones also have better zoom.

Attached: trolled-police.jpg (600x312, 61K)

Because it filled with "artists" obsessed with "muh art photography", who screech at anything else. Obviously, those artists usually either post someone else photos or don't post photos at all.

there is a huge overlap between the posters on /p/ and Jow Forums
Jow Forums used to have its fair bit of camera threads in the day

>smartphones also have better zoom

Attached: gegegegeg.jpg (352x352, 36K)

in what world?

Only absolute retards post their own pictures on /p/
There is nothing to be gained from it, and you can't even post in high resolution without getting yelled at.

No, it's because good lenses are generally very big.
Little point putting a tiny body on a huge lens.

Attached: sigma-200-500mm-lens.jpg (720x480, 42K)

>>/p/
>smartphones also have better zoom
now this is just bait

Cellphones can't do low light low f stop photography. They can't soft focus through wire mesh fences. They wont get those glowing orbs of city lights in the background. Images from a 20 megapixel cellphone looks worse than an upscaled 6 megapixel image from decade old dslrs because the cmos sensors are trash. Then again, what you don't know wont hurt you.

>Cellphones can't do low light low f stop photography
I beg your pardon?

Attached: LakeSundayNight.jpg (2664x2000, 3.41M)

That's absolute trash, my friend.

It was also done with zero light from the sky.

They're slow too. It takes time to boot. Irritating. There's no standby like modern phones.

If you had a tripod you could make it look like daylight. This is what I'm talking about. You have no idea.

you should'veleft the shutter open longer for saturation, used a tripod, and set the flash off on lower power right before closing the shutter.

Yeah and anything that was moving would get fucked up. That shot was don't with 0.5sec exposure. If the phone would have let me, I would have tried longer and a lower iso, but it wasn't fucking having it.
And I do have an idea. I have a DSLR. I'm just trying to say that phones are not too bad. OP is still wrong as shit though.

is the nikon p900 worth the $500

That still wouldn't fix that shitty grain.

only if you're a creep who don't care about imagequality

The shitty grain was because of 3200000000 iso.
What would have fixed it would be a larger sensor and a better lens.

>1/2.3
Ho fuck no.
Get a a6000 for $250 and a lens that suits your needs.

you're missing the point of the p900

kek. true. didn't even notice the grain. My mind went straight to no night sky exposure and no foreground exposure.

alright so my job requires me to be a creep, what camera (or camera+lens) accomplishes the same basic concept but with higher quality?

What, the 2000mm equivalent focal length? Okay? They make lenses that do it better you realize?

no you're literally missing the point of the p900
a person who uses DSLR/mirrorless will never consider buying it because it's for a completely different market
it's an affordable zoom camera with a smaller sensor which allows it to zoom even more while being reasonably small.
sure the image quality is not going to be there at all but it's not made for that, it's a mid-range consumer product made for a very specific purpose.

>modern smartphones takes even better pictures than these bulky boxes
Only the iPhone can compete

>grainy shit garbage worse than a fucking $70 PnS

Do you seriously think that's good? More noise than a fucking vaporwave album, destroyed color depth, awful contrast, AND you managed to blur it.

Attached: 1532274257038.jpg (680x491, 41K)

>it's a mid-range consumer product
That's $500?
I still don't see the point.

ITS FOR CREEPING ON WOMEN YOU BRAINLET

And I'm saying that you can just get a better camera used and a telephoto for that kind of money.

feel free to point me in the right direction and prove me wrong because I have no doubt that such lenses exist
lets say you spend 200$ on an aps-c dslr and have 300$ more for a ultra creepshot lens, what would you buy that's also 2000mm(1300mm) that's also compact enough to carry around and creep on people?

My Powershot SD530 kicks the shit out of any cell phone and it's literally pleb-tier. Way fuzzier than a DSLR but it does have full manual control and absolutely no cell phone has a 50x optical zoom.

Pretty funny watching old literal boomers try to take pictures of fast moving cars with iPhones, they look like retards, especially the ones with iPads when they block real photographers from getting a shot on oncoming cars because grampa has to hold his stupid fruit toy at arms length to even read the screen.

Attached: IMG_9165.jpg (2304x1728, 1.49M)

try to shoot raw and underexpose your images then put it into photoshop and adjust exposure there

One of these should do if you can't for some reason use Amazon

Attached: Hilarious-SIgma-Lens-reviews-1170x610.jpg (1170x610, 66K)

If cameras are better that smartphone cameras then what's the best mirrorless camera that won't rape my wallet?

panasonic g9, or any panasonic mirrorless.

>responding to this obvious bait

This needs a smelloscope edit

Attached: 1537164153499.png (1268x784, 16K)

d7100 reporting in, thinking of buying the 24-120 f/4G

Attached: 1537161434336.png (722x675, 207K)

a6000 probably
have you seen how much those gh5s go for

>modern smartphones takes even better pictures than these bulky boxes thanks to better post-processing and colors
No, they don't.
>smartphones also have better zoom
No, they really, really don't.

>still replying to bait
nice trips but this thread was purely made to discuss cameras, only dumb instagram whores thinks that they are comparable

Holy shit that's awful.

As was this, and all I used was the railing of a bridge instead of a tripod.

Attached: _THE0328.jpg (2400x1600, 697K)

>Plus smartphones can’t do RAW.
God damn, "raw" images are such a fucking anti-feature.
Every single camera samples it as RGB from the sensor. Just fucking give that to me instead of requiring it to go through your shitty JPG encoder.

yea, in Kelvin Degrees.

is a D5300 worth it? Currently using a smartphone (Google Pixel XL) and i'm thinking of buying one, i'm just a fan of photography, not a professional, what i'm mostly looking for is control and low light photography

>Every single camera samples it as RGB from the sensor.
That's not all RAW is.

