8 ms·

I'm sort of amazed at the cost of high-end cameras, especially when what separates it from a modern smartphone seems to be nothing but bigger/faster sensors and

I'm sort of amazed at the cost of high-end cameras, especially when what separates it from a modern smartphone seems to be nothing but bigger/faster sensors and the ability to use big lenses. The camera manufacturers use the lowest powered CPUs they can get away with, running proprietary real-time operating systems with horrible UX and no third party support. For the price of a high end laptop. It really seems like something is off in the market - but there doesn't seem to be any sort of real change happening. I needed to do some video work last year, so I basically followed Casey Neistat's suggestion for a Canon camera, only to find out it wouldn't allow me to export the video live via an HDMI cable without the camera's overlay on top. Turning all the elements off still left me with a red dot in the corner. Apparently I got the wrong model and the one $800 more expensive would do this. After a while I gave up, went back to the store and got a cheap video camera that could do it, BUT again, I had to get the more expensive version, because the same model in the cheaper option didn't allow this particular use case. I was really surprised by how backwards this all was! Proprietary OSs, artificially limited functionality, anemic processors, interfaces out of the 1980s. It's crazy! Has someone slapped Android on a decent camera yet?

Kye 8y ago
Much of the cost is in the glass. There's only so much they can do to make them cheaper without sacrificing quality, at least until metamaterial lenses get cheap enough to obsolete glass. That's why smaller mirrorless camera lenses and prime lenses for DSLRs tend to be cheaper. Primes have fewer elements to craft, align, and make work together. Mirrorless cameras just need less glass. You don't need the latest and least supported by third-party tools camera for most things. A $500 body with a $100 prime lens will outperform a $1500 camera with a kit lens.
- mdorazio 8y ago
  Not sure that completely addresses the parent comment's point. Glass is definitely expensive for good reasons (watch some YouTube videos on optical lens manufacturing to see why), but even just a camera body for something like an EOS 6D is still $1000. The sensors can't be that much, full-frame or no, so where is the added cost coming from? Certainly not software or on-board processors. To the parent comment's point, you can get a full-blown flagship smartphone with a 6 inch high resolution screen you can actually use and a good amount of memory baked in for that price.
  - larrywright 8y ago
    There are a lot of mechanical controls on DSLRs, and they see heavy use over long periods of time. Building those to withstand hundreds of thousands of operations, and making them dust and water sealed is probably not inexpensive.
    - solarkraft 8y ago
      Then again I don't think it's that expensive either. I suspect the problem here to be scale.
      - larrywright 8y ago
        Probably so, my main point was that comparing it to a plastic box with a few buttons and a big screen isn’t really a fair comparison.
      - bsder 8y ago
        $1,000 retail thing is generally $300 bill of materials. I suspect that those are above a $300 BOM given the display, sensor, and plethora of mechanical things (buttons, threads, etc.). Mechanicals are very expensive compared to electronics. And cameras have LOTS of mechanical thingys.
        dogsgobork 8y ago
        The shutter for a typical DSLR can be expected to last for 100,000 shots, if not longer, while opening and closing in 1/8000th of a second. It's impressive engineering.
  - ISL 8y ago
    My 6D just works. Every time, always. It functions like an instrument that is designed to be used. Treated with reasonable care, from -30C to 100%-humidity-condensing conditions at the freezing point, it has consistently gotten the job done. It is compatible with a huge range of glass, and it all works. The interface stays out of the way -- when I'm making images, I'm never worried about the camera, just the photography. When I'm working, the camera is always powered on. The battery lasts for weeks in that mode, yet when I depress the shutter halfway, it begins to lock focus in tens of milliseconds. With gloves on. When these cameras are released, there are rarely, if ever, hardware revisions. They work that well on the day that they are shipped to the first consumers. For me, the cost (and the value) is in the R&D and the ecosystem.
- MayeulC 8y ago
