Digital cameras predicted to be the next casualty of smartphones and iPads - Page 2

I have an Olympus Micro 4/3 camera and it takes outstanding photos. My wife has a very good Sony 10 X zoom point-and-shoot and we've compared side-by-side photos a handful of times. There's an instantly noticeable difference in quality. Keep in mind it would be very hard to find a phone that takes as good pictures as her Sony.

Also, the lower the light the more pronounced the advantages of a large sensor camera become. Pixel count will always be a relative non-factor opposite sensor size.

I miss my old Rolleiflex tlr... best camera I ever owned... and my Mamiya C330 was second...

Now... back to regular programming...

If Apple really wanted to they could put a very capable zoom camera into the iPhone. Without a doubt, however it wouldn't be cheap.

As to DSLR's I have to agree. The photography market in a way is still in shock and living in the past. So we have this idea that SLR type mechanisms are the pros choice. That may very well be the case today, however as you point out technology is marching forward.

About the only thing I disagree with is the 4/3rds format, which I believe is too small to be useful for pro work. In this regards I'm not so much concerned about pixels but rather depth of field and perspective control. In some regards this is the same issue that kept medium format alive for so long, the extra silver was only part of the equation.

BestBuy still lists over 300 point and shoots on their website, so apparently there's still some life in the market. Actually I'm surprised at the range of stuff still out there, I would have expected the field to be considerably winnowed by now.

To quote Blanche Devereaux; "Did I say there was going to be a question and answer period after I spoke"?

I use my smartphone as a point and shot camera all the time. However I still have a high end DSLR for and high end HD Camcorder. Smartphones, with their size contraints will never match the speed and low light performance of those devices.

I think phone cameras are actually a newly created market. For the first time people have a decent camera with them at all times--as long as they have good light and don't need a zoom. Other than a zoom, they will probably eat up the sub $150 camera market. But there will always still be people who want a cheap camera with a zoom. So unless superzooms (like the Sony HX9V) drop in price to $125 people are still going to want cheap point and shoots.

Then there are people who want really compact cameras with very good image quality. These are the people buying Canon S95s today. They want a tiny camera with very good picture quality, good low light noise levels, a sharp relatively fast lens, etc... Something you can't get from a phone camera or a super zoom. So for super zooms to also take over this market, they will also need to be the size and quality of an S95 (as well as being $125 dollars).

Above that is the M4/3s, Mirrorless APS-C cameras like the Sony NEX, and DSLRs. The first two classes will probably eat up most of what is currently the sub $900 DSLR market as the technology advances in the next 3-5 years. This market is people who know how to fully use a DSLR, want all the benefits of a DSLR, but don't really need a vast array lenses. Then you have the people who currently buy DSLRs over $1000 starting with cameras like the Nikon D7000 up to the D3. They will probably always use DSLRs at the very least for the number of lenses available.

It doesn't help the case for camera manufacturers when they deliberately limit features in software. I have an awful Nikon compact camera, was about $230. Identical model with different firmware runs an extra $50, and enables better exposure control options.

Needless to say, I won't buy another Nikon when this camera finds itself in pieces after a high velocity impact with a concrete slab.

I guess it all depends on who the likely buyer is, and how many of them there are.

For the pro, a little weight and size is worth it for image quality. After that? I guess some photojournalists might appreciate the trade-off, for certain circumstances. That basically leaves upscale hobbyists as the likely market for four thirds cameras, and surely that can't be a very large segment.

Now, of course, it's easy to say "when these smaller imagers become as good as DSLRs then the market will change" and if that happens of course that would be true. But I don't think it's just inevitable that you will be able to get the same quality out of a 4/3 sensor as APS or full frame sensors, as those see constant improvement as well.

My feeling is that if you're going to make the jump from pretty good cell phone to really good real camera, why not go all the way? 4/3 at the moment strikes me as a kind of in between format, and as we've been discussing it looks like in between is an endangered species.

