Smartphones Wiped 97% of Compact Digital Camera Market 96
Japanese camera manufacturers are bidding farewell to a once-major component of their operations, with Panasonic Holdings and Nikon suspending development of entry-level point-and-shoot cameras under their flagship brands. From a report: The companies will instead focus resources on pricier mirrorless models going forward, aiming to navigate a market upended by smartphones. Casual photographers flocked to compact digital cameras in the mid- to late 1990s, embracing their affordability and portability compared with single-lens reflex cameras. Global shipments reached 110 million units in 2008, according to the Camera & Imaging Products Association (CIPA). But as the iPhone and other camera-equipped smartphones won general consumers over, the camera industry fell off a cliff. Global shipments of compact digital cameras plunged 97% from the 2008 level to just 3.01 million units in 2021.
Panasonic has been scaling back its model offerings in Lumix compact digital cameras, which debuted in 2001 and enjoyed high spots in domestic rankings at one point. The company has not released any new product for the price range below 50,000 yen ($370 at current rates) or so since 2019 and has no plans to develop a low-priced model going forward. "We've halted developing any new models that can be replaced by a smartphone," a spokesperson said. Panasonic will continue production of current offerings. But its focus going forward will be on developing high-end mirrorless cameras for photography enthusiasts and professionals. Nikon has suspended development of new compact models in its Coolpix line. It now offers just two models with high-powered lenses but it is "closely monitoring market trends" to determine production volumes going forward, according to an official. Nikon has also withdrawn from development of SLR cameras to specialize in upmarket mirrorless single-lens models. These companies are following in rivals' footsteps. Fujifilm has discontinued production of its FinePix compact cameras and will develop only the X100V series and other pricier models.
Panasonic has been scaling back its model offerings in Lumix compact digital cameras, which debuted in 2001 and enjoyed high spots in domestic rankings at one point. The company has not released any new product for the price range below 50,000 yen ($370 at current rates) or so since 2019 and has no plans to develop a low-priced model going forward. "We've halted developing any new models that can be replaced by a smartphone," a spokesperson said. Panasonic will continue production of current offerings. But its focus going forward will be on developing high-end mirrorless cameras for photography enthusiasts and professionals. Nikon has suspended development of new compact models in its Coolpix line. It now offers just two models with high-powered lenses but it is "closely monitoring market trends" to determine production volumes going forward, according to an official. Nikon has also withdrawn from development of SLR cameras to specialize in upmarket mirrorless single-lens models. These companies are following in rivals' footsteps. Fujifilm has discontinued production of its FinePix compact cameras and will develop only the X100V series and other pricier models.
I own an iPhone 13, Lumix, and full-frame DSLRs (Score:5, Interesting)
Everybody uses equipment differently, just like people use word processors differently. We have different needs. Let them take pictures. If it makes them happy, more joy to them. I'll use more capable gear and work towards taking good photographs.
There is a difference.
Re: I own an iPhone 13, Lumix, and full-frame DSLR (Score:1, Troll)
Re:I own an iPhone 13, Lumix, and full-frame DSLRs (Score:4, Interesting)
Mirrorless cameras have no appeal as I have no confidence that their viewfinders will work well in low light and night shooting, which is major modes for me.
Interesting comment considering that is something you can trivially verify yourself. Having both DSLRs and mirrorless cameras here I can say one thing for certain, I reach for the mirrorless for night shooting. It's easier to see the target, easier to focus, and the picture quality is nor compromised by lack of mirror.
I used to be heavily into low light photography. The only thing that has changed since buying a mirrorless camera is that I no longer need to carry a flashlight with me.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Very nice cameras mind you...take amazing images and has one of the best lenses out there, but the old point and shoots used to be the cheaper end of photography equipment and what's left. will be on the lower end of the very upper end of expense.
Personally, I'd like to get one...my first step into Leica was the M10M and I only did it because that was the only dedicated mo
Re:I own an iPhone 13, Lumix, and full-frame DSLRs (Score:5, Informative)
Mirrorless cameras have no appeal as I have no confidence that their viewfinders will work well in low light and night shooting, which is major modes for me.