  Good point about metamaterials. I am doing a PhD in nanotechnology (electronics), and the advances I see in optics at that scale really hint at revolutionary products. Manufacturing still needs a few improvements, though. And I wonder what the market reaction will be? I wouldn't be surprised if photographers were quick to dismiss those millimetre-thin lenses at first.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - joysanders 8y ago
    I am wondering how far we are from creating nano robots that enter the body and fixes it. Like nano robots that enter the bloodstream and cleans up, can fix wounds etc. More like an improved immune system. Or is this fiction?
  - ginger4 8y ago
    I read about some big news on using nanoparticles for getting rid of cancer. I can't find the article right now but it had to do with nanoparticles which could safely and specifically go to cancer cells and with a certain frequency it would heat up the beads and kill the cancer cell. That was pretty cool, I did a half ass job of explaining it though. Really though, most the stuff I see for nanotechnology is in the field of cancer research.
  - WilliG 8y ago
    Thanks for the article. Developing a wide range of highly competitive nano-materials is a serious issue today. There are many good nanomaterials companies but Modern Synthesis Technology company http://mstnano.com/ru/products/graphene/ http://mstnano.com/ru/products/graphene/ is one of the best I've worked with. They are known for their reliability, exceptional quality, time and cost efficiency. And they provide international supply of the most up-to-date nanomaterials and cooperate with the leading companies on the global market.
alanbernstein 8y ago
They're not for everyone, but I think you're overlooking quite a bit. The larger sensor is crucial in low-light situations, and a smaller phone camera just won't handle that. The "horrible UX" is faster by a significant margin, partly by being a dedicated device, partly by having a lot of dedicated buttons, and partly because the response time on pressing the shutter release button is extremely short. If you want to carry a camera for capturing events or moments quickly, I'm not sure that a phone will do that for you. And yes, the high-end full-frame DSLR costs are on par with high-end laptops, but IMO you get 90% of the benefit for a fraction of the cost with an entry- or mid-level crop sensor. As for the UIs, I'll definitely acknowledge they could stand some updates, but the way you describe it sounds like an overstatement. What would you improve, exactly?
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- woolvalley 8y ago
  A photo management UI on par with smartphones. Fast, easy to use and easy to do edits and sharing with. Along with GPS, WiFi & LTE connectivity that doesn't suck. Maybe direct app integration with instagram and other apps. Put an OLED screen on the back, not just the viewfinder. Basically slap a fucking android phone on the back when browsing photos. Make it a separate CPU if necessary. Embrace the 'casual camera' body style more. The viewfinder should not be a big chunky thing in the center, but on the side and a pop up if necessary. Get rid of grips and make them a uniform rectangle, and add a battery grip in the box to make it slr grippy. People are scared of slr style bodies, while they are not scared of casual camera bodies. They will continue serving the standard pro market who want the big chunky slr style bodies, this is how they can capture the 'high quality life memory / instagram influencer' market better.
  - Trombone12 8y ago
    Are you actually, and unironically, suggesting that cameras should be replaced by smartphones? I mean, edit on a camera? If that is a serious use case for you then you can make do with your smartphone, you don't actually need the accuracy of dedicated hardware and optics.
jseliger 8y ago
Has someone slapped Android on a decent camera yet? Samsung did this: https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/samsung-nx1 https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/samsung-nx1 but gave up the market in 2015. That was likely a good idea from a cost-benefit perspective, as standalone cameras continue to decline in unit volumes: https://www.dpreview.com/news/7719403699/cipa-s-november-numbers-show-the-digital-camera-market-s-continuing-decline https://www.dpreview.com/news/7719403699/cipa-s-november-num..., but it's a shame from a technological progress perspective. You are totally correct that a camera body really ought to be an Android device, but camera makers have not done that—which likely contributes to their fall in unit sales.
- arthurfm 8y ago
  Zeiss are going to release a full-frame digital camera soon that runs Android [1][2]. The ZX1 also comes with a built-in version of Adobe Lightroom. [1] https://www.theverge.com/circuitbreaker/2018/9/27/17911212/zeiss-zx1-full-frame-camera-lightroom https://www.theverge.com/circuitbreaker/2018/9/27/17911212/z... [2] https://www.dpreview.com/news/3430444458/zeiss-announces-full-frame-compact-with-fixed-35mm-f2-lens https://www.dpreview.com/news/3430444458/zeiss-announces-ful...
