Ah, yeah. I think they also played with the idea of having some kind of DXO attachment for the smartphone to be a camera, right? I don’t think it took off, but it was cool idea at the time. Especially when the smartphone cameras were not as good as they are today.
cameras are still not good - but what is good is the processing … and convenience of having it always w/ you
Depends on the output you are going for and purpose. If you are casually documenting something, sending a picture to a friend, document “scanning” etc. You don’t need anything larger and it would be counterproductive anyway. Every tool is not for every job, so you pick the best available. There way a time when phone cameras were not even good for the things I mentioned. Today they are. Not good enough for some other type of work for sure, but far from bad. Especially from where we came from.
1 Like
This is why I didn’t point out the failure to support the Hasselblad range was particularly silly because according to DXOMark the Hasselblads have (or until very recently did) have the best commercially available sensors in the world. That said maybe there is a point there that their software has failed to support the leading line of cameras in the world.
That’s useful. TBH I use the Hasselblad Phocus software which has all the necessary adjustments built in and is pretty good. I’m deeply disappointed the DXO software doesn’t work on these, and that’s why I haven’t upgraded to version 6.
Anyway the main reason I’m disappointed is that my CFVII works with old Hasselblad lenses too and you can even use the old 500/501 prisms but the failure of DXO to support it means that they have effectively locked the old antique ecosystem of Hasselblad out. They don’t support the 907x either which you use if you don’t care for prisms.