Not true. Mirrorless is *much* better in low-light conditions than the DSLR. The reason is really the hyper-sensitive sensor. When you can put ISO 102500 sensitivity (or higher) on the sensor, it really acts like a light amplification visor.
Previously, when I went photographing a nighttime scenery, I basically had to do the compositing by 1) Autofocusing to a star or the moon, to get infinity focus, then switch to MF (because I couldn't focus accurately otherwise) 2) Adjust tripod and zoom to "best guess" 3) Take a photo, repeat from step 2) until satisfied, took usually several tries for *each* photo.
With R6, I can essentially just "take photo", and I'm immediately satisfied. The darn thing just shows everything and does it in ridiculously low-light conditions. I'm able to see Milky Way through the electronic viewfinder, and all this with just your basic 24-105mm f/4 zoom.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Even the best mirrorless cameras sucked in low light just a couple of years ago. Right now, Sony/Canon/Nikon have top cameras that are simply fantastic in most situations. I'm a Nikon shooter with 5 dslrs, 1 Sony mirrorless and a Nikon z6. my new Z9 blows them all out of the water in my usage. The Z9, A7iv, A7R4 & 5, and the Sony A1 are all great. I found the Z9 the best, but the A7iv and it's sisters are best bang-for-the-buck. Have not used the Canons, but I hear great things about the new R3.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah. I also had my doubts - basing that experience on my old 5D Mk II's "Liveview" mode, that has maximum ISO of 3200. Nothing much visible indeed, but with a modern sensor the increase in sensitivity is so huge it's a completely different beast.
As a bonus, I got to save quite a bit on optics - I was considering getting the 24-70 mm f/2.8L or 24mm f/1.4 for my old camera, but instead just went on with the 24-105 mm f/4L and got a new camera body instead.
Re: (Score:2)
My first Eos body was purchased back around 1990 with a 35-105 lens. I still have it. Decent piece of glass!
Re: (Score:3)
Mirrorless is *much* better in low-light conditions than the DSLR. The reason is really the hyper-sensitive sensor.
The time I don't want to use a mirrorless is in high light conditions, not low light ones. I want to see through the lens what the light is actually doing. I already know from using the LCD on my DSLR that this is when the viewfinder is much better.
I do not also own a mirrorless, though, because I am cheap. I use my cellphone for day to day stuff, but any time I want to shoot photos without pain in low light conditions, shoot from a tripod, or just generally get quality results, out comes the real camera. I
Re: (Score:1)
I am glad to see I am not the only one on the electronic viewfinder/"mirrorless" cameras. I can *never* get comfortable with them, the lag in the display is enormous and it makes action shooting a disaster any time I have tried it. A new one comes out, someone says, "oh, yes, that's what happened before, but this one is fixed" - and then, the same thing again. I can even demonostrate it to the user, they say, "oh, yeah, I see it now" and then have a different one 2 months later.
Re: I own an iPhone 13, Lumix, and full-frame DSLR (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
The obvious reaction is that any camera on you is better than no camera at all.
I keep being told that, but that's like saying that using a screwdriver as a hammer is better than using your forehead. Sure, it's better than absolutely nothing at all, but if I'm going to do any kind of real photography I won't use a tiny fixed-focus lens matched to an equally tiny sensor that produces crappy, grainy, chroma-noise-filled images (try zooming a cellphone image taken in anything less than strong daylight to 1:1 and look at what you're getting).
Re: (Score:2)
My small Olympus is still better than my phone (Score:2)
Easier to hold and use, and takes better pictures. But then I only paid $25 for my smartphone.
Re: (Score:2)
Easier to hold and use, and takes better pictures. But then I only paid $25 for my smartphone.
Smartphones killed digital cameras because smartphone cameras were "good enough". That meant that most people couldn't see the point in carrying a smart phone AND a digital camera, even if the digital camera was better. My wife has a nice digital SLR for specific photo projects and photography trips. But she uses her iPhone for the majority of her casual photography.
