Because no smartphone can ever compare to a proper camera.
The same is true of every other one of those categories too though.
So by "proper camera," you really mean ... "complex high-end specialty device."
Which of course will always exist in each category but actually has little meaning in the context of the article and is 100% irrelevant to the trends the article is defining.
In my case iphone 4 did had a casualty in the form of my sony point and shoot. Now I only have a Nikon dslr for serious picture taking and iphone 4 as point and shoot. Makes my life much less complicated...
I have an iPad 2 and a new iPod touch and the cameras are so crappy that they are almost unusable unless you're in very very very bright conditions. Since there are no flashes on these devices they are also a poor substitute for even the smallest dedicated pocket digital cameras.
The iPhone 4 is another story though.
With the rising popularity of micro 4/3rds digitals and DSLRs I am not sure I agree that the Camera manufactures have much to worry about.
In my family, the iPhone is the go-to device for most of the moment-to-moment photo ops. It's good enough.
Even the pocketable Canon S95 is only pulled out for trips, parties, and special event snapshot taking.
This is the direction most people are going. Real event or vacation, bring a real camera. Everything else, a good smartphone camera will cover it. Most people know that the P&S quality is better, but who can be bothered to carry yet another device when the phone is "good enough" for a snapshot at the club or similar "trivial" event?
This is the direction most people are going. Real event or vacation, bring a real camera. Everything else, a good smartphone camera will cover it. Most people know that the P&S quality is better, but who can be bothered to carry yet another device when the phone is "good enough" for a snapshot at the club or similar "trivial" event?
That sums it up nicely. Simple videocams were the first casualty of the cell phone camera. There probably aren't any significant advantages of a Flip-style videocam over the iPhone 4 (unless you want to talk on the phone while you're recording something).
The worst shots from a phone camera are still better the best shots from the 127s and 110s built in the 60s and 70s.
An iPhone can take better pictures than some of the best point and shoots today also.
I'm sure a bunch of photophiles on this thread will jump in and correct me, but almost everyone I know who has a point and shoot has something like a Canon Powershot camera, and even the first iPhone camera blows them away for quality most of the time. Now the iPhone camera is HD and has a flash, I think one would have to be an idiot to buy a 'point and shoot' at all.
If you aren't happy with the iPhone camera then buying a good one with better optics and sensors is the way to go. None of the point and shoots are really in that category though.
Those market research guys. When you have no crystal ball, simply report on Apple?s success. You can?t lose there at the moment.
Some words to their latest prediction: Maybe they are right, but only because a part of users doesn?t care about image quality and "photography? has become a synonyme for "wave of profile photos nobody cares of and nobody will look at in 10 years". (Everything has to be better today, but when it comes to personal photos people have just no sense for quality.)
None of the named devices offers:
- acceptable flash light
- acceptable optical (!) zoom
- acceptable battery life
- acceptable displays for outdoor use
- advanced camera functionality
I often find myself on day-trips when I suddenly realize that playing a game on the train is no good idea, since I need battery life hours later to find a train back, make some phone calls, look on the map, read something on Wikipedia. How should I use this device then for making a hundred photos? My camera won?t abandon me there.
It depends. If you look at Flickr's upload rates it shows the iPhone as recently beat out every other camera. I bet if you look at Facebook and Twitter, which have direct access to the camera HW in app phones you'll have even a greater percentage of photos for those sites taken from phones than from professional cameras. This doesn't imply that there is no professional camera market or that it's shrinking ? in fact it could be growing ? it just means that the most commonly used cameras are moving from single-function devices to multifunction devices.
Yes smartphone cameras are great for internet photos but terrible to keep. I've often came back to the photo and wish I had a better shot.
but almost everyone I know who has a point and shoot has something like a Canon Powershot camera, and even the first iPhone camera blows them away for quality most of the time.
Are you serious? They just sucked in every aspect (like the iPad?s or iPod touch?s camera). Always have to grimace with pain when looking at some snapshots from my old 3G.
...but only because a part of users doesn?t care about image quality and "photography? has become a synonyme for "wave of profile photos nobody cares of and nobody will look at in 10 years".
This may be a news flash, but most digital cameras take tons of pictures that do little more than waste space on a hard drive and that no one has looked at for years. Going back even further, most film cameras took tons of pictures that did little more that fill up a shelf full of shoeboxes.
