Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
10-03-2017, 05:22 AM   #526
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 18,593
QuoteOriginally posted by lytrytyr Quote
That's also the space in which the Q system lives, although it's generally cheaper and more versatile.

---------- Post added 10-03-17 at 06:59 AM ----------



In the cell phone's sweet spot, for small on-screen photos, if you don't want to take more than what your limited battery life will power, or what you're able to upload off the limited memory, maybe!
The biggest issue with cell phones is not the sensor, but rather a combination of the lenses supplied with most cell phones and the ergonomics (which are terrible). But most people are willing to deal with those things for the convenience of only having to have one device rather than two.

As far as battery life and memory go, those are usually not too much of an issue unless you are shooting a bunch.

10-03-2017, 05:38 AM - 1 Like   #527
Pentaxian
mecrox's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Oxford, UK
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,334
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
The biggest issue with cell phones is not the sensor, but rather a combination of the lenses supplied with most cell phones and the ergonomics (which are terrible). But most people are willing to deal with those things for the convenience of only having to have one device rather than two.

As far as battery life and memory go, those are usually not too much of an issue unless you are shooting a bunch.
It's not hard taking the phone out of one's pocket, holding it up, pressing the button and putting it back in one's pocket. For the casual purposes the camera phone is designed for, it seems perfectly ergonomic and very straightforward too. One more press on the Apple edit wizard, for example, will apply auto corrections afterwards if they are wanted at all (probably not, usually). How many ever complain? The simplicity and convenience are amazing. If someone wants to do a lot more, then fair enough - buy a dedicated camera and put up with the learning curve. The battleground isn't ergonomics but convenience and "good enough" (roughly what Thom Hogan calls "workflow") which means the kind of powerful software the Japanese camera industry seems to be struggling with (i.e. they haven't done any yet).

Last edited by mecrox; 10-03-2017 at 05:45 AM.
10-03-2017, 06:47 AM - 1 Like   #528
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 18,593
QuoteOriginally posted by mecrox Quote
It's not hard taking the phone out of one's pocket, holding it up, pressing the button and putting it back in one's pocket. For the casual purposes the camera phone is designed for, it seems perfectly ergonomic and very straightforward too. One more press on the Apple edit wizard, for example, will apply auto corrections afterwards if they are wanted at all (probably not, usually). How many ever complain? The simplicity and convenience are amazing. If someone wants to do a lot more, then fair enough - buy a dedicated camera and put up with the learning curve. The battleground isn't ergonomics but convenience and "good enough" (roughly what Thom Hogan calls "workflow") which means the kind of powerful software the Japanese camera industry seems to be struggling with (i.e. they haven't done any yet).
The point to me is that even if you could put a 70-200mm f2.8 equivalent lens on your cell phone it wouldn't take the place of a "real" camera because the ergonomics are poor. Holding a credit card with two hands, trying not to drop it while I frame an image and hit a red button somewhere on the screen is OK for a couple of snaps, but shooting multiple images over the course of a day is frankly uncomfortable. At the same time, I can shoot for an eight hour day with a K-1 and 24-70mm without my hands or eyes getting tired.
10-03-2017, 07:14 AM - 1 Like   #529
Pentaxian
mecrox's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Oxford, UK
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,334
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
The point to me is that even if you could put a 70-200mm f2.8 equivalent lens on your cell phone it wouldn't take the place of a "real" camera because the ergonomics are poor. Holding a credit card with two hands, trying not to drop it while I frame an image and hit a red button somewhere on the screen is OK for a couple of snaps, but shooting multiple images over the course of a day is frankly uncomfortable. At the same time, I can shoot for an eight hour day with a K-1 and 24-70mm without my hands or eyes getting tired.
Of course, but for its intended purpose a smartphone seems fine. And probably they makers will get around the button issue using other methods - squeezing, voice, eye-tracker, etc. For more than a quick snap, I much prefer my camera but then I enjoy using my camera and all that goes with it whereas many folks don't appear to enjoy using one at all