Re: (Score:3)
Smartphones killed digital cameras because smartphone cameras were "good enough". That meant that most people couldn't see the point in carrying a smart phone AND a digital camera, even if the digital camera was better.
"Good enough" is also how digital devices killed hi-fi.
Re: (Score:2)
This may be true and I'm sure you can get a camera that is better than any phone. That said, how often do you replace a camera? My guess would be very rarely.
Not to mention the DSLR market (Score:2)
Re:Not to mention the DSLR market (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Even that is shifting a bit compared to somwhat older SLRs and the low end of the market. My Pixel 6 is able to get some very impressive low light shots, comparable to ym Canon 60D (with my level of skill) even at times.
Now with the proper setup, conditions and lensing the 60D will no doubt be able to get a better shot but the Pixel is able to do it more consistently as the computational nature of it allows it to compensate for the longer shutter time especially without a tripod whereas shooting slower tha
Go back to film! (Score:5, Funny)
The biggest blunder of camera manufacturers is ditching film. Stop being a baby and just replace the canister every 32 shots. No big deal. That's how your grandpa did photography, so why can't you? Film has a certain timbre and organic feel, like vinyl records, you know what I'm saying? It cannot be duplicated digitally. We should never have allowed the switch to digital. I feel a legislative fix may be needed. No need to go extremist on it, so maybe allow only a certain number of digital camera sensors to be sold per year and then reduce that number annually until 2030 when we can ban non-film based photography entirely. Mail, or telegraph, your local congresscritter or senator. And yes, that's mail not email. Mail has a certain timbre and organic feel too.
Re: (Score:2)
"Film has a certain timbre and organic feel, like vinyl records, you know what I'm saying?"
I know you're being tongue in cheek, but some people do actually believe that. Whether they're correct or not I have no idea (they're not with vinyl compared to lossless digital but thats another argument).
Re: (Score:3)
There is some truth to the "vinyl sounds different" thing, because the sound encoded in vinyl is subject to rather strict physical limitations of that encoding method it needs to be mastered in a certain way that does indeed produce a certain vinyl feel. If you think about it, it's in fact worse in terms of achievable fidelity. Of course just because digital can theoretically achieve higher fidelity due to not suffe
Re: (Score:2)
"Film has a certain timbre and organic feel, like vinyl records, you know what I'm saying?"
I know you're being tongue in cheek, but some people do actually believe that. Whether they're correct or not I have no idea (they're not with vinyl compared to lossless digital but thats another argument).
Vinyl records and film photography really aren't comparable though. Vision and hearing work in different ways.
I think the whole vinyl thing is simply hipster-ish nostalgia because in every measurable way, digital music is better than analog because there's no extra noise generated like you get with a needle and a physical vinyl surface. I'm old enough to remember growing up with vinyl and tape, and I'll take a good MP3 any single day. I do not miss scratches and pops and hissing. The ONLY thing I miss about
Re: (Score:2)
I think there's more to vinyl than that. Most dramatically, there's the problem with over-saturated recordings on CD.
The shift to digital/CD also coincided with being able to listen to music in the store - and in a store setting, louder generally sounds better, just like brighter generally looks better for TVs.
And the easy way to make CDs sound louder, is to over-saturate the recording. Which unfortunately also means you lose the dynamic range and introduce a lot of compression noise to the signal. I'll
Re: (Score:2)
"with its unavoidable innate analog quality loss, and CD with its intentionally distorted recordings and non-existent dynamic range"
If you think the recordings on vinyl haven't been dynamically compressed to the level the physical grooves can handle then there's a proverbial bridge with your name on it.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not present everywhere though.
Also, also unless I misunderstood what you wrote there in the last paragraph, I'd say that your perception "warm" of vinyl seems like a highly subjective thing here. Because as a matter of fact "warmth" is a term that is used for lower range frequencies, which is exactly where vinyl has its weakness.
"Warmth" is opposed by "brightness" within this context, where you get a higher emphasis on
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Pfft poser! Rather than posting on Slashdot send a telegram for some real timbre next time. And I mean the kind where some guy in a funny hat rings your doorbell, not the Gen Z turn everything into an app kind.
