5 ms·

I agree with most of what you've said. However, To claim that smartphones are a replacement for P&S cameras is I think misguided. P&Ss perform a lot better on

by monksy 10y ago

I agree with most of what you've said. However, To claim that smartphones are a replacement for P&S cameras is I think misguided. P&Ss perform a lot better on vacation. They don't perform as good on brief everyday interactions. A. Action cameras- Not sure why this is a category, but people do consume GoPros like crazy [despite quality issues] B. 4k video recording, you do have a good point there.. that's mostly for the vloging community. C. I think this is the category that isn't well published. I just recently bought an Lumix LX10. It was expensive but the results are great. I loved my Nikon CoolPix S6800, but Nikon decided to drop the ball and that's why I moved over. (Cannon's had a nasty red bias I couldn't tolerate)

monk_e_boy 10y ago
The problem with point and shoot cameras is their lack of interaction with phones. This may not be an issue today, but for the last few years people ask me what cool camera to get that's under £250. I ask them what they want to do -- mostly portrait shots and kids action shots indoors (play areas for toddlers), and most importantly just click a button to transfer the photos onto the phone for facebook. There isn't a camera that will do all that any better than an iPhone camera. Sure a DSLR will take a nicer photo, but dragging that massive £2K weight around for a 10% better photo. Or for most people they can't even see the difference. I love me a bit of bokeh, but for 99% of people, they simply don't care.
- lightedman 10y ago
  "There isn't a camera that will do all that any better than an iPhone camera." Kodak had EasyShare which did exactly as you described if you had the Wi-Fi SD adapter.
- throwanem 10y ago
  I'm actually about to return a Coolpix A900 that handled the phone integration issue very well via the SnapBridge app - that's not what I would call the best UI in the world, and it's annoying to have to switch Wi-Fi networks to the phone's AP in order to use the transfer and remote control features, but I also don't see how it could be done any better; leaving aside that minor annoyance, it's a very nice way of interacting with the camera, and one-touch picture transfer is a lot nicer than having to pop the SD card out of the camera and into an adapter for the phone. (In case of interest: I'm returning the camera because it isn't enough of a value add over my smartphone's built-in one to justify the price, and for another $100-$150 I can get a DSLR body that'll take the same F-mount lenses my grandfather used and give me the capabilities I actually want out of a discrete camera because my smartphone can't provide them. The Coolpix A900 is a fine camera for what it is - but what it is isn't what I require.) ETA: Not complaining about downvotes, but I am curious why they're happening. The negative judgment of the community is more useful when combined with information on why it's merited, so as to make it less likely I'll screw up the same way again. Obliged in advance -
lightedman 10y ago
"Action cameras- Not sure why this is a category" Plenty of us have need for cameras mounted to ourselves so our hands can remain free for work, such as sitting inside of a highly dangerous mine while trying to extract 20+ pound chunks of fluorite and capture the awesomeness of pulling the mineral right out of the ground after millions of years of formation.
- manarth 10y ago
  sitting inside of a highly dangerous mine while trying to extract 20+ pound chunks of fluorite Tangential aside - is this a thing? A hobby? Research? Paid employment? I'm aware of things like caving, exploring mines, and amateur gold-prospecting as a pass-time, but I've not heard about digging up minerals for fun.
  - lightedman 10y ago
    "Tangential aside - is this a thing? A hobby? Research? Paid employment?" All of the above and more. I'm invested in it enough that I'm going to become Vice President for California's oldest mineralogical society next year, most likely. "I've not heard about digging up minerals for fun." You've never gone rockhounding or had some sort of rock collection when you were a child?
    - manarth 10y ago
      I vaguely remember having a rock with some sort of purple crystal formation, probably bought from the gift shop of a show cave, but I've never come across that as a hobby before. I guess I never really thought it through - they have to come from somewhere, after all! I've already got a lot of outdoor hobbies - underwater archaeology, caving, and recently took up cave-diving - so it's interesting to hear about something related. Thanks!
- monkmartinez 10y ago
  Right, but there are literally ZERO reasons that camera needs to say GoPro, Nikon, Garmin, or Sony when the Chinese version will do the same for a fraction of the cost. All of the manufacturers are in big trouble.
thaw1234 10y ago
