[Digitalis]

As a source of data a single service isn't a particularly sound data point as they undoubtedly cater to a particular demographic than other services which would skew the representation of various brands - I'd say Flickr, Instagram, 500Px, Smugmug, Imgur, Photobucket...etc, etc so on and so forth, should all be taken into account.

I know people who use their DSLR cameras for Instagram posts, I know people who use their phones for 500px uploads.


If you want to get empirical about it, the data is out there.

[normhead]

As a source of data a single service isn't a particularly sound data point as they undoubtedly cater to a particular demographic than other services which would skew the representation of various brands - I'd say Flickr, Instagram, 500Px, Smugmug, Imgur, Photobucket...etc, etc so on and so forth, should all be taken into account.

I know people who use their DSLR cameras for Instagram posts, I know people who use their phones for 500px uploads.


If you want to get empirical about it, the data is out there.

But, the Apple data is relevant to the point made in the article, if you take it as representative of the growth of the smart phone industry and not just about Apple. As I said, this pavlovian reaction to anything Apple is just childish.

[Wheatfield]

How do you explain the fact that 80% of cell phones are non-iPhones but Flickr has 80% of photos from cell phones coming from iPhones? All that tells me is that Apple users upload dramatically more photos to Flickr than Android and other cell phone users. It tells me nothing about the quality of the photos or the photographers using iPhones.

I'm data driven. And all the data tells me in this case is that Apple users use Flickr a lot more than other cell phone users. Why? We have no idea.

Not being an iPhone user I don't know this, but does the iPhone have a built in app that uses flickr as it's default upload site? That would explain much.

[BrianR]

Not being an iPhone user I don't know this, but does the iPhone have a built in app that uses flickr as it's default upload site? That would explain much.

Mine doesn't, but it might pre-date the iOS flickr app (iphone 4 that was a cast-off from my teenage nephew).

Another possibility - whatever apps android people are using to send stuff to flickr could be stripping the data needed to properly id the source device.

Also, I hear there's an app on Google Play that makes the user more physically attractive, so android users may just be happier in real life and spend less time on social media sites and don't worry so much about arguing over random statistics with random strangers on the interwebs.

[reh321]

Almost four years ago I purchased an iPhone to replace the winPhone I had been using. When I purchased the winPhone, I purchased it because of the camera characteristics; I replaced it by an iPhone because I was tired of having a smart phone with few apps. Within two years, the iPhone died on me - that tiny new plug they have now failed me - it was no longer charging. The "insurance" they sold with it was useless, so I had Verizon put the winPhone back into service for me. Thus, over the last nearly four years I have used a winPhone for nearly three of them and an iPhone for one of them.

I haven't done a count, but I'm quite sure that during that time my photos taken with winPhone do not outnumber photos by iPhone in a 3:1 ratio corresponding to the time using each smart phone; more likely the ratio is more like 1:1. Why was I more likely to use my iPhone to take pictures than I was/am to use my winPhone? I don't know. I just know that imbalance exists, and it may somehow relate to the numbers we are seeing. Maybe people having iPhone are more likely to use it as a camera than people with another smart phone are.

[boriscleto]

No quality at all...

iPhone 7 survives two day 30-foot submergence, text at depth alerts diver

[ChristianRock]

What I want to know is... out of all photographers that have photography as their main source of income, how many are using iPhones as their primary camera?

That would tell us if the iPhone has killed big camera...

After all, "killed" is a very strong word and I have a pet peeve against clickbaits... which the word "killed" reminds me of.

[Rondec]

Not being an iPhone user I don't know this, but does the iPhone have a built in app that uses flickr as it's default upload site? That would explain much.

I don't think so. There is an app you can download for iphones and for android phones, but it isn't automatically on either platform.

If I were going to guess at the disparity, I would say that iphones are used a little more frequently by older individuals who gravitate more to Flickr and Facebook, while younger people post more to Instagram. I doubt there is actually a real difference in the number of folks using their iphones to take photos as compared to Droid phones.

[reh321]

What I want to know is... out of all photographers that have photography as their main source of income, how many are using iPhones as their primary camera?