As to your other qualms, you're assuming, of course that you HAVE your other camera with you. That its battery is in fact charged. That the SD card isn't full. And so on.
Managing another device is managing another device, and that includes power adaptors, cables, and all of the other crap it needs. Why bother if -- for the majority of common use cases -- good enough is good enough.
Because no smartphone can ever compare to a proper camera.
Ever is a pretty strong word. True, within the next few years, it's only point and shoot that are at risk. But eventually the "proper cameras" will also be at risk. Imagine that you had a camera that records all information available from incoming light at a given point in time (or at least, most information up to some very high megapixel/storage constraint). Then all the work of a "proper camera" would be done in photoshop.
Because no smartphone can ever compare to a proper camera.
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.
Depends, depends, depends. I dug out my Canon 1Ds and 70-200 f/2.8 IS for a special event last weekend... and I'd forgotten just how big, heavy, and clunky the thing actually is. Especially packing the 28-70 and 16-35 to go with...
I could, in fact, see the Micro 4/3 and APS-C sensors in a prosumer P&S "stealing" the market from the DSLRs, especially as their low-light quality improves. Studios are using 6x4.5 30MP and up medium format anyway.
So, camera phones, APS-C, DSLR, and MF. Seems like that covers all the bases.
The Canon T*i cameras seem to be getting really popular among folks who want quality shots of important events. They're APS-C DSLR cameras, so you can use the fast lenses that give you narrow depth of field. But they don't cost thousands of dollars. A reasonable 70-200 zoom and 1.8F prime, along with a nice indirect flash and the body and you're talking under $1000 shots that can compete with low-end pros.
But who's going to carry all that around every day. Most pics will be taken with the camera phone and the special events will get the DSLR treatment. The only mid-range market I see is for kids.
Selburn said tablets are ?truly a jack of all trades ? and master of most,? destined to gobble up sales of dedicated e-book readers, music and video players, calendars, alarm clocks, video gaming devices, GPS and consumer digital cameras.
What kind of a crack-brain statement is this? Totally unsported in fact. As useful as the integral camera in an iPod, iPhone, or iPad can be, they are somewhat limited in their digital camera capabilities/features and rather awkward for picture taking.
So what's next? The 'predicted' demise of the car windshield ice scraper, as a screwdriver can be for both repairs and ice scraping?
Are you serious? They just sucked in every aspect (like the iPad?s or iPod touch?s camera). Always have to grimace with pain when looking at some snapshots from my old 3G.
The point is that even a >10MP PowerShot takes crap pictures because it too has a plastic lens and a poor sensor and does't have the processing advantages the iPhone has.
The very first iPhone I got to use was the 3G because I don't live in the USA. On day one, it was taking far far better pictures than my 4MP PowerShot camera. Better in every aspect too (colour, exposure, contrast, focus, etc.) I'm no point and shoot expert and only have direct experience with my own cameras, but it seems to me the vast majority of point and shoots are not as good as the iPhone regardless of what it says on the box.
Selburn said tablets are ?truly a jack of all trades ? and master of most,? destined to gobble up sales of dedicated e-book readers, music and video players, calendars, alarm clocks, video gaming devices, GPS and consumer digital cameras.
What kind of a crack-brain statement is this? Totally unsported in fact. As useful as the integral camera in an iPod, iPhone, or iPad can be, they are somewhat limited in their digital camera capabilities/features and rather awkward for picture taking.
So what's next? The 'predicted' demise of the car windshield ice scraper, as a screwdriver can be for both repairs and ice scraping?
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.
It's hard to draw a hard and fast line as to what constitutes the "point and shoot" market, however. For years manufacturers have been industriously adding pixels and options to their cheaper digicams, just because they could.
My guess is that pretty much everything that is not a DSLR will start to go away, and DSLRs themselves will continue to get cheaper. In a few years the camera section at BestBuy will be a range of DSLRs, the cheapest of which will be under $300 with a kit lens, and a handful of very inexpensive smaller imager devices (well under $100) with long zoom ranges favoring the telephoto that will be sold expressly as "get the vacation shot from far away" problem solvers.
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.
Depends, depends, depends. I dug out my Canon 1Ds and 70-200 f/2.8 IS for a special event last weekend... and I'd forgotten just how big, heavy, and clunky the thing actually is. Especially packing the 28-70 and 16-35 to go with...
