>>4380859
>grab something good from the next generation of cameras after mirrorless
>he thinks it's going to get better
Products devolve over time. They get worse, real performance decreases and instead is substituted with marketing gimmick numbers that go up to disctract you from the fact it still sucks.

The next camera after mirrorless will be to increase tactility and it would be better than the screen shot machines we have today, but they will all still be worse than any d/SLR ever made

>>4380861

Im hoping for something where they just put the internal workings of a current mobile phone inside a bigger camera body and hook it up to a apsc size sensor.
That would instantly make every mirrorless camera ever made redundant and force everybody to upgrade.
The bigger body can support more processing power and battery, then you have all the computational tricks from a mobile phone on a dslr sensor.
I will be lined up with my money ready to buy it.

>>4380863
>Im hoping for something where they just put the internal workings of a current mobile phone inside a bigger camera body
that exists already and everybody hates it.

>>4380863

like that is literally where all the technological development is going currently, its pretty much the obvious place nikon, canon, sony etc have to go. They will need that computational power in the actual camera at the time of taking the photo. That is the future.

>>4380864

where does this exist? post the model please.

>>4380867
any micro fart turds camera. The platform is exactly what you're describing, small sensors combined with computational photography and it's dying out because it sucks and looks like ass

>>4380863
>>4380867
It was made and people joked about it
>I will be lined up with my money ready to buy it.
That's a lie, because it happened and you didn't

>>4380872

it has not happened, no microthird has anywhere near the power of a mobile phone whatsoever.
The iphone does a ton of inbuilt editing, combines multiple photos together without you even knowing, figures out the colors etc.

I am talking a machine that spits out finished highly edited photos like a mobile phone without the user having to do anything.
One that has inbuilt software so you can apply thousands of highly complex presets if you want.

that is the future of photography, editing photos turned out to be a total meme, if computers can do it, they should.

>>4380875
sounds like you hate photography, you should probably just stop then

>>4380876

Photography is not editing, never was. Photography is taking photos, and technology should support that. I just want a camera that lets me spend my time taking photos.

>>4380877
It sounds like you don't enjoy photography, my recommendation is that you should probably just stop doing things you don't like.

>>4380878

kek, being this mad your micro 4 third isnt cutting edge tech.
If i cant enjoy using a micro 4 third I cant enjoy photography and should quit?

I enjoy photography very much with my DSLR, I am looking forward to buying advanced tech on the next gen after mirrorless, which will mean I can spend even more of my spare time taking photos, and less time having to edit as the AI in my next gen camera will just do it all for me.

By the way this is exactly how professional photographers worked in the film era. They took photos and gave them to the tech in the dark room to do the rest. That is true pure photography and is exactly waht i will be doing with my next gen camera.

>>4380879
It really sounds like you don't enjoy photography. I suggest doing something that is more aligned with your enjoyment, like using AI image generators.

>>4380875
>it has not happened
It has, you are just too stupid or ignorant to realize this. I'll give you a tip: The most famous camera that is what you describe was made by a company that isn't involved in cameras anymore.
>without the user having to do anything
You are not really a photographer then
>photos turned out to be a total meme, if computers can do it, they should.
Kill yourself boy

>>4380881

digital editing has really broken half the users of this boards brains.
Guess what happened in the film era, you just took your photo, gave it to the lab and got your photo developed by them. You did utterly zero editing.
That is photography.
Not spending 50% of your entire photography time messing around in lightroom or photoshop.
That is the sad digital art that photography has turned into.
You should be doing zero editing if you are a photographer.
Adobe has buck broken this board.

Photography is framing a photo with a camera, figuring out nice lighting for your photo, choosing a good angle, capturing the precise moment.

Here is a hint, if you are in front of a computer you are 100% not doing photography. You are doing something some marketing department somewhere convinced you that is required and you have to pay company x for this privalege of wasting your time on this.

If company y offers a product to skip that step so I am doing entirely photography and nothing else you are damn right I will be buying it.

File: Andersen.jpg (269 KB, 600x820)

269 KB JPG

>>4380861
>Products get worse over time
Ah yes. Perfection.

>>4380883
editing is part of the process and always has been, sorry you don't like photography. You should quit

>>4380884
This post is written in a tone of sarcasm but says things that are true

>>4380885

Editing is not photography, its a totally different process.
Its why on a professional photoshoot, there is the photographer taking photos, there is a director/magazine director choosing which photos to use, their is the retoucher or retouch house they send it to who will do the retouching.

Its only poors at the bottom of the ladder who have to do everything themself.
That is until AI catches up, so people who want to can become pure photographers again.
Not some jack of all trades, do 20 jobs because you cant afford to get somebody else to do your chores for you.

>>4380887
You should quit and use AI image generation. You've written paragraphs and paragraphs about how much you hate photography, it's really bizarre that you just don't stop doing things you seem to hate so much

>>4380886
So is it safe to assume you take photos exclusively with wooden boxes then?

Gotta put your money where your mouth is.

