alberio Loc: Casa Grande AZ

I wonder why all those Pros don't use cellphone cameras at Sporting events, it would be so much easier to lug around. Maybe they couldn't keep up with the demands.

Peter Boyd Loc: Blyth nr. Newcastle U.K.

The title of the post is not grammatical

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

The lenses on smart phones are rather limiting.

Strodav Loc: Houston, Tx

You asked for thoughts. I think I'd rather be out taking pictures than spending time reading posts like this.

scubadoc Loc: Sarasota, FL

And which is which?

Canisdirus

Dedicated cameras still outperform cellphones by a hefty margin.

But how does that translate into the actual market...beyond the technical/hardware evidence.

Answer: Not well at all.


Note the chart...not a coincidence.


Fact is...the 'hobbyist' category has completely flipped over to cellphones...which is ample enough to affect the camera markets ability to compete.

Cellphones are...CONVENIENT. Mankind's fatal attraction...a moth to the flame scenario.

Pro's will have their gear...it will be more expensive in the future.
The 'hobbyist' will have limited choices in the future.
Right now Sony will sell you something like 18 different bodies...hard to fathom really.
That's going to get winnowed down quite a bit.

More cellphone sales means more investment into tech for that market.
The money always...listens.

Even if the customer doesn't.

OwlHarbor Loc: Pacific North West USA

My background is in Electrical (electrician) HVAC and circuit and component repairs (electronics) building and repairs on PCs and a lifelong photographer. I don't build PCs anymore and the most recent thing I've done is put memory in a laptop. I know that cell phones are made by computerized machines because I know most stuff is so small that I would not be able to make repairs. Car and truck engines back in the day probably up into the fifties were straightforward and many of us could tell how they were put together and work on them. I still change the oil and do my own brakes and minor repairs. I get it that modern cameras are a marvel yet the only big change is the medium that we capture the pictures on a chip rather than film. (Oh and at one time I processed my own black & white film and had my own darkroom to process prints.)

With AI and cell phone cameras, we are at a crossroads and we depend on the camera companies to do the right thing and keep competitive and keep up with technology. I don't think there is one of them that uses an open-market operating system such as Android. HVAC controls have had the same issue for the past thirty years and they resist making the change and the consumers suffer because of it.

I am a hobbyist woodworker and have some really old tools and value them but have over the years bought cordless battery tools that do a great job because the technology has gotten better. Cameras are somewhat like that but cellphone photography has changed the playing field. I get it that cell phones have not got to the point where they can replace point-and-shoot or cameras that have changeable lenses or is there anything in the near term future yet they are leading the way and cameras will be left behind unless there is a major change. I have a couple of Kodac 120 1900 or so cameras in a curio display. I'm sure I can find some film and could take some pictures and even develop them if I had the equipment but why? My Canon 90D is so far more advanced than those cameras it is amazing yet with today's technology it won't be long before the 90D is sitting on the same shelf.

Remember when we had photo albums and how amazing quick print corner stores that could turn prints around in less than three days? At the time how great was that, Today it's just a picture in the review mirror for some of us but for many, we would have to explain it.

My question why are the camera companies not embracing new technology /software? Why do they resist so much and hold onto the past? Why do some adopt while others continue to resist? If for nothing else it would be good for all of us to ask ourselves and others why.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

It's largely because in 2007, Apple led the disruptive charge that soon blew the masses' conventional photography — film and digital — out of the water. EVERY common tool seems to have been merged into the smartphone:

Telephone
Internet World Wide Web browser
Email systems
Contact databases
Calendars
Calculators (many types)
Voice memos (dictation recorder)
Notes and lists managers
Dictionaries/thesauruses
Image viewers
Freeform media mixer
Reminder systems
GPS-enabled maps with turn-by-turn spoken directions
Compass
Level
Texting and messaging systems
Video calls and video conferences
Portable recording studio for musicians
Portable video editor
Internetworked photo databases
Portable scanner and facsimile machine
Portable word processing and page layout tools
Portable spreadsheet tools
Portable presentation tools
News reader
Music player
Internet radio player
Podcast player
Portable TV
Book and PDF readers
Still camera
Video camera
Clock/alarm clock/stopwatch/timer
Weather forecaster for the whole world
Stock "ticker"
Online banking systems
Video games

That's just some of the most popular of the OVER EIGHT MILLION applications available for various mobile devices (smartphones, tablets, watches...)

The staggering amount of development money spent to create Apple and Android devices and software simply cannot be matched by humble camera development teams at Canikasonpanafujipenleica.

More importantly, the universal appeal of having supercomputers in our pockets, potentially networked to every other supercomputer out there, is irresistible for all but the most curmudgeonly.

It has been said that the most important camera you have is the one you have with you when a photo opportunity presents itself. A smartphone is now the camera that most of us carry by default. We may carry other cameras for specific, advanced, deliberative, and specialized uses, but we carry our smartphones everywhere and use them to manage our lives.