- kpozin 8y ago
  My low-end Canon DSLR from 2011 powers on and is ready to shoot in ~2 seconds. I can keep the camera turned on for hours at a time (with the screen off except while taking pictures) without any noticeable effect on the battery charge level. Can you imagine an Android-based camera body achieving something like that?
  - 0-_-0 8y ago
    Abolutely. An android phone can last a week in airplane mode and a low power CPU state.
frostburg 8y ago
You're not wrong about the software being bad, but the actual UX involves physical buttons and dials. Haptics are very important unless you photograph completely static scenes from heavy tripods.
- bb88 8y ago
  I agree. Having a Nikon and being able to shift shutter speed / aperture with a dial is very important. You can kind of think of this as a remote control. Yes you can have a touchscreen as the only interface for a remote control, but you always have to look down at it to use it. On my remote I can control volume and channel without looking at it.
jononor 8y ago
They want to sell you a new camera when they come up with new software-defined goodies. Or sell you two cameras, if you need good video and good stills. Until someone changes the business model to be something else than pay-for-the-camera, its probably going to stay.
Maxious 8y ago
> only to find out it wouldn't allow me to export the video live via an HDMI cable without the camera's overlay on top. Funnily enough this is a feature of Magic Lantern which is especially useful if you want to use a 3rd party HDMI recorder to record longer than a SD card or the default OS would allow https://wiki.magiclantern.fm/faq#how_do_i_record_for_more_than_12_minutes https://wiki.magiclantern.fm/faq#how_do_i_record_for_more_th...
- russellbeattie 8y ago
  NICE! I skimmed through the FAQ for this but missed it. I still have the Canon, so I'll have to try this out. Thanks.
- tinus_hn 8y ago
  I don’t know if it still applies but it used to be that a camera that allows you to record more than a number of minutes at a time is taxed as a video camera, which would be an explanation for artificial limitations.
cortesoft 8y ago
If they put in a good CPU and use a standard OS, they would have more trouble selling you a new camera with newer features, since you could just upgrade your old one.
- Trombone12 8y ago
  Big cpu means shit battery time, and thus a shit camera. And locking into a specific hardware configuration in a field that is basically all about making hardware developments seems kind of short sighted.
- jrockway 8y ago
  I doubt that's why people upgrade. If you made the sensor replaceable, people would still be using digital cameras from 1996 except with the latest sensor. I have several replaceable-sensor cameras and the bodies/lenses were made before I was born. They still take great pictures because it turns out that focusing light onto stuff is largely a solved problem. (They don't even use batteries, much less need an up-to-date OS! But I will admit that carrying a separate light meter is a little annoying.) Yes, there will always be people that need a 1 billion point autofocus system, and that will require some heavy software engineering. That is a niche use case, even more niche than needing a digital camera to begin with.
dharma1 8y ago
Samsung's Galaxy NX range ran Android but failed to gain mass adoption. I think there is a niche market for this and hope someone else takes it up - apparently Yongnuo has one coming.
- arthurfm 8y ago
  > apparently Yongnuo has one coming Zeiss too... https://www.dpreview.com/news/3430444458/zeiss-announces-full-frame-compact-with-fixed-35mm-f2-lens https://www.dpreview.com/news/3430444458/zeiss-announces-ful...
jrobn 8y ago
Oh, please god no. Keep your android OS away from my mirrorless camera. Can you imagine having to take the camera away from your eye to use a finger to slide a UI slider to increase/decrease shutter speed? I have a Panasonic and the OS is pretty freaking great. 10 to 20 minutes of poking and around and maybe a few hours of real world usage and I can customize my own buttons and quick menu for what works for me. I don’t want some bloated POS andriod iOS apps on my camera. As far as the hardware is concerned. Yeah, there is a lot of artificial segmentation in the market. I think this is why the camera market is failing badly.
- KineticLensman 8y ago
