Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Smartphone vs. the Camera Industry

photographylife.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 196 posts

Re: The Smartphone vs. the Camera Industry

#121

Post by coredog64 »

greggman2 wrote: post #105
nradov wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The camera industry's failure to react effectively isn't strange at all when you look at the history of disruptive innovations. In fact it's the typical pattern. Incumbent market leaders usually lack the corporate culture to recognize a disruptive competitor or react effectively.

I'm not sure what camera companies could have done short of to stop being a camera company and being a phone company which seems unrealistic. They only have experience with cameras, not with the amount of software dev needed to ship a competitive smartphone. What did livery owners do when the car came? They closed shop is my guess. I don't really think there is much the camera companies could do. They've tried making…

There’s the half step of partnership with top tier phone makers. Apple wouldn’t, but maybe a hungrier Android OEM would do a deal with Canon, give them a physical space “budget” in a flagship phone, and then market the hell out of it.

Re: The Smartphone vs. the Camera Industry

#122

Post by floatboth »

ekianjo wrote: post #102

> But that’s just the start of the problem. Once beginners get their first camera system, they quickly realize that their expenses and time commitment do not stop there. All of a sudden, their computers are not fast enough to post-process those high-resolution images and video. Their storage is insufficient. Their computer screens that used to handle web browsing and occasional gaming just fine, are no longer good en…

> my smartphones pics are for instant consumption only

ehh, I have a photo from the iPhone 4 printed out and hanging on the wall, still very happy with some shots I took with it :)

> too much noise when it gets darker

To be fair, many older DSLRs (Canon 600D) have horrendous performance at high ISO too, while smartphones have Night Sight type stitching of multiple exposures, but these require steady hands and non-moving subjects of course.

Re: The Smartphone vs. the Camera Industry

#123

Post by jefftk »

fock wrote: post #114

Was to a birthday of a person just having his first child. There were photos of his childhood/life, not stellar, but just sentimental, physical pictures of his life. Judging from what is sold in all the crap decoration stores around, people have a real longing for this kind of sentimental stuff. I think a lot of them will awake horrified in 10-20 years, when they notice that all this sentimental stuff is basically ho…

Growing up my mother took pictures and kept photo albums, and I've enjoyed looking back through it with my family. I've done the same, going through my pictures each year to pick my favorites. [1] Having a camera always in my pocket lets me take pictures in many situations when I wouldn't have thought to bring along a special-purpose device, and having it be a good camera makes for pictures I enjoy a lot more.

[1] Most recently, https://jefftk.com/pictures/2018

Re: The Smartphone vs. the Camera Industry

#124

Post by fock »

weinzierl wrote: post #84
starky wrote: post #25

Maybe because this is something very close to my wheelhouse, but this article seems to be overly wordy for something obvious. Smartphones are simply more convenient than a standalone camera can ever be. Add on top of that the incredible computational imaging capabilities that have been developed over the past few years and the quality of images you can get from the size of optics and pixels that these devices have is…

> Smartphones are simply more convenient than a standalone camera can ever be. This, and as the old adage goes: "The best cameras is the one you have with you" . I, for one, have taken technically superior photos with my camera - unsurprisingly - but certainly the more interesting photos with my smartphone. Now you can argue what is better, but I'd say interesting beats technical superior any day. > Sony and Fuji are…

and how many people did you show your interesting photos too? are they of any interest of anyone else? would they standout in one of the imageboards available everywhere?

Most certain the answer is no, which leads to the question why you felt the necessity to take this picture at all?

Given the abundance of photographic material available today, I came to the conclusion that I'd prefer quality over quantity (your old adage basically just leads to more pictures you'll never do anything with). I can get a mediocre picture of nearly everything interesting in a matter of seconds on the net, but I'll have trouble finding a picture which I can use on my 32" 4K-desktop or print as a poster. And while I might eventually (today, quality isn't there yet...) have more choice when taking pictures with a smartphone, my real wall capacity is limited and it's definitely a lot cheaper to go smartphone shopping with the camera falling right off any priorities list.

Re: The Smartphone vs. the Camera Industry

#125

Post by matwood »

freetime2 wrote: post #64
vosper wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How old is your smartphone? My wife just upgraded from an iPhone 6S to an 11 Pro and that new camera is impressive. Things have come a long way even in just the last few years, we should assume they’ll keep getting better for at least a little bit yet.

It’s an iPhone X, so about 2 years old. No doubt the iPhone 11 Pro is better. But Sony is due to release the a7iv next year and they have been improving their cameras with each generation, too (though not as fast as smartphone cameras).

I just went from an X to an 11 pro. The X was known for poor photos in low light.

