[Rondec]

It depends by what you mean by the words "lot of light" and "look good". This past spring my wife and I went to a dinner show called "Extraordinary Women" at nearby St. Mary's College. At the beginning of the show, they encouraged people to take photos and post them online; I had not expected this - if I had, I would have brought my Q-7 with me, but I certainly would not have lugged a larger camera. The only camera I had with me was my winPhone, so I took it out and did take several pictures, including the one below. I did scale and sharpen this photo for posting here. If you look at the EXIF data, you can see that it was taken at shutter speed 1/17 sec with ISO=500. This was not a bright room - in fact I would have had more trouble composing photos if it had - but this is a perfectly useable snapshot for my purposes {and, as you commented, a perfectly useable web picture for their purposes of generating publicity for their music department}. The Q-7 would have given me better images, and better control over what I was doing, but this was the best camera I had with me.

It is OK as a snapshot, but not a shot that would satisfy me. It's soft and this is at a fairly downsized size for web posting. Printing this image bigger than 4 by 6 would not be great (I know no one prints any more, but still).

I just find that shooting with nice gear makes me inherently dissatisfied with the quality I get from camera phones. They'll do in a pinch, but I don't like them.

This is an iso 2500 shot with the K1 and FA 77 of my niece.

[normhead]

Interesting how so much of the discussion either ignores, or disputes the data presented.

Yet no other data has been presented, only opinions. For myself, nothing is definitive, but, this data is definitely indicative of something. Some of the theories proposed to explain why the original premise is flawed are pretty ridiculous, that smart phones sales have gone up while larger camera sales have gone down is not in dispute. The only question is are these things related. You have to be some kind of crazy to suggest these things are completely unrelated. The only thing needed to be established is how"how closely are they related".
It remains unclear, there could be a relationship, it could be merely coincidental factors related to other issue. No causal relationship has been established.

However a number of things are clear.

Apple is the #1 camera used on flickr.
As Apple sales have gone up, larger camera sales have gone down. But no causal relationship has been established.
There is a lot of room for speculation as to why that has happened.

To me the area that needs to be explored is "are people with good cameras in their smart phone, less likely to purchase a camera of a different type?"

People have suggested a number of competing reasons why the flickr data may be flawed, however, most are pretty irrational and I wouldn't entertain any of them without some kind of data backing them up.

Flickr now has 1.2 million members. The sample size is huge. There is not a lot of room for error here, the standard deviation is infinitesimal. So one has to ask, does anyone have any further information to add. Information as in something with a large sample size, not one guy in his living room typing on a computer?

It's actually very clever of the authors realizing they could use Apple's success on flickr as a reference for their premise. If it were science they'd need further research to prove their point. The proved an apparent relation ship, but short of a survey of smart phone users and their attitudes towards larger camera, it's impossible to understand entirely what's going on.

It would be really hard to understand why people aren't buying larger cameras the way they once were, without some kind of data to support it. There could be lot's of reasons, the one suggested on the forum by myself being that people with cameras like my wife's K-5 have cameras the are good enough, they're happy working with that, and would rather spend money on something else. She has a great camera in her cell phone and has never sued it, not even once.

Personally if I would suggest that the use of cell phones on flickr almost suggests a younger crowd, who think they have to have a phone, but don't think they have to have a non-phone camera. At least among the two older types who live in my house, using the camera phone just hasn't caught on.

SO that's where I'd be looking. But it's hard to imagine that a user base of 1.2 million wouldn't be close to representative. Without any obvious reasons for it to be that way, I think we have to assume it's fairly representative just based on the size of the sample.

If this were a drug trial a sample of 1.2 million people would be considered absolutely rock solid. I have no more faith in many of the opinions here just based on the fact that one person, joining flickr and "voting" with their wouldn't change a thing. This data is based on 1.2 million participants, your attitude/opinion is worth 1/1.2 millionth of the total. So I ask you, is your opinion worth listening to?

Some people seriously need to learn to understand stats like this. Trying to make a sample base of 1.2 million irrelevant because you don't like the company at the top, or the likely conclusion from looking at this stats, is nonsense.