  This. My Nikon D3s is covered with physical buttons and dials. I can change shutter speed, aperture and ISO all the while looking through the viewfinder. I've also set the function button, rather than the shutter release button, to trigger autofocus - meaning that I don't lose shots when the camera forces a refocus just when I want to take the picture (e.g. pre-focused wildlife shots where I set the focus to where an animal is going to be). With practice comes muscle memory: slow is smooth, and smooth is fast. The menu UI is somewhat clunky, but does enable function discovery. There are no Nikon-specific swipe gestures to learn, for example.
- peex 8y ago
  You can have an android camera with physical buttons. Samsung did that a few years ago.
starky 8y ago
I disagree, what you can get in a inexpensive body these days is pretty crazy. Sony has been pushing the envelope pretty hard the past few years and been putting out some truly amazing cameras for unbelievable prices. The A6000 at $800 was crazy at the time, and the A7iii last year at $2000 definitely surprised Nikon and Canon with their mirrorless they were developing. A full frame sensor can easily cost $600-$1000 without even considering anything else, yet these cameras are in the $2000 range and include highly sophisticated stabilization systems and professional video features (e.g. 4:2:0/4:2:2 output). Those are typical to low margins for a technology product. Regarding your complaints. Realize that higher end cameras are meant to be a professional tool. Thus they tend to favor conservative reliability and interface continuity over anything else. The camera app crashing like it might on your Android phone is unacceptable on a camera, so they run more reliable and specialized code. Though speaking of Android, Sony cameras do run a modified version of Android, the previous few generations of cameras had somewhat of an app store, and people even got hacked APKs running on the camera to add missing functionality. I do agree that camera manufacturers are purposely leaving out software features though. Stuff like an intervalometer and focus stacking should be standard on every camera. Plus, as you mention, some vendors are hobbling features to try to get users to buy more expensive cameras (like a 1.7x crop for 4K video on Canon, because they really want you to buy a C200 @ $7500). To expand a bit more on interfaces, there is an interesting argument for and against it. It is no surprise that the camera industry is shrinking, and that the people most likely to buy new cameras are going to be those that already own an interchangeable lens camera. Thus manufacturers don't want to upset their customers by changing their interface too much. Companies like Hasselblad that produce more specialized luxury cameras have come up with more modern interfaces for their recent cameras. While I would personally love to see Canon/Nikon/Sony step up here and create a proper, modern touch interface for these cameras, they won't anytime soon. In everyday use, most of the interface with a camera is with physical controls, at most your common interactions with the software is changing options that are part of a quick menu.
i_am_proteus 8y ago
When using a DSLR as a still camera for events, having essential controls on physical buttons with no lag is critical. Meter, stop, focus, fire. Eyes on the subject, sometimes through the finder. If Canon sacrifices any of that for "extra" features, the pros leave for Nikon. And vice versa. These are still cameras first, everything else second.
parliament32 8y ago
>I'm sort of amazed at the cost of high-end cameras, especially when what separates it from a modern smartphone... It's not about the software, it's about the build quality (once you get into the professional product lines anyway). I have an old Canon 7D that's damn near indestructible (think old Nokia-phone style). I'd dropped that thing in lakes, had it out shooting during monsoons and snowstorms, rolled it down mountains, buried it in sand, dropped it from serious heights (shattering more than a few lenses along the way) and it just keeps ticking. The body is pretty banged up and I've had to clean/replace a few internal parts from the wear-and-tear but it just keeps on ticking.
gmiller123456 8y ago
>what separates it from a modern smartphone seems to be nothing but bigger/faster sensors The bigger/faster sensors are a big part of the price. The other big factor is all of the buttons and dials to quickly change settings without having to look away from the scene. The fast shutter, mirror, and optical view finder are also big contributors. Look at the assembly animation below [1] of a Canon 10D to see all of the tiny parts packed into a small, ergonomic package, and you'll get a better idea of why they cost so much. Not to mention I've killed 3 phones by drops no higher than 4 feet, while I've dropped my DSLRs many more times and from higher points and they show no signs of damage. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-HiBDLVzYw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-HiBDLVzYw

