4 ms·

So where do cheaper (100-200$), non-DSLR compact digital cameras stand? Do they have any advantages left over those integrated in mobile phones or have they be

by pingec 12y ago

So where do cheaper (100-200$), non-DSLR compact digital cameras stand? Do they have any advantages left over those integrated in mobile phones or have they become obsolete?

rickyc091 12y ago
I think there's always a place for hardware dedicated for a particular task. Most of my relatives either don't have a smartphone or they still use the basic flip phones, so a simple compact camera simplifies things for them. I have friends that Instagram with their smartphones, but they still want a dedicated point and shoot for vacation purposes and events. While iPhone and Nokia may have a 6 year gap, the other mobile phones probably lag another 3 years behind them.
hrktb 12y ago
They can still have additional features like waterproof and shockproof. Also the low price and single use means you'll use it in occasions you wouldn't bring your precious smartphone. it is becoming more and more a niche, but there is room to evolve.
higherpurpose 12y ago
If you're comparing a $200 compact to a $200 phone, then chances are high that the compact is still better, keeping in mind that you're paying $200 for only the camera that you still have to take with you. If you're comparing a phone that has high-end specs in every way, plus a good camera, and costs $600, that camera should be better than most $200 compacts at this point. I think the game is over for compacts, even if all you can afford is a $200-$300 subsidized phone, and not a high-end one. My new Moto G 2014 takes quite good pictures with very little noise. Not only is the game over for compacts, but many people who perhaps before would've bought a sub-$1,000 DSLR to take vacation pictures, now don't feel the need to do tat anymore if they have a current-generation high-end phone that costs $600-$700, even if that $1,000 DSLR would be significantly better. The $600 phone cameras have become "good enough" for many people, except for those perhaps that have no trouble buying a $600 phone and a $1,000, or $2,000 or $3,000 DSLR to take with them in vacations. If I were the CEO of a camera company, I would've started focusing on the smartphone market 3+ years ago, from multiple angles: making my own "cameraphone" (such as Lumix CM1), selling "low-end" lenses for smartphones (that should still be significantly better than the ones others make for smartphones right now, that don't have experience in high-end cameras), and through other type of know-how/technology licensing that would help smartphone companies accelerate how good their phone cameras become - with my company cashing in on all of that. Out of Sony, Nikon, Canon, Panasonic, Samsung and so on, Sony is perhaps the best suited to do that. Not only are its smartphone sensors already highly popular, but it's also one of the top high-end camera makers. They also have their own smartphone company, so they have smartphone know-how, while others like Nikon or Panasonic don't. They could have so much synergy from that. Unfortunately, Sony's strategy in this is complete crap. The fact that their smartphone sensors are the most popular is probably mostly a coincidence, or inertia from bygone times, because none of the other strategies match it. Instead of making its own ultra-high-end cameraphone, Sony makes dumb camera accessories that nobody wants to use. Nokia received a lot of praise for its big bold 1020 camera, which had a halo effect on all of its other smartphones, too. Instead of trying to be recognized as having the best cameras, at least in the Android world, Sony rarely reaches top 3, because of bad software. And things are somewhat okay at the high-end, but all of their other phones have terrible cameras (both software and hardware). Sony is in a unique smartphone/camera intersection and they aren't anywhere near close to taking full advantage of it. Apple continuously beats them, even though Apple uses Sony's own sensors that are one or even two generations behind Sony's current smartphone sensors. To be honest, that's a complete disgrace. If I were Sony's CEO and I'd be in charge of such a disgrace for a few years already, I'd probably quit myself in shame - especially if I was Japanese (who, I think still care about honor and such things?) - and let someone better take charge.
- leoc 12y ago
  The inability of electronics companies to get to grips with software has to be one of the biggest, and saddest, stories of the past thirty years of industrial history.
alkonaut 12y ago
Most of them offer something a smartphone does not: optical zoom. This is part of why images aren't tack sharp: a cheap wide angle zoom is hard to make. If you need a 3x zoom lens in a $200 camera this is what you want. So while not obsolete, it's likely the segment being eaten quickest by smartphones. Put the other way around: if you can live with a fixed lens then $200 likely gets you something that has higher image quality than a phone, due to larger sensor and higher quality lenses.