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, I shoot a good bit of film, albeit mostly in medium format, ranging from 6x6 (Hasselblad) to 6x17 large panos (Shen has view camera)....and all in between.
I agree with you film is a LOT of fun and does offer an asthetic that digital just doesn't give.
It offers and experience that is different too...as that it forces you to slow down, plan and think about your shots rather than "spray and pray".
And IMHO...you still can't get quite the
Re: (Score:2)
And IMHO...you still can't get quite the resolution of a 6x17 or 6x9 medium format, or 4x5 LF image with digital....
It's getting close. Next gen Sony / Phase One sensor might get there, but you'll need big-boy glass from Rodenstock etc. to resolve that much detail edge-to-edge anyway.
8x10 and the like, well, that ain't happening any time soon, so by all means enjoy your film there . . .
Re: (Score:1)
I hear ya...
I also like film because of the many aspect ratios I can shoot at.
I LOVE shooting 6x17 panos...you just cannot do that on digital. Shooting multiple shots and stitching don't cut it if there is any kind of real movement or action....
Although, to get close, I have been recently shooting anamorphic lenses for stills on variou
Re: (Score:2)
I read an article on that ages ago, and the images just blew me away.
Re: (Score:1)
I believe I've seen some YOuTube videos of people doing just that.
I don't recall any of them having a lot of fidelity luck with it, but was very interesting.
I'm looking to maybe get one of those "adapters" you can hook to the graflok back of a 4x5 and mount your GFX digital medium format camera to it an
Re: (Score:2)
That sounds like a great idea, but I feel like you'll have to do a lot to compensate for vibration and things like that. And that's assuming your scenery is still photography.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not happy about this (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm no photographer, but I like to take pictures of things like family and historical buildings. I have a compact digital camera that's like 10 years old. The buttons don't work reliably anymore. I'd really like to replace it. Back when I got it, there was a large variety available for not too much money.
Since getting my first cell phone in 2013, I've probably taken fewer than 100 photos on a phone. I hate most everything about the cell phone camera experience.
My camera still takes better pictures than any phone I've had. It has a real lens. It doesn't try to geotag my photos or send my data to advertising companies. I can easily swap out memory cards, or plug in the USB to copy pictures to my computer. The battery is replaceable.
It's hard to be the guy who doesn't want the technology everyone else wants.
Re: (Score:1)
Cell phones take much better pictures than P&S. For one thing, the sensor is larger, and for another thing, the benefits of computational photography are extremely real.
I'd even take an iphone over a DSLR for quality, with the obvious exception of particular cases - playing with bokeh, non-basic flash photography, situations where you need a zoom, or night shots while also using a low-aperture prime lens. But for shots of family or historical buildings - yes, a decent phone is better than a DSLR.
Re: (Score:3)
Cell phones take much better pictures than P&S. For one thing, the sensor is larger
LOL. You have that very backwards. Even the cheapest P&S cameras have significantly larger sensors than a phone.
Re: (Score:3)
An iPhone 14 has a 1/1.28-inch sensor (and a 13 had a 1/1.7-inch sensor)
Most P&S cameras has a 1/2.5-inch sensor.
So obviously it depends on which camera and which phone you're talking about. But in general, iPhones have larger sensors (not mentioned: I'm sure sensors are more efficient than they were 10 years ago)
Re: (Score:2)
If you're going to talk sensor size in relation to image quality then exact dimension matter, not just surface area.
The iPhone 14's sensor is close to square, the horizontal sensor dimensions are very close to the same 1/2.5" sensor used in many (but far from all) P&S camera. And even if it is slightly larger, at 48mpxl the pixel size is tiny in comparison making the P&S cameras superior in light capturing capability.
Focus on the details which are actually relevant. The iPhone has amazing software i
May I suggest an eye exam? + view on a monitor (Score:5, Insightful)
Cell phones take much better pictures than P&S. For one thing, the sensor is larger, and for another thing, the benefits of computational photography are extremely real.