Kye 8y ago

Much of the cost is in the glass. There's only so much they can do to make them cheaper without sacrificing quality, at least until metamaterial lenses get cheap enough to obsolete glass. That's why smaller mirrorless camera lenses and prime lenses for DSLRs tend to be cheaper. Primes have fewer elements to craft, align, and make work together. Mirrorless cameras just need less glass. You don't need the latest and least supported by third-party tools camera for most things. A $500 body with a $100 prime lens will outperform a $1500 camera with a kit lens.

mdorazio 8y ago
Not sure that completely addresses the parent comment's point. Glass is definitely expensive for good reasons (watch some YouTube videos on optical lens manufacturing to see why), but even just a camera body for something like an EOS 6D is still $1000. The sensors can't be that much, full-frame or no, so where is the added cost coming from? Certainly not software or on-board processors. To the parent comment's point, you can get a full-blown flagship smartphone with a 6 inch high resolution screen you can actually use and a good amount of memory baked in for that price.
- larrywright 8y ago
  There are a lot of mechanical controls on DSLRs, and they see heavy use over long periods of time. Building those to withstand hundreds of thousands of operations, and making them dust and water sealed is probably not inexpensive.
  - solarkraft 8y ago
    Then again I don't think it's that expensive either. I suspect the problem here to be scale.
    - larrywright 8y ago
      Probably so, my main point was that comparing it to a plastic box with a few buttons and a big screen isn’t really a fair comparison.
    - bsder 8y ago
      $1,000 retail thing is generally $300 bill of materials. I suspect that those are above a $300 BOM given the display, sensor, and plethora of mechanical things (buttons, threads, etc.). Mechanicals are very expensive compared to electronics. And cameras have LOTS of mechanical thingys.
      - dogsgobork 8y ago
        The shutter for a typical DSLR can be expected to last for 100,000 shots, if not longer, while opening and closing in 1/8000th of a second. It's impressive engineering.
- ISL 8y ago
  My 6D just works. Every time, always. It functions like an instrument that is designed to be used. Treated with reasonable care, from -30C to 100%-humidity-condensing conditions at the freezing point, it has consistently gotten the job done. It is compatible with a huge range of glass, and it all works. The interface stays out of the way -- when I'm making images, I'm never worried about the camera, just the photography. When I'm working, the camera is always powered on. The battery lasts for weeks in that mode, yet when I depress the shutter halfway, it begins to lock focus in tens of milliseconds. With gloves on. When these cameras are released, there are rarely, if ever, hardware revisions. They work that well on the day that they are shipped to the first consumers. For me, the cost (and the value) is in the R&D and the ecosystem.
MayeulC 8y ago
Good point about metamaterials. I am doing a PhD in nanotechnology (electronics), and the advances I see in optics at that scale really hint at revolutionary products. Manufacturing still needs a few improvements, though. And I wonder what the market reaction will be? I wouldn't be surprised if photographers were quick to dismiss those millimetre-thin lenses at first.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- joysanders 8y ago
  I am wondering how far we are from creating nano robots that enter the body and fixes it. Like nano robots that enter the bloodstream and cleans up, can fix wounds etc. More like an improved immune system. Or is this fiction?
- ginger4 8y ago
  I read about some big news on using nanoparticles for getting rid of cancer. I can't find the article right now but it had to do with nanoparticles which could safely and specifically go to cancer cells and with a certain frequency it would heat up the beads and kill the cancer cell. That was pretty cool, I did a half ass job of explaining it though. Really though, most the stuff I see for nanotechnology is in the field of cancer research.
- WilliG 8y ago
  Thanks for the article. Developing a wide range of highly competitive nano-materials is a serious issue today. There are many good nanomaterials companies but Modern Synthesis Technology company http://mstnano.com/ru/products/graphene/ http://mstnano.com/ru/products/graphene/ is one of the best I've worked with. They are known for their reliability, exceptional quality, time and cost efficiency. And they provide international supply of the most up-to-date nanomaterials and cooperate with the leading companies on the global market.

