[awscreo]

I still think modular phones will open up possibilities of using larger sensors and optics on mobiles. If it's as easy as replacing a module on your phone on a go, people would buy it.

[northcoastgreg]

Isn't that what people always said about tech? That we have reached the max potential of what tech can do.

Many people have said that about tech and sometimes they've been right. In 1962, it took about five and a half hours to fly from Los Angeles to New York. Today, more than fifty years later, it still takes five and a half hours to fly from Los Angeles to New York. Sensor technology improved dramatically (far outstripping even the most optimistic projections) during the first decade of the 21st century. Since 2011, there's been very little improvement in sensor technology. Many of the low hanging fruits of the digital revolution have already been picked, and progress since 2011 has been tediously slow and difficult.

The romantic view that tech always pushes forward is only partially correct, and those who, like Mr. Northrup, hold this romantic view are way too quick to announce to death of various formats and devices. In 2008, when Nikon released the D3, I heard announcements of the death of APS-C. Some people even went so far as to declare that APS-C cameras would be gone in five years. It hasn't happened. Then in 2010 I began to hear the "mirrorless will take over in three to five years" meme. That hasn't happened either. Now we're being told about the "death" of consumer cameras. Here I suspect Mr. Northrup has confused death with shrinkage. Some markets shrink rather than die --- the CD market, for example (that was another market that was supposed to "die" and go away but merely shrank). Shrinkage is not death. It's sometimes a return to more sensible and sustainable conditions.

[awscreo]

Many people have said that about tech and sometimes they've been right. In 1962, it took about five and a half hours to fly from Los Angeles to New York. Today, more than fifty years later, it still takes five and a half hours to fly from Los Angeles to New York. Sensor technology improved dramatically (far outstripping even the most optimistic projections) during the first decade of the 21st century. Since 2011, there's been very little improvement in sensor technology. Many of the low hanging fruits of the digital revolution have already been picked, and progress since 2011 has been tediously slow and difficult.

The romantic view that tech always pushes forward is only partially correct, and those who, like Mr. Northrup, hold this romantic view are way too quick to announce to death of various formats and devices. In 2008, when Nikon released the D3, I heard announcements of the death of APS-C. Some people even went so far as to declare that APS-C cameras would be gone in five years. It hasn't happened. Then in 2010 I began to hear the "mirrorless will take over in three to five years" meme. That hasn't happened either. Now we're being told about the "death" of consumer cameras. Here I suspect Mr. Northrup has confused death with shrinkage. Some markets shrink rather than die --- the CD market, for example (that was another market that was supposed to "die" and go away but merely shrank). Shrinkage is not death. It's sometimes a return to more sensible and sustainable conditions.

I'm not saying the guy is some sort of a wise wizard that sees future) I just agree that we'll probably see big changes in terms of camera UI, connectivity, and symbiotic relationship of cameras (via modules for example) and smartphones. I'm sure pro/enthusiast dslr market will keep on going, maybe picking up things here and there (touch screen already being adapted, wifi connectivity, app remote controls, nfc connectivity etc etc) and will get better with time, but I think there might be a lot more room for play in the consumer/entry/bridge camera market. Let's see if Apple dual camera thing works, if it does - instagram will be filled with those shots, and a big chunk of people that were thinking of getting a camera for the shallower depth of field might end up just upgrading their phone. That's money not going to manufacturers pocket. Just my opinion.

[reeftool]

As I said earlier, to me the biggest slow down in ILC sales is just that cameras have gotten so good that people don't need to purchase a new one, but every four or five years. I own a K-1 and am really not sure what magic Pentax would have to do to get me to move to the next iteration of it. It just is so good already that small improvements will not bring my wallet out for a few years, anyway

This is very true for many of us. There really isn't anything that makes me want to buy a new camera for the sake of upgrading. I used my K10D for almost 5 years when it began to have issues reading and writing to the SD card. I purchased a K5 rather than spending money to repair the K10D. The K5 had some really great improvements that made it worth the upgrade. (BTW, I purchased another K10D used for $100 a couple of years later as a backup body) So, my K5 is nearing 5 years old and still working fine, despite getting the crap beat out of it in my Harley saddlebags and wet on my kayak. Sooner or later I will have to make a new purchase. For what I shoot most of the time, aps-c has a distinct advantage so I'm not inclined to run out and buy a K1 along with the added expense of some new glass.

I don't treat my cameras as a disposable electronic device and I don't think a lot of photographers do. I also don't treat my phones that way either. My iPhone 5s is only my third cellphone ever. My first was a Motorola StarTac that lasted me years and was the subject of a lot of jokes at work. When it finally died. I got a Motorola Droid. It was pretty unstable but did the job but finally crapped after just 2 years when I purchased the iPhone 5s that I have been happy with. I will keep it until it craps out or becomes obsolete the point of being unusable. The same with my iPad which is 3 1/2 years old.

Guy's like me cause nightmares to electronics manufacturers and market analysts. I went to an iPhone because it gets updated and is pretty well built and I expect it to last. As with my cameras, I see no need to upgrade my phone to a new model as long as the one I am using works and is reliable. Cellphones, as well as cameras have become so good that upgrading every year or 2 really makes no sense because there really isn't anything a new one can do that you can't do on the old one. The camera is the biggest thing that phone manufacturers have right now to improve on and entice customers to lay out some money.

