> Does someone really sit on their couch, put on a massive headset, and scroll through their vacation photos?
If your photos are:
1. 3D movies
2. viewed in a collaborative setting instead of trying to show your stupid phone to everyone at the table, one at a time
>To me, this looks like what my eyes would see when in the room vs what the camera itself would show which would either be blown out views outside the windows or the room too dark.
Honestly it's hard to tell without a reference picture. Looking at the first picture, it seems reasonable that the living room would be well lit because of huge windows. However, the section with the tall houseplants look nearly as bright as the open living room area, which seems doubtful.
> I'd suggest you go try a mirrorless camera with a digital viewfinder and report back when you have the prerequisite knowledge for this topic.
I own two of them. I also own a bunch of dSLRs too. I also am a professional photographer with decades of experience with camera gear.
I’d suggest you not assume things about others without having sufficient context, but at least you’ve now proven my assumption about you was warranted, despite not having enough perspective to prove it before.
> Does someone really sit on their couch, put on a massive headset, and scroll through their vacation photos?
There was a time that people said the same thing about digital photos -- people swore nothing would ever replace physical photo albums, and thought the idea of having to look at a screen to view your vacation photos was insane.
Now just imagine a few generations from now when Apple Vision is the size of a pair of regular eye glasses.
Yes, all cameras look good with great natural light. That's not particularly interesting or useful, because we're not always in perfect lighting to compensate for mediocre cameras that've stagnated for 10 years.
> it just ruins the whole experience of the interaction
Hit it on the head there. Taking photos takes you outside the experience. It's the reason I take very few photos when I'm traveling. (I can understand ppl wanting to take them in that context, but it does make your travel different.)
> "I don't have control over the weather forecast, and i don't have the money for the best photography equipment in the world."
Reading this made my head hurt. "It's not my fault the pictures are bad, therefore these bad pictures should replace good pictures." I think I need to lay down.
Inability to overlay graphics over the real world. We only know how to do so additively (shine some light in the eye to make things bright), but AFAIK there is no solution to effectively and dynamically black out some part of the picture you see.
Also, at the time, people had freaked out about wearing cameras in public. (I wonder if I need to purchase some popcorn to watch how it'll go for this one, or if it's gonna be different.)
> It's much easier to get a detailed image of a person's iris from 100m.
Seriously? That sounds insane, wow. I mean, an iris is like 1cm wide, can you really get a detailed image from 100m away, while the person is walking, looking around, blinking etc.?
EDIT: I mean in the context of surveillance, I can imagine that a dedicated photographer could get such a picture with a fancy camera, but we're talking about 24/7 video surveillance.
>Why spent time worrying about what a cell phone camera can achieve in poor or uneven lighting if a bog-standard webcam can do a really good job if you just fix the damned lighting?
You are just being purposefully an ass. What about on a cloudly day, how does your sun help you then? What about at night? Not to mention most people don't have the luxury to arrange their home to optimize for picture quality on a fucking Zoom call.
Yes, you can help a shitty camera with lights, but we could just have good cameras. You can still fiddle with your lights until heat death of universe, but rest of us just want cameras that work even if we have to pay a little bit more.
> Smartphone cameras work pretty well outdoors where there is enough light. DSLR and mirroless are hard to beat indoors in low light conditions.
I was sightseeing in the night and had my Nikon D7100 (crop sensor) with a good lens (up to f/1.8 iirc) and Samsung Galaxy S8+. After the first few shots, I put the dslr back to my backpack, the photos from the phone were much better. And that’s a pretty old smartphone!
I know newer Sonys have crazy ISO, also own a fullframe, but it’s just so easy to mess some setting up and end up with crappy photo from a dslr in those challenging conditions, and I’m no beginner when it comes to dslrs.
>Do most of my photos even have me in them at all? No.
What's the point then? I used to take such pictures, and even though I'm an OK shot, my pictures of famous places or even interesting "random" landscapes aren't gonna be nearly as good as ones I can find online. If I'm in it, then at least there's some unique story being told. Otherwise I'm just making a crap documentary.
What if you weren't on your couch? Going outside is not "niche".
reply