The stats are complied without bias by a number counting program. There's no person there performing some kind of scam with the stats.

The site is open to anyone who takes pictures. There's no clear bias in the user base or any reason to assume it's not representative of current trends in the camera industry. In fact in may be the best indicator we have, in that it's not survey of people who buy cameras, but a survey of people who are actually making extensive use of their cameras.

[reh321]

It is OK as a snapshot, but not a shot that would satisfy me. It's soft and this is at a fairly downsized size for web posting. Printing this image bigger than 4 by 6 would not be great (I know no one prints any more, but still).

I just find that shooting with nice gear makes me inherently dissatisfied with the quality I get from camera phones. They'll do in a pinch, but I don't like them.

This is an iso 2500 shot with the K1 and FA 77 of my niece.

But this is simply the usual FF vs very small sensor comparison - the "softness" is largely caused by lack of Color Depth. You would have exactly the same comments about a photo taken with the Canon Elph I formerly carried around with me, or likely with any of the more modern "super zoom" bridge cameras.

[Wheatfield]

Clearly people do use their cell phone cameras. The image quality has improved a lot compared to five years ago. At the same time, they do require a lot of light to get decent images and don't look good when viewed at larger than web sizes.

But that is exactly what people are doing with their photos. I know few people who print their photos. A few people will make little printed books from smugmug or some place like that, but generally speaking they end up on Instagram and/or Facebook and then go away. If that is all you are doing with your photos then a cell phone camera may be adequate (even there I see a lot of pretty poor photos).

I am on Facebook and a lot of photos with motion blur and lots of noise get posted and have really positive comments and likes, so I think for the majority of people quality isn't what they are shooting for anyway. At the same time, if you were an amateur photographer back in the day and you got some of those pre-loaded cardboard film cameras they used to sell and shoot with them, I don't know that your results would have been any better.

For the vast majority of people, photography has never been about technical quality of the image. Most photographs are taken for the simple reason of being able to evoke memories later on, and now for bragging rights (look where I've been, look how much fun I'm having). The ability to take selfies has not altered the main use of picture taking, it's just allowed the narcissist to inject themselves into what used to be random snapshots.
One of the guys on the PDML posted a link a while back that was quite interesting. It turns out that the process of having a camera, be it a cell phone or real one stuck permanently in front of us limits our ability to remember stuff.
We experience the camera, not what is on the other side of it.

What smartphone photography is doing to our memories - Vox

It turns out that the people who go out and take a thousand or more pictures per day might well be doing themselves a disservice. They may come back with the picture, but not the memory of the experience of where they've been.
If all you are doing is going someplace exotic and spending all your time with a camera pressed to your face, you may as well stay home and google where you want to be and look at pictures of it. At the end, that is all you will have anyway.

[normhead]

But this is simply the usual FF vs very small sensor comparison - the "softness" is largely caused by lack of Color Depth. You would have exactly the same comments about a photo taken with the Canon Elph I formerly carried around with me, or likely with any of the more modern "super zoom" bridge cameras.

As a matterr of fact, he did make a similar comment discussing my bridge camera.

[monochrome]

Clearly people do use their cell phone cameras. The image quality has improved a lot compared to five years ago. At the same time, they do require a lot of light to get decent images and don't look good when viewed at larger than web sizes.

But that is exactly what people are doing with their photos. I know few people who print their photos. A few people will make little printed books from smugmug or some place like that, but generally speaking they end up on Instagram and/or Facebook and then go away. If that is all you are doing with your photos then a cell phone camera may be adequate (even there I see a lot of pretty poor photos).

I am on Facebook and a lot of photos with motion blur and lots of noise get posted and have really positive comments and likes, so I think for the majority of people quality isn't what they are shooting for anyway. At the same time, if you were an amateur photographer back in the day and you got some of those pre-loaded cardboard film cameras they used to sell and shoot with them, I don't know that your results would have been any better.

Most of the FB and Instas I see from amateurs are intended to say, ‘I was here’ or ‘See my child/cat/dinner/margs.’ They don’t need to be perfect photos to meet that objective, and followers Like to acknowledge they ’Saw It’.

