[reh321]

We are not representative of the general population.

But we are representative of modern users of DSLRs.
I really doubt adding cell phone capability to DSLRs would attract any new customers to DSLR - they would have both size and cost against them when compared to standard smart phone

[ThorSanchez]

I recently read a post from one of those futures guys, who's belief was, the first DSLR company to build iPhone (or advanced Smart Phone technology, into a DSLR was going to be the next big thing in DSLRs.

Of course that's exactly backwards. Many companies are hard at work making the camera capabilities of phones better because portability and pocketability and always having it with you are the primary requirements. Quality of the photographs beyond "vaguely acceptable to view on everyone else's phone" is far down the list.

It's diminishing returns. If you're taking a DSLR kit with you, your six ounce phone weighs about as much as one of the small prime lenses you're taking. There's just no reason to incorporate that into the DSLR. What camera manufacturers really need is a seamless, relatively high-bandwidth way to share photos between the camera and the smartphone. Or maybe even build single-purpose cellular data connection into your camera to upload photos to your favorite sharing site.

Whether or not you think that sharing photos instantly is a good thing, there's a staggering demand for devices to do that. With DSLRs that's a very clunky proposition. With a phone you can show the world what you've just seen in seconds. With my K-3ii it might be hours or even days, depending on whether I brought a laptop with me to whatever far-flung place I'm visiting.

[boriscleto]

Great question!

Whatever kills the smartphone is going to need some way of inputting instructions -- Amazon's Echo/Alexa would sure love to replace the iPhone.

But whatever kills the smartphone is also going to need a visual interface. A smartspeaker seems like too limited an output device.

There are lots of people that like the idea of direct input to the eyes but Google Glasses didn't exactly take over the world.

[monochrome]

Video killed the radio star?

Auto tune killed actual singers?

The reality is that as far as camera brands go, things have returned to the pre-digital boom that hit ILCs. People who just wanted to take snap shots of their kids do it with their phones and those who are more serious still gravitate to ILCs. As far as camera stores dying, they have been hurt by a number of things, including internet sales. It was hard for them to compete with B and H and Adorama and Amazon on price, particularly if those companies weren't charging sales tax. At the same time, a lot of them, like Ritz weren't offering any particular level of customer support or service that attracted folks to come in as compared to just buying on the web.

St. Louis had a robust B&M camera store presence post-Wolf Ritz, offering 16 actual stores to buy actual gear. Now the are only 7, with only 4 in the immediate Metro area. But I can pre-order an FA*50/1.4 or buy a K-1 off the shelf. The question is what I get for $219.00 of sales tax on a $2,199 lens that I know I’m going to buy, because it is a pre-order.

[Wheatfield]

But we are representative of modern users of DSLRs.

That's debatable. We are Pentax users after all. We are hardly part of the mainstream.

I really doubt adding cell phone capability to DSLRs would attract any new customers to DSLR - they would have both size and cost against them when compared to standard smart phone

I'm not sure what this has to do with the conversation. Cell phones and their cameras are aimed at a completely different market from the ILC (SLR) user. The cell phone camera is aimed at the same market that was buying compacts or single use cameras when film was king.
The SLR market is aimed at a very small group of people who are actually enthusiastic about photography for it's own sake.
I suspect that in reality, the true SLR market (and you can include all ILC cameras, including mirrorless) is less than 2% of the population.
We are not representative of the general population.

[photoptimist]

Stupid article. iPhone has been leading edge in many things, but never in camera. Nokia was the leading brand in camera tachnology in mobile phones that brought them to the level of the compact cameras before they sold their mobile phone business to Microsoft. Also the global marketshare of iOS is less than 20%, so comparing camera sales against iPhone sales dosen't make sence. There were already plenty of camera phones on the market when the first iPhone was released and still today most of the phones are made by other brands.