I could, in fact, see the Micro 4/3 and APS-C sensors in a prosumer P&S "stealing" the market from the DSLRs, especially as their low-light quality improves. Studios are using 6x4.5 30MP and up medium format anyway.
So, camera phones, APS-C, DSLR, and MF. Seems like that covers all the bases.
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.
Comments
You mean point and shoots, right?
Because no smartphone can ever compare to a proper camera.
The same is true of every other one of those categories too though.
So by "proper camera," you really mean ... "complex high-end specialty device."
Which of course will always exist in each category but actually has little meaning in the context of the article and is 100% irrelevant to the trends the article is defining.
The iPhone 4 is another story though.
With the rising popularity of micro 4/3rds digitals and DSLRs I am not sure I agree that the Camera manufactures have much to worry about.
In my family, the iPhone is the go-to device for most of the moment-to-moment photo ops. It's good enough.
Even the pocketable Canon S95 is only pulled out for trips, parties, and special event snapshot taking.
This is the direction most people are going. Real event or vacation, bring a real camera. Everything else, a good smartphone camera will cover it. Most people know that the P&S quality is better, but who can be bothered to carry yet another device when the phone is "good enough" for a snapshot at the club or similar "trivial" event?
This is the direction most people are going. Real event or vacation, bring a real camera. Everything else, a good smartphone camera will cover it. Most people know that the P&S quality is better, but who can be bothered to carry yet another device when the phone is "good enough" for a snapshot at the club or similar "trivial" event?
That sums it up nicely. Simple videocams were the first casualty of the cell phone camera. There probably aren't any significant advantages of a Flip-style videocam over the iPhone 4 (unless you want to talk on the phone while you're recording something).
The worst shots from a phone camera are still better the best shots from the 127s and 110s built in the 60s and 70s.
An iPhone can take better pictures than some of the best point and shoots today also.
I'm sure a bunch of photophiles on this thread will jump in and correct me, but almost everyone I know who has a point and shoot has something like a Canon Powershot camera, and even the first iPhone camera blows them away for quality most of the time. Now the iPhone camera is HD and has a flash, I think one would have to be an idiot to buy a 'point and shoot' at all.
If you aren't happy with the iPhone camera then buying a good one with better optics and sensors is the way to go. None of the point and shoots are really in that category though.
Some words to their latest prediction: Maybe they are right, but only because a part of users doesn?t care about image quality and "photography? has become a synonyme for "wave of profile photos nobody cares of and nobody will look at in 10 years". (Everything has to be better today, but when it comes to personal photos people have just no sense for quality.)
None of the named devices offers:
- acceptable flash light
- acceptable optical (!) zoom
- acceptable battery life
- acceptable displays for outdoor use
- advanced camera functionality
I often find myself on day-trips when I suddenly realize that playing a game on the train is no good idea, since I need battery life hours later to find a train back, make some phone calls, look on the map, read something on Wikipedia. How should I use this device then for making a hundred photos? My camera won?t abandon me there.
It depends. If you look at Flickr's upload rates it shows the iPhone as recently beat out every other camera. I bet if you look at Facebook and Twitter, which have direct access to the camera HW in app phones you'll have even a greater percentage of photos for those sites taken from phones than from professional cameras. This doesn't imply that there is no professional camera market or that it's shrinking ? in fact it could be growing ? it just means that the most commonly used cameras are moving from single-function devices to multifunction devices.
Yes smartphone cameras are great for internet photos but terrible to keep. I've often came back to the photo and wish I had a better shot.
but almost everyone I know who has a point and shoot has something like a Canon Powershot camera, and even the first iPhone camera blows them away for quality most of the time.
Are you serious? They just sucked in every aspect (like the iPad?s or iPod touch?s camera). Always have to grimace with pain when looking at some snapshots from my old 3G.
...but only because a part of users doesn?t care about image quality and "photography? has become a synonyme for "wave of profile photos nobody cares of and nobody will look at in 10 years".
This may be a news flash, but most digital cameras take tons of pictures that do little more than waste space on a hard drive and that no one has looked at for years. Going back even further, most film cameras took tons of pictures that did little more that fill up a shelf full of shoeboxes.
As to your other qualms, you're assuming, of course that you HAVE your other camera with you. That its battery is in fact charged. That the SD card isn't full. And so on.
Managing another device is managing another device, and that includes power adaptors, cables, and all of the other crap it needs. Why bother if -- for the majority of common use cases -- good enough is good enough.