[Rondec]

But this is simply the usual FF vs very small sensor comparison - the "softness" is largely caused by lack of Color Depth. You would have exactly the same comments about a photo taken with the Canon Elph I formerly carried around with me, or likely with any of the more modern "super zoom" bridge cameras.

As a matterr of fact, he did make a similar comment discussing my bridge camera.

The question is what quality you are satisfied with. Most people are satisfied with cell phone cameras and do not need to move to anything with either a better sensor or better lens. That doesn't mean that the photos they are generating are "good quality."

I have no problem with people shooting with cell phone cameras and I don't put disparaging remarks on their Facebook posts and in fact, if you post your cell phone photos on a thread here on the Forum, unless you ask for critique, I won't say anything here either. At the same time, for me personally, the quality is such that these photos are adequate for web posting (barely) and nothing more and yes, I am perfectly happy carrying a full frame camera to an event (if it is allowed) to take photos, although I don't usually take photos at plays and such. I'd rather just enjoy them and don't need photos to record "the action" unless my kids are in it.

[normhead]

The question is what quality you are satisfied with. Most people are satisfied with cell phone cameras and do not need to move to anything with either a better sensor or better lens. That doesn't mean that the photos they are generating are "good quality."

Naw, that's not the question, the question is, do you need the maximum quality available for every image, and are you smart enough to select smaller more manageable gear when you don't need maximum image quality, or when the seller lither gear will actually give you better quality.

I used to shoot 8x10 film in school. I never dreamed for second I needed that the of resolution for every image. Portablity has always taken first place. IN this case everyone was like me. You yourself would get better resolution with a 645z. For convenience you use an FF camera. Everyone has their idea of how much resolution they need compared to how much portability and flexibility they need. The fact that there are people all over the spectrum means nothing.

No one has demonstrated that on an every day basis a K-1 actually provides better IQ than a K-3. Both provide better IQ in different situations. It's almost a situational decision. Simple fact, person using a K-1 for this image, which is cropped to 4000 x 2200 pixels approx. is settling for lower IQ, not higher.


Saying you don't take those types of images is irrelevant to topics like this. It's not all about you. And your insistence that you are the one seeking higher IQ is just annoying. Please stop doing that. Some of us have learned that seeking to use the "highest IQ" camera can lead to inferior or even no images. This crop taken with a K-3 is about 8 MP. i/3 of an APS-c sensor output. That's equal to 1/6th of a K-1is 36 MP output or 6 MP.

The way I try and shoot, I creep up shooting as I go. This is the closest image I got. Don't try and tell me Should have just gone closer with a K-1. The bird flew off before I got closer.Don't even try to make out shooting with a K-1 would have better IQ. It's just wrong. Saying you don't shoot that way is irrelevant. Try and address the crowd.

Saying you don't shoot images that require different gear, is in no way relevant to discussions of that gear. And the IQ argument is totally bogus. It's better IQ for two types of images. For many others 36 MP resolution is completely un-necessary, because you can't effectively use to because of other limitations of the camera. You have people like Winder shooting weddings with 22 MP A9's. That gives him better images than his K-1. I've never heard even one A9 , D4 or 1Dx user complain the lack of MP matters to them. People pick cameras that best serve their need, and they are doing that in part based on the IQ of those cameras. Shooting with aK-1 doesn't make you some kind of king of IQ. It makes you guy who loves his K-1 so much he'll put up with it's limitations and images where it doesn't excel and pass on those images, so you can simplify your camera selection process. The reason for using a 645z or K-1 is not that it's better for everything. It's better at some tings. You've just decided that the things the K-1 is better at are all that matters to you, which make you a really bad person for people in this kind of discussion to take advice from.

My recent advice to people considering new cameras have ranged from A9s , A7rIIs, k-70's, K-Ps, waiting for the next APS-c flagship and K-1s. Because I understand different people have different needs, and will actually get the maximum IQ from those cameras, based on what they shoot. There is no camera you can use to get the best IQ 100% of the time. If you are going for maximum IQ, you have to select the format appropriate to what you are doing. And you certainly can't just go the K-1 for everything route.