'Better' is a difficult word. Is the iPad a better eReader in the kindle? Not in direct sunshine it isn't. Is the iPhone the best iPod? Not if you have more than 32GB of music. But they are REALLY good, which means that for most people they are the best, or at the very least good enough.

I have an old Mamiya SLR still laying around. Not that I've used it in years. The cost of such a camera wasn't that bad (I got all of mine used) but the cost of the film was totally out of control. This especially the case when taking 6x7 pics. I still have a number of slides and negatives which highlights the other problem with medium format, all your support tools costs big money. I'd like to scan some of those pics but it is a cost I'm not willing to bear right now.

Sadly my interest in photography kinda slipped away as digital came on board.

In fact I see 4/3rds as a little to small for pro usage or even an amateur. However I don't see the full frame 35 mm sensors as all that smart either. I'd rather see a large sensor with the aspect ratio of 6x7 which I really loved to shoot with.

In any event the technology I was concerned with revolves around the ability of software and hardware to work quickly and at high resolution with out dramatically impacting the sensor. Most of the mirror less interchangeable cameras I've seen are lacking in features or performance with respect to the controls. Even here Apple is making a respectable effort to do better software wise with iPhone.

In the end I don't think the 4/3rds cameras will gather enough sales to justify the expense of developing the hardware and software. As you have noted, and others have noted there are considerable advantages to the larger sensors that have little to do with their ability to grasp light. The problem with full frame 35 mm sized sensor is that the sensor is sub optimal for many types of pictures.

Apple is actually working very hard to keep the camera market alive by constantly making their iDevices thinner. They've almost reached the point where no optical mechanism even fits.

Perhaps we'll see some trickle down from the Red approach, where a single "brain" can accept any number of modular accessories, allowing you to run your device for motion, studio or field, depending on your needs.

Of course at the moment Red's cheapest version of this is still north of 7k (and still not shipping) so it may be a while, but I think they do represent an example of clean slate thinking around digital image acquisition. There might be an opportunity for a startup to come into the space, without the emulsion baggage, and really shake things up. A small, relatively inexpensive box with Canon and Nikon mounts available that uses software to deliver unprecedented performance.

I remember when I bought my first iPhone 3G and thought that I would never take it with me to the gym and just use my regular iPOD because I didn't want to get my phone sweaty, or possibly damage it. That lasted about 2 or 3 weeks. I soon stopped using my 60g iPod and just used my iPhone. Now, I have a pretty nice Lumix point and Shoot camera that I thought I would always use instead of my iPhone4. I take it with me on trips, parties and recently to a wedding, and funny thing. I didn't take the camera out one time on my last two trips. It was right with me, but I just kept shooting from my iPhone. I could quickly upload decent pictures to facebook and it just is very convenient. I see portable GPS units being another casualty.
I always thought that the iPhone would not be able to replace most of these items and now the phone has enough of a quality camera, gps and music player that it does all over those things quite well. I wish there was more memory for music, but with iCloud, that may no longer be an issue.It has also partially replaced my keyboard and mouse for my mac mini media center and my remote for my Apple TV2.

I was all set to buy a dSLR with an APS-C sensor until I extensively researched the Olympus cameras. Every review I read said it had superior imaging compared to Sony's mirror-less APS-C series. To get equivalent features in a dSLR I would had to spend an extra $300 to $400, carry something that is double the size and weight, and only get a sensor that's maybe 30% larger. The Micto 4/3 sensor is still about 9X the size of most point-and-shoot sensors. Sorry for getting off topic but I think they have a very sustainable niche, one that a cameraphone will never encroach.

Do you extend your philosophy of sensory deprivation to all other aspects of your life as well?

I personally like to indulge my senses with the finest quality of input I can supply them with.

Just like we've gotten used to hearing lower quality music.

The ipod touch and the ipad are going to have to get MUCH better cameras for anyone to replace even their point and shoot with them. I LOVE both products, but COME ON....their cameras are less than a friggn mega pixel!!!!