[Ratcheteer]

I still think modular phones will open up possibilities of using larger sensors and optics on mobiles. If it's as easy as replacing a module on your phone on a go, people would buy it.

Palm, Sony-Ericsson, Htc were thinking of making modular phones but all in one concept of smartphones killed that, also connections become another point of failure

We're about to find out with the just announced Apple iPhone 7 Plus with it's dual camera bokeh portrait mode.

sounds like a rehash of the Htc one m8 fake bokeh, I'm more interested in the folded optics patient they filed over 2 years ago (cause it would allow for bigger sensors and zoom)

I think this idea that big companies can't adopt new technology is hog wash.

or they actually choose not to for various reasons like high licensing fees, carrier agreements and design patients, if all costs were passed on to the consumer the recommended retail pricing would put some off making the idea a huge gamble. unless your apple samsung sony (they can do what they want cause they produce more than smartphones, they can always cover the cost of any failures with the revenue they make from their other product lines)

[wildman]

Eventually you reach the point where you just need two devices.

there will be some who move from cell phone cameras to purchasing an ILC because they want more than what their cell phone camera offers.

Right now among my active cameras by sensor size:

Original Q - 1/2.3 sensor
Panasonic ZS50 - 1/2.3 sensor
Canon S95 - 1/1.7 sensor
Q-S1 - 1/1.7 - sensor
Olympus OM-D E-M10 - m43
Pentax K5 - APS-C

I realize over the years, since moving to digital, that I don't think of one format giving me "more" than the other - just different with their own strengths and weakness.

The two Q's are very specialized and are used only on the back end of the 560mm scope for bird shots. I don't own any conventional Q lens' at all. I bought them only for the crop factor - the original Q gives me a magnification of 72x magnification at 560mm for instance.

The Panasonic is a special case. I originally bought it as a sort of super PS - shots RAW, huge zoom range, EVF etc. I was wrong. It's biggest failing is it's just too slow and unresponsive when shooting RAW and the EVF is only adequate in a pinch. But - I have a ancient dearly beloved 98 year old Aunt. Very traditional and is offended by photography and especially any attempt to get a portrait shot that would identify her. That would be a vanity. Anyway we were at her place and there she sat in the dining room by the window reading her beloved Luther bible as she has done for the last 90 years. Photographically the scene was perfect for what I wanted. So I sent my wife in to distract her by talking to her and who she happens to love beyond all understanding. After ten minutes or so I quietly slipped in and sat back in the shadows with the Panny set to full auto. Zoomed in on her face with that powerful zoom, pulled the trigger and the camera correctly selected the back light mode, took a 3 bracketed shoot silently, merged them and was done within a few seconds. Got the file home and with a bit of PP it produces very good 8x10 prints which is fine with me. If 8x10s were good enough for Ansel and Weston they are good enough for me. BTW the 5 axis SR is easily the best of all my cameras. All that in a camera hardly bigger than a pack of cigarettes. Simple - just set it to full auto and fire away and concentrate on the scene in front of you instead of the damn gear.

S95 is good when you need unobtrusive and low light performance which for me is often. At f/2 with that small sensor and RAW you have both good low light performance and good DOF at the same time. Took it into a bar New Years eve and I got shots I would never have with anything else. It always goes with me where there is a public gathering and where the lighting may be low which is often. It's a bit smaller than the Panny and noticeably better quality than the Panny especially because I can shot in RAW with a slightly bigger sensor.

Just got the Olympus a few weeks ago so I can't say much yet. It does have a huge advantage over the others for a ETTR RAW shooter - you can see the hgram before you take the picture in EVF and you have a dedicated wheel (Ev) at your fingertips to push the hgram around then take the picture . Fast simple and accurate so far as I can tell. Tentatively it might make a great little street shooter but time will tell.

So far as the K5 is concerned we all know what the k5 is and is not so I'll leave it at that.

So what's the point of all this verbiage? Speaking only for myself I'm beginning to question the wisdom of thinking in terms of which ILC SYSTEM camera to use? It seems rather old school and dated to me. Back in the day it made some sense when technology was slow, stable, conservative and predictable. Back then one size did, more or less, fit all because, for most practical uses there really was only one size. Now I'm not so sure. Maybe in a few years when I can pick up a used K1 for 700 bucks I might try one out but otherwise no - both figuratively and literally FF just isn't a good fit for the way I use a camera.

Any further thoughts folks?

A very low light shot from Canon S95

[AggieDad]

When I was a kid in the 50s, I had an AM transistor radio the size of a large book, a Brownie Hawkeye (3" x 3" cube) with an extra roll of 620 film, and a dime to make a 'phone call.

Some years later this changed to a radio not too much larger than a package of cigarettes, a Kodak Instamatic of about the same size, and a quarter to make a 'phone call.

Fifteen years ago I carried a flip-phone, an iPod, and a small digital camera.