I have real trouble understanding why, "I only shoot fraction of what every one else shoots but this is the camera that's best for what I do shoot," is even a position. Personally when I shoot my grand kids the slow frame rate of the K-1 is really irritating.

An XG-1 images.
My daughter and grand daughters.
I know you're going to tell me I could do better with a K-1. But for myself, I have a great deal of difficulty understanding why you would say that? I know you believe it, I just don't understand why.



I got what i wanted. Some guy going on about alleged "better" (in his mind) IQ makes no sense.

God I'm sick of some arrogant person telling me that because I don't use the camera they use, I'm not going for the bet IQ. Especially people who have no formal photographic training that have no clue what they are talking about. The whole of your time in school is devoted to getting the best image in a given circumstance. Picking one camera an only shooting images it's good at was never part of that.

[reh321]

The question is what quality you are satisfied with. Most people are satisfied with cell phone cameras and do not need to move to anything with either a better sensor or better lens. That doesn't mean that the photos they are generating are "good quality."

I have no problem with people shooting with cell phone cameras and I don't put disparaging remarks on their Facebook posts and in fact, if you post your cell phone photos on a thread here on the Forum, unless you ask for critique, I won't say anything here either. At the same time, for me personally, the quality is such that these photos are adequate for web posting (barely) and nothing more and yes, I am perfectly happy carrying a full frame camera to an event (if it is allowed) to take photos, although I don't usually take photos at plays and such. I'd rather just enjoy them and don't need photos to record "the action" unless my kids are in it.

The main issue of this discussion is adoption of the iPhone as the primary "camera" by many people, and whether that is as widespread as Flickr seems to report. In that context, I don't believe our standards really matter. When I was young, box cameras were common, followed by Instamatics {"126" film}, followed by "110" cameras, followed by disk cameras. Quality is great, but that is never what the "unwashed" public has been willing to pay for. Quantity has always favored a certain minimal level of quality, because procuring equipment competes with so many other "needs" for funds. Cellphones have trouble with motion - they have trouble focusing in the presence of motion, and "rolling shutter" sometimes results in funky results - but most people seem willing to tolerate that. Based on what I see at typical tourist attractions, I am quite willing to believe that smart phones are the dominant "camera" by number. Regardless of manufacturer, that is indeed a revolution.

[boriscleto]

Maybe Samsung doesn't have more Flickr users because the phone fails before they can post a photo...

Study: iPhone 6 has highest failure rate among iPhones -- but Samsung's rate is higher

Samsung's overall failure rate is 27%...Though I'm sure those numbers are inflated by the Note 7 fiasco...

[reh321]

Most of the FB and Instas I see from amateurs are intended to say, ‘I was here’ or ‘See my child/cat/dinner/margs.’ They don’t need to be perfect photos to meet that objective, and followers Like to acknowledge they ’Saw It’.

Several years ago we went to a Christmas concert at the local big fancy traditional auditorium. I took my Q-7 with me because I didn't want to be encumbered by my K-30. Our older daughter {recent recipient of an IU grad degree} had warned me that the biggest problem would be getting my kit past the auditorium staff, which is used to stopping photography. The performers were a group called "Straight No Chaser", which had started as a student group at Indiana University, and now tours nationally as professionals. Their "big break" had come when fellow students posted snippets of their work on-line, so now they invite photography as part of their introduction. My wife had obtained nearly perfect seats - first row of second balcony, so we were a long way from the stage, but we had an unobstructed view. I did take several photographs with my Q-7 + 02 lens, but virtually all the photography around me was with smart phones. I'm guessing that both the photographers and SNC were pleased - fans showed their friends what they had seen and the name "SNC" was made known to a few more potential fans.

[Rondec]

Naw, that's not the question, the question is, do you need the maximum quality available for every image, and are you smart enough to select smaller more manageable gear when you don't need maximum image quality, or when the seller lither gear will actually give you better quality.