Smartphones are, in fact, a replacement for point & shoot. It's true that they have a smaller sensor ( ~2 times smaller than that you would find in your average P&S ). However * You already have one... * In fact it's probably either in your pocket or your hand right now. * Your smartphone has a far superior UX and the photo can be uploaded anywhere in seconds. * Smartphone sensors - being mass produced at a very large scale in a market which is quite under pressure to constantly improve with short release cycles - actually perform very well for their size. So, cameras market mostly make * Very high quality P&S such as the sony RX100 * DSLR & Reflex for enthusiasts * Professional cameras However, why they don't try to improve the workflow & the UX of these cameras is a mystery to me. Proper software ( android based maybe ? - sony already run some kind of android ), touch-enabled UI, gps, accelerator wifi & articulated screen should be standard. I love my sony a6300 but the UI drives me crazy. You have to go through a crappy UI, pay several dollars, to download an intervalometer - aka an app that will take photos at a specified interval of time. And sending a photo to another device seems such a pita I didn't even bother to try.
- anigbrowl 10y ago
  Awesome as smartphone cameras are, they're also slooooow compared with a P&S, and doing everything through a touchscreen is never as good as dedicated buttons. More features don't automatically make something better.
  - throwanem 10y ago
    > [slow] compared with a P&S Really? I've found it to be the opposite - my iPhone SE beats a Coolpix A900 every time. I don't have wide experience with P&Ses, though, so maybe that's just a slow camera? But it'd have to be a very fast camera for the overhead of a case vs. a pocket to cease to make a difference. (And I carried the case slung on the outside of my satchel, partially under the flap but otherwise exposed. All it took was a tug, a flip, and a yank - but my phone was still faster, every time.)
    - anigbrowl 10y ago
orbitur 10y ago
> To claim that smartphones are a replacement for P&S cameras is I think misguided The problem is that the majority of consumers have already decided the opposite. P&S sales are in decline, which means our options will diminish and those options will get more expensive. It's a bummer, since my P&S from 2013 still blows away my iPhone 7 when indoors or other low-light situations. But I like to think whatever iPhone model is out in the next 4 or 5 years will finally match my $200 P&S.
- beezle 10y ago
  If quality were an issue they would use real cameras. But in an age where photos are viewed on screens or in dimensions smaller than even a 4*6 print nobody notices the difference . Nevermind the resolution is worse too. People have shown they are more than willing to accept inferior quality in exchange for convenience.
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    Even before smartphone cameras, people who cared about quality weren't using P&S cameras. P&S was always for cheap and convenient, not quality. When everyone already has a smartphone they take everywhere, there's not a lot of market for cheap and convenient standalone cameras; no matter how cheap they are, they aren't cheaper than "I already have it", and matter how convenient they aren't more convenient than not having to carry another device.
jdietrich 10y ago
The P&S market has been squeezed from both sides. Smartphones have taken away a lot of market share, but so have mirrorless cameras. The entry-level enthusiasts who might have once bought a $400 P&S are now overwhelmingly opting for a mirrorless ILC instead. For a slight increase in size, you get better handling, a vastly better sensor and the flexibility of interchangeable lenses.
curun1r 10y ago
> To claim that smartphones are a replacement for P&S cameras is I think misguided. There's a joke that asks, "what is the best camera?" The punchline is, "whichever camera you have with you when you need to take a picture." To me, this captures why smartphones beat P&S, even for vacation photos. The difference in quality just isn't that large. I just spent six months traveling and almost never used my P&S. Even when I had both on me, my phone was just more accessible. And P&S can't match the sharing functionality of a smartphone. Even on vacation, when I take a photo I liked, I want to put it on Instagram without having to use a computer. I see a market that has no middle. You're either a professional who needs the absolute best quality or you're not and want something that takes acceptable photos as quickly as possible. Other than that, there's only the specialty market (action, drone, underwater, etc), which is small by comparison. But smartphones are now good enough that the market for P&S is vanishingly small.
ulfw 10y ago
Smartphones have replaced the postcards sent to family and friends during vacations. Something that the point and shoot alone hasn't been able to do as there are too many steps involved (Take picture, take out SD card, out in laptop, copy pictures, go to Facebook etc, upload). On a smartphone it's tap, take picture, tap, upload. Boom. Shared. Done. Most people don't care if it's a 1/3" (many smartphones) or 1/2.3" (most point and shoots) or even a 1/1.7"(higher end) sensor. Lacking of zoom is a bit of an issue, but that alone isn't enough for people to "carry yet another" device in their purses. 1" sensor enthusiasts cams are selling quite well (Sony RX series) Mirrorless and DSLR are selling well with tourists. The point and shoot segment is done.

