Viewfinder shows all that information in real time already, but after a certain point, you know what your camera gonna do with these settings:
Hmm... It's a bit too bright and this thing gonna overexpose a bit so, let's compensate it with -0.7EV...
Hmm... With this settings, it'll track the face automatically so I don't need to think about it now.
This is how you instinctively think while taking a photo. It's automatic. I don't know what my metering says me for most of the time, because I already know from experience. Metering is always there though. If it says something contrary to you, it's worth paying attention (again a split second).
If I can take this [0] with a single frame, why should I bother about multiple frames? Or, if I can take this [1] with a simple 7-shot bracket (which is overkill, 3 will already do, but why not) and simple compositing, why should I bother? Lastly, if I can take this [2] again with a single shot, with a bog standard lens and with a good tripod, why should I bother with tracked shots, etc. (You can always take better astros, but this is a great shot for a single frame and some post processing).
In photography, sensor size is still the king. A mirrorless camera is much crisper than a phone camera, the comparison is still moot. Esp. when you compare full frame sensors to phone camera sensors, even the best ones (like Sony's 48/12 Quad-Bayer systems) fall way short of even an APS-C sensor. It's physics. A RAW image from a big sensor is 90% there. When taking a photo with a phone, you're adding much much more to make it look good.
The joy of photography comes from capturing that fleeting moment and framing it to create something worth looking and remembering that moment. Not synthesizing artificial looking colors with extreme post processing which bends the truth in that moment.
> Hmm... It's a bit too bright and this thing gonna overexpose a bit so, let's compensate it with -0.7EV...
Why should _I_ do that instead of the camera?
> If I can take this [0] with a single frame, why should I bother about multiple frames?
You shouldn't. The camera should. It already knows the illumination level, and it can take multiple measurements from its CCD, until the total amount of transferred charge per pixel is enough to build a good picture. And while at it, just take a couple more pictures with intentionally over-exposed sensor to automatically offer the HDR version.
You know, the thing that phone cameras have been doing for a decade or so.
> In photography, sensor size is still the king.
Yes, and that's why I want a mirrorless camera with changeable lenses. There's only so much software can do with a phone's optical system.
However, the same software can do so much more when coupled with a big sensor and a good optical system.
First, every machine has its limits, second every photographer has a style.
> You shouldn't. The camera should.
No. The camera should do exactly as I say. It's an instrument, which shall allow footguns. Because one person's footgun is other person's style. Camera should be a blunt instrument, and should completely get out of the photographer's way, shall become transparent.
It's not the camera's interpretation of the scene. It's the photographer's interpretation through the camera.
> ...offer the HDR version.
If you feel lazy, many mirrorless cameras do that, but the results are may not fit your taste. Sony A7III's Auto-HDR is nice, but it's not exactly what I want, so I merge mine manually.
> You know, the thing that phone cameras have been doing for a decade or so.
I have quite a few cameras: A Canonette 28, a Pentax MZ50, a Nikon D70s and a Sony A7-III. I also used Canon AE-1, etc. All of these cameras have metering, and all of them are excellent for their era. They are not infallible or perfect.
For example, D70s freaks out in CFL and LED environments, because these indoor lighting was non-existent when it was designed. So a custom WB is a must in this case. A7-III sometimes struggles in colored LED (sodium yellow-ish) environments, so you again set custom WB. That machine was the most accurate camera in terms of color when it came out.
As I said, every machine has its limits.
> However, the same software can do so much more when coupled with a big sensor and a good optical system.
The thing is, photographer's don't want the software. They want what they exactly see recorded in a file, and that's more of a dynamic range thing more than a color thing, and it's directly related to sensor hardware (regardless of its size), not software.
From my understanding, you want a mirrorless (or full frame) point and shoot, and that's OK. What I want is total control over the camera hardware, regardless of its form factor.
> First, every machine has its limits, second every photographer has a style.
This is such a bullshit statement...
> No. The camera should do exactly as I say.
Well, time to throw your camera away, I guess. Unless you have a very old DSLR camera, of course.
> It's not the camera's interpretation of the scene. It's the photographer's interpretation through the camera.
The thing is, the camera can take multiple exposures at no cost, and then you can just discard the ones that you don't need. So you basically want to artificially limit the software and hardware to simulate the old-timey workflows.
> For example, D70s freaks out in CFL and LED environments, because these indoor lighting was non-existent when it was designed.
See: smartphones.
> The thing is, photographer's don't want the software.
This photographer wants it. And the market has clearly spoken in agreement with me.
> From my understanding, you want a mirrorless (or full frame) point and shoot, and that's OK.
The only thing I can say is, what we think about photography is very different.
> Well, time to throw your camera away, I guess...
I have film SLRs, a DSLR and a mirrorless. None of them are trash. They still work the way they should.
> See: smartphones.
If you think smartphones are impeccable in white balance, I'd tell you otherwise, because I have seen them fail the same way. It's physics. Even an iron skillet can take good photos in ample light. The difference starts to show itself when light goes down (starting sunsets and going from there + indoors at night). I take (sometimes) grainy photos with my camera, and smartphones just emit line noise from their sensors.
> The thing is, the camera can take multiple exposures at no cost, and then you can just discard the ones that you don't need.