10-03-2017, 07:22 AM - 1 Like   #530
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 18,593
QuoteOriginally posted by mecrox Quote
Of course, but for its intended purpose a smartphone seems fine. And probably they makers will get around the button issue using other methods - squeezing, voice, eye-tracker, etc. For more than a quick snap, I much prefer my camera but then I enjoy using my camera and all that goes with it whereas many folks don't appear to enjoy using one at all
Many people aren't into photography. They want some pics to remember family events and their kids when they were young, but I wonder if most of those images will even survive since they aren't printed out and archived anywhere. If all your snaps are on your smart phone, what happens when it gives up the ghost for whatever reason?

I don't think we are really arguing. I just think that ten years ago cell phone cameras were bad enough that anyone who wanted to document their own lives in any respect had to get some kind of an additional camera to take pics. Now, the only folks who are buying additional cameras are people who are "into" photography or have figured out that there is some application at which their cell phone camera is bad enough that they will replace it for that instance with an ILC.
10-03-2017, 07:42 AM   #531
Pentaxian
Pål Jensen's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Norway
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,346
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
I don't think we are really arguing. I just think that ten years ago cell phone cameras were bad enough that anyone who wanted to document their own lives in any respect had to get some kind of an additional camera to take pics. Now, the only folks who are buying additional cameras are people who are "into" photography or have figured out that there is some application at which their cell phone camera is bad enough that they will replace it for that instance with an ILC.
The widespread use of cell phones and image making means that more people will get into photography and eventually buy a real camera....
Cell phones have killed the P&S camera. DSLR have reached marked saturation and the law of diminishing return.
10-03-2017, 08:37 AM   #532
retired sw engineer
Loyal Site Supporter
reh321's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: South Bend, IN, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 10,122
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
Many people aren't into photography. They want some pics to remember family events and their kids when they were young, but I wonder if most of those images will even survive since they aren't printed out and archived anywhere. If all your snaps are on your smart phone, what happens when it gives up the ghost for whatever reason?
The word "archived" is much more important than the word "printed".
The disks of images I leave behind will take up much less space than any albums would.
They will last only if my daughters care.
10-03-2017, 08:42 AM   #533
Pentaxian
rangercarp's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Southern Michigan
Posts: 382
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
I think we can safely say that smartphones have killed the compact market and that they have shrunk the ILC market.
QuoteOriginally posted by Mistral75 Quote
The compact cameras beat the whole market: +16% in units and +29% in ¥
Maybe even compacts are not quite dead yet...or maybe it is just an anomaly. Time will tell. I have actually been very surprised at the number of bridge cameras I have seen people shooting with in the past few months. I have no idea if they were new or not, but they are out there.

10-03-2017, 09:51 AM   #534
Pentaxian
photoptimist's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2016
Photos: Albums
Posts: 2,650
Both Rondec and mecrox are right. Any differences in their posts seem to reflect differences in types of camera users.

The relationship between smartphones and ILCs is complicated by the fact that in ye goode olde days there was a sizable percentage of ILC buyers that used SLRs & DSLRs to: 1) take snapshots; 2) show off to their friends & family they could afford the latest expensive fad-gadget Smartphones took over BOTH of those functions -- they take snapshots and they show friends & family the phone buyer can afford the latest and greatest big-screen Galaxy Pixel iPhone 12.

DSLR makers really have no chance to win back smartphone customers because these camera users are so very different from the dedicated photographer (enthusiast, artist, or pro).

The smartphone's minimalist ergonomics (big screen, thin body, no complicated buttons & dials) that makes them great for pull-it-out-a-pocket causal snapshots but makes them suck for "serious" user-controlled photography.

