[eminker]

I use a fountain pen - I use it to sign prints in ink that is utterly unmovable even by intense ultraviolet light. There have been attempts to copy my work which are quickly revealed to be sub-par copies much to the alarm of the owners.

I also have quite a fountain pen collection as well. I migrated over to using fountain pens mainly (with exception of check writing) so that I need to slow down to write properly.
There is something to be said for writing as an art and a skill.

[VoiceOfReason]

I can get great results with my Samsung Galaxy S6 in really good light and boosting the saturation, contrast, and clarity (all in phone) with it. At web viewing sizes I can arguably get images that are as good as many DSLR pictures (just don't pixel peep please). I can do close up pseudo-macro images. I can even get bokeh under the right conditions with my phone, and be able to immediately send the pics to Facebook, dropbox, etc. and post them in other places. It is always with me wherever I go, but, there is just something a little extra special using my DSLR. Lighting is more forgiving, conditions more forgiving with the DSLR. I can pull shadows, highlights, and just make those same images pop more. I can get far more detail zooming in and pixel peeping. I can crop with my DSLR in ways that I can't even think of with my phone.

So, is a phone good enough in many situations? Undoubtedly. Can I get better results with a DSLR under all conditions? Absolutely! Is the same true for most people? Nope, because a DSLR is more unforgiving, especially advanced or pro grade ones. They will do exactly what you tell them to do, so can be very, very unforgiving. I leave my old crappy pics up on my DA so I can see how far I've come since 2010. The images I can get with my phone would absolutely destroy what I took at first, both because advances in tech and because frankly I sucked back then.

[bobbotron]

True. But had that photo come from an iPhone it would hold the same impact.

You are totally correct, my comment is sort of neither here nor there. :/

[UncleVanya]

You are totally correct, my comment is sort of neither here nor there. :/

I still found it a good point in the scheme of evaluation of the photo.

[mee]

The common medium viewed is smartphone or computer monitor. Few people print and when they do it's to 4x6 or 5x7 it seems. MAYBE 8x10

Until that changes, our big resolution cameras with fancypants lenses won't matter so much. People just want to document they were there mostly and share/show to others. It isn't about having fine art or a long term keepsake or historical document as it might have been in years past. Photography is social now and offered to the 'common joe.'

The same thing happened to music some 200 years ago.. and slowly moved to becoming more and more accessible in the past 100. Today, I have an entire music recording studio in my computer. I literally have a better setup than most commercial studios did even 30 years ago. Only thing hardware is the microphones, audio monitors, and the controller keyboards (oh and of course the computer itself). But the synths, the effects rack, the 'tape' machine are all on the PC in software and they're easier to use today.

Guitars are dirt cheap today too.. with quality that just works for many. Few people have a desire to pay 2 grand for a fancy Martin... the 200 dollar Yamaha is good enough. Yet Martin is still in business. They just sell to less people than Yamaha.

Dedicated cameras aren't going away. The market is just shrinking. That doesn't mean it is shrinking into nothingness. It is just retracting to a size that is more honest to the amount of people that have a desire for such a device.

Sky not falling.

Once smartphone sized cameras can output the quality of a FF camera and fast lens, at a lesser price, and focus track just as well too then we should probably expect the camera market to disappear. But that isn't happening... at least not in the next decade. Tiny sensor is tiny.

[photoptimist]

I think cameras have become MORE relevant in people's lives with the growing use of social media. The growing production and consumption of visual media actually creates a growing awareness of the gap between good enough and great. That's not to say that a growing majority of photos can be and will be taken with cellphone cameras. But it also implies a sustained demand for great images under a range of specific conditions that imply big cameras will never actually die.

It's also interesting to note that the dinosaurs didn't die, they evolved into birds. And that's what's happening now. Big lumbering point-and-shoots are shrinking into fast little cellphone cameras. And yet birds are not the be-all, end-all of the animal kingdom. They fill certain niches but not others.

As for the economics of imaging, the pattern of who innovates and who leverages existing innovations has been shifting downward for decades. There was a time when defense R&D and production drove new imaging technologies -- only the military could afford the latest chips. But that's shifted and now it's high-volume consumer applications that get billions in private investment for new technology. For a while, "big cameras" were the lead application for new digital imaging technologies, but it's further shifted to cellphone cameras (e.g., BSI sensors went in cellphones first, "big cameras" second). Now it's the suppliers of sensors, optics, electromechanical parts, and software in the cellphone camera industry that are doing the heavy lifting of R&D and development of manufacturing capacity. And the "big camera" makers adapt cellphone camera technology to the specific niches where big cameras remain in demand.

Yes, the market for big cameras may be shrinking (just as the market for photocopiers is shrinking) but that does not imply extinction as long as the companies in the industry are careful with their resources and plan their investments for this shifting pattern of demand.