We are talking Toys r Us toy camera almost. I mean seriously. And who wants to hold up an ipad as a camera? The ipad is good in a pinch....but is much more practical to edit your footage on than shoot with.

I hear the iphone 5 is going to get a 8-10mega pixel camera. Thats great. But i HOPE Apple bumps the ipod touch and ipad cameras to at LEAST 5 megapixels like the iphone 4 has...MINIMUM.

Until then, people will lug their point and shoots with them in addition to their ipods and ipads. IMHO.

And DSLRs are a whole other animal all together. If you are buying a dslr....you want to move away from the point and shoot crowd. Even micro 4/3rds cant come close to the sweetness that is the 5D mark 2 and never will. You just cant get that shallow depth of field and yummy bokeh with a micro 4/3rds.

I have various cameras, all with zoom capability. I'd say over the last 5 years that I used the zoom maybe... 6/7 times? Zooming is impressive and clever, but I don't find a desperate need for it. What I find excellent on the ipHone are the stitching apps that allow capture of wide angles. Microsoft's FREE photosynth is particularly brill.

Anyway, isn't the quality of the lens and the quality of the light sensors the critical factor for quality photos? Does the iPhone use a CCD or CMOS sensor? Does it use three separate sensors for each of RGB or is colour interpolated using a colour filter array? Who makes the lens used in the iPhone?

I'm one of those pigheaded old farts who believes you use a phone to make phone calls, a camera to take pictures, a gaming system to play games

This title should be rewritten to something like this.

"cheap camera sells dip in leu of high-end phone & tablet sales" or something like this, because there isn't much chance in hell, that the $1,000.00 and up digital camera will be replaced by a phone IMO.

Now will beginners maybe not purchase a camera, because they'll feel what they have in their phone is good enough safe bet.

But it's a bet I'll take, that you won't see many Professional photographers at sporting events, taking pictures for SI or National Geographic or any other big name trade publication with a phone.

Skip

Dur, really?

While the best camera is the one you actually have with you, which is usually a cell phone or iPod, (as opposed to the bigger, better, nicer one that you left at home, in the hotel, in the car, in the backpack, etc.,) neither will ever replace the functionality of a dedicated camera. Cell phones take great pictures . . . for cell phones.

If you want anything more than the crappiest of snapshots to post on FB, a dedicated camera (even a point and shoot) is a must. If you actually want to produce quality photographic images that you would consider printing, hanging on a wall, passing down to your family, or using for presentation purposes, you want a decent sized hunk of quality glass, in front of a large sensor, and all sitting on a tripod to capture that image. For pity sake, even an iPhone or iPod image is ten times better if taken from a tripod (I know "nobody" does that, which really means "only people who know their elbow from a tea kettle" do it.)

http://www.google.com/search?q=iPhon...fe=images&tbs=

The ease and immediacy of digital has actually revived my interest in analog photography. Large format photography has for me become the imaging equivalent of the slow food movement. When you really want to enjoy something great, get out the LF camera and tripod. Digital is great, cheap, cool, etc. and I'll never turn my nose up at it. But the incredible quality of a big lens, with movements, and projecting it onto a large format film? even $20,000 of digital equipment can't do what it can.
The reason most people are not aware of this is because 1.) they don't care, and 2.) they so rarely see quality photographs on large silver prints.
Yup, it's a little expensive, but most of the good things in life are quality cars, golfing a links course, a gourmet dinner, etc.

PCWorld has rated one of the smartphone cameras as outstanding. With zero shutter lag, F2.2 lens, 8 mega-pixels and 1080P video, the camera on the myTouch4G (T-Mobile) "is on a par with $200-to-$300 stand-alone point-and-shoot cameras" and has the "best touch interface he's seen on a camera".

http://www.pcworld.com/article/23587...mera_ever.html

I agree with others here that the lack of a zoom is the biggest omission, and for now probably a necessary one. But it's not impossible to get great pics on a camera phone, along with features like burst and macro mode normally found on standalone's. I suspect that in the not-too-distant future, that camera on your smartphone will be more than good enough for most shooting situations.

