AI = lower lens prices? Or complete collapse of lens market?

[sanveer]

There was this debate that smartphones will get better than ILCs, by 2020-22 or so. Suddenly smartphone sensor and Computational Photography/ AI development slowed down almost plateauing completely. In some ways the trade embargo on Huawei and Samsung and Sony mysteriously abandoning Triple Gain Sensors that they had presented papers on. Also, there were some talks on improving optics on smartphones much beyond the plastic lens optics currently used by the majority of the market.

Somehow all of it was abandoned, and smartphones never became equal to or much closer to ILCs. White for dynamic range, colour accuracy, low light and a few other parameters they can be great, in real pixel to pixel detail, and exposure latitude, they aren't comparable.

Until they improve Computational Photography/AI with the intention of replicating details on pixel levels comparable with ILCs, this seems to be something a bit in the future. While Topaz Labs and many others do it, including increasing resolution and even increasing bit depth, I wonder if it's actually as good as something shot on higher resolution (above the 12MP on smartphones) ILCs (24MP and above) with good quality glass. 

Smartphone photos, for now, only look good on small smartphone screens. On larger displays/ monitors they look strange (semi water colour pixalated). 

 

[MrSMW]

57 minutes ago, IronFilm said:

For filming? Sure!

For photography? (which is what this discussion point is about)

Nah, I'll take the cheaper Nikon D750 (or for a bit D850)

An argument can be made either way but personally, if I only shot stills and was only ever going to shoot stills, I’d get one of the latest Hassleblads.

[Andrew Reid]

3 hours ago, sanveer said:

There was this debate that smartphones will get better than ILCs, by 2020-22 or so. Suddenly smartphone sensor and Computational Photography/ AI development slowed down almost plateauing completely.

It didn't slow down much, have you seen what generative AI is capable of when you feed it a source image?

The progress of that is huge in just 2 years.

The processing power of Generative AI is in the cloud, which makes it an app.

So it is a very short leap to embed this in the default iPhone camera app or the default Samsung camera.

The question is financial... Who pays for the cloud processing and how much.... When do smartphone GPUs reach the advanced threshold required to do this processing on the device rather than it needing a subscription?

2018-2023 is only 5 years of debate, and it saw 1" sensors become mainstream on flagship smartphones, often 100MP+ and a readout architecture fast enough for 6K RAW video, with no crop.

They don't need to go to APS-C or even MFT size sensors in smartphones, because Generative AI is here.

3 hours ago, sanveer said:

In some ways the trade embargo on Huawei and Samsung and Sony mysteriously abandoning Triple Gain Sensors that they had presented papers on.

They don't need triple gain sensors when they have a full sensor readout at 240fps

The current multi-shot HDR algorithms work very well.

The dynamic range of a years old Huawei is close to a Fuji GFX 100 RAW file.

3 hours ago, sanveer said:

Also, there were some talks on improving optics on smartphones much beyond the plastic lens optics currently used by the majority of the market.

There's been a lot of improvements to the optics too.

Sony have a folded variable periscope zoom which is tiny and thin.

Apple have a mass-market folded optic, a 135mm equiv. prime lens in an iPhone.

Which would have been unthinkable 10 years ago.

This is an incredible lens, capable of stunning results.

The advancement in cinematic video is also very large in the latest models. The ability to simulate any full frame lens is already possible with software, let alone generative AI.

3 hours ago, sanveer said:

Somehow all of it was abandoned, and smartphones never became equal to or much closer to ILCs.

I disagree. If you feed a 1" sensor Xiaomi 12S Ultra image from a few years ago into Adobe Camera Raw and apply the AI optical corrections you basically have the look of full frame and can't tell it apart.

The dynamic range is there, the resolution is excellent, the main lens is fast and capable. The telephoto also.

3 hours ago, sanveer said:

Smartphone photos, for now, only look good on small smartphone screens. On larger displays/ monitors they look strange (semi water colour pixalated). 

But you can shoot raw DNG.

This overcomes anything and everything you don't like about the smartphone image processor for taste reasons.

The DNGs benefit like the HEIF files do from the multi-sampling, quad bayer, multi-frame HDR and contain a fantastic amount of image data.

Even on a relatively modestly priced Pixel 6 from 4 years ago.

The more you shoot RAW the more you realise that the hardware is really fucking good, and that the processing built into the low level hardware and sensor output can be as natural as a mirrorless camera.

Then once you have the colours to taste, you can then apply AI optics on top in ACR

[Ty Harper]

5 hours ago, IronFilm said:

For filming? Sure!

For photography? (which is what this discussion point is about)

Nah, I'll take the cheaper Nikon D750 (or for a bit D850)

I highly doubt a beginner starting out in photography today is gna be JUST a photographer down the line. We are beyond that kind of career journey. Going with something like an R7 still allows you to use EF-L glass (which is getting cheaper by the day - and the real investment, obviously) while leaving you open to RF stuff in the future. 

