So that's why it gets pixelated. Thought it was digital zoom. (as a non-owner)
What you call "pixelated", photographers call "noise."
In good daylight, the iPhone exposure and colors arguably look better than the A6500. But even at base ISO, you can tell it's a bit smeary.
Anything over base ISO and ... I didn't think the iPhone would fall apart so bad.
Is that the full image, or is that a cropped portion? My suspicion is it has to be cropped.
What you call "pixelated", photographers call "noise."
In good daylight, the iPhone exposure and colors arguably look better than the A6500. But even at base ISO, you can tell it's a bit smeary.
Anything over base ISO and ... I didn't think the iPhone would fall apart so bad.
Is that the full image, or is that a cropped portion? My suspicion is it has to be cropped.
Even, the "better colors" aren't real. Most cameras on phones use post processing to touch-up the photos so they are more pleasing to the average person. Usually means that colors are oversaturated and everything is moved into the warm tones by default. The goal of most photographers with a dedicated SLR is to get a perfectly neutral shot that can be touched-up post processing.
What you call "pixelated", photographers call "noise."
In good daylight, the iPhone exposure and colors arguably look better than the A6500. But even at base ISO, you can tell it's a bit smeary.
Anything over base ISO and ... I didn't think the iPhone would fall apart so bad.
Is that the full image, or is that a cropped portion? My suspicion is it has to be cropped.
I understand that - but for smartphone users, the post-processing is warranted because those users don't want to do touch-up. They want it to work out of the box.
DSLR companies are getting curb stomped by smartphone choices.
Out of the box, smartphones
(1) produce poppy color,
(2) add sharpening,
(3) auto HDR your images in relevant scenes,
(4) default to auto-ISO.
A DSLR, out of the box, does none of these things, leaving the average DSLR purchaser who probably bought their camera from a big box store and "just wanted better photos of their kids" are left with drab, unsharp, blurry photos because their camera is defaulted to "what photographers want."
What DSLR manufacturers should do is set their cameras up out of the box to match what smartphones do; it's far easier for "real photographers" to turn off auto-ISO (and they're shooting in RAW , so none of the other options matter to them.)
wonder how long before one of the camera companies partners with google to get AI into superzooms/mirrorless/SLRs?
The chips aren't good enough given the price/power draw. The Google Visual Core in the Pixel 2 still takes a while to process one image and has powerful ARM cores of course. When you are doing 10-20FPS at 40+ MP, that isn't going to work.
That optical viewfinder requirement is probably the biggest challenge. I was surprised how many AA powered cameras are still available but I guess if one is going to travel far afield, it makes a lot of sense.I'm not an average person. Is anyone? I don't have or want a cell phone. (Occasionally I'd like to have the driving directions app) I want a camera with an optical viewfinder that uses double A batteries and costs less than $200. 8 megapixels is/are plenty. The best options I can find are old used cameras on Ebay