[Serkevan]

Maybe. Maybe not.

It is true that smartphone makers really are caught in a brutal, expensive arms race defined by the evolution of telecom and internet standards, popular app developers, and security threats. Smartphones actually lose functionality with age as they become incompatible with the latest supported versions of operating systems, apps, cloud platforms, and websites.

But a 15 year-old digital camera can be just as functional today as it was when it rolled off the production line. And the standards for photons haven't changed in billions of years. As long as a lens is not abused, it will continue to refract light. Camera and lens makers aren't forced to upgrade their designs to keep pace with ever-changing compatibility requirements imposed by other technologies. Sure, camera and lens makers can spend lavishly on R&D to make the next "ultimate" product. But they can also continue to make existing products and incremental upgrades with much lower levels of R&D spend.

People who want bragging rights are going to have to spend a lot more in the future. But people who just want a great camera will probably find that they can pay about the same.

Oh, I speak about what the companies are doing to keep the wheel turning in this eternal race forward to differentiate from smartphones. The tendency is to release hyper-corrected, high-resolution fast lenses. I don't think that the D FA* 85 or the Otus 85/1.4 cost the same money to develop as, say, the FA* 85 did back then.

About more "humble" offerings, incidentally Canon released today their RF 85/2. It's relatively small and light for modern standards (a far cry from the M85/2, but hey...) at 500g and it's releasing at 600 USD. I'm sure the lens won't be nearly as impressive as D FA* 85, but I'm fairly sure it will be more than good enough for most people.

As for the cameras, I agree: I was very happy with the K-7 except for the high ISO and low light work which was really limiting me enough times to be frustrating. I wouldn't have upgraded otherwise (and I got the K-1 *only* because I scored a killer deal not much more expensive than an used KP). But at some point, AF improvements get more complicated, shutters get close to their mechanical limit and need redesigning to "keep up" with whatever arbitrary standard review sites and, by extension, consumers want. It's not that the cameras lose functionality, it's that users seem to get pickier without really considering the implications.

---

Last edited by Serkevan; 07-09-2020 at 01:08 PM.

[bobmaxja]

I don’t agree with peoples who say smartphone main function is not camera. All the marketing for new phone is centered on camera or cameras in the phone. Many peoples buy in function of this . We all agree that a smartphone camera will never replace an ILC but 99,9 % dont care they want to take photo NOW and send it to their friend

[bobmaxja]

Seem Canon CEO forecast in Jan2019 what is going on right now and COVID-19 have nothing to do with it

1052 Canon CEO expects ILC market to shrink 50% by 2020 to just 5-6M units

Published Jan 28, 2019

[Serkevan]

I don’t agree with peoples who say smartphone main function is not camera. All the marketing for new phone is centered on camera or cameras in the phone. Many peoples buy in function of this . We all agree that a smartphone camera will never replace an ILC but 99,9 % dont care they want to take photo NOW and send it to their friend

Eh, I'd argue that that's because marketing is focused on flagship models and then you have to emphasize the cameras because that's basically the only meaningful functional difference between a 200 and a 1000€ phone.

Most people don't buy flagship phones, however.

[BigMackCam]

It'd be interesting to know by age-group what key features and specs high-end smartphone buyers base their decision on, and how many fully utilise what they buy. Within my own extended family, the teenagers and young adults seem to acquire smartphones more as a fashion and status accessory than anything else. My 19-year-old niece, for example, "needed" her latest £1,000+ iPhone because, well, it's the latest. Her previous-generation model was handed down to her delighted younger teenage brother. Neither of them pushes the functionality of either phone, and their photography output is limited (I think) to Instagram. I'd be willing to bet those who look for outstanding imaging performance are an older group... maybe 30s plus... and I wonder if, going forward, they'll be willing to upgrade every one or two generations, or whether they'll start to hang on to their devices longer, just like us "real" camera folks...

[Serkevan]

It'd be interesting to know by age-group what key features and specs high-end smartphone buyers base their decision on, and how many fully utilise what they buy. Within my own extended family, the teenagers and young adults seem to acquire smartphones more as a fashion and status accessory than anything else. My 19-year-old niece, for example, "needed" her latest £1,000+ iPhone because, well, it's the latest. Her previous-generation model was handed down to her delighted younger teenage brother. Neither of them pushes the functionality of either phone, and their photography output is limited (I think) to Instagram. I'd be willing to bet those who look for outstanding imaging performance are an older group... maybe 30s plus... and I wonder if, going forward, they'll be willing to upgrade every one or two generations, or whether they'll start to hang on to their devices longer, just like us "real" camera folks...