by monksy 10y ago

monk_e_boy 10y ago

The problem with point and shoot cameras is their lack of interaction with phones. This may not be an issue today, but for the last few years people ask me what cool camera to get that's under £250. I ask them what they want to do -- mostly portrait shots and kids action shots indoors (play areas for toddlers), and most importantly just click a button to transfer the photos onto the phone for facebook. There isn't a camera that will do all that any better than an iPhone camera. Sure a DSLR will take a nicer photo, but dragging that massive £2K weight around for a 10% better photo. Or for most people they can't even see the difference. I love me a bit of bokeh, but for 99% of people, they simply don't care.

lightedman 10y ago
"There isn't a camera that will do all that any better than an iPhone camera." Kodak had EasyShare which did exactly as you described if you had the Wi-Fi SD adapter.
throwanem 10y ago
I'm actually about to return a Coolpix A900 that handled the phone integration issue very well via the SnapBridge app - that's not what I would call the best UI in the world, and it's annoying to have to switch Wi-Fi networks to the phone's AP in order to use the transfer and remote control features, but I also don't see how it could be done any better; leaving aside that minor annoyance, it's a very nice way of interacting with the camera, and one-touch picture transfer is a lot nicer than having to pop the SD card out of the camera and into an adapter for the phone. (In case of interest: I'm returning the camera because it isn't enough of a value add over my smartphone's built-in one to justify the price, and for another $100-$150 I can get a DSLR body that'll take the same F-mount lenses my grandfather used and give me the capabilities I actually want out of a discrete camera because my smartphone can't provide them. The Coolpix A900 is a fine camera for what it is - but what it is isn't what I require.) ETA: Not complaining about downvotes, but I am curious why they're happening. The negative judgment of the community is more useful when combined with information on why it's merited, so as to make it less likely I'll screw up the same way again. Obliged in advance -

lightedman 10y ago

"Action cameras- Not sure why this is a category" Plenty of us have need for cameras mounted to ourselves so our hands can remain free for work, such as sitting inside of a highly dangerous mine while trying to extract 20+ pound chunks of fluorite and capture the awesomeness of pulling the mineral right out of the ground after millions of years of formation.

manarth 10y ago
sitting inside of a highly dangerous mine while trying to extract 20+ pound chunks of fluorite Tangential aside - is this a thing? A hobby? Research? Paid employment? I'm aware of things like caving, exploring mines, and amateur gold-prospecting as a pass-time, but I've not heard about digging up minerals for fun.
- lightedman 10y ago
  "Tangential aside - is this a thing? A hobby? Research? Paid employment?" All of the above and more. I'm invested in it enough that I'm going to become Vice President for California's oldest mineralogical society next year, most likely. "I've not heard about digging up minerals for fun." You've never gone rockhounding or had some sort of rock collection when you were a child?
  - manarth 10y ago
    I vaguely remember having a rock with some sort of purple crystal formation, probably bought from the gift shop of a show cave, but I've never come across that as a hobby before. I guess I never really thought it through - they have to come from somewhere, after all! I've already got a lot of outdoor hobbies - underwater archaeology, caving, and recently took up cave-diving - so it's interesting to hear about something related. Thanks!
monkmartinez 10y ago
Right, but there are literally ZERO reasons that camera needs to say GoPro, Nikon, Garmin, or Sony when the Chinese version will do the same for a fraction of the cost. All of the manufacturers are in big trouble.