What Nokia (and Nikon, Canon, Sony, etc.) failed to understand was that taking a great picture isn't the hard part or even the most important part. The more important part is being able to do something with that picture like share it and do lots of other things with the phone/device.

Nokia did not understand the importance of third-party apps (Apple almost failed, too).

Apple may only have 20% marketshare but the people that buy iPhones use them much more intensively (more pictures, more apps, more spending, more time, etc.) than the average Android user. As normhead alluded to, the iPhone versus Android is like Pentax versus Sony in offering superior ergonomics that make Apple and Pentax more usable.

[ThorSanchez]

That's debatable. We are Pentax users after all. We are hardly part of the mainstream.



I'm not sure what this has to do with the conversation. Cell phones and their cameras are aimed at a completely different market from the ILC (SLR) user. The cell phone camera is aimed at the same market that was buying compacts or single use cameras when film was king.
The SLR market is aimed at a very small group of people who are actually enthusiastic about photography for it's own sake.
I suspect that in reality, the true SLR market (and you can include all ILC cameras, including mirrorless) is less than 2% of the population.
We are not representative of the general population.

One difference is that an SLR user in 1985 didn't necessarily own the latest and greatest compact or single use camera. I don't even know if there was a race to build the greatest 110 camera. Almost all DSLR users also have a cell phone, probably one with a pretty darned good camera embedded. Although I prefer taking pictures with my K-3ii, I will often find myself in situations where my Google Pixel is in my pocket and the Pentax is at home, and I'll often end up with a pretty good picture.

The Venn diagram of the DSLR market is almost completely inside the one of the cell phone market.

[normhead]

OK everyone take a pill. He was talking about the camera technology in smart phones, not making a camera a smart phone.

Sheesh, do I have to explain everything?

And the guy's knowledge of both cameras and phones, and the technology he was discussing was pretty impressive. Now if one of you guys wants to impress me with how much you know, have at her.

[ThorSanchez]

Apple may only have 20% marketshare but the people that buy iPhones use them much more intensively (more pictures, more apps, more spending, more time, etc.) than the average Android user. As normhead alluded to, the iPhone versus Android is like Pentax versus Sony in offering superior ergonomics that make Apple and Pentax more usable.

I have an iPhone for work and an Android as my personal phone. I suppose I've somehow overlooked the vastly superior ergonomics of the iPhone. It does things differently, and I'm often hunting around to find things because they're not in the same place as my personal phone. But I'd be hard pressed to say one was better than the other.

[boriscleto]

St. Louis had a robust B&M camera store presence post-Wolf Ritz, offering 16 actual stores to buy actual gear. Now the are only 7, with only 4 in the immediate Metro area. But I can pre-order an FA*50/1.4 or buy a K-1 off the shelf. The question is what I get for $219.00 of sales tax on a $2,199 lens that I know I’m going to buy, because it is a pre-order.

That $219.00 of sales tax is going to apply to an out of state purchase soon enough.

[Wheatfield]

One difference is that an SLR user in 1985 didn't necessarily own the latest and greatest compact or single use camera. I don't even know if there was a race to build the greatest 110 camera. Almost all DSLR users also have a cell phone, probably one with a pretty darned good camera embedded. Although I prefer taking pictures with my K-3ii, I will often find myself in situations where my Google Pixel is in my pocket and the Pentax is at home, and I'll often end up with a pretty good picture.

The Venn diagram of the DSLR market is almost completely inside the one of the cell phone market.