I'd even take an iphone over a DSLR for quality, with the obvious exception of particular cases - playing with bokeh, non-basic flash photography, situations where you need a zoom, or night shots while also using a low-aperture prime lens. But for shots of family or historical buildings - yes, a decent phone is better than a DSLR.
If you think a decent camera takes better pics than a DSLR, you must be only viewing your photos on a phone...and you need to get your eyes checked. View it on a 4k monitor and see if you still think the same thing. Now obviously comparisons get fraught because DSLR ranges from 22yo models to things sold recently. I also assume you mean MILC as well as DSLR because the major vendors have largely stopped including mirrors.
However, I'll take that bet. I own an iPhone 13 Pro Max. My wife owns an iPhone 14 Pro. I also own a Canon R6. So we're comparing arguably the 2 best phone sensors in existence to a mid-range full frame camera from 3 years ago. In fact, if you're only looking on the back of the camera or on your phone, I can see how you're fooled, especially if you have vision problems. However, put both on a 5k 27" monitor and the difference is night and day, especially if you're indoors.
I use prime lenses and can get nice pics of my kids playing outside at night. On my iPhone? It's so blurry, I can't tell my kids apart. Night photos are COMPLETELY unusable. Indoors in bright lighting? The iPhone is a fucking mess. There's a ton of noise and distortion. On my FF?...perfectly fine. Some pics even look really nice. Try using a flash? My bounce flash makes any dim lighting perfect (assuming there's a ceiling)...almost too perfect. That's not an option with a phone...you can only have forward lighting that gives everyone red eye and makes them look like startled raccoons.
While I can't comment on P&S because the market varies from cheapo sensors to rather expensive full frames P&S cameras made by Sony and Leica, you can buy nice point and shoot cameras. Every facet of the experience is more enjoyable than a phone, which is awkward and prone to shake. And yes, the real camera market is behind the phone makers in computational photography. However, even in bright sunlight on the beach, my Canon R6 photos blow the iPhones pics out of the water. Maybe if you're really bad about checking for shadows before taking the pics and have an aversion to using photo editing software like Lightroom, the iPhone is a better choice, but the R6 blows the iPhone out of the water in nearly every scenario. If you know what you're doing, it even does so without post-processing.
A real camera gives much more detail, better color, less noise...and allows you to take photos that the iPhone can't handle at all.
Trust me, if what you said was true, no one would buy real cameras any more. Every wedding photographer would love to run around with an iPhone instead of 20lbs of gear. Every movie director would love to have tons of cheap, tiny, lightweight cameras instead of ones that cost more than Porche, is heavy, and requires expensive physical supports. People don't buy real cameras because they're hipsters. They do so because it makes a massive difference. It's more than just fancy lenses.
Re: (Score:2)
You're right that for some situations, such as taking pictures of kids at night, a DSLR (or full frame camera) is better. But, that's what I myself said ("night shots while also using a low-aperture prime lens"). And yes, I usually look at pictures on a phone or sometimes on a monitor, but that's the same as most people.
https://fstoppers.com/reviews/... [fstoppers.com] is an interesting A/B comparison with relatively challenging shots. The conclusion: pretty much what I said before.
Regardless, the fact that the iPhone c
Re: (Score:2)
Even if iPhones were as good as DSLRs, nobody would want to pay a professional photographer who used an iPhone because they'd think: "Why should I pay some guy to use an iPhone when I could just have one of my friends take the photos instead?"
Performative vs practical (Score:2)
Even if iPhones were as good as DSLRs, nobody would want to pay a professional photographer who used an iPhone because they'd think: "Why should I pay some guy to use an iPhone when I could just have one of my friends take the photos instead?"
Without a doubt, there is a performative piece to a professional photographer...whipping out a giant backpack and huge white barreled lenses. I suspect many that I see doing photoshoots for couples in the park use a 70-200 f 2.8 with a white barrel for the performative aspect more than the image quality. I think a prime lens beats a zoom any day....but they certainly aren't as physically intimidating.