alanbernstein 8y ago

They're not for everyone, but I think you're overlooking quite a bit. The larger sensor is crucial in low-light situations, and a smaller phone camera just won't handle that. The "horrible UX" is faster by a significant margin, partly by being a dedicated device, partly by having a lot of dedicated buttons, and partly because the response time on pressing the shutter release button is extremely short. If you want to carry a camera for capturing events or moments quickly, I'm not sure that a phone will do that for you. And yes, the high-end full-frame DSLR costs are on par with high-end laptops, but IMO you get 90% of the benefit for a fraction of the cost with an entry- or mid-level crop sensor. As for the UIs, I'll definitely acknowledge they could stand some updates, but the way you describe it sounds like an overstatement. What would you improve, exactly?

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
woolvalley 8y ago
A photo management UI on par with smartphones. Fast, easy to use and easy to do edits and sharing with. Along with GPS, WiFi & LTE connectivity that doesn't suck. Maybe direct app integration with instagram and other apps. Put an OLED screen on the back, not just the viewfinder. Basically slap a fucking android phone on the back when browsing photos. Make it a separate CPU if necessary. Embrace the 'casual camera' body style more. The viewfinder should not be a big chunky thing in the center, but on the side and a pop up if necessary. Get rid of grips and make them a uniform rectangle, and add a battery grip in the box to make it slr grippy. People are scared of slr style bodies, while they are not scared of casual camera bodies. They will continue serving the standard pro market who want the big chunky slr style bodies, this is how they can capture the 'high quality life memory / instagram influencer' market better.
- Trombone12 8y ago
  Are you actually, and unironically, suggesting that cameras should be replaced by smartphones? I mean, edit on a camera? If that is a serious use case for you then you can make do with your smartphone, you don't actually need the accuracy of dedicated hardware and optics.

jseliger 8y ago

Has someone slapped Android on a decent camera yet? Samsung did this: https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/samsung-nx1 https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/samsung-nx1 but gave up the market in 2015. That was likely a good idea from a cost-benefit perspective, as standalone cameras continue to decline in unit volumes: https://www.dpreview.com/news/7719403699/cipa-s-november-numbers-show-the-digital-camera-market-s-continuing-decline https://www.dpreview.com/news/7719403699/cipa-s-november-num..., but it's a shame from a technological progress perspective. You are totally correct that a camera body really ought to be an Android device, but camera makers have not done that—which likely contributes to their fall in unit sales.

arthurfm 8y ago
Zeiss are going to release a full-frame digital camera soon that runs Android [1][2]. The ZX1 also comes with a built-in version of Adobe Lightroom. [1] https://www.theverge.com/circuitbreaker/2018/9/27/17911212/zeiss-zx1-full-frame-camera-lightroom https://www.theverge.com/circuitbreaker/2018/9/27/17911212/z... [2] https://www.dpreview.com/news/3430444458/zeiss-announces-full-frame-compact-with-fixed-35mm-f2-lens https://www.dpreview.com/news/3430444458/zeiss-announces-ful...
kpozin 8y ago
My low-end Canon DSLR from 2011 powers on and is ready to shoot in ~2 seconds. I can keep the camera turned on for hours at a time (with the screen off except while taking pictures) without any noticeable effect on the battery charge level. Can you imagine an Android-based camera body achieving something like that?
- 0-_-0 8y ago
  Abolutely. An android phone can last a week in airplane mode and a low power CPU state.