From my friends:

-Those who want a phone that can take some pictures get an entry- or mid-level phone.
-Those who want to be in Apple's playground get an iPhone, the phone's features are secondary; the main reasons are the fact that it's not-Android (my ex greatly prefers the iOS interface and app system), they want sync between a variety of Apple products, or just want them as status symbols.
-Those who get flagships get them because they have "the latest tech" or as status symbols.

No one I know considers the camera a defining factor. Those who do are super happy with what their 300-400€ mid-rangers have - which is 90% of what you get at the 700€+ bracket.

[texandrews]

From my friends:

-Those who want a phone that can take some pictures get an entry- or mid-level phone.
-Those who want to be in Apple's playground get an iPhone, the phone's features are secondary; the main reasons are the fact that it's not-Android (my ex greatly prefers the iOS interface and app system), they want sync between a variety of Apple products, or just want them as status symbols.
-Those who get flagships get them because they have "the latest tech" or as status symbols.

No one I know considers the camera a defining factor. Those who do are super happy with what their 300-400€ mid-rangers have - which is 90% of what you get at the 700€+ bracket.

So, that's from your friends. The last phone I purchased, a Galaxy Note 9, I specifically got for the stylus functionality and the camera. All of my incidental photography of daily life, family snaps, and indeed some work documentation is done with the phone (although more serious work documentation is done with my K1, and my press and catalog/collections photography is done with my Z). Now you "know" someone whose phone purchase had a lot to do with the camera.

[normhead]

From my friends:

-Those who want a phone that can take some pictures get an entry- or mid-level phone.
-Those who want to be in Apple's playground get an iPhone, the phone's features are secondary; the main reasons are the fact that it's not-Android (my ex greatly prefers the iOS interface and app system), they want sync between a variety of Apple products, or just want them as status symbols.
-Those who get flagships get them because they have "the latest tech" or as status symbols.

No one I know considers the camera a defining factor. Those who do are super happy with what their 300-400€ mid-rangers have - which is 90% of what you get at the 700€+ bracket.

My last non-flagship fell over on a low tripod and broke. My 21 liimited survived with a $200 repair. IN the end it cost us $1000 for the two cameras (K-x) MY K-3 has survived at least three equally traumatic falls without being at all damaged or even getting scratched. I buy flagships because for me, they are cheaper. My daughter in law is still using the K-x but still the total costs of the 2 K-xs was $1000.

People like the ones I read about in the Aperture failure block thread who have 3000 shutter actuations in 5 years may be able to get away with entry level gear. My wife and I can't. We go places, hike, set up on uneven ground.cling to the sides of sand banks and rocks , having from trees and bushes. The night the K-x died it was on self timer for a group shot , no wind level ground, we have no idea what happened. Later that year a gust of wind blew her tripod over a cliff, fortunately she hadn't yet attached the camera.

If your the kind of shooter for whom things can happen you have to look at Pentax flagships. T has more than 100,00 actuations on her K-5. No more entry level for her. But her luck continues, a dog knocked her iPad off a coffee table with it's tail and broke the screen. We are waiting to see if the daughter in law can repair it, The cost is too much to send it to Apple.

What you decide from extrapolation completely depends on the characteristics of the shooters polled.

[Serkevan]

My last non-flagship fell over on a low tripod and broke. My 21 liimited survived with a $200 repair. IN the end it cost us $1000 for the two cameras (K-x) MY K-3 has survived at least three equally traumatic falls without being at all damaged or even getting scratched. I buy flagships because for me, they are cheaper. My daughter in law is still using the K-x but still the total costs of the 2 K-xs was $1000.

People like the ones I read about in the Aperture failure block thread who have 3000 shutter actuations in 5 years may be able to get away with entry level gear. My wife and I can't. We go places, hike, set up on uneven ground.cling to the sides of sand banks and rocks , having from trees and bushes. The night the K-x died it was on self timer for a group shot , no wind level ground, we have no idea what happened. Later that year a gust of wind blew her tripod over a cliff, fortunately she hadn't yet attached the camera.

If your the kind of shooter for whom things can happen you have to look at Pentax flagships. T has more than 100,00 actuations on her K-5. No more entry level for her. But her luck continues, a dog knocked her iPad off a coffee table with it's tail and broke the screen. We are waiting to see if the daughter in law can repair it, The cost is too much to send it to Apple.

What you decide from extrapolation completely depends on the characteristics of the shooters polled.