The cell phone is more than a camera. I upgrade my cell phone every couple of years, but the quality of the camera in what I end up with is never on my radar. I barely use the camera in my cell phone. I expect most cell phone customers are pretty similar in this regard. The camera is a useful appendage, but not an important buying feature. If my cell phone didn't have a camera at all it wouldn't be a loss for me.
When we look at cell phone cameras, we also have to remember that the camera is a rump feature of the phone. The primary feature of cell phones seems to be the ability to send text messages and follow the Kardashians on twitter.
Regarding the race for the greatest 110 camera, both Pentax and Minolta put out pretty advanced 110 camera systems with interchangeable lenses. I don't know if it was a race, but they were both doing it.
As an aside, both failed in the market because the 110 camera customer was not interested in a quality system. As long as Aunt Martha in the back row was in focus, that was good enough. The ILC market has always gravitated to what i would call entry level quality. 35mm film was that product. The format was big enough to make a relatively grain free 8x10. That was good enough for the vast majority of users, most of whom never printed bigger than 4x6, or who shot slides. The very few who needed or wanted better gravitated towards medium format.

---------- Post added 07-11-18 at 11:12 AM ----------

St. Louis had a robust B&M camera store presence post-Wolf Ritz, offering 16 actual stores to buy actual gear. Now the are only 7, with only 4 in the immediate Metro area. But I can pre-order an FA*50/1.4 or buy a K-1 off the shelf. The question is what I get for $219.00 of sales tax on a $2,199 lens that I know I’m going to buy, because it is a pre-order.

You are helping support the local infrastructure.

[ThorSanchez]

The cell phone is more than a camera. I upgrade my cell phone every couple of years, but the quality of the camera in what I end up with is never on my radar. I barely use the camera in my cell phone. I expect most cell phone customers are pretty similar in this regard. The camera is a useful appendage, but not an important buying feature. If my cell phone didn't have a camera at all it wouldn't be a loss for me.

The exact quality of the camera is relatively unimportant. But if Apple made two identical iPhones, one with a camera and one without, the with camera option would have almost 100% of the market even if it cost $50 or $100 more.

[normhead]

I have an iPhone for work and an Android as my personal phone. I suppose I've somehow overlooked the vastly superior ergonomics of the iPhone. It does things differently, and I'm often hunting around to find things because they're not in the same place as my personal phone. But I'd be hard pressed to say one was better than the other.

I/m the opposite, I was using an LG after my iPhone died. I would never buy another Android phone. My step-son who gave me that iPhone and is a networking and computer wiz, went Android (Samsung) until his contract was up. Now he's back to an iPhone. We can tell these kinds of stories until the cows come home. The flickr stats saying iPhones are the most used camera on flickr, that's actually much more impressive than any of our little anecdotal fairy tales.

Given that Apple is the most used "camera" on flickr, that's the given. Discussions about what you like are not relevant. Whatever you like or don't like about Apple or some other smart phone, Apple is still #1 on flickr, despite any objections you might have.

[Wheatfield]

The exact quality of the camera is relatively unimportant. But if Apple made two identical iPhones, one with a camera and one without, the with camera option would have almost 100% of the market even if it cost $50 or $100 more.

Perhaps, but if we accept this premise, then we also would have to accept that the camera market that the phone is vulching would have an almost 100% loss in sales volume.
Oh wait, that's exactly what has happened.
Now get ready for the next wave. We are already seeing cell phone cameras with dual focal length lenses, how long before some smart engineer manages to cram a "kit zoom" into a cell phone?
When that happens, and I have no doubt that it will, the low end ILC market dies, just like that.

[leekil]

What Nokia (and Nikon, Canon, Sony, etc.) failed to understand was that taking a great picture isn't the hard part or even the most important part. The more important part is being able to do something with that picture like share it and do lots of other things with the phone/device.

Nokia did not understand the importance of third-party apps (Apple almost failed, too).

Apple may only have 20% marketshare but the people that buy iPhones use them much more intensively (more pictures, more apps, more spending, more time, etc.) than the average Android user. As normhead alluded to, the iPhone versus Android is like Pentax versus Sony in offering superior ergonomics that make Apple and Pentax more usable.

Right, among the "The smartphone killed..." statements, the most important counterpoint, to this conversation, is that the smartphone, and the internet, revitalized photography. Even if it's not your thing, there's tons of photography on Instagram and Facebook every day by people who probably wouldn't have done so in the environment of 20 years ago.