Nokia app increases pressure on camera makers to smarten up

I do not believe compacts are getting out of date. What about optical zoom ? phone cameras do not have optical zoom. Besides compact cameras will get larger sensors . In other words : They will keep their edge compared to cell phone cameras .There always will be enthusiasts that are prepared to carry some extra weight in order to get better quality. Billions love photography.

One big problem with camera phones ...they are expensive or you have to pay a monthly fee ...my little panasonic p&s doesn't comes with a monthly charge and I don't have to keep it under a two year contract ...and it was under 200 bucks ...most of the camera phones we are talking about are more than the price of an SLR.

Yup.

Nothing wrong with that either. And he'll be thankful that he still had a decent camera that day after opting against taking his bulky DSLR kit.

What many people here are failing to realise is that these "tools" aren't meant as a replacement for a DSLR kit but rather an addition to one's photographic tool kit.

VilardeMacedo says "...If, say, someone in a magazine prefers to use a photograph he just downloaded from facebook rather than paying a professional to photograph ... how does that sound to you? If that magazine pays a few bucks to a kid with an iPhone, rather than paying a professional, is it OK for you?"

It sounds perfectly fine to me. Technology has displaced economies and professions for centuries - from Gutenberg's press leaving monks without work (and loosening the grip of the church) to elevators with buttons eliminating the need for elevator operators - to site but two examples.

Why should photography be any different. There is still, to this day, a need for calligraphists (very few) and a need for lift operators in certain circumstances (very few). There will continue to be a need for skilled, dedicated image capturers; but some cases will be better addressed by spontaneous "amateurs" who now have the ability to be in the right place at the right time. Get used to it.

At the end of the day the person/group that makes it possible for there to be "professionals" are the ones paying the money for the end product - newspapers, magazines, art collectors, etc.

And if they don't feel the need to pay for a "superior" output because the picture on Facebook meets their needs, then guess what - how "good" a photograph might be is irrelevant.

It may still hold huge artistic value and meet all the criteria of what makes a truly great photo, but that doesn't mean someone is willing to pay for it, or needs to pay for it to achieve their objectives.

The quality of an image is not directly proportional to the value and need someone has for that image. In the past there were few economically accessible alternatives for catching a moment in time, and hence it was greatly limited to "professionals". The ubiquitousness of technology has changed that.

You can either accept that or delude yourself that just because something is "superior" it must be the choice.

I get tired of reading about "Professional" cameras and photographers. Theres way too much snobbery. Professional just means you get paid for doing it. So if you get paid for your iPhone photo your a professional.
And just because your a professional doesn't mean your any good.
Digital photography has made life more difficult for the "Professional" but hard cheese. Lifes tough these days for all professions. So either live with it or get another job.

Manuel, just to site one example - lawyers. They too are being replaced in droves by technology. There are many activities that have traditionally been the domain of the legal profession which is now more effectively (and cheaply) carried out by technology.

Read this: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/05/science/05legal.html?pagewanted=all

Not everything lawyers do is replaceable and there will always be activities that well trained lawyers will be best placed to carry out. But for all the other stuff, those expensive law degrees of recent grads may prove more difficult to get a good return on investment.

It's no different for photographers who have invested in equipment. Some types of work (eg. portraits) are likely to remain mostly in "professional" hands, but photojournalism is probably on shakier ground given the purpose of those types of images.

You know, the NYT probably doesn't care much if an image has a bit of noise or moire if it captures the exact moment of the event.

Manuel, you seem to consider yourself an expert. I accept your superiority. Please elucidate for those of us less fortunate.

You can start by showing me where any of my comments are mis-informed or juvenile in their logic or exposition. Be specific.

You indirectly admit that entities previously using "pros" now also use sources that you consider inferior. Seems your opinion does not hold much sway with these sources, otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion.

The fact is that the more people are able to capture images of their surroundings in cheap, easy and relatively good quality (not professional level, but usable for the purposes required) the more certain types of professionals are going to lose business.

There will always be work for the Leibowitz's of the world or even good wedding photog, just not as much. That's the grown up world you seem to be ignoring.

