Jersey guy Loc: New Joisey

Someone recently posted an alarming item about Nikon "being in trouble". The gist of it , as it turned out to be, was that the mainstream DSLR manufacturers are getting heat from both the mirrorless variations and improving cell phone cameras. It's pretty much agreed that the category known as P&S is gone, thanks to cell phones, and that DSLRs from Canon and Nikon (and a couple of others) will increasingly be offered to serious amateurs and professionals only with the "bridge cameras" niche taken over by second tier makers.

I had an occasion this past weekend to note something significant regarding this discussion. Here in NJ there is a famous public park in Newark---Branch Brook---noted for its cherry blossom displays at this time of the year. They boast of having far more Japanese Cherry trees than Washington DC. Since there was a large "Cherry Blossom Festival" scheduled for this past weekend my wife and I decided to make the scene. We have been there over the years but not recently. It attracts photographers moths to a flame.

I recall on past visits that I was impressed by---even somewhat jealous of---the sheer number of higher-end DSLRs, many in the hands of women. (Remember when photography was almost the sole purview of men?) Undoubtedly, most of the capabilities of those cameras were woefully underutilized and understood but it was the coming thing so everyone who wanted to take photos invested in a digital camera, set it on "P" or "A" and shot away.

This year one could not help but notice that cell phones were, by far, in the majority. I think it is a harbinger of what was mentioned in that earlier post I referred to. DSLR technology, like all technologies, is maturing. The improvement curve is beginning to flatten out. Cell phones, on the other hand, are improving by leaps and bounds. As I said, it is the normal growth and maturity of any new thing. Think about jet airliners. When I returned home from the Army in 1957 I was awe-struck when i saw the first Boeing 707 fly over my house. Swept back wings, no props, etc. I think if you saw one today, you'd not even take note of it as it looks just like the current models....at least from underneath as it goes over head. 60 years later!!!!!!!! (Go back 60 years before 1957 and where were we? See what I mean?).

Future Shock, someone once called it!

CO

I wonder if the shift is because cell phones are improving or if cell phones are used more simply because they're convenient. I can't stand it to see people doing cell phone photography. I'm thinking they're just lazy and should make more of an effort. The cell phone cannot be a consideration for serious photography. DSLR manufacturers are definitely getting heat from mirrorless though.

Plieku69 Loc: The Gopher State, south end

If I saw a 707 fly over today, I would stand in awe that it was still flying.

Small, handyu, always with you is the cell phone. Most people have no idea what to do with the pictures they take with their phone anyway, just wasted pixels.

Ken

CO

Exactely right.

mas24 Loc: Southern CA

iPhones and Smartphones are big sellers everywhere, and they are going to survive. Teenagers are getting these phones paid for by their parents. Not cheap either. Not only can you do social media on them, they take great photos under certain circumstances. Teenagers love social media, and they love to do selfies with their friends. During the 1940s, many families never owned a phone, let alone a Kodak Brownie film camera. Only the die hard amateur and professional photographers will keep DSLRs alive. For how long though? Most DSLRs are practically obsolete in 8 years time.

Haydon

Although I'm not a huge cellphone advocate, many great photographers use their cell phones to keep their compositional talents primed. Cellphones won't replace my photography but hopefully it will improve it.

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

There are quite a number of both advance amateurs and professional photographers, some that are photographers and photo editors at National Geographic, that totally disagree with your statement of "The cell phone cannot be a consideration for serious photography."

TonyP Loc: New Zealand

It seems to me that the cell phone camera has rapidly evolved from a digital age 'Box Brownie' to a camera with many of the tools we have and use on many sophisticated cameras of today.
Most of us here on UHH are keen amateurs who see their camera as a hobby we want to get better at practising and devote time (and money) in that pursuit.
And good on us, it's a great hobby.
But the cell phone/tablet camera practitioner is only concerned with getting a quick snap as a record of where they've been, what they've seen, often with themselves in the frame.
They'll never print off a picture, they'll never 'process' the result unless it's to add an effect already loaded on their device. Instead their photo is going to be loaded onto social media, Facebook or the like.
And good on them. That's their hobby (or addiction).

It doesn't challenge what we do. I don't think many, if any, would have ever bothered with a 'proper' camera at their stage of evolution.
My 12 year old granddaughter took hundreds of pics on her phone on our recent trip to South America and was posting to Facebook every night we were away. As soon as she saw they were safely posted to her Facebook page she deleted them from her phone to make room for the next days pics.
Have to say, some of them looked pretty good too.