However, if a phone could match a camera, cameras would just be phones with a good grip and a lens mou
Re: (Score:2)
People don't buy real cameras because they're hipsters. They do so because it makes a massive difference. It's more than just fancy lenses.
It is more than just fancy lenses, but the fancy lenses are a huge percentage of the benefit. If all you wanted was more mass, you could just tape your phone to a brick. And the sensors on cameras are pretty amazing these days... but the lenses let them down hard.
If that were true, we'd all use small cameras (Score:2)
People don't buy real cameras because they're hipsters. They do so because it makes a massive difference. It's more than just fancy lenses.
It is more than just fancy lenses, but the fancy lenses are a huge percentage of the benefit. If all you wanted was more mass, you could just tape your phone to a brick. And the sensors on cameras are pretty amazing these days... but the lenses let them down hard.
If you were correct, then pro cameras would be iPhone sensors with a lens mount and a better grip. They'd basically be the micro-4/3's cameras, like those awesome Fuji cameras...small, lightweight, compact. No one wants big, heavy, expensive, fragile lenses. If you could reduce the size, it would be huge for the industry. If we could, we'd use micro 4/3 or something smaller...it leads to smaller bags, less fragile lenses, lower cost, etc. Sigma has some AMAZING APC-C f1.8 zoom lenses. They're fuckin
Re: (Score:2)
A lens can make a picture more focused. It can introduce bokeh. It can zoom...that's pretty much it. It doesn't add more detail, just prevents the loss of it.
Having the bigger sensor is a plus. If I didn't believe that, I wouldn't have bought a DSLR, and then having used it, bought another one. (The first one was an original Rebel, and I wanted video — I got significantly more ISO as well, however, and specifically the ability to run Magic Lantern, and to do 1080p30 which is enough for my purposes. (And also, 1080p24...) I could just put a handle on my cellphone, right? Once I saw some young guys driving a golf cart around... San Diego, maybe, it was somew
Re: (Score:2)
I have a P&S camera from 2014 (Canon Powershot S120) that I take when I don't want to carry my DSLR. I'd put it up against any modern phone in terms of sheer raw quality any day - it takes way better photos than my Pixel 6a, for example, outside of the computational HDR magic that happens in software, and I can usually get as good results in Lightroom if I don't mind spending the time.
Some of the photos from this camera are my favourites ever - I still look at a bunch of them and think they are better t
Re: (Score:1)
You're certainly not the only one who ran into this, and other things like this. My mom (70s) complained to me that technology just isn't fun anymore. And I concur, if for slightly different reasons. It keeps running forward and changing things, but for less and less reason other than the sake of change itself. And moreover, with no regard whatsoever for the cost of change to the end-users.
I think we need to do something about that. Reduce the breadth of models to one or a few consolidated ones (possibly w
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't try to geotag my photos
How is that a feature? Geotagging is not only something that can be trivially turned off on any phone, it is a feature you buy in compact cameras too, or pay extra for in DSLRs. Probably the single best present I ever received for my birthday in terms of continued use is a geotagger for my DSLR. It's been with me on more vacations than the camera itself.
My camera still takes better pictures than any phone I've had.
Since you mentioned it's a compact camera I really have to question your choice in phones.
Re:I'm not happy about this (Score:4, Informative)
I really have to question your choice in phones.
For my first 3 phones, the priority was a physical keyboard.
Once that became impossible, my priority became LineageOS support. Maybe that means I'm missing out on amazing photo quality. I don't care.
No phone overcomes the other problems I mentioned.
Again, it's hard to be the guy who doesn't want the technology everyone else wants.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I have a Fuji compact digital for travel photography that's just slightly better than my phone... and that's about what it actually delivers. It's only slightly faster to focus, it only makes slightly better images, and it's ultimately only slightly nicer to use overall. But I got it at a flea market for like $40 (with good battery life, even) so that's what I suggest :)
The real question is (Score:2)
Who is in that 3% that's still using a compact point-and-shoot camera?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Grandparents, who sometimes like to take pictures but don't like to hold phones.
