5 ms·

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

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
    It's faster than turning your P+S on. Not for taking pictures once it's already on (assuming a reasonably up-to-date camera). For casual/consumer use, a phone is better. but if you're serious about photography, the convenience issues aren't the same. It's like how there are all kinds of amazing music apps available on smartphone or tablet - it's beyond question that they are valuable creative tools. But if you can play guitar, you'll probably always prefer doing so to using your phone despite the inconveniences of owning and carrying a primitive wood and metal wire contraption.
    - thaw1234 10y ago
      If you are serious about photography, you will want something better than a P&S ( or, a very expensive model such as sony RX line)
      - anigbrowl 10y ago
        Why not both? I like a DSLR best but a good P&S is a lot more usable than a phone. For one thing you can operate it without having to look at it because it's got physical controls. Sticking with my parallel guitar argument, that's like saying that you should use an app to make guitar tines unless you're willing to invest in a Martin or Les Paul guitar. In reality someone's favorite guitar might be a $10 thrift store purchase that delivers far more satisfaction than (insert your favorite guitar app here).
      - euyyn 10y ago
        You can love a hobby and have limited money.
    - throwanem 10y ago
      > For casual/consumer use, a phone is better. but if you're serious about photography, the convenience issues aren't the same. That seems reasonable. I'm kind of in the middle, I suppose; in daily use I want minimal friction and inconvenience, which makes the phone camera a win, and on the other end I want to mount a telescope and fill the frame with a sharp-shinned hawk at rest or the moon in full phase, and that seems to pretty much require a DSLR. (I also learned the basics on my grandfather's Nikkormat FTn, which I now have and regularly wish I could go back to film and use. That's a tough standard for any P&S to live up to, and silly as it is, I can't help but make the comparison.)
- djrogers 10y ago
  > they're also slooooow compared with a P&S, You're using the wrong smartphone then - I can be taking a picture with my iPhone before most P&S cameras finish powering on, let alone are ready to take photos. Also most P&S cameras have horrible battery life combined with proprietary batteries and chargers to ensure that your camera is never charged when you need it.
throwanem 10y ago
> You already have one...In fact it's probably either in your pocket or your hand right now. "f/8 and be there." That's the other reason I'm returning the A900 - it's a solid camera, but so is the one in my pocket, and by the time I've dug the A900 out of its case, powered it on, and framed the shot, there's most likely no longer a shot to get. My phone's a lot faster, and if I'm going to be digging in a case and screwing around setting up a shot, I may as well be doing it with a DSLR that does more than any point-and-shoot ever made.

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
  It's faster than turning your P+S on. Not for taking pictures once it's already on (assuming a reasonably up-to-date camera). For casual/consumer use, a phone is better. but if you're serious about photography, the convenience issues aren't the same. It's like how there are all kinds of amazing music apps available on smartphone or tablet - it's beyond question that they are valuable creative tools. But if you can play guitar, you'll probably always prefer doing so to using your phone despite the inconveniences of owning and carrying a primitive wood and metal wire contraption.
  - thaw1234 10y ago
    If you are serious about photography, you will want something better than a P&S ( or, a very expensive model such as sony RX line)
    - anigbrowl 10y ago
      Why not both? I like a DSLR best but a good P&S is a lot more usable than a phone. For one thing you can operate it without having to look at it because it's got physical controls. Sticking with my parallel guitar argument, that's like saying that you should use an app to make guitar tines unless you're willing to invest in a Martin or Les Paul guitar. In reality someone's favorite guitar might be a $10 thrift store purchase that delivers far more satisfaction than (insert your favorite guitar app here).
    - euyyn 10y ago
      You can love a hobby and have limited money.
  - throwanem 10y ago
    > For casual/consumer use, a phone is better. but if you're serious about photography, the convenience issues aren't the same. That seems reasonable. I'm kind of in the middle, I suppose; in daily use I want minimal friction and inconvenience, which makes the phone camera a win, and on the other end I want to mount a telescope and fill the frame with a sharp-shinned hawk at rest or the moon in full phase, and that seems to pretty much require a DSLR. (I also learned the basics on my grandfather's Nikkormat FTn, which I now have and regularly wish I could go back to film and use. That's a tough standard for any P&S to live up to, and silly as it is, I can't help but make the comparison.)
djrogers 10y ago
> they're also slooooow compared with a P&S, You're using the wrong smartphone then - I can be taking a picture with my iPhone before most P&S cameras finish powering on, let alone are ready to take photos. Also most P&S cameras have horrible battery life combined with proprietary batteries and chargers to ensure that your camera is never charged when you need it.

throwanem 10y ago

> You already have one...In fact it's probably either in your pocket or your hand right now. "f/8 and be there." That's the other reason I'm returning the A900 - it's a solid camera, but so is the one in my pocket, and by the time I've dug the A900 out of its case, powered it on, and framed the shot, there's most likely no longer a shot to get. My phone's a lot faster, and if I'm going to be digging in a case and screwing around setting up a shot, I may as well be doing it with a DSLR that does more than any point-and-shoot ever made.