With that said, the 11 pro takes great shots with little fuss. But, my d7100 with a 50mm prime still easily beats it in image quality. I want to get to the point where I don't need to carry around my d7100 (or an DSLR), but we are not there yet. Then I have shots like this, that I don't see how I would ever have caught on a phone camera.

https://www.instagram.com/p/BiQT2t9j7GG

Re: The Smartphone vs. the Camera Industry

#126

Post by fock »

ghaff wrote: post #82
starky wrote: post #25

Maybe because this is something very close to my wheelhouse, but this article seems to be overly wordy for something obvious. Smartphones are simply more convenient than a standalone camera can ever be. Add on top of that the incredible computational imaging capabilities that have been developed over the past few years and the quality of images you can get from the size of optics and pixels that these devices have is…

I’ve been a Canon user forever and have a 5Diii that I use mostly when I want the lenses and/or am doing real action photography. But I don’t use it a lot (also have a smaller Fujifilm system) and I doubt I’d make the investment if I were starting from scratch today. It’s a good camera but it’s frustrating in some ways. No GPS. No easy way to transfer pics to my phone. I probably care less about in camera processing…

no GPS is relative. Most phones have AGPS - while this works fine in a city, have fun finding, where you took that picture in a remote forest. Actual, independent GPS devices still cost a lot of money (and need power).

Re: The Smartphone vs. the Camera Industry

#127

Post by Symbiote »

floatboth wrote: post #117
geerlingguy wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But the software and connection process are terrible, and have been for years.

Pretty seamless on Sony. Just select "upload to smartphone", enter the password that's displayed on the camera into the Android app, done.

At least on my Sony RX10 IV, the authentication was only necessary the first time (by NFS or QR code scan).

Since then, I

- Open the Sony app, press "receive"

- View the picture I want to transfer, press "transfer" (physical button), select "confirm" (or select further pictures).

The UI could perhaps be slightly nicer, but it's not really a barrier here.

Re: The Smartphone vs. the Camera Industry

#128

Post by matwood »

speedplane wrote: post #77
jillesvangurp wrote: post #75

This rather long article describes the past, not necessarily the future. Basically, what the author identifies and yet misses is that most phones these days are no longer phones. A normal camera has similar capabilities except it has better optics and happens to not have a 4g/5g chip in it (typically) or be used for taking calls. The status quo of the last 15 years is basically convergence of devices around a form fa…

> I've been expecting ... that Apple will figure out that selling just 1 device to people with too much money is bad business. ... You buy it and then you replace it after a few years. Creating a device that every person needs to replace after a few years is a very sound business model. The issue is how many years you generally need to replace it. Apple used to be able to convince folks to replace their phone every t…

> This is significant, if 50% of folks move from replacing their phones every 2 years to 3, that's a 16% drop in sales.

Which is why Apple has pushed in to services and other halo devices (Apple Watch, AirPods) around the phone. People incorrectly think that a drop in iPhone sales means fewer people using iPhones. While that may happen at some point, I think the iOS user base is steady/still growing. It will take time, but Apple is already working to make themselves less dependent on the 2 year upgrade cycle.

Re: The Smartphone vs. the Camera Industry

#129

Post by fock »

reaperducer wrote: post #11
jseliger wrote: post #2

The strangest thing is the camera industry's non-response to smartphones. There's a fellow named Tom Hogan who writes in extreme detail about the camera industry and noticed years ago that camera makers should open up their APIs and work much harder to integrate with smartphones. Here's one recent example of that message: http://dslrbodies.com/newsviews/are-customers-asking-for.htm... Still, Apple discovered a user p…

Not to mention how every phone camera geotags every image automatically, but that's still a bulky $500 add-on for DSLRs, if it's even available for your model.

did you ever go on a hike without mobile coverage and then check the tags vs. actual location (noted from an actual map, because Google Maps won't work)

Re: The Smartphone vs. the Camera Industry

#130

Post by mantoto »

reaperducer wrote: post #11
jseliger wrote: post #2

The strangest thing is the camera industry's non-response to smartphones. There's a fellow named Tom Hogan who writes in extreme detail about the camera industry and noticed years ago that camera makers should open up their APIs and work much harder to integrate with smartphones. Here's one recent example of that message: http://dslrbodies.com/newsviews/are-customers-asking-for.htm... Still, Apple discovered a user p…

Not to mention how every phone camera geotags every image automatically, but that's still a bulky $500 add-on for DSLRs, if it's even available for your model.

We had 0 powerissues with our dslr's because they don't do GPS. Could not care less about it to be honest.
Post reply on HN