Re:The real question is (Score:4, Interesting)
I for one. I've got a flip-phone and a $20/mo contract with no data plan, and I like that. I don't want to spend... what $100/mo people are spending on some of that crap? Also, I don't want to deal with all the security issues. It's always funny when some rando texts me a malware link. LOL, I can't click it even if I want to (the phone is Wifi capable, but that capability is seldom used).
My little flip has a camera, but it's definitely no match for my dedicated camera even though it's 15 years old! The camera has optical zoom. The one thing that modern smartphone cameras seem to be a bit better at is low light level. Despite having better light gathering with the lens, my sensor is noisy in low light levels. It's not a huge problem though. I also tried a DSLR for a while, but found it too bulky. That thing actually has a slightly smaller sensor but a much better lens, although I didn't use it enough to learn how to exploit that.
I might sell the old DSLR, and I should have no trouble finding a taker. I'll probably hold on to my PS until it gives up the ghost.
If I ever get a smartphone, I'll be locking that thing down hard and using as few "apps" as possible. I'm not an average user though. I've written software. I know how the sausage is made. I'm not eating it.
Re: (Score:3)
I've got a flip-phone and a $20/mo contract with no data plan, and I like that. I don't want to spend... what $100/mo people are spending on some of that crap?
I'm prepaid because I have bad credit, so I'm paying extra and yet I still pay only $35/mo for unlimited calling and text and like 6GB data or something weird (it was some kind of promo) which it turns out is enough for me to do navigation, use Wikipedia, that kind of thing. Nobody is still paying $100/mo unless they have grandfathered in unlimited internet.
Re: (Score:3)
Who is in that 3% that's still using a compact point-and-shoot camera?
Dumb phones and digital cameras are still popular in high-technology Japan. Go figure.
Re: (Score:1)
Dumb phones are gaining popularity as people become more privacy aware. Current smartphones - all widespread phones - are a privacy hell
Re: (Score:2)
Who is in that 3% that's still using a compact point-and-shoot camera?
Depends on the camera. Canon S120 is getting a bit long in the tooth . . . but shooting RAW in a semi-auto with Aperture manual mode and I know what I got when I press the shutter and I know how far I can adjust it without looking at the screen.
My smartphone does a fair enough job - but I've yet to figure out a decent workflow other than aspect correction. Since it's Apple, I just kinda throw my hands up after 2 minutes (1 minute max processing time was a life-decision I made years ago and it was a qualit
Wanting a product (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Try a Sony A6000 (or later similar models for more money). The kit zoom lens retracts to make the camera not much bigger than a point and shoot, but with vastly better image quality. It fits in a purse but takes pictures like a DSLR. You don't need to use its ability to change lenses.
Re: (Score:2)
Suggestions... Pawn shops and Goodwill.
vintage lens resurgence (Score:2)
Phone cameras are optimized for two objectives: 1) ease of use 2) realism.
Yet there is now a resurgence of vintage lenses which are particularly poor in those respects. Prices of old camera lenses are surging and modern manufacturers such as 7Artisans and TTAritisans are copying old manual-focus designs.
After more than a century of striving to engineer out artifacts and improve resolution and fidelity, now that we have easy and good realism, tastes are reversing. Those defects are now regarded as desirabl
My Take on Point-and-Shoot vs. Phone Cameras (Score:3)
This is old news. Anybody who has visited the electronics department of their local department store in the past decade has seen point-and-shoot cameras slowly disappearing. Point-and-shoot and prosumer cameras have slowly been killed off by smart phone cameras. Which is too bad because, while I'm just a casual photographer at best, I know that point-and-shoot cameras are far superior to phone cameras in two key areas: optical zoom and sensor size.Zoom is always useful and even 3x optical zoom is better than most phone cameras. With higher zoom capability, the difference is significant. Shoot a sitting bird from 80 feet with a smart phone? You'll get a dark speck that vaguely resembles a bird. With a high zoom camera, you can clearly see every feather. With a larger sensor, point-and-shoot cameras have better low-light performance than the best phone camera. Another issue I have with phone cameras is the software. Skin textures are always smoothed out and look low res, whereas compact cameras accurately capture skin pores, wrinkles, and other minor blemishes. Finally, just to add salt to the wound, point-and-shoot cameras have become much more expensive.