thaw1234 10y ago

Smartphones are, in fact, a replacement for point & shoot. It's true that they have a smaller sensor ( ~2 times smaller than that you would find in your average P&S ). However * You already have one... * In fact it's probably either in your pocket or your hand right now. * Your smartphone has a far superior UX and the photo can be uploaded anywhere in seconds. * Smartphone sensors - being mass produced at a very large scale in a market which is quite under pressure to constantly improve with short release cycles - actually perform very well for their size. So, cameras market mostly make * Very high quality P&S such as the sony RX100 * DSLR & Reflex for enthusiasts * Professional cameras However, why they don't try to improve the workflow & the UX of these cameras is a mystery to me. Proper software ( android based maybe ? - sony already run some kind of android ), touch-enabled UI, gps, accelerator wifi & articulated screen should be standard. I love my sony a6300 but the UI drives me crazy. You have to go through a crappy UI, pay several dollars, to download an intervalometer - aka an app that will take photos at a specified interval of time. And sending a photo to another device seems such a pita I didn't even bother to try.

anigbrowl 10y ago
Awesome as smartphone cameras are, they're also slooooow compared with a P&S, and doing everything through a touchscreen is never as good as dedicated buttons. More features don't automatically make something better.
- throwanem 10y ago
  > [slow] compared with a P&S Really? I've found it to be the opposite - my iPhone SE beats a Coolpix A900 every time. I don't have wide experience with P&Ses, though, so maybe that's just a slow camera? But it'd have to be a very fast camera for the overhead of a case vs. a pocket to cease to make a difference. (And I carried the case slung on the outside of my satchel, partially under the flap but otherwise exposed. All it took was a tug, a flip, and a yank - but my phone was still faster, every time.)
  - anigbrowl 10y ago

orbitur 10y ago

> To claim that smartphones are a replacement for P&S cameras is I think misguided The problem is that the majority of consumers have already decided the opposite. P&S sales are in decline, which means our options will diminish and those options will get more expensive. It's a bummer, since my P&S from 2013 still blows away my iPhone 7 when indoors or other low-light situations. But I like to think whatever iPhone model is out in the next 4 or 5 years will finally match my $200 P&S.

beezle 10y ago
If quality were an issue they would use real cameras. But in an age where photos are viewed on screens or in dimensions smaller than even a 4*6 print nobody notices the difference . Nevermind the resolution is worse too. People have shown they are more than willing to accept inferior quality in exchange for convenience.
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  Even before smartphone cameras, people who cared about quality weren't using P&S cameras. P&S was always for cheap and convenient, not quality. When everyone already has a smartphone they take everywhere, there's not a lot of market for cheap and convenient standalone cameras; no matter how cheap they are, they aren't cheaper than "I already have it", and matter how convenient they aren't more convenient than not having to carry another device.

jdietrich 10y ago

The P&S market has been squeezed from both sides. Smartphones have taken away a lot of market share, but so have mirrorless cameras. The entry-level enthusiasts who might have once bought a $400 P&S are now overwhelmingly opting for a mirrorless ILC instead. For a slight increase in size, you get better handling, a vastly better sensor and the flexibility of interchangeable lenses.

curun1r 10y ago

> To claim that smartphones are a replacement for P&S cameras is I think misguided. There's a joke that asks, "what is the best camera?" The punchline is, "whichever camera you have with you when you need to take a picture." To me, this captures why smartphones beat P&S, even for vacation photos. The difference in quality just isn't that large. I just spent six months traveling and almost never used my P&S. Even when I had both on me, my phone was just more accessible. And P&S can't match the sharing functionality of a smartphone. Even on vacation, when I take a photo I liked, I want to put it on Instagram without having to use a computer. I see a market that has no middle. You're either a professional who needs the absolute best quality or you're not and want something that takes acceptable photos as quickly as possible. Other than that, there's only the specialty market (action, drone, underwater, etc), which is small by comparison. But smartphones are now good enough that the market for P&S is vanishingly small.

ulfw 10y ago

Smartphones have replaced the postcards sent to family and friends during vacations. Something that the point and shoot alone hasn't been able to do as there are too many steps involved (Take picture, take out SD card, out in laptop, copy pictures, go to Facebook etc, upload). On a smartphone it's tap, take picture, tap, upload. Boom. Shared. Done. Most people don't care if it's a 1/3" (many smartphones) or 1/2.3" (most point and shoots) or even a 1/1.7"(higher end) sensor. Lacking of zoom is a bit of an issue, but that alone isn't enough for people to "carry yet another" device in their purses. 1" sensor enthusiasts cams are selling quite well (Sony RX series) Mirrorless and DSLR are selling well with tourists. The point and shoot segment is done.