Earlier quoted context omitted.
The best camera is the one you have with you, and everyone usually has their smartphone with them.
That is an expression, but there have been a lot of good photographs I've seen where I only have my phone. I take it and think "this does not do the scene justice, it looks like crap."
The Smartphone vs. the Camera Industry
71–80 of 196 posts
Re: The Smartphone vs. the Camera Industry
#72Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the problem is that there are two nearly polar opposite desires for UI and processing, that require totally different approaches to a camera. One is the smartphone user who desires good quality for whatever the situation, who just wants a photo uploaded to Instagram or whatever, NOW. They don't want to learn how to adjust exposure compensation to expose-to-the-right for optimal raw image quality. This user wa…
I think Sony could realistically do both in one product. They already make flagship smartphones that are hardware-competitive with everyone else's flagships. They supply the camera sensors for everyone's flagship product. They have the best DSLM and reasonably competitive lenses. Just take their current flagship smartphone, double the thickness to fit a halfway-between-smartphone-and-full-frame sensor, an SD card slo…
And no one will buy it. It has been tried before, by Nokia.
Re: The Smartphone vs. the Camera Industry
#73And yet the photos I take on my 7 year old mirror-less camera look eons better than anything I take on my iPhone?
Re: The Smartphone vs. the Camera Industry
#74At this point, shouldn't a digital camera just be a smartphone with a weird form factor? (Pile of optics and a viewfinder?)
Samsung tried building Android-based cameras a few years back, struggled to gain any sort of market share, and got out of the interchangeable lens camera market altogether. It’s a shame too because the cameras got really good reviews.
Re: The Smartphone vs. the Camera Industry
#75Basically, 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 factor that fits in your pocket that is good enough but frankly a bit awkward for many things. They've gotten uncomfortably big and yet are still uncomfortably small for many things (like typing). You only have one phone and the myth companies like Apple are built on is that that one phone comes from them and is the center of your life.
However, making phone hardware is getting so cheap now that you can produce fairly decent ones for around 100$. Manufacturers like Apple have been looking to expand in the camera domain to justify higher prices. If you look at the most expensive phones, their number one feature is always the camera.
The next logical step from a technical point of view is separating those two again. After all, if phones are cheap, there's no good reason why any camera can't be a phone as well. The only reason that's not happening is that traditional camera manufacturers (like most electronics manufacturers) are lousy at software. Eventually one of them will figure it out.
Another thing that I've been expecting to happen is that Apple will figure out that selling just 1 device to people with too much money is bad business. Right now they have a one size fits all phone and that's it. You buy it and then you replace it after a few years. The next logical step here is to own multiple devices and start treating them more as accessories to be used in different contexts. The phone you use while biking to work might be different than what you use while you are sitting on the bus or at home. It might not even be a phone. It's like owning just one pair of shoes for jogging, weddings, office, and gardening. Once companies figure out how to make switching from one device to the next seamless, there's an enormous amount of potential for all sorts of specialized devices to be sold that seamlessly integrate. Including high end cameras.
Re: The Smartphone vs. the Camera Industry
#76Smartphones take astoundingly better pictures than almost anyone needs or wants, and will only get better. There will always be some market for dedicated cameras, however for most people they do not add any value.
Re: The Smartphone vs. the Camera Industry
#77This 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…
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 two years. Now a two year old phone is not bad at all, and many people are moving to a three year cycle or even longer. This is significant, if 50% of folks move from replacing their phones every 2 years to 3, that's a 16% drop in sales.
Apple's real challenge is to keep innovating to convince folks to keep to shorter phone life-spans. However, as Moore's law keeps it's pace towards the graveyard, that will be be harder and harder to do.
Re: The Smartphone vs. the Camera Industry
#78Maybe 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…
Now somebody should simply come up with the idea of a camera that is also a phone. I mean you did but somebody should make that idea a reality. Hey, my camera is ringing ...
Re: The Smartphone vs. the Camera Industry
#79Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ran into this problem pretty recently actually. We've got a machine that was set up 10 years ago to use a canon DSLR camera to take scaled images we can use to program with. After ten years the body and lens are dying. We replaced the lens about a month ago after it refused to take pictures due to focussing issues. We wasted half a day recalibrating the grid used to scale the image. It worked well until last week whe…
Is there a reason why a DSLR was chosen over something like a machine vision camera even 10 years ago? Talking about grids and scaling makes it seem like something that would be right in that product space.
Re: The Smartphone vs. the Camera Industry
#80Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the problem is that there are two nearly polar opposite desires for UI and processing, that require totally different approaches to a camera. One is the smartphone user who desires good quality for whatever the situation, who just wants a photo uploaded to Instagram or whatever, NOW. They don't want to learn how to adjust exposure compensation to expose-to-the-right for optimal raw image quality. This user wa…
I think Sony could realistically do both in one product. They already make flagship smartphones that are hardware-competitive with everyone else's flagships. They supply the camera sensors for everyone's flagship product. They have the best DSLM and reasonably competitive lenses. Just take their current flagship smartphone, double the thickness to fit a halfway-between-smartphone-and-full-frame sensor, an SD card slo…