Sure, there is metadata to go along with it, but the point is that this shit is available to every camera.

What are some cameras without optical viewfinder?

I see a lot of light coming from the sky you faggot.
And what phone?
>Inb4 that Nokia thing

>too stupid to set a dlsr to jpeg output
>omg like jpeg is the same as raw besides metadata

Attached: UmR3nkGH.jpg (1500x1000, 222K)

Just get a sony mirrorless and some nice sigma lenses.

You clearly missed the point.

You'll probably like it, they're pretty cheap used and image quality is going to be great if you have nice lens to go with it.
if you don't want to spend that much money on lenses either get a used 18-140mm kit lens which is one of the better kit lenses out there but doesn't serve the 24mp any justice in my opinion, it only starts getting decent above 35mm but it has VR which is pretty handy if you're taking photos without tripods, if not look up some tamron zooms or something.
only thing with the camera is that it leaves much to be desired in the features of the body itself, but it's one of the better choices in that pricerange and not bad at all, there's some canons that are in that pricerange but they mostly offer the same, it's a good camera and you're not really getting much better for that money.
mirrorless cameras, but they're still going to be bulky thanks to good lenses being bulky most of the time

>especially the ones with iPads
What le fuck?

Any dslrs with only evf? Google doesn't reveal
I wanted to get one of those cheap Chinese giant 800mm lenses

>He thinks tiny smartphone sensor is better than full frame sensor

TOP KEK

OP IS A FAGGOT

FUCKING ZOOMERS THESE DAYS

Attached: Sensor_sizes_overlaid_inside.svg.png (1280x961, 106K)

Kelvin Degrees?

>just get a mirrorless bro
The chunky and massive feel of a DSLR is too much to give up on, and besides you're getting way more for your money buying a DSLR instead of a mirrorless.
You're looking for an evf on a DSLR?
Why not just get a mirrorless at that point?

>every digital sensor can do 14bit

Attached: W9uEQzA6.jpg (1000x1500, 233K)

Sony a7r III, Sony a6300

Yeah its good. My d5100 still works well. In fact I have a d750 and d7100 and probably use my 5100 and even 3100 more. Don't have to worry about wear and tear or shutter counts doing time lapse, still get great images. D5300 would be nice. I recommend going with a 35mm 1.8 dx prime, cheap and sharp as shit. Actually works on full frame cameras too as a sharp ~20mm wide angle. Little vignetting in the corners not bad and hell of a value. Best to learn having to move your feet when composing rather than relying on variable focal length lenses.

Can I use a mirrorless with those DSLR mirrored 800/1600mm meme lenses?

Nope, smartphone cameras are total and utter shit.
Only useful for your normie, blurry shots, that you post on social media crap sites.
Good image quality comes from good optics, big sensor, fast shutter, things that will never fit in a thin memephone.

I was thinking a little more along the compact side under $300. I'm not big into photography but I'd still like something I could just pull out and take pictures with and not have to worry about anything being overexposed or blurry like my phone does occasionally.

Who the fuck turns off their dslr. Mine goes weeks on a single battery, left on, take a few photos everyday sometimes more. Then again "boot" time can be measured in milliseconds either eay.

Aren't they all like super expensive? I'm mostly looking to keep it on a budget
i might get the D5600 for the convenience of a touchscreen, [spoiler]i also take selfies so i need the flippable screen so the D3600 is not an option[/spoiler], thanks for the rec, i think i might try to find one with a 18-140mm kit lens and see if i can find a budget prime lens at f/1.8 or f/2.0 for all close ups of objects and stuff, maybe a macro lens adapter thingie too
I already have a tripod i use with my smartphone which i will probably continue to use with my DSLR unless it's too heavy, i have an SD card too so i'm really gonna try to go for a barebones setup until i decide to take that hobby to the next level
also, can you elaborate exactly on what features are missing?
thanks for the rec, i'm definitely gonna get a 1.8 prime lens then

For 300 you get get an older used, 300mm or 500mm reflector bizarro lenses. Put it on crop sensor 1.5x and a 2x tc

900m and 1500mm respectively, getting close!

maybe the RED smartphone will change that? I loved the idea of having modular phones back when that was a thing, thinking that with an addon with proper optics it might have truly made a DSLR-tier camera on a phone just because it's one less device to carry around and transfering pics off phone and posting them on insta and such is much faster than off of a DSLR with it's decade-old useless interface that looks like an old printer menu

Don't some LG phones have a RAW output?

most phones can output in RAW using an app like Open Camera.

Itll give plenty of options but theres always trade offs, how much is it?

>muh proper IPooS monitor
>better than an OLED Smartphone display

>he doesnt know what raw is
>he doesn't know about RGBG

Lol

Attached: 1531349583830.jpg (1000x949, 190K)

brainlets itt-

youtube.com/watch?v=HvH0b9K_Iro

camera companys are too brainlet to implement semi-sophisticated deep learning models on their images, while google/apple are already doing it and will continue to do it better.

>DSLR with it's decade-old useless interface that looks like an old printer menu
hey fuck you
functionality > looks

They don’t.

>They're slow too. It takes time to boot. Irritating. There's no standby like modern phones.
This person has never used a DSLR, maybe a shitty point and shoot.

raw images have much higher dynamic range, so you can do shadow recovery.

My camera can do 14 stops of dynamic range in raw.
With jpeg you're limited to just 8 stops.
With 16-bit TIFF I can also get 14 stops but the files are stupidly big.