[Fauxton]

In the 60's, 70's and 80's, for example, we had SLR's and a whole plethora of other less expensive less capable options using the same recording medium. The differentiator other than cost was lens capability and the body capabilities, but the same recording medium. We did have instant pictures with the Polaroid. We had small travel cameras with Minox, 110 and others with 127 film. We had 35mm and a whole range of others. SLR sales grew as it addressed a need.
With digital we changed the recording media but we really didn't change the underlying forces that drove the market. Until we put a camera in a cell phone. During that first decade of digital photography we saw the price of entry into DSLR's come down and we also saw many people who were not normally part of the SLR market buy a DSLR. Pretty much overkill for taking a snapshot of the cat.
So (IMHO) a few things have happened since then. The people who likely didn't need a DSLR but bought it for its perceived "cool" factor or its relative inexpensiveness have gone back to the modern day equivalent of a 1970's 110 camera; the smartphone or they still find the first DSLR they bought more than they need. The market saturated and the number of DSLR units sold has fallen year over year.
What has happened isn't magic or unanticipated by many except some of the camera companies. An economist can point to many similar market situations in the past.
So what is likely to happen? I postulate the following:
1. The ILC market will continue to fall. It will stabilize at a point to reflect the professionals that need the capabilities of an ILC and the hobbyists that want to use its capabilities. The market will not see a resurgence to capture the convenience crowd.
2. We will have smaller or more diversified ILC camera companies. Few large ones will survive and we will have a few niche players.
3. We will have higher prices for the gear we have, the gear will be refreshed less often, but we will have continuing development (just not at the pace we have had over the last two decades.)
4. Not many camera manufacturers will make a simple DSC. That market has gone to the smartphone. I expect we will see entry level ILC's start at around the cost of where a top level smartphone ends. Maybe a little less. Something like just under $1000.

I expect it will take a few more years to get to equilibrium. But the ILC won't disappear. As to what it looks like in 5-10 years:
a. Likely only a few ILC's will be prism or OVF based. Maybe this will be Pentax's niche (OVF ILC cameras). Almost all ILC's will be EVF.
b. The ILC's will have improved easy WIFI/Bluetooth capability directly to a network without the need of a smartphone. High speed file transfer will be possible.
c. A smartphone will be a standard control device for tethering or remote control.
d. GPS will be standard.
e. Megapixels will continue to rise however not as fast. Noise performance will continue to improve. I expect that the differentiators between ILC's and smartphones will be accentuated and developed continuously. The operational envelope (DR, noise, ISO, color fidelity, fps, resolution etc) of the ILC will always exceed that of a smartphone and in the future it will develop further than the smartphone.

The ILC market won't disappear but it will be smaller.

[jrpower10]

Visited friends last weekend and they showed us their wedding album. It was phenomenal. That market will remain as a bride is NEVER going to be OK with phone camera snaps for her wedding (and there will remain other niches as well). I think the more likely scenario is smaller format (micro 4/3rds and APS-C) might continue shrinking, but there will still be a market for pros using FF and medium format. In fact, with mirrorless MF, you might even see FF start to get challenged. Cameras will remain but the mix is going to alter.

[Rondec]

The question is what does a smart phone do to someone? Does it pique their interest about photography and act as a gateway drug to purchasing cameras with larger sensors and lenses or, does it completely fill that need and make an ILC unnecessary? My guess is that it does some of both and that even if some people are fine with smart phone images, others will see what they can do with an iphone 7 and decide that we want to figure out how to do even more.

The bigger issue for camera makers is that the number of folks who need to upgrade their ILC every cycle is dropping considerably. There was a time when skipping a generation of camera could mean that you missed out on real image quality benefits, but now, not so much. That in turn drops number of sales.

If Pentax released a K-1 MK II tomorrow with 4K video and faster auto focus, I probably would pass on it. Those are real upgrades, but they just don't tick boxes that I am interested in.

[monochrome]

Smartphone camera technology is maturing. 4x6 prints from a smart camera look every bit as good as the 4x6 Instamatic prints I still have from college.

Ahem.

[clackers]

I use 645 pro on my iPhone. I can control exposure and film emulation. I find it restores some of the experience.

Note that it couldn't give you any aperture control, UV?

I've never seen a phone or app that could do that.

[jrpower10]

Lightroom app will give you control of everything but aperture. Guess you can indirectly control it by setting shutter speed and ISO.

[clackers]

Lightroom app will give you control of everything but aperture. Guess you can indirectly control it by setting shutter speed and ISO.

Nup.

Phone cameras don't even have aperture blades.

They shoot wide open all the time, so once you're in shooting position you can't vary the depth of field.

[surfar]

Phone cameras don't even have aperture blades.

The Samsung hybrids allow aperture changes, S4 Zoom and K zoom.The Panasonic CM1 probably does too.....I know the Samsungs are out of production( mine has a cracked screen but is hanging in),Not sure about the Panasonic.Reasonably capable phones with "handy" cameras.

[clackers]

The Samsung hybrids allow aperture changes, S4 Zoom and K zoom.The Panasonic CM1 probably does too.....I know the Samsungs are out of production( mine has a cracked screen but is hanging in),Not sure about the Panasonic.Reasonably capable phones with "handy" cameras.

A 1" sensor is certainly handy, too, but aren't all three failures, Surfar, and discontinued?