frostburg 8y ago

You're not wrong about the software being bad, but the actual UX involves physical buttons and dials. Haptics are very important unless you photograph completely static scenes from heavy tripods.

bb88 8y ago
I agree. Having a Nikon and being able to shift shutter speed / aperture with a dial is very important. You can kind of think of this as a remote control. Yes you can have a touchscreen as the only interface for a remote control, but you always have to look down at it to use it. On my remote I can control volume and channel without looking at it.

jononor 8y ago

They want to sell you a new camera when they come up with new software-defined goodies. Or sell you two cameras, if you need good video and good stills. Until someone changes the business model to be something else than pay-for-the-camera, its probably going to stay.

Maxious 8y ago

> only to find out it wouldn't allow me to export the video live via an HDMI cable without the camera's overlay on top. Funnily enough this is a feature of Magic Lantern which is especially useful if you want to use a 3rd party HDMI recorder to record longer than a SD card or the default OS would allow https://wiki.magiclantern.fm/faq#how_do_i_record_for_more_than_12_minutes https://wiki.magiclantern.fm/faq#how_do_i_record_for_more_th...

russellbeattie 8y ago
NICE! I skimmed through the FAQ for this but missed it. I still have the Canon, so I'll have to try this out. Thanks.
tinus_hn 8y ago
I don’t know if it still applies but it used to be that a camera that allows you to record more than a number of minutes at a time is taxed as a video camera, which would be an explanation for artificial limitations.

cortesoft 8y ago

If they put in a good CPU and use a standard OS, they would have more trouble selling you a new camera with newer features, since you could just upgrade your old one.

Trombone12 8y ago
Big cpu means shit battery time, and thus a shit camera. And locking into a specific hardware configuration in a field that is basically all about making hardware developments seems kind of short sighted.
jrockway 8y ago
I doubt that's why people upgrade. If you made the sensor replaceable, people would still be using digital cameras from 1996 except with the latest sensor. I have several replaceable-sensor cameras and the bodies/lenses were made before I was born. They still take great pictures because it turns out that focusing light onto stuff is largely a solved problem. (They don't even use batteries, much less need an up-to-date OS! But I will admit that carrying a separate light meter is a little annoying.) Yes, there will always be people that need a 1 billion point autofocus system, and that will require some heavy software engineering. That is a niche use case, even more niche than needing a digital camera to begin with.

dharma1 8y ago

Samsung's Galaxy NX range ran Android but failed to gain mass adoption. I think there is a niche market for this and hope someone else takes it up - apparently Yongnuo has one coming.

arthurfm 8y ago
> apparently Yongnuo has one coming Zeiss too... https://www.dpreview.com/news/3430444458/zeiss-announces-full-frame-compact-with-fixed-35mm-f2-lens https://www.dpreview.com/news/3430444458/zeiss-announces-ful...

jrobn 8y ago

Oh, please god no. Keep your android OS away from my mirrorless camera. Can you imagine having to take the camera away from your eye to use a finger to slide a UI slider to increase/decrease shutter speed? I have a Panasonic and the OS is pretty freaking great. 10 to 20 minutes of poking and around and maybe a few hours of real world usage and I can customize my own buttons and quick menu for what works for me. I don’t want some bloated POS andriod iOS apps on my camera. As far as the hardware is concerned. Yeah, there is a lot of artificial segmentation in the market. I think this is why the camera market is failing badly.