ppenrod Loc: Salt Lake City

There were a number of editors during WWII that felt the same way about 35mm. The problem with new technology is figuring out the proper use of it, given it's strengths and limitations. Nikon owned the 35mm battle for photo-journalism over the much larger competitors for the simple reason you could take the camera with you out of the way and grab meaningful shots that told the story, much more readily than a much larger Grayflex, or 8x10. It also didn't hurt that the photographer could easily stay out of the line of fire and still do their job. A few years back, I got the opportunity to talk to one or two folks that have seen the front line, and on that rare occasion, the Nikon took a bullet aimed in the general direction of the photographer. Some cameras had their lens shattered. Others took a huge dent or worse, but many times the body still functioned and pictures were still taken. NASA uses DSLR's and SLR's to record things such space launches, images from the ISS and the space shuttle when it was flying. I got to see several bodies that were strapped into the tower to record the lift off. They were burnt to a crisp, but people managed to put them back together again and used them over and over for the same thing. Try that with a plastic cell phone... :-)

In today's world, we get to play with cell phones. I find mine useful as a "cheap" polaroid to make "notes" of a place to come back later, check general lighting on a composition, or if that is all I have, then that is my camera of the moment. To me the limitations of the cell camera, make it "good enough" for social media, meals, and grab shots, lending it towards the journalism and memory end of the spectrum. For street photography it's a great tool as there are so many people wandering around with their phones out that many folks have trained themselves to ignore them. The convenience of the form factor, really does lend the camera on the phone to many uses that people find pleasing. The last couple of weddings I've attended as a guest, made me glad that I did not have to deal with the paparazzi swarming all over the event. Having said that, the opportunity was there for some enterprising person to collect many of those images as part of a memory book, or video that would have much more content than the single photographer covering the event with his camera. His gear was focused on getting those images that should adorn the wall for display, not candids for a walk down memory lane.

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

I agree with your thoughts, especially with your statement, "The problem with new technology is figuring out the proper use of it, given it's strengths and limitations."

Kmgw9v Loc: Miami, Florida

Alvin Toffler.

markjay

cell phones may be improving - but they will never replicate even any low end dlsr or mirrorless.
Look at the size of the lens on a cell phone. The sensor behind the lens is about the same size as the lens. It is ridiculously small. It is not a question of the number of megapixels. The physical size of the lens is critical. It is why a medium format of lower mp's is still better than a FF with more mp's.
There is physically no room for a camera to improve the size of the sensor in any meaningful way - at least not for a long time.
So cell phones are convenient - and they are improving - but they will never replace a large sensor camera.

dpullum Loc: Tampa Florida

When inspecting a production line for improvements, I would begin at the finished product end. Additionally ask to find out what the customer wants in that product. Armed with that information one can then understand the process and make recommendations for an improved product/production to increase sales and happy customers. OK, you see that approach... well same applies to photos. What is the purpose of the vast majority of photos... perhaps to reasonably well jog our memories at some time in the future, not to make large prints to display in the local Tampa Museum of Photography.

After retirement, I taught full them 9th grade math/science. In 06.. policy no cameras no photography... by 09 the school board gave up and the images were the norm... every one had a cell camera and took many images. I often told them to record them safely and enjoy with laughter and tears 10 years hence. Were the images clear, no, did they serve the purpose of recording the moment easily, yes. One student remarked on one of my images, "weird, it looks so clear!!" It was rare that students sported a "real camera." Simplicity and cost will win. Aps for phontography are a few dollars, for "real" cameras at minimum $50. Which wins? Low cost, easy and effective of course.

By the time the crops of students become adults do they use what they have lived with and know how to use and still have in their back pocket... yep... few odd balls will spend thousands for the privilege of lugging 40# of camera around.

Ol guy like me, sure we have that #40 of glass, mine from the mid 1980s Minolta now Sony Alpha 65, but what do I use? Of course, my in the pocket 24/7 SuperZoom, or my Canon SX50. Images are great for 8x10 or projection on a 50" HDTV; the new image display trend.

Yes, home cooked meals are better as are DSLR photos, but in the end quick and easy meals and photos of sufficiency and convenience will win and be the norm.

Delderby Loc: Derby UK

If you think that cell-phone photographers are lazy, then you have some sort of chip on your shoulder. I was in a restaurant a couple of evenings ago, and there was a party of ten people on a large table having a great time (a birthday celebration, I think) they were all snapping with cell phones and comparing their pictures - except for one guy who had a Nikon hanging on the back of his chair. Eventually he slid his chair back and switched on the large flash gun mounted on the Nikon. He rose from the table and moved to one end. He spent some moments adjusting his camera, finally demanding that every one looked his way.
The party dutifully did as requested, and he pointed the camera in different directions as he pressed and flashed, pressed and flashed. He ignored the fact that his subjects were obviously starting to get bored, as he attempted to change his position round the table, to take more pics from a different angle. He decided to give up when he backed in to a lady sitting at an adjacent table. He mumbled an apology and went back to his place. It took a few minutes for the party to get going again. It wasn't you, was it, CO? By the way, I doubt that most at that table ever got to see his pics.

CO

This is nonsense. I have no idea why you included me in the scene you described.