It's not that camera manufacturers haven't kept up with technology, so much that they can't afford to do so! It's a matter of scale. Apple, Google, Samsung, and a myriad of smaller Android builders are constantly at it, trying to find the next feature that will make people part with $500 to $1500 every few years.

Quite frankly, MOST people who don't consider themselves serious photographers are a lot happier with their smartphones than they ever were with any sort of film camera. The quality is so much better than what we used to get from the corner drugstore. The ability to make a snapshot in nearly any light, play around with it in a phone app to make it better, and then email it to multiple people, all within the scope of a few minutes, is light years ahead of "load film, "take pictures," unload film, take film to lab, kiosk, or drugstore, wait an hour to a week, and get back straight prints that look like crap."

Can I get "better quality" from a dedicated digital camera with interchangeable lenses? That depends on your definition of better, but yes, generally. Do I care? Only sometimes. Use the right tool for the job is the prevailing advice here.

Flatbed scanners, and the point-and-shoot digital revolution that started during the heydays of APS film cameras and continued through the late 2000s, conditioned us to share photos over the Internet on social media. That killed off the coffee table photo album, the mini-lab market, most of the school portrait market, and heck, led to the rapid demise of Kodak. Imaging for the masses IS on the Internet now. Film photography is niche market.

Everything is managed digitally. Heck, I'm digitizing all the photos from my senior year in high school, using the original negatives, and enhancing them for a digital video slide show I'll present at our 50th reunion in October. They look better than they ever did in the yearbook, or even on silver halide photo paper. I can use marginal negatives I could never print, because the software affords far more precise control than I had with a limited selection of papers, an enlarging timer, dodging, and burning. And when I'm done, people who missed the reunion can see my work on a private YouTube channel.

The camera manufacturers have the challenge of staying relevant by CONNECTING their offerings to the needs of their consumers. So long as they stay focused on real needs, wants, hopes, dreams, desires, and aspirations of those of us who "do more with images," they'll survive.

scubadoc Loc: Sarasota, FL

Apple uses Swift to write code for the iPhone. Swift is open source.

olemikey Loc: 6 mile creek, Spacecoast Florida

I'm not up for an essay on this subject (and no one wants one anyway) but will drop in a quick POV: Basically - Everyone needs a multi-capable computer/camera/phone in their pocket/purse, not everyone needs a very capable camera (sort of a "one trick pony") - Phones benefitted much thru fast tech improvements and fast growing larger market share (at a time when this sort of tech was exploding in general), for folks desiring devices that are easy to use and require much less "training" {in general), than what we know as advanced photography and photographic devices. Paired with powerful computing capabilities/vast usage networks for the general public, an army of app builders/developers, and skilled marketing, they came along at the right time with the right stuff.

Cameras have always been seen as something of a heavy knowledge based bit of magic, hard to learn/understand/use for the average person. They are considered a pro-tool or luxury item, and what I always hear - "takes too much time to learn, it's hard, I just want to point and shoot and send my pic, I don't need all that photo tech" etc. etc. as opposed to general phone usage/computing/internet reach/usage/games & social media posters, quick click post send, thank you man!!

Phones and their usage systems are also heavily subsidized (unlike cameras) through a number of plans/sales gimmicks almost forced replacement due to constant upgrades and the physical frailties of the devices, they role over nearly yearly. Because there is so much money to be made, the faster path to profit is going to get the developement money/promotional efforts/plans that encourage replacement in a constant cycle/etc... Remember, cameras don't have a dedicated network buyin like phones and while the devices themselves make a profit, the marketing of the "phone plans" and subsequent public buyin has brought about a huge money making machine for the phone industry, one that will be promoted to the heavens. While they have tried to do that with cameras, the general "need" is not there like it is with the phone systems - people "need" their phones, a camera is a luxury item.....

My $.02 Peace.

Alafoto Loc: Montgomery, AL

Well reasoned and well stated!

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

More importantly, will anyone care to use 70-year old technology in 2093?

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

Pleaase don't remind me of that crappy car...

1grumpybear

You will never shoot something like this with a cell phone and print it the size I did and get the detail. I had to downsize this pic in photo shop to get it to upload here. When I printed this picture the size is 36 by 96 inches. I shot this last June with the Nikon Z9. I stitch several shots together in photoshop. I shoot panos all the time. I hold my hand in front of the lens and snap a picture to show the start and finish of the pano and let photoshop do the rest. Also with these pano I shoot you can then crop and resize for the picture you like and still have the detail.

Attached file:
(Download)

Retired CPO Loc: Travel full time in an RV

You betcha!!! I've been lusting after medium format digital for years! I used to do medium format transparency film and it was to die for!!!
Of course I would have to buy a new computer to handle the file size that I would be getting!