And the multi-dial, multi-button ergonomics of ILCs makes them great for more controlled photography but makes them suck for causal snapshots (HUGE learning curve and too easy to mess-up).
10-03-2017, 11:59 AM - 1 Like   #535
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
RGlasel's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Saskatoon
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,909
QuoteOriginally posted by photoptimist Quote
The relationship between smartphones and ILCs is complicated by the fact that in ye goode olde days there was a sizable percentage of ILC buyers that used SLRs & DSLRs to: 1) take snapshots; 2) show off to their friends & family they could afford the latest expensive fad-gadget Smartphones took over BOTH of those functions -- they take snapshots and they show friends & family the phone buyer can afford the latest and greatest big-screen Galaxy Pixel iPhone 12.

DSLR makers really have no chance to win back smartphone customers because these camera users are so very different from the dedicated photographer (enthusiast, artist, or pro).

The smartphone's minimalist ergonomics (big screen, thin body, no complicated buttons & dials) that makes them great for pull-it-out-a-pocket causal snapshots but makes them suck for "serious" user-controlled photography.

And the multi-dial, multi-button ergonomics of ILCs makes them great for more controlled photography but makes them suck for causal snapshots (HUGE learning curve and too easy to mess-up).
Exactly.

The ILC market would be a small fraction of its already diminished size if hobbyist photographers only replaced their equipment when it either quit working or there was new technology that truly enhanced their photographs. There are new buyers who want to take up photography as a hobby and there are emerging global markets where increased disposable income is generating new buyers for photographic equipment, but those people are too few to make a big difference in year to year industry trends. All the marketing and R&D efforts aimed at new buyers won't move the needle enough to justify the expense. Basically, to stay in the photographic equipment manufacturing business requires appealing to the kind of people who would check out PentaxForums if they wanted to get more out of their Pentax equipment.

As for Ricoh's lack of activity since the beginning of this year, don't forget that the photocopier business is stagnant and Ricoh replaced its CEO because it was becoming obvious that the company was about to hit a brick wall. In those kind of conditions, the bar for getting internal capital to launch new products that aren't essential to the company's core business is set much higher than it was in 2016.
10-03-2017, 12:13 PM   #536
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,857
QuoteOriginally posted by reh321 Quote
The word "archived" is much more important than the word "printed".
The disks of images I leave behind will take up much less space than any albums would.
They will last only if my daughters care.
They will not last most than a few years if you don't check the copy regularly and replicate them.
10-03-2017, 12:18 PM - 1 Like   #537
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 18,593
QuoteOriginally posted by reh321 Quote
The word "archived" is much more important than the word "printed".
The disks of images I leave behind will take up much less space than any albums would.
They will last only if my daughters care.
Maybe. I question how much good it will to find a DVD of images twenty or thirty years from now. A shoe box with prints in it is more likely to be able to inspire interest and be readable.

Personally, I try to do a scrapbook with photos and stories for family each year.
10-03-2017, 12:19 PM   #538
Pentaxian
johnmflores's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Somerville, NJ
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,264
QuoteOriginally posted by RGlasel Quote
There are new buyers who want to take up photography as a hobby and there are emerging global markets where increased disposable income is generating new buyers for photographic equipment, but those people are too few to make a big difference in year to year industry trends. All the marketing and R&D efforts aimed at new buyers won't move the needle enough to justify the expense. Basically, to stay in the photographic equipment manufacturing business requires appealing to the kind of people who would check out PentaxForums if they wanted to get more out of their Pentax equipment.
Do you have any data to support these assertions?
10-03-2017, 12:22 PM - 1 Like   #539
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,857
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
The point to me is that even if you could put a 70-200mm f2.8 equivalent lens on your cell phone it wouldn't take the place of a "real" camera because the ergonomics are poor. Holding a credit card with two hands, trying not to drop it while I frame an image and hit a red button somewhere on the screen is OK for a couple of snaps, but shooting multiple images over the course of a day is frankly uncomfortable. At the same time, I can shoot for an eight hour day with a K-1 and 24-70mm without my hands or eyes getting tired.
If you don't care of shutter speed/iso etc, great smartphone focus instantaneously and take decent quality snaps. As of taking lot of photos, there isn't really an issue, honestly. Framing isn't an issue neither as smartphones don't have 70-200 equivalent but at best a 50mm equivalent.