That's nice, but of course the camera phone can't stand up to a good $200-300 point and shoot. It's a physical impossibility.
Although the reviewer might take exception with me, PCWorld is not where I would go to get information on camera quality comparisons (let's just say I don't go to my plumber for an opinion on my digestive system.) In any case, of course it's true that it's good enough for most people in most situations (just as instamatics and analog and digital point and shoots have been for the lat 50 years.)

At least the quoted comments were from their camera editor. The articles author acknowledged that "his"camera knowledge is pretty basic, so I went to our cameras beat editor, Tim Moynihan, to decipher some of these specs and features for me."

Meh. I cannot wait for the Tricorder to finally arrive. Then we'll be able to do everything with just one device. Until then all this stuff is just cave art.

Get your slang on like a boss.

A camera is a tool, it takes a picture to send information.

It doesn't matter if the pic is grainy or murky... if it conveys how much your brother is getting wasted... then it performs the service of him getting grounded by mommy, and the school suspending him when you post it on Facebook.

Hence a phone camera is good enough for the job.

Dedicated cameras will become like fax machines, a small market for the handful of people (compared to everyone else) that need to take pictures of a bird resting on a tree miles away. Or for the goofy fisheye lens stuff you see at concerts, sports photography, etc.

And the even smaller market for photophiles, similar to the vinyl market for audiophiles, expensive and rare.

What is disturbing is the sense of maniacal glee at this change. Since what it really results in:
the reliance of our historical data being stored digitally... archaeologists will have a field day. And yet another massive loss of jobs as the camera industry collapses and the cellphone industry does not offer nearly as many jobs.

But hey... you can laugh at the anguish of those stuck up photophiles who are hanging onto the past... after all the future of shanty towns awaits... and let us stomp our boots on the faces of those who cling to the past as we embrace our brave new world.

Same here. I will also go so far as to say that I like and prefer devices that are not real small. Even my teenage kids have mentioned that some things like the newest iPods are getting too small for ease of use.

That's odd. About two thirds of the way through that post it appears the relatively devil-may-care person typing was clubbed in the head and forcibly replaced by his much grimmer, apocalyptic minded roommate.

The iPhone 4 camera is good enough that I very rarely bother to haul out my Nikon DSLR anymore.

Seconded.

The only thing it need to be improved is "instant on". I don't care about megapixel, though better optic and better chip are always welcomed but instant on is crucial. Instant on like we have in DSLR. Instant on like we push the home button and the phone turns on right away. C'mon Apple, dedicated button doesn't mean you tab it and the camera will open instantly. How many times I want to capture something but the lag had killed the moment. Kill this flaw, Apple. This will set iPhone further apart from all other smartphones out there.

That's great for you.
But obviously, if that's the case, you were badly mislead into buying more camera than you needed when you got the Nikon in the first place. The iPhone, which is one of the best camera phones out there, is far outclassed by any of even the cheapest DSLR cameras.

BTW although the camera in my iPod touch is crap and useless for stills, even in bright light, it does take surprisingly good video.

I just bought a second four year-old 6MP, no A/S Fuji F31fd on eBay for $310, just in case my first one goes kaput, and I don't regret it one bit. I've still never seen a single point and shoot that takes better pictures for what I regularly shoot (indoors, poor lighting). And the iPhone takes horrid pics except under optimal conditions.

I don't care if others can settle for rubbish. At least I'm happy.

A very intelligent and well-observed post.

They could perhaps have an action like pressing both volume buttons together jumps right into the camera. This way you just tap both and then the plus to take a picture.

Of course if the next iPhone has a dedicated shutter button, it will be much easier.

I don't know how the myTouch achieves instant on. Perhaps it has a real shutter button? Maybe someone here knows.