Very, very few people need a Canon 1D Mark IV.
You mean point and shoots, right?
Because no smartphone can ever compare to a proper camera.
Ever is a pretty strong word. True, within the next few years, it's only point and shoot that are at risk. But eventually the "proper cameras" will also be at risk. Imagine that you had a camera that records all information available from incoming light at a given point in time (or at least, most information up to some very high megapixel/storage constraint). Then all the work of a "proper camera" would be done in photoshop.
You mean point and shoots, right?
Because no smartphone can ever compare to a proper camera.
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.
Depends, depends, depends. I dug out my Canon 1Ds and 70-200 f/2.8 IS for a special event last weekend... and I'd forgotten just how big, heavy, and clunky the thing actually is. Especially packing the 28-70 and 16-35 to go with...
I could, in fact, see the Micro 4/3 and APS-C sensors in a prosumer P&S "stealing" the market from the DSLRs, especially as their low-light quality improves. Studios are using 6x4.5 30MP and up medium format anyway.
So, camera phones, APS-C, DSLR, and MF. Seems like that covers all the bases.
The Canon T*i cameras seem to be getting really popular among folks who want quality shots of important events. They're APS-C DSLR cameras, so you can use the fast lenses that give you narrow depth of field. But they don't cost thousands of dollars. A reasonable 70-200 zoom and 1.8F prime, along with a nice indirect flash and the body and you're talking under $1000 shots that can compete with low-end pros.
But who's going to carry all that around every day. Most pics will be taken with the camera phone and the special events will get the DSLR treatment. The only mid-range market I see is for kids.
What kind of a crack-brain statement is this? Totally unsported in fact. As useful as the integral camera in an iPod, iPhone, or iPad can be, they are somewhat limited in their digital camera capabilities/features and rather awkward for picture taking.
So what's next? The 'predicted' demise of the car windshield ice scraper, as a screwdriver can be for both repairs and ice scraping?
Are you serious? They just sucked in every aspect (like the iPad?s or iPod touch?s camera). Always have to grimace with pain when looking at some snapshots from my old 3G.
The point is that even a >10MP PowerShot takes crap pictures because it too has a plastic lens and a poor sensor and does't have the processing advantages the iPhone has.
The very first iPhone I got to use was the 3G because I don't live in the USA. On day one, it was taking far far better pictures than my 4MP PowerShot camera. Better in every aspect too (colour, exposure, contrast, focus, etc.) I'm no point and shoot expert and only have direct experience with my own cameras, but it seems to me the vast majority of point and shoots are not as good as the iPhone regardless of what it says on the box.
Selburn said tablets are ?truly a jack of all trades ? and master of most,? destined to gobble up sales of dedicated e-book readers, music and video players, calendars, alarm clocks, video gaming devices, GPS and consumer digital cameras.
What kind of a crack-brain statement is this? Totally unsported in fact. As useful as the integral camera in an iPod, iPhone, or iPad can be, they are somewhat limited in their digital camera capabilities/features and rather awkward for picture taking.
So what's next? The 'predicted' demise of the car windshield ice scraper, as a screwdriver can be for both repairs and ice scraping?
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.
It's hard to draw a hard and fast line as to what constitutes the "point and shoot" market, however. For years manufacturers have been industriously adding pixels and options to their cheaper digicams, just because they could.
My guess is that pretty much everything that is not a DSLR will start to go away, and DSLRs themselves will continue to get cheaper. In a few years the camera section at BestBuy will be a range of DSLRs, the cheapest of which will be under $300 with a kit lens, and a handful of very inexpensive smaller imager devices (well under $100) with long zoom ranges favoring the telephoto that will be sold expressly as "get the vacation shot from far away" problem solvers.
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.
You dont need a camera when you have photographic memory and can paint like a boss.
boss? WTF?
Depends, depends, depends. I dug out my Canon 1Ds and 70-200 f/2.8 IS for a special event last weekend... and I'd forgotten just how big, heavy, and clunky the thing actually is. Especially packing the 28-70 and 16-35 to go with...
I could, in fact, see the Micro 4/3 and APS-C sensors in a prosumer P&S "stealing" the market from the DSLRs, especially as their low-light quality improves. Studios are using 6x4.5 30MP and up medium format anyway.
So, camera phones, APS-C, DSLR, and MF. Seems like that covers all the bases.
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.