Today I carry just one item - a smartphone that makes the 'phone call, takes the photos, provides the music, and also does a bunch of other things.

Will the consumer camera disappear? Of course. Will people be taking more photos than ever? Absolutely.

Time marches on.

[awscreo]

Palm, Sony-Ericsson, Htc were thinking of making modular phones but all in one concept of smartphones killed that, also connections become another point of failure

erm, time doesn't stand still, and what failed before can succeed later on down the road, look at VR.

sounds like a rehash of the Htc one m8 fake bokeh, I'm more interested in the folded optics patient they filed over 2 years ago (cause it would allow for bigger sensors and zoom)

i'm not saying this particular iteration would be the one that changes everything, i'm saying phone companies are not sitting on their hands, they are trying and experimenting, something dslr companies are not doing.

[surfar]

Panasonic ZS50 - 1/2.3 sensor

I have the next edition of this camera, its the 2nd most used camera I own due to its convenience.It lives in my car and captures great images and very good video.


My most used camera, number ONE, is my phone.

[Ratcheteer]

i'm saying phone companies are not sitting on their hands, they are trying and experimenting, something dslr companies are not doing.

dslr companies is not the correct word to use considering they all make consumer point and shoot and lenses as well, camera companies tend to have their hands tied when it comes to releasing new cameras, they have to file a patient first to protect intellectual property and must check that it doesn't infringe on existing patients, most cellphone manufacturers are not creating anything new, they are just paying licencing fees to use existing technology created by the very companies you think are not doing anything.

For example: Nokia\Sony - Carl Zeiss(Optics), Huawei - Leica(Optics), Samsung - Canon(AF), LG\Samsung - Schneider-Kreuznach(Optics), Others - Sony(Sensor)

the cellphone market has a high turnover rate so they can afford to pay licencing fees

A very low light shot from Canon S95

gotta love how people rag on how crap canon dslr image quality is yet some of the point and shoot lines produce images like this (the s95 sensor is based on what many considered obsolete at the time - CCD)

[awscreo]

dslr companies is not the correct word to use considering they all make consumer point and shoot and lenses as well, camera companies tend to have their hands tied when it comes to releasing new cameras, they have to file a patient first to protect intellectual property and must check that it doesn't infringe on existing patients, most cellphone manufacturers are not creating anything new, they are just paying licencing fees to use existing technology created by the very companies you think are not doing anything.

For example: Nokia\Sony - Carl Zeiss(Optics), Huawei - Leica(Optics), Samsung - Canon(AF), LG\Samsung - Schneider-Kreuznach(Optics), Others - Sony(Sensor)

the cellphone market has a high turnover rate so they can afford to pay licencing fees

In any rate, they could at least design good interfaces, with touch control and supporting apps, it's entirely in their hands to do so, and we are already seeing tiny steps towards that. Although all the supporting apps I've used (albeit two first hand, rest only from user reports) were pretty crappy, easier to use a shutter remote. I guess mirrorless cameras will give connectivity features that future new users might want, and probably will be the first ones to introduce full support for third-party apps.

[wildman]

My most used camera, number ONE, is my phone.

And I can understand why. Take a look at the "The Phone Club!" thread on this forum - images as creative and compelling as elsewhere on the forum if not more so. A phone camera is not necessarily worse than a FF just different.

gotta love how people rag on how crap canon dslr image quality is yet some of the point and shoot lines produce images like this (the s95 sensor is based on what many considered obsolete at the time - CCD)

Another point.
In low light you need f/2, to use f/2 you can't zoom in, instead you must get very close, the S95 focuses down to 2 inchs, then there is the issue of DOF at f/2 but the S95 has a small sensor so there is lots of DOF.

Case in point. This shot was so dark that this final, with some PP, is brighter then the actual scene was to the naked eye. Nothing special - no tripod etc just PS. The little Canon was at it's limits with this one...

[Ratcheteer]

In any rate, they could at least design good interfaces, with touch control and supporting apps, it's entirely in their hands to do so, and we are already seeing tiny steps towards that. Although all the supporting apps I've used (albeit two first hand, rest only from user reports) were pretty crappy, easier to use a shutter remote. I guess mirrorless cameras will give connectivity features that future new users might want, and probably will be the first ones to introduce full support for third-party apps.

completely agree with you on that front, its the camera companies proprietary approach that was hindering progress originally, the smartphone industry had an advantage with android and ios allowing and encouraging 3rd party development.
both canon and nikon have released software development kits so we might see some decent apps come out soon, unfortunately the Nikon kit is only for mirrorless and DSLR's at this point in time

when it comes to the interfaces they should plagiarize Samsung, anyone whos used an i-function lens (a press of the button can switch the control ring on the lens to aperture/shutter/exposure comp etc) and a nx500 would know what i mean (the only touch menu system I've come across that was a pleasure to use)

And I can understand why. Take a look at the "The Phone Club!" thread on this forum - images as creative and compelling as elsewhere on the forum if not more so. A phone camera is not necessarily worse than a FF just different.

imagination creativity and the images born from them are worth more than any camera, the camera is just a means to an end

The little Canon was at it's limits with this one...

the limits are subjective, the real limit is how much you want to compromise