>>4380883
>You did utterly zero editing.
Wrong, a real photographer developed in the dark room and dodge & burned the details to his pleasure.
>Not spending 50% of your entire photography time messing around in lightroom or photoshop.
Wrong, editing and printing was most of the time spend in photography, let alone "50%"
>That is the sad digital art that photography has turned into.
Wrong, editing is easier than ever and there's no risk of you dying from silver poisoning, getting broke after burning through tons of stock or needing to mod part of your house for the dark room.
>You should be doing zero editing if you are a photographer.
Wrong, you should be doing editing if you want total control of your work.
>Adobe has buck broken this board.
Wrong, editing was done before Adobe and even some anons don't use it but DarkTable, Phase One products, Corel products or other stuff.
>Photography is
Wrong, photography is the end result image, what only matters in the previous process is you capturing a real image and presenting it with whatever technique or style you want as long as it represents what you saw.
>if you are in front of a computer you are 100% not doing photography
Wrong, if a computer is part of the process of processing what you captured then it's part of photography.
>You are doing something some marketing department somewhere convinced you
Wrong, the real photographic pioneers used these techniques too without anyone telling them, it was for technical reasons and then their own taste for it.
>you have to pay company x for this privalege
Wrong, there's free alternatives
>If company y offers a product to skip that step
And yet here you are, gaping wide open to pay a company for the privilege
You are a nigger and you are also not a photographer. Kill yourself and free us from your presence.

>>4380889
>So is it safe to assume you take photos exclusively with wooden boxes then?
Is is safe to assume that.

>>4380891
And now ladies gentlemen it is time to play.

WILL. ANON. DELIVERRR?

Proofs or shame. Which one will it be?

>>4380890

Being this wrong...

No photographer did a thing in the dark room who could afford to pay somebody else to do it.

Go watch Helmut Newtons documentary if you somehow cant grasp this concept.

Helmet Newton is a photographer, whoever the latest instagram gimp is no doubt does spend 95% of there time doing whatever else than taking photos but I dont care. I do not want to be like the latest instagram gimmick. I would like to spend my entire time mastering the actual part holding the camera, and zero of it training at digital art.

>>4380892
How could I deliver? I've only ever taken photos on wooden boxes. I don't think you understand fully the implications of that

>>4380895
Alright that's pretty funny.

I knew this bait thread would blow up.

>>4380898
They always blow up

>>4380864
>Im hoping for something where they just put the internal workings of a current mobile phone inside a bigger camera body
Yongnuo YN450

>>4380894
you can just say you're too lazy
no shame in that

>>4380890
This. I am sure there are more renowned photographers who spent time producing prints than those who did not.

Photography is the process of making an image not just monkey press button.

>>4380867
https://youtu.be/Sa3Qpwl4Pg8?si=K9SnYC1sN3Nf2dTg
literally iOS meme with fake bokeh and focus subject selection (luddite transvestite fails to point it out however)

>>4380859
whats after mirrorless? a sensorless?
3d scanners and 3d printers/holos realistically

File: IMG_3109.jpg (672 KB, 1440x1440)

672 KB JPG

>>4380889
Yes, no one shoots wood box cameras in this day and age. So outdated!

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Created	2024:11:03 07:10:47
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1440
Image Height	1440

>>4380883
I developed my own film for years in my loft you’re just a casual honestly.

>>4380984
Digital film.

>>4380859
The next generation will also be mirrorless. It's all mirrorless forever. SLRs are, and were, objectively a bad design, just the most generally useful one they could make for a while
>Mirror slap
>Focus shift
>Focusing and shooting off 2 different planes
>Viewfinder brightness controlled by lens
>Mirror+prism+loupe arrangement loses light and resolution, autofocus was inevitable as it must be relied upon
>Huge amount of space between the sensor and the front element occupied by bullshit

>>4380863
Why would anyone want AI enhancement to come to real cameras? The market trend is currently towards authenticity. Sony is planning to bring C2PA to the A7IV, A7CII, and better models. Nikon, canon, and leica are putting it on their pro flagships. Remember, a "REAL CAMERA!" is not a normie device, and never has been. Even in the film days, normies used shit like the canonet and minolta hi-matic - if they were buying upmarket. And today, ILCs are not normie gear, and never will be.

Some hobbyists might clamor for this shit but you're not the force driving the market. PROFESSIONALS are the force driving the market.

>>4381032
canon dropped 2 cameras with ai noise reduction and sony's market share shot up

lmao

>>4380999
Trips woodboxbro btfos the rest of the thread

>>4380859
Every generation has its peaks after which nothing improves. mirrorless just hit most of its peaks very early because professional videographers are driving the market hard and professional photographers are still using older shit.

>DSLR peaking for photo
nikon d750, d850
canon 5div, 5ds r
pentax k-1 mk1

>Mirrorless peaking for photo
sony a7cii - best travel/hobby camera
sony a7rv - best high resolution full frame camera
canon r6ii, r5 mk1 - best all around professional cameras
nikon zf - best prosumer camera, best for adapting manual lenses

>what mirrorless still has to achieve
Authenticity support to cope with AI until the butlerian jihad hits (C2PA, SOOC jpeg to instant printer w/ encoded signature)
"Usable" medium format (the GFX100II is coming very, very close)
>What the camera industry in general still has to accomplish
New production film cameras

We're not really starting a new generation for stills unless something like organic sensors, large sensor quantumfilm, or full frame foven makes it to the market. Which might not happen, because once you hit usable medium format, cameras are not just good enough - they are too good. You can take good looking images in near total darkness.

>>4381032
Viewfinder brightness was a solved issue until light was siphoned off for autofocus systems.
I've decided I would rather have shitty or no autofocus than a viewfinder that's dark and has no split prism/microprism.

I've spend less than €1k on my total gear in about 5 years of shooting.
Unlike your dinosaur click clacker I can also resell it instantly for the same amount.

>>4381047
>canon r6ii, r5 mk1 - best all around professional cameras
lol