Lens physics will not allow an optical zoom lens in a thin phone like the iPhone. So unless consumers decide a zoom lens isn't important to them at all, point and shoots aren't going anywhere. If a camera manufactuer came out with a sub 300 point and shoot with no zoom it would not sell at all(there are expensive compact with no zoom because they have a APS-C sensor). Cameras and phone cameras will be complimentary. DSLRs are slowly being replaced by mirrorless cameras like the Sony NEX and mico 4/3 cameras. They aren't quite there yet, but they are getting better every year.
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.
The thing here is this article is like a year or two late. If you talk to anybody willing at a camera store you will hear all about the bottom falling out of the point and shoot market. This happened at least two years ago but is likely accelerating as camera phones get better and better.
As to a proper camera that is an interesting concept. I suspect in a few years finding even a SLR will be a task that takes you to a pro shop.
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.
I don't see what you are talking about. The iPad is arguably better at most of the listed tasks already. It's a better book reader than the rest, the iPhone is a better iPod than anything else, both are better alarm clocks and calendars than most dedicated ones.
I mean I'm not going to go through the whole list, but if anyone is making unsupported statements it's you. On what basis do you argue that the dedicated devices are better? What's a better digital video player than an iPod? What's a better book reader than an iPad? There aren't any.
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 the very process we're discussing dooms micro 4/3 to niche status, because ever better cell cameras kill the middle. A phone can do most of what most people want to do most of the time, and if you want to do more why not just get a full on DSLR? I can't imagine the market for "want to take better pictures than my phone, although not the best pictures possible, while carrying a device not nearly as small as my phone, although somewhat smaller than a DSLR" is very large.
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.
While I don't disagree with you about point and shoot I don't have the same opinion when it comes to DSLR's. I suspect they will also slowly melt away and end up begin replaced with mirror free viewing. In the end it provides for capabilities you can't easily get in a SLR type camera. Further I suspect that we will see a merger of pro still cameras and video cameras. Both Cannon and Nikon are already dabbling in this area. Once technology catches up I suspect a lot of DSLR's will be sitting in curio cabinets along with the old press cameras and medium format cameras.
Mind you I use to own a Maymia RZ so, along with a bunch of other medium format and 35 mm cameras. At this point I still see us in a transitional period where digital takes on features from the previous generation but has yet to really be innovated upon as a technology in its own right.
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.
I don't see what you are talking about. The iPad is arguably better at most of the listed tasks already. It's a better book reader than the rest, the iPhone is a better iPod than anything else, both are better alarm clocks and calendars than most dedicated ones.
'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 miss my old Rolleiflex tlr... best camera I ever owned... and my Mamiya C330 was second...
Now... back to regular programming...
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
This is a classic case of the "-----philes" versus the rest of us. Audiophiles will yammer on and on about vinyl, digital, bit rates, encoders, etc. while the vast majority are happy with plain old mp3. Videophiles make your eye lids heavy with 720P versus 1080P, refresh rates, Blu-ray, etc. while the rest us are very happy with 720P on our Sam's Club Vizio. Now the photophiles are up in arms about how smartphone/tablet cameras will never replace whatever DSLR. Well guess what, they already have. So the -----philes can puff themselves up all they can and look down their noses at us peasants because it doesn't matter. Anybody want ot buy some Tom-Tom or Garmin stock? I thought not.
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.
This might in fact be true for budget compact cameras, because the majority of photos on social sites are crappy, badly lit and overly noisy snap shots anyway - and those folks don't mind
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.
Comments
Mind you I use to own a Maymia RZ so, along with a bunch of other medium format and 35 mm cameras.
I miss my old Rolleiflex tlr... best camera I ever owned... and my Mamiya C330 was second...
Now... back to regular programming...
Lens physics will not allow an optical zoom lens in a thin phone like the iPhone. So unless consumers decide a zoom lens isn't important to them at all, point and shoots aren't going anywhere. If a camera manufactuer came out with a sub 300 point and shoot with no zoom it would not sell at all(there are expensive compact with no zoom because they have a APS-C sensor). Cameras and phone cameras will be complimentary. DSLRs are slowly being replaced by mirrorless cameras like the Sony NEX and mico 4/3 cameras. They aren't quite there yet, but they are getting better every year.
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.
The thing here is this article is like a year or two late. If you talk to anybody willing at a camera store you will hear all about the bottom falling out of the point and shoot market. This happened at least two years ago but is likely accelerating as camera phones get better and better.
As to a proper camera that is an interesting concept. I suspect in a few years finding even a SLR will be a task that takes you to a pro shop.
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.
I don't see what you are talking about. The iPad is arguably better at most of the listed tasks already. It's a better book reader than the rest, the iPhone is a better iPod than anything else, both are better alarm clocks and calendars than most dedicated ones.
I mean I'm not going to go through the whole list, but if anyone is making unsupported statements it's you. On what basis do you argue that the dedicated devices are better? What's a better digital video player than an iPod? What's a better book reader than an iPad? There aren't any.
To quote Blanche Devereaux; "Did I say there was going to be a question and answer period after I spoke"?
I think the very process we're discussing dooms micro 4/3 to niche status, because ever better cell cameras kill the middle. A phone can do most of what most people want to do most of the time, and if you want to do more why not just get a full on DSLR? I can't imagine the market for "want to take better pictures than my phone, although not the best pictures possible, while carrying a device not nearly as small as my phone, although somewhat smaller than a DSLR" is very large.
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.
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.
While I don't disagree with you about point and shoot I don't have the same opinion when it comes to DSLR's. I suspect they will also slowly melt away and end up begin replaced with mirror free viewing. In the end it provides for capabilities you can't easily get in a SLR type camera. Further I suspect that we will see a merger of pro still cameras and video cameras. Both Cannon and Nikon are already dabbling in this area. Once technology catches up I suspect a lot of DSLR's will be sitting in curio cabinets along with the old press cameras and medium format cameras.
Mind you I use to own a Maymia RZ so, along with a bunch of other medium format and 35 mm cameras. At this point I still see us in a transitional period where digital takes on features from the previous generation but has yet to really be innovated upon as a technology in its own right.
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.
I don't see what you are talking about. The iPad is arguably better at most of the listed tasks already. It's a better book reader than the rest, the iPhone is a better iPod than anything else, both are better alarm clocks and calendars than most dedicated ones.
'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 miss my old Rolleiflex tlr... best camera I ever owned... and my Mamiya C330 was second...
Now... back to regular programming...
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 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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
This is a classic case of the "-----philes" versus the rest of us. Audiophiles will yammer on and on about vinyl, digital, bit rates, encoders, etc. while the vast majority are happy with plain old mp3. Videophiles make your eye lids heavy with 720P versus 1080P, refresh rates, Blu-ray, etc. while the rest us are very happy with 720P on our Sam's Club Vizio. Now the photophiles are up in arms about how smartphone/tablet cameras will never replace whatever DSLR. Well guess what, they already have. So the -----philes can puff themselves up all they can and look down their noses at us peasants because it doesn't matter. Anybody want ot buy some Tom-Tom or Garmin stock? I thought not.
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.
This might in fact be true for budget compact cameras, because the majority of photos on social sites are crappy, badly lit and overly noisy snap shots anyway - and those folks don't mind
Just like we've gotten used to hearing lower quality music.
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.
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 agree!
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