Sure you or me want more, but this isn't really the issue. The ergonomics, the quality, the framing, the AF, all of theses things are good enough. For some high end models, some aspect of it are better than what our pro gear does. For example the iphones take the photos all the time and when you click the button, it take the last one that was already taken so there instant reactivity. 4K movies work just fine and HDR is applied on the go without having to think about while keeping the subject sharp. All smartphones have a pano app either included or you can download one... The highend smartphone get the performance of quite basic dedicated phone on some aspect. Worse on some much better on other. And it doesn't take place.

And we may not want to admit it, making fun of people using an ipad to take a snapshot... But a bigger screen of higher quality is an argument for framing. We don't want to see it, but most phones have now around 5" screen, more than twice the real estate of our backscreen, and there are often full HD or more, that is 2X the resolution of the best EVF and 6X of the typical camera back screen... Yes camera maker try to hide the fact by speaking of dots, not pixels. But you need 3 dots for a pixel.

Last edited by Nicolas06; 10-03-2017 at 12:27 PM.
10-03-2017, 12:31 PM   #540
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 18,593
QuoteOriginally posted by Nicolas06 Quote
If you don't care of shutter speed/iso etc, great smartphone focus instantaneously and take decent quality snaps. As of taking lot of photos, there isn't really an issue, honestly. Framing isn't an issue neither as smartphones don't have 70-200 equivalent but at best a 50mm equivalent.

Sure you or me want more, but this isn't really the issue. The ergonomics, the quality, the framing, the AF, all of theses things are good enough. For some high end models, some aspect of it are better than what our pro gear does. For example the iphones take the photos all the time and when you click the button, it take the last one that was already taken so there instant reactivity. 4K movies work just fine and HDR is applied on the go without having to think about while keeping the subject sharp. All smartphones have a pano app either included or you can download one...

Yes the quality isn't the same, and yes you can't efficiantly mount a 70-200 f/2.8 on them, but normal people would never buy or use a 70-200 f/2.8. For people the biggest issue of a 55-300 is weight and price, not that it could be sharper at 300mm wide open.
I agree that for probably 80 percent of the population, smart phone cameras are probably fine. I have said that the whole time. My point is merely that for people for whom photography is more than just a passing thought, even if the quality of smart phone cameras improves, there will still be a group of people who want something "better."

To me, better can be better ergonomics for a professional or enthusiast who wants to shoot for several hours comfortably, it can be better battery life, it can be better dynamic range/high iso capability, it can be better with regard to ease with which you can use a tripod and alter settings, or just simply the fact that you can get better glass for it. Phones are good enough for most people, but I still think there will be plenty of place for ILCs for a long time to come.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
3d, business, businesses, camera, cameras, company, components, devices, environment, equipment, f2.8, figures, i.e, images, lenses, money, pentax, pentax news, pentax rumors, people, period, photography, products, profit, q1, ricoh, semiconductor, vision
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Nikon's Year (Financial Results) - an analysis interested_observer Non-Pentax Cameras: Canon, Nikon, etc. 10 05-13-2017 05:49 AM
Ricoh Financial results - FY2017/03 Kunzite Pentax News and Rumors 373 04-28-2017 06:10 AM
Sony financial results - A7 etc. camera collapse with interesting insights beholder3 Photographic Industry and Professionals 29 12-10-2016 01:55 AM
Ricoh Imaging is not doomed (or: Ricoh Financial Results Q1 2016) Kunzite Pentax News and Rumors 69 10-24-2015 10:31 AM
Pentax Financial results Q1 FY14 Zav Pentax News and Rumors 38 08-20-2013 05:44 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:15 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top