I used to shoot 8x10 film in school. I never dreamed for second I needed that the of resolution for every image. Portablity has always taken first place. IN this case everyone was like me. You yourself would get better resolution with a 645z. For convenience you use an FF camera. Everyone has their idea of how much resolution they need compared to how much portability and flexibility they need. The fact that there are people all over the spectrum means nothing.

No one has demonstrated that on an every day basis a K-1 actually provides better IQ than a K-3. Both provide better IQ in different situations. It's almost a situational decision. Simple fact, person using a K-1 for this image, which is cropped to 4000 x 2200 pixels approx. is settling for lower IQ, not higher.


Saying you don't take those types of images is irrelevant to topics like this. It's not all about you. And your insistence that you are the one seeking higher IQ is just annoying. Please stop doing that. Some of us have learned that seeking to use the "highest IQ" camera can lead to inferior or even no images. This crop taken with a K-3 is about 8 MP. i/3 of an APS-c sensor output. That's equal to 1/6th of a K-1is 36 MP output or 6 MP.

The way I try and shoot, I creep up shooting as I go. This is the closest image I got. Don't try and tell me Should have just gone closer with a K-1. The bird flew off before I got closer.Don't even try to make out shooting with a K-1 would have better IQ. It's just wrong. Saying you don't shoot that way is irrelevant. Try and address the crowd.

Saying you don't shoot images that require different gear, is in no way relevant to discussions of that gear. And the IQ argument is totally bogus. It's better IQ for two types of images. For many others 36 MP resolution is completely un-necessary, because you can't effectively use to because of other limitations of the camera. You have people like Winder shooting weddings with 22 MP A9's. That gives him better images than his K-1. I've never heard even one A9 , D4 or 1Dx user complain the lack of MP matters to them. People pick cameras that best serve their need, and they are doing that in part based on the IQ of those cameras. Shooting with aK-1 doesn't make you some kind of king of IQ. It makes you guy who loves his K-1 so much he'll put up with it's limitations and images where it doesn't excel and pass on those images, so you can simplify your camera selection process. The reason for using a 645z or K-1 is not that it's better for everything. It's better at some tings. You've just decided that the things the K-1 is better at are all that matters to you, which make you a really bad person for people in this kind of discussion to take advice from.

My recent advice to people considering new cameras have ranged from A9s , A7rIIs, k-70's, K-Ps, waiting for the next APS-c flagship and K-1s. Because I understand different people have different needs, and will actually get the maximum IQ from those cameras, based on what they shoot. There is no camera you can use to get the best IQ 100% of the time. If you are going for maximum IQ, you have to select the format appropriate to what you are doing. And you certainly can't just go the K-1 for everything route.

I have real trouble understanding why, "I only shoot fraction of what every one else shoots but this is the camera that's best for what I do shoot," is even a position. Personally when I shoot my grand kids the slow frame rate of the K-1 is really irritating.

An XG-1 images.
My daughter and grand daughters.
I know you're going to tell me I could do better with a K-1. But for myself, I have a great deal of difficulty understanding why you would say that? I know you believe it, I just don't understand why.



I got what i wanted. Some guy going on about alleged "better" (in his mind) IQ makes no sense.

God I'm sick of some arrogant person telling me that because Idon't use the camera I use, I'm not going for the bet IQ. Especially people who have no formal photographic training that have no clue what they are talking about. The whole of your time in school is devoted to getting the best image in a given circumstance. Picking one camera an only shooting images it's good at was never part of that.

I imagine now is the time for me to gracefully bow out of this thread. If the credentials for discussing things are a formal photography training then I suppose most of us are going to leave the thread.

Understand Norm that I can only speak for myself. You shoot different things from me and your second photo is great. I don't shoot birds much. I don't own any lenses longer than the DA 55-300 and I seldom use that. But we are talking specifically about cell phone cameras here (which you can't easily shoot wildlife with) and even your XG-1 has a better lens than what you will get on most cell phones.

