Disclaimer, I'm a retired pro photographer that sold his full-frame to focus on software engineering.
- The X-Pro 3 is $2k, not what I call middle-end.
- I agree on the aggressive AI processing. Fortunately I could disable it.
- It was a Nikon D5500. I used the 18-55 kit lens, but f/1.8 prime lenses can do better indeed, at the cost of switching lenses all day.
- I compared on my 27" screen, no difference, even in low-light scenarios and at different ISOs
Huh. When I compare RAW output from my D5300 (using the default 18-55 mm lens) and a Pixel 6, the difference is staggering. Granted, the JPG output from the Pixel is usually on par with the JPG from the DSLR, high dynamic range is something where the Pixel is even a bit better most of the time.
But once you take RAW photos and hit the Auto button in Lightroom, the Pixel doesn't hold a chance against the D5300.
It doesn't even have to be a prosumer, average kids in my city know raw and post process. Kids are very familiar with editing, in fact, gen z is also blowing gen y out of water when it comes to editing video.
The X-T30 is US$ 800-900 and uses the same sensor and processor of the X-Pro3 so they're pretty equivalent on picture quality. Don't stick to the X-Pro3 mention as that's missing the point.
The D5300 is pretty old, I had one in 2013-2014, coming from a D3200.
> - I compared on my 27" screen, no difference, even in low-light scenarios and at different ISOs
This might be the main difference between us, I usually do prints in A3+ sizes and the differences in picture quality between a smartphone and my cameras are very noticeable.
On the price point I agree with you but then the comparison becomes not so level by comparing semi-conductors technology from 2014 to the ones from 2021, that's 7 years of evolution on sensor technology packed into the phone's sensor, plus all the image processing advances since then.
Again, I understand the price point but it's an oddball comparison. Perhaps a comparison between the A72 and a Fujifilm X-E2 could tell us more but I don't have either devices to directly compare myself :/
I sold my DSLR gear in 2015 including my absolute favorite 35/f2 lens, and I have an X100V on backorder in 2022 for its 35mm equivalent f/2 prime lens: seven years of AI missteps and absent bokeh in my preferred framing has finally gotten to me. I know that my phone will take better telephotos, and I know my phone has RAW mode and three lenses and takes amazingly great pictures. So I'm specializing my camera to exactly where I love it most, and will let my phone handle everything else, and I’m content that each has their strengths.
Even if you have been a professional photographer for a significant length of time, you shouldn't use it to try to appeal to authority. However, a cursory glance at your profile tells me you aren't even 30, come on mate. Unless you were a professional photographer before your 10th birthday I really don't think your experience is better than any other enthusiast.
Did you do a real image diff on the same setup? I doubt it. Phone cameras have come a long, long way but a lot of the advances are through "smoothing" things out through software.
I've done 6 years of professional photography to pay for college. Portrait shoots, weddings, even produced videos, ads, festivals, wildlife documentaries. I worked on Nikon D4S fullframes. How is my age relevant ?
My point is, professionals squeeze extra juice of the hardware, but the average consumer does not.
The image your phone generates isn’t real. It’s a medium quality photo enhanced by “AI.” See all the cases of iPhone pictures adding faces where people aren’t there.
D5300 is APS-C. I know because I have its descendent, the D5600. I wish it were full frame, especially this time of year. I should probably sell it since I never use it now that I have a good phone camera, but I would eventually miss my 70-300.