That would tell us if the iPhone has killed big camera...

After all, "killed" is a very strong word and I have a pet peeve against clickbaits... which the word "killed" reminds me of.

Maybe you should ask another question: "What would camera business look like if only professionals used 'big cameras?

[reh321]

What I want to know is... out of all photographers that have photography as their main source of income, how many are using iPhones as their primary camera?

That would tell us if the iPhone has killed big camera...

After all, "killed" is a very strong word and I have a pet peeve against clickbaits... which the word "killed" reminds me of.

Around thirty years ago I was using my Pentax Super Program to take photos at a tourist attraction - at a former "company town" associated with a coal mine. Shortly before we left, the docent indicated me as she asked my wife "Who is he with?". She knew what a "professional" camera looked like, and my Super Program looked like that to her eyes.

Around that time, Canon came out with the T-90, and by the time I purchased my next camera, a Canon EOS Elan, all high-end cameras looked like that, so when I stopped along a rural road to photograph an attractive barn, the farmer had every reason to believe that I was a professional taking pictures for next year's calendars, so he came running out to inform me he expected to get 10% of my royalties.

The lesson from these two cases is that most people know what the cameras used by professionals look like. Even if an iPhone X could produce a photo indistinguishable from one produced by a Nikon D850, no professional would use an iPhone X, because nobody would believe that he was a professional - because everyone has an image of what kind of camera goes with being a professional .... and professionals need to maintain that gap because everyone feels he could take great photos if he just had great equipment.

[RGlasel]

That would tell us if the iPhone has killed big camera...

Pity that the television network funded by the Australian Federal Government doesn't employ headline writers with a decent command of the English language. What is "'big camera'"? Global sales of interchangeable lens cameras (which are, on average, much larger than "compact" fixed lens cameras) peaked at the end of 2012, three years after the peak for all types of standalone cameras, and less than two years after iPhone sales in units exceeded total standalone camera sales. Today, bigger interchangeable lens cameras outsell fixed lens cameras 3:2; in 2010 fixed lens cameras outsold ILC's 9:1. All types of standalone cameras are still being sold, so iPhones haven't truly "killed" anything (with the possible exception of literacy in the general population), and the data suggests that it is only fixed lens camera users that have abandoned standalone camera manufacturers. The data also suggests that including a free camera with another product will "sell" a lot of cameras and users that are satisfied with the free camera they already have are less likely to pay for a standalone camera. No one seems to have tested if smartphone camera users will stop buying smartphones if camera manufacturers include a free phone in their camera models, but if that isn't the case, we can surmise that the camera is not the most important component for smartphone users who quit buying standalone cameras.

There are a couple of things that strike me as odd. For instance, why the focus on improving cameras in phones if the most important thing is sending messages to anyone at anytime from anywhere? Perhaps it is the same reason as producing menthol flavoured cigarettes, to fuel brand preferences when the core product is almost identical between competitors. Also, isn't it ironic that a television network puts out free print articles on the Internet, when the audience for broadcast video is being "killed" by services provided over the Internet?

[photoptimist]

There are a couple of things that strike me as odd. For instance, why the focus on improving cameras in phones if the most important thing is sending messages to anyone at anytime from anywhere?

Indeed! And given that a picture is worth a thousand words, it's a popular way to send a message. Facebook sees about 110 billion image uploads per year.

[reh321]

There are a couple of things that strike me as odd. For instance, why the focus on improving cameras in phones if the most important thing is sending messages to anyone at anytime from anywhere? Perhaps it is the same reason as producing menthol flavoured cigarettes, to fuel brand preferences when the core product is almost identical between competitors.

Not at all odd. When cell phones first started they were just phones, but someone noticed that text could piggyback on the status messages at no cost, so text messaging became more important. My family makes much more use of text messaging than we do voice calls. Then they added Internet. Somewhere they added photos. Those all are means of communicating, such as when my wife sends photos to our daughters asking which dress is the best choice {color is really important there, BTW}

[Rondec]

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.

[reh321]

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.

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.