Who says I don't shoot consecutive photos when required? A7III can track an object and keep focus on it at 30FPS, and shoot at 10FPS. Higher end cameras like A9 can go up to 120 AF corrections per second.
However, if you don't know what you're doing, spray and pray is no magic bullet. Also, taking shots is not free. If you can't press the shutter in the correct moment, that action and frame is gone forever. So, your burst shoot is for nothing.
Generally, when you're doing something like Tango nights, a 3-4 frame burst gets what you want. If you're tracking a dog, it's generally ~10 frames. Street is again ~3-4 shots (traffic, walking people, etc.), but I challenge myself to a single shot if I feel good, because why not.
There's no "old time" workflows. There are workflows for different scenarios. Sometimes I shoot and share from camera directly. Sometimes I process on my phone. Sometimes I let the photo sit and process post-trip. Sometimes it's one shot, sometimes it's burst. I have no frames. I just do what feels right at that moment.
These cameras have dedicated DSPs to handle these tasks. They are not bound to their processors, so a camera doesn't lose tracking because it also has to do AF corrections at the same time. Phase detecting AF cameras can scan whole AF surface (not all image pixels are AF pixels) without bogging down even while shooting 4K/8K videos at their max frame rates, because they're designed to do that.
> This photographer wants it. And the market has clearly spoken in agreement with me.
Smartphones are in your service. If you want heavy duty post processing for RAWs on the go, any iPhone later than X can post-process 24-32MP RAWs on board. I know, because I do.
However, the image quality of modern smartphones are not there by a great margin. Esp. in the Dynamic Range and Noise department. My A7-III can shoot in pitch black and create noiseless images. Google Pixel 9 Pro? Can't [0]. Even "portrait mode" creates washed out colors in bright daylight. Compare that to Fuji's XT-50, a mid range APS-C camera [1]. The difference is night and day.
> Pretty much.
I think you can seriously consider XT-50. It's not a full-frame machine, but it's a great APS-C camera with great ergonomics, which can handle 99% of your needs, without even needing post processing.
BTW, you say that "the viewfinders are electronic, anyway". They are calibrated OLED screens which shows the resulting image (after cameras processing) in real time. They are not less capable just because camera viewfinders don't draw yellow ractangles around faces, they track them just fine, incl their eyes. Sony not only focuses to faces. It focuses to eyes, even when they're behind sunglasses (you can tell A7III to show real time tracking markers).
I guess you never used a mirrorless, or any enthusiast camera for any matter. The possibilities they open beyond a single shutter button is immense.
This photo [2] is taken 15 years ago, and post processed in Darktable IIRC. It's taken as a JPEG, and processed from there. This is what good hardware and software can do.
If you don't have the data in the image to begin with, you can't go there even with the best software, sans you hallucinate and make details up, which is more generative AI and less photography.
> They are calibrated OLED screens which shows the resulting image
No they don't. For example, in low-light conditions the sensor doesn't get enough light to faithfully show the long-exposure result.
And my phone also has a calibrated OLED screen, so it's not like it's something exotic.
> I guess you never used a mirrorless, or any enthusiast camera for any matter. The possibilities they open beyond a single shutter button is immense.
I have worked professionally with optical systems and lasers, and for a time I had astrophotography as my hobby. I did plate stacking, and all other kinds of post-processing.
Sorry, yes they use a long shutter, and you get a blurry photo with the noise combined. It's a double whammy.
> And my phone also has a calibrated OLED screen, so it's not like it's something exotic.
Yes, but is the whole pipeline calibrated to each other? IOW, does what you see equals what you save? It's not always true on a smartphone, but it's "What you see is what you get" on a mirrorless.
> I have worked professionally with optical systems and lasers, and for a time I had astrophotography as my hobby.
Nice, but you might have done the same astrophotography with a CCD module designed for astro or with a wet plate, and both are very different from using a mirrorless camera, esp with one of the latest generation of sensors, which you can just point and shoot and get a more than decent photo of the sky above you. So, my point still stands.
I wish you the best of luck in your endeavors, and get my camera and leave for some greener pastures before the rains start.
If I can take this [0] with a single frame, why should I bother about multiple frames? Or, if I can take this [1] with a simple 7-shot bracket (which is overkill, 3 will already do, but why not) and simple compositing, why should I bother? Lastly, if I can take this [2] again with a single shot, with a bog standard lens and with a good tripod, why should I bother with tracked shots, etc. (You can always take better astros, but this is a great shot for a single frame and some post processing).
In photography, sensor size is still the king. A mirrorless camera is much crisper than a phone camera, the comparison is still moot. Esp. when you compare full frame sensors to phone camera sensors, even the best ones (like Sony's 48/12 Quad-Bayer systems) fall way short of even an APS-C sensor. It's physics. A RAW image from a big sensor is 90% there. When taking a photo with a phone, you're adding much much more to make it look good.
The joy of photography comes from capturing that fleeting moment and framing it to create something worth looking and remembering that moment. Not synthesizing artificial looking colors with extreme post processing which bends the truth in that moment.
[0]: https://www.flickr.com/photos/zerocoder/33984196648/
[1]: https://www.flickr.com/photos/zerocoder/47965142511/
[2]: https://www.flickr.com/photos/zerocoder/46092337964/