Phone cameras are great for ultra casual photography, but for anything more challenging than parties and outdoor short range photos, they suck.
On a phone you can never be sure it's private. (Score:2)
Most people don't need anything more (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Standalone digital cameras never reached the level of quality and ease of smartphone cameras. Plus, the standalone cameras had smaller screens that washed out in bright light. Why would we want to go back to that, when today's cellphone cameras work better, and I don't have to plug it into my computer to transfer photos!
Re: Most people don't need anything more (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A camera with changeable lenses is not a point-and-shoot camera. That's an entirely different category. Most of us just want to be able to take snapshots, and it's a great convenience not to have to have a second device.
Re: (Score:2)
The A5000 was just an example of a budget camera having those features, despite being built 8 years ago. Most point-and-shoot cameras have the features you were complaining about. Look at the Sony ZV-1, RX100 etc. They also have better ergonomics for photo and video than a smartphone (again, physical controls). They have computation photography features as well, like eye tracking for photo / video, object tracking and so on. They also have better image quality - at least the ones I mentioned sure do.
I under
It works (Score:2)
I gotta say that I even have a DSLR camera (actually 2 of them) and I rarely pull the thing out and 99% of the pictures I take are with my cell phone. Realistically its always in my pocket whereas the separate camera is something I have to carry in its own carry bag.
Yes, the quality is significantly better with the standalone camera, but I typically just don't NEED that quality.
Touchscreen only is an ergonomics horror (Score:3)
When taking a picture, it's nice to be actually see what you are taking a picture of clearly, even on a sunny day, by using a viewfinder. And to have a button to take a picture instead of fumbling with a touch screens. Plus, once you get more experienced, buttons and dials to adjust common settings.
In the same way, it's possible to type and play games with only a touchscreen, but not nearly as fun and convenient as using a keyboard or a joystick. The result is infantilization of writing, where thoughtful essays are replaced by one liner tweets and of gaming, where you get flappy bird instead of Tomb Raider.
Just look at how many of your cell phone pictures are selfies or group standing on straight line shots against a tourist landmark or restaurant table background. Don't you think you could do better given tools appropriate for the task, just like you can cook a better meal in a real kitchen rather than a microwave oven? Capture some flowers in front of the people, experiment with different angles, make sure faces are appropriately lit while irrelevant elements are blurred out of focus...
A phone in hand beats a camera left at home. (Score:2)
Most photography is informational not art, and hobbyists are free to buy superior hardware. A cheap camera is neither fish nor fowl while a phone can take pics then send them anywhere the user desires.
Professional/serious photography was always a niche market.
Re: (Score:2)
Because even camera makers like to turn a profit.
They should go in a new direction (Score:2)
I sort of see another market for these camera companies. Taking this all a step further, they should make webcams that are "Mirrorless lite" cameras with interchangeable lenses. They should be making camera's that fully work with a phone. Make an app to stream the image preview over USB C or lightning cable to the display on the camera. Use the camera to set all the ISO, Shutter speed, exposure, etc. Use the phone to store pictures, or live stream video to a service.
I think video content producers would
Rename (Score:2)
Time to stop using the term "smartphone." New name: cameraphone.
The market is gone (Score:2)
Growing up we had Kodak Instamatic cameras with cartridge film. There was the 110 that fit in your pocket and was about the size of a box of cigarettes, but longer. Then a 126(?) that was bigger. We later got a Polaroid SX-70.
I think that was most of the market.
We went on a family trip & bought a "good" p&s that took 35mm film in the 80s. We didn't go beyond that.
They got inexpensive enough that I think the cartridge cameras got regulated to the disposable camera that got used for weddings in th
Android were created for camers (Score:1)
It's a little ironic to note that Android was originally created to develop an advanced operating system for digital cameras...