"Photographs have always been about the moment, not the dynamic range or pixel count." - Thom Hogan.

Check it out: http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/55654814

At the very least, a camera should be able to connect directly to a wifi network, to upload images.

My Olympus iPad can connect to a mobile device, but the process is incredibly clunky:

1. Activate wifi on camera.

2. Access settings panel on mobile device

3. Select camera's wifi signal on mobile device

4. Launch Olympus remote app on mobile device

5. Select Remote Live View in app

6. Take photo

7. Transfer photo file to mobile device

8. Return to settings panel

9. Select an active wifi network.

10. Upload photo to chosen internet site.

This is not exaggerated. It's how it works.

Jim Salvas said:

At the very least, a camera should be able to connect directly to