I'm talking about phones, in cameras I have a K-1 precisely for these things (and the K-7 before that, I never really looked at entry level stuff when an older flagship is better value used).

The thing is that phones have the same durability regardless of the money they cost. A couple of my friends went from flagships to mid-range phones (or buying older flagships on clearance prices) because they last the same... heck, I went from mid-range to entry-level precisely because of that . Interestingly, my phones have always lasted 3 years+ (and I replace them only because it's barely more money than replacing the battery when it inevitably gets to unusable levels).

[normhead]

I'm talking about phones, in cameras I have a K-1 precisely for these things (and the K-7 before that, I never really looked at entry level stuff when an older flagship is better value used).

The thing is that phones have the same durability regardless of the money they cost. A couple of my friends went from flagships to mid-range phones (or buying older flagships on clearance prices) because they last the same... heck, I went from mid-range to entry-level precisely because of that . Interestingly, my phones have always lasted 3 years+ (and I replace them only because it's barely more money than replacing the battery when it inevitably gets to unusable levels).

I'm not talking about phones because they just aren't acceptable for my use. We both have with acceptable cameras, but they just don't impress.every now and then I try.... I can't even use bridge cameras, of which I own two, wasted money.

[Serkevan]

I'm not talking about phones because they just aren't acceptable for my use. We both have with acceptable cameras, but they just don't impress.every now and then I try.... I can't even use bridge cameras, of which I own two, wasted money.

Yeah, I don't use the phone for more than some "documentation" snaps here and there either. It's just *uncomfortable* to use.

For cameras I agree completely. The money difference in bodies gets you a much better built machine, not necessarily one that takes better pictures. My flatmate has a Sony... HX400V? I think it's that one (I've taken a look at bridge cameras with 50x zoom) but I'm not sure off the top of my head. It's a bridge camera with a 1/2.3" sensor, so for me it wouldn't really cut it, but she specifically wants a "do everything, carry everywhere" camera affordable on a student salary. In good light it's a competent machine and the 1200mm-equivalent images aren't even *that* terrible.

Horses for courses, in the end.

[bobmaxja]

I bought the new Moto G power for faster processing and cameras. Peoples who still believe peoples are not using their smartphone for photos are wrong. Look every were around you and on Flickr, Facebook, Instagram and else and this include top of the line and Apple.
Sorry but some peoples are putting their head in the sand.

[normhead]

Yeah, I don't use the phone for more than some "documentation" snaps here and there either. It's just *uncomfortable* to use.

For cameras I agree completely. The money difference in bodies gets you a much better built machine, not necessarily one that takes better pictures. My flatmate has a Sony... HX400V? I think it's that one (I've taken a look at bridge cameras with 50x zoom) but I'm not sure off the top of my head. It's a bridge camera with a 1/2.3" sensor, so for me it wouldn't really cut it, but she specifically wants a "do everything, carry everywhere" camera affordable on a student salary. In good light it's a competent machine and the 1200mm-equivalent images aren't even *that* terrible.

Horses for courses, in the end.

As I found out in the thread....
Amuse yer selves.... format wars.. - PentaxForums.com

You have to look really carefully to choose. I don't think the 1:2.3 image holds up well but I like the 1 inch sensor as a walk around, and that's almost a pocket camera, and if you aren' looking a the other the XG-1 isn't all that bad. And the ZS100 produces remarkably good blur in the out of focus areas.I should have taken one with my phone. For that set I think the ZS100 has the best out of focus areas, the K-1 looks the most blurred the XG-1 is almost all in focus (1:2.3) K-3 just isn't that pleasing. But they all did the job good enough for my purposes and for what I was trying t accomplish. When what you're accomplishing is documentary as in this case, almost any option will do. From any one of them, anyone would understand what a patch of Lady Slippers looks like.

[Serkevan]

I bought the new Moto G power for faster processing and cameras. Peoples who still believe peoples are not using their smartphone for photos are wrong. Look every were around you and on Flickr, Facebook, Instagram and else and this include top of the line and Apple.
Sorry but some peoples are putting their head in the sand.

It's not about people using their smartphone for photos, I know they do. It's about how much emphasis they put on the phone's camera being "good" and how much they are willing to pay for it. Many people want their phone to be within a price range and take whatever has the best specs (with focus on battery, stylus, camera, what have you), instead of saying "I want a phone with this number of cameras at this performance" and working around it.


If smartphones suddenly stopped having cameras, people would still buy them in almost the same number. That's my point.

[noelpolar]

Literally selling 1,000 smartphones per 1 ILC.

I'm 3 ILC per smartphone..... so doing my bit.