KineticLensman 8y ago
This. My Nikon D3s is covered with physical buttons and dials. I can change shutter speed, aperture and ISO all the while looking through the viewfinder. I've also set the function button, rather than the shutter release button, to trigger autofocus - meaning that I don't lose shots when the camera forces a refocus just when I want to take the picture (e.g. pre-focused wildlife shots where I set the focus to where an animal is going to be). With practice comes muscle memory: slow is smooth, and smooth is fast. The menu UI is somewhat clunky, but does enable function discovery. There are no Nikon-specific swipe gestures to learn, for example.
peex 8y ago
You can have an android camera with physical buttons. Samsung did that a few years ago.

starky 8y ago

I disagree, what you can get in a inexpensive body these days is pretty crazy. Sony has been pushing the envelope pretty hard the past few years and been putting out some truly amazing cameras for unbelievable prices. The A6000 at $800 was crazy at the time, and the A7iii last year at $2000 definitely surprised Nikon and Canon with their mirrorless they were developing. A full frame sensor can easily cost $600-$1000 without even considering anything else, yet these cameras are in the $2000 range and include highly sophisticated stabilization systems and professional video features (e.g. 4:2:0/4:2:2 output). Those are typical to low margins for a technology product. Regarding your complaints. Realize that higher end cameras are meant to be a professional tool. Thus they tend to favor conservative reliability and interface continuity over anything else. The camera app crashing like it might on your Android phone is unacceptable on a camera, so they run more reliable and specialized code. Though speaking of Android, Sony cameras do run a modified version of Android, the previous few generations of cameras had somewhat of an app store, and people even got hacked APKs running on the camera to add missing functionality. I do agree that camera manufacturers are purposely leaving out software features though. Stuff like an intervalometer and focus stacking should be standard on every camera. Plus, as you mention, some vendors are hobbling features to try to get users to buy more expensive cameras (like a 1.7x crop for 4K video on Canon, because they really want you to buy a C200 @ $7500). To expand a bit more on interfaces, there is an interesting argument for and against it. It is no surprise that the camera industry is shrinking, and that the people most likely to buy new cameras are going to be those that already own an interchangeable lens camera. Thus manufacturers don't want to upset their customers by changing their interface too much. Companies like Hasselblad that produce more specialized luxury cameras have come up with more modern interfaces for their recent cameras. While I would personally love to see Canon/Nikon/Sony step up here and create a proper, modern touch interface for these cameras, they won't anytime soon. In everyday use, most of the interface with a camera is with physical controls, at most your common interactions with the software is changing options that are part of a quick menu.

i_am_proteus 8y ago

When using a DSLR as a still camera for events, having essential controls on physical buttons with no lag is critical. Meter, stop, focus, fire. Eyes on the subject, sometimes through the finder. If Canon sacrifices any of that for "extra" features, the pros leave for Nikon. And vice versa. These are still cameras first, everything else second.

parliament32 8y ago

>I'm sort of amazed at the cost of high-end cameras, especially when what separates it from a modern smartphone... It's not about the software, it's about the build quality (once you get into the professional product lines anyway). I have an old Canon 7D that's damn near indestructible (think old Nokia-phone style). I'd dropped that thing in lakes, had it out shooting during monsoons and snowstorms, rolled it down mountains, buried it in sand, dropped it from serious heights (shattering more than a few lenses along the way) and it just keeps ticking. The body is pretty banged up and I've had to clean/replace a few internal parts from the wear-and-tear but it just keeps on ticking.

gmiller123456 8y ago

>what separates it from a modern smartphone seems to be nothing but bigger/faster sensors The bigger/faster sensors are a big part of the price. The other big factor is all of the buttons and dials to quickly change settings without having to look away from the scene. The fast shutter, mirror, and optical view finder are also big contributors. Look at the assembly animation below [1] of a Canon 10D to see all of the tiny parts packed into a small, ergonomic package, and you'll get a better idea of why they cost so much. Not to mention I've killed 3 phones by drops no higher than 4 feet, while I've dropped my DSLRs many more times and from higher points and they show no signs of damage. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-HiBDLVzYw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-HiBDLVzYw