[Andrew Reid]

Canon G1X which was their largest sensor compact ever at the time... Micro Four Thirds size sensor

Example shot is from RAW, no AI...

Canon G12 typical small sensor (1/1.7"), RAW no edits

Same RAW from the G12 but with the Adobe Camera Raw AI optic corrections activated:

Can you tell that apart from the G1X any more?

The difference is now virtually unnoticeable.

[majoraxis]

I went on vacation and didn’t bring my GH6.  I used my iPhone 15 for photos and video instead.  Even if I would have brought the GH6 I would not have been prepared to shoot my friend’s kit boarding lessons from a lawn chair under a palm tree on the beach with a 15x zoom that I didn’t think to bring.

Could I have maybe captured it better with the right lens on the GH6 - sure!  Did he care - nope he like it so much he asked me to airdrop the videos to his iPhone as we were driving to the airport.

For me getting the shot is as important as getting the perfect shot. And in the near future just getting the shot will lead good enough results with the help of AI.

With less demand it is inevitable the lenses prices will fall until of course when there is a time when no one makes lenses anymore and ten years go by and the prices of lenses will start to go up and up…

[majoraxis]

Dobble post - please delete.  Thanks!

[John Matthews]

On 6/30/2024 at 2:06 AM, majoraxis said:

I went on vacation and didn’t bring my GH6.  I used my iPhone 15 for photos and video instead.  Even if I would have brought the GH6 I would not have been prepared to shoot my friend’s kit boarding lessons from a lawn chair under a palm tree on the beach with a 15x zoom that I didn’t think to bring.

Could I have maybe captured it better with the right lens on the GH6 - sure!  Did he care - nope he like it so much he asked me to airdrop the videos to his iPhone as we were driving to the airport.

For me getting the shot is as important as getting the perfect shot. And in the near future just getting the shot will lead good enough results with the help of AI.

With less demand it is inevitable the lenses prices will fall until of course when there is a time when no one makes lenses anymore and ten years go by and the prices of lenses will start to go up and up…

I did the same, but in the opposite. I took a GH6 on holiday. Why? I care about the actual files I create. I don't want to look back on them and say "I wish I had taken my camera". I don't see that feeling going away anytime soon either. Sure, phones are getting better and in a pinch, why not? But when I can, I'll take the camera for its quality, better shooting experience and its authenticity (no AI crap going on that I have NO control over), not to mention I think I look like a douchebag when I use my phone.

[wolf33d]

On 6/26/2024 at 9:13 AM, MrSMW said:

Well I own precisely zero fast lenses as in primes such as 1.4 or 1.8’s and moved exclusively to zooms recently.

I prefer primes, but the reality for my work, is I tried juggling them for far too long but the simple reality was a typical zoom covers at least 3 prime focal lengths with simple rotations. 

OK, other than a few exotics such as Canon’s RF 28-70 f2 monster, faster than f2.8 zooms do not exist and I am over using any lens above 1kg and most of my zooms are ball park 500g or under.

AI could certainly adjust DOF to be even shallower, but you know what? I am also over ultra shallow DOF and f2.8 is just fine thanks!

 

It’s funny, same happened to me. I moved to F4 zooms. Got tired of the weight. And tired of the over used F1.4 look. 

Not to mention, I agree with Andrew. Now I can add that blur in lightroom. Andrew is saying soon it will be “why have a FF when you can just use a smartphone and lightroom” and that’s right. But even today, it is (for me at least) “why have 5 prime lense F1.4 when I can have a 24-105 F4 + lightroom”. 

Between IS and super good iso performance, big apertures are not really needed for speed in most situations. Only DoF remains, and this is taken care off digitally if needed. 

I am not afraid of the future Andrew is describing. To the opposite. I would dream of getting rid of my R5 and not travel with that weight anymore. Excited for the day I can have similar quality via software enhancement in my smartphone. 

What I am afraid about, is everything else. Manipulated info with generated images (and soon videos), loss of jobs, and all the other concerns around AI.

Win some, loose some. 

 

[MrSMW]

6 hours ago, wolf33d said:

Between IS and super good iso performance, big apertures are not really needed for speed in most situations. Only DoF remains, and this is taken care off digitally if needed. 

That’s the only thing for me, - I would quite happily shoot f4 zooms all day long outdoors and do generally shoot f4 for more candid things and f5.6 for forward tracking or long static shots (where the subject might be moving around a little but focus is locked) and while f2.8 is OK in lower light, after dark even that is pushing it a bit for light gathering purposes.

Still not decided though whether a cheap f1.8 prime will do it or whether I splurge on that new Sigma 28-45 which would be perfect for indoor/night use…