by pingec 12y ago

So where do cheaper (100-200$), non-DSLR compact digital cameras stand? Do they have any advantages left over those integrated in mobile phones or have they become obsolete?

rickyc091 12y ago

I think there's always a place for hardware dedicated for a particular task. Most of my relatives either don't have a smartphone or they still use the basic flip phones, so a simple compact camera simplifies things for them. I have friends that Instagram with their smartphones, but they still want a dedicated point and shoot for vacation purposes and events. While iPhone and Nokia may have a 6 year gap, the other mobile phones probably lag another 3 years behind them.

hrktb 12y ago

They can still have additional features like waterproof and shockproof. Also the low price and single use means you'll use it in occasions you wouldn't bring your precious smartphone. it is becoming more and more a niche, but there is room to evolve.

higherpurpose 12y ago

If you're comparing a $200 compact to a $200 phone, then chances are high that the compact is still better, keeping in mind that you're paying $200 for only the camera that you still have to take with you. If you're comparing a phone that has high-end specs in every way, plus a good camera, and costs $600, that camera should be better than most $200 compacts at this point. I think the game is over for compacts, even if all you can afford is a $200-$300 subsidized phone, and not a high-end one. My new Moto G 2014 takes quite good pictures with very little noise. Not only is the game over for compacts, but many people who perhaps before would've bought a sub-$1,000 DSLR to take vacation pictures, now don't feel the need to do tat anymore if they have a current-generation high-end phone that costs $600-$700, even if that $1,000 DSLR would be significantly better. The $600 phone cameras have become "good enough" for many people, except for those perhaps that have no trouble buying a $600 phone and a $1,000, or $2,000 or $3,000 DSLR to take with them in vacations. If I were the CEO of a camera company, I would've started focusing on the smartphone market 3+ years ago, from multiple angles: making my own "cameraphone" (such as Lumix CM1), selling "low-end" lenses for smartphones (that should still be significantly better than the ones others make for smartphones right now, that don't have experience in high-end cameras), and through other type of know-how/technology licensing that would help smartphone companies accelerate how good their phone cameras become - with my company cashing in on all of that. Out of Sony, Nikon, Canon, Panasonic, Samsung and so on, Sony is perhaps the best suited to do that. Not only are its smartphone sensors already highly popular, but it's also one of the top high-end camera makers. They also have their own smartphone company, so they have smartphone know-how, while others like Nikon or Panasonic don't. They could have so much synergy from that. Unfortunately, Sony's strategy in this is complete crap. The fact that their smartphone sensors are the most popular is probably mostly a coincidence, or inertia from bygone times, because none of the other strategies match it. Instead of making its own ultra-high-end cameraphone, Sony makes dumb camera accessories that nobody wants to use. Nokia received a lot of praise for its big bold 1020 camera, which had a halo effect on all of its other smartphones, too. Instead of trying to be recognized as having the best cameras, at least in the Android world, Sony rarely reaches top 3, because of bad software. And things are somewhat okay at the high-end, but all of their other phones have terrible cameras (both software and hardware). Sony is in a unique smartphone/camera intersection and they aren't anywhere near close to taking full advantage of it. Apple continuously beats them, even though Apple uses Sony's own sensors that are one or even two generations behind Sony's current smartphone sensors. To be honest, that's a complete disgrace. If I were Sony's CEO and I'd be in charge of such a disgrace for a few years already, I'd probably quit myself in shame - especially if I was Japanese (who, I think still care about honor and such things?) - and let someone better take charge.

leoc 12y ago
The inability of electronics companies to get to grips with software has to be one of the biggest, and saddest, stories of the past thirty years of industrial history.

alkonaut 12y ago

Most of them offer something a smartphone does not: optical zoom. This is part of why images aren't tack sharp: a cheap wide angle zoom is hard to make. If you need a 3x zoom lens in a $200 camera this is what you want. So while not obsolete, it's likely the segment being eaten quickest by smartphones. Put the other way around: if you can live with a fixed lens then $200 likely gets you something that has higher image quality than a phone, due to larger sensor and higher quality lenses.