You may not like the fact that the livelihood of some pros is threatened, but that's life. Get over it.

Walk out side and ask 10 people with point and shoot cameras what raw is? will they know, my bet is no.

You must remember the market!!!!!
Do most people buy DSLR? NO!,
do most people edit photos? No

The average consumer, the one who actually makes money for the camera companies, whats a camera that points at their kid and gets a great photo.

Phones now do this and when they do get zoom lenses that fold into the body like Sony T line of cameras. That will be the end.

> Name a phone camera with a sensor the size of the sensor in the Canon S95?

Nokia 808 pureview - it has 1.2" sensor! -- Name a P&S camera having such sensor, 41Mpix with the flexibility to bin them for low noise and/or good dynamic range...

I bet thats what they said about autofocus when Pentax produced the worlds first mass-produced Autofocus SLR system back in 1981.

You take pictures as a form of artistic expression and want to control all aspects of that proess - makes sense.

However, most people for whom this app is targeted are trying to capture a simple moment in time with friends and family and don't really care much other than to have an image of a particular memory that they can print 4x6 or post on a blog/Facebook.

You don't need it, fine. Others for whom this is targeted will find it a welcome tool with which to ensure they capture the moment they really want to remember.

Stupider is not actually a word.....say no more.....

@Alizarine

You clearly don't understand the concept, the context and the target market and just saw the opportunity to spill out some empty stereotypes about photography.

Who's stupid?

It's true that the Lumia 900 won't get WinPhone8, but it will get most, if not all, of the same features in a 7.8 upgrade. The difference is that WinPhone8 requires a different chipset which is why it won't work on the current Lumia phones.

So, while it's true that current Lumia users won't get WinPhone8, the conclusion that Lumia users are going to be abandoned just isn't accurate.

"failing phones"

You clearly don't know what you're speaking about...

Nokia is for old people? because the young people are sheep who follow the mass of uninformed followers.
Good thing we are not all hipsters who eats up everything Apple and Copy Master Samsung feeds us.

Or if you want some crops compared to a FF DSLR then see here....

http://blog.gsmarena.com/nokia-808-pureview-vs-olympus-e-pl2-vs-canon-5d-mark-iii-vs-apple-iphone-4s-38mp-shootout/

Another android child, what an idiot. Grow up, please.

"iPhone and Samsung Galaxy are far better, and already implementing photography features."

You don't know what you're speaking about either. Sometimes you could read some phone camera reviews before posting this kind of uninformed post.

Boerseuntjie:

Searching the internets I see no raw shooting capacity for the Nokia 808, got a link with samples?

There's the depth of field problem.

The PureView 5MP out of 41 trick does seem promising--particularly in daylight.

Perhaps Sony/Nikon will adapt this for the sensors in the D3200, Nex 5n and the D800, and improve things like shooting at ISO 6400.

I wonder does this PureView technology process raw data, or is that jpeg data?

Samsung is unlikely to make the mistake of pixel cramming in their phones--they already make the world's most popular smart phones.

Anyone who'd claim that the iPhone is the only camera one needs, would likely claim that it's not important to check engine oil quality and quantity in an automobile--the sensors can do it.

I guess Nokia could always add the raw feature and then sell this PureView software as an application for PCs and Macs, then Nokia's 808 camera phone may get some respect from those who care about a picture's qualities.

Boerseuntjie:

Samsung is a South Korean company, also many in the south would like a reunited Korea, but one that is open to the world, not ruled by a family dynasty of dictators with a government enforced cult of personality. (Also North Korea is a country, not in need of reuniting--that's another problem with your languange.)

You really need to attempt to present yourself to the world as less ignorant.

It's not fan fiction to say that Samsung makes the most popular "smart" phones in the world.

You clearly haven't bothered to look at the high end Samsung TVs.

Nor have you looked at the colour changes in your engine oil.

Now why would you want someone who'd challenge your "authority" sent to live in a closed dictatorship? Isn't that the inclination of those who hold a less than secure footing in facts. And in fact very like dictators the world over?

Boerseuntjie:

So you've well proven that you can neither read nor think for yourself.

How ironic exactly the type to walk in line.