People are moving the goal posts here. The point in this thread is whether "iphones killed Big Camera" not whether the Q, or any other compact or bridge camera you can name shoots with good quality. In point of fact, Nikon and Canon would love to have more sales of bridge and compact cameras, but those have fallen more precipitously than ILCs due to the "smart phone revolution."

Regardless, I am sorry for stating my (uninformed) opinion here.

Carry on...

[reh321]

I imagine now is the time for me to gracefully bow out of this thread. If the credentials for discussing things are a formal photography training then I suppose most of us are going to leave the thread.

Understand Norm that I can only speak for myself. You shoot different things from me and your second photo is great. I don't shoot birds much. I don't own any lenses longer than the DA 55-300 and I seldom use that. But we are talking specifically about cell phone cameras here (which you can't easily shoot wildlife with) and even your XG-1 has a better lens than what you will get on most cell phones.

People are moving the goal posts here. The point in this thread is whether "iphones killed Big Camera" not whether the Q, or any other compact or bridge camera you can name shoots with good quality. In point of fact, Nikon and Canon would love to have more sales of bridge and compact cameras, but those have fallen more precipitously than ILCs due to the "smart phone revolution."

Regardless, I am sorry for stating my (uninformed) opinion here.

Carry on...

My {informed only by observation} opinion has been, and will continue to be unless I see different facts, that cell phones are the latest in the sequence Kodak started with
box camera - "126 Instamatic" - "110 Instamatic" - disk camera

and then the "Big Camera" companies moved in for a while and padded their income with low-cost versions of their film / digital cameras.
Now the cell phone companies have moved in and unpadded those incomes.

The only place I disagree with you was with your wanting to talk about quality. Quality was never an issue here. The photographs my Dad took with a Kodak box camera before I was born are neither necessarily better nor worse than the photographs my daughters take today with smart phones, and they all serve the same purpose.

In each case we have three generations

My Dad - Me - my daughters
Kodak - Canon/Nikon/Pentax - iPhone

[reh321]

This is a continuation of my thoughts begun in my last post:

Kodak invented consumer photography with their "you press the button and we'll do the rest" camera; the consumer took the pictures and then mailed the entire camera back to Kodak, who developed the film and then sent pictures and a loaded camera back to the consumer. Over time, that morphed into the consumer sending only the film back. My first cameras were Kodak cameras my Dad gave me. In 1995, trying to follow tradition, I went shopping for a Kodak camera for my daughter's eighth birthday; when I looked at the shelves, I remembered articles in print media {remember magazines?} saying that Kodak had decided they could no longer compete with oriental camera manufacturers, so they would make their money off film and chemicals from now on. For a generation, inexpensive cameras manufactured in Asia dominated the consumer market, and companies like Canon, Nikon, and Pentax made extra money off them. What we see today is simply reverting to conditions back when I was born, except that companies like Apple have replaced Kodak. To say that these companies are "killing" 'Big Camera' is no more fair than saying that Kodak had nourished them.

[monochrome]

This is a continuation of my thoughts begun in my last post:

Kodak invented consumer photography with their "you press the button and we'll do the rest" camera; the consumer took the pictures and then mailed the entire camera back to Kodak, who developed the film and then sent pictures and a loaded camera back to the consumer. Over time, that morphed into the consumer sending only the film back. My first cameras were Kodak cameras my Dad gave me. In 1995, trying to follow tradition, I went shopping for a Kodak camera for my daughter's eighth birthday; when I looked at the shelves, I remembered articles in print media {remember magazines?} saying that Kodak had decided they could no longer compete with oriental camera manufacturers, so they would make their money off film and chemicals from now on. For a generation, inexpensive cameras manufactured in Asia dominated the consumer market, and companies like Canon, Nikon, and Pentax made extra money off them. What we see today is simply reverting to conditions back when I was born, except that companies like Apple have replaced Kodak. To say that these companies are "killing" 'Big Camera' is no more fair than saying that Kodak had nourished them.

If you look at the one of the dSLR Unit volume charts knocking around, we’re approaching the last days of ILC film camera units - a rather remarkable transformation considering a) the population of the world has at least doubled, and b) the 2 billion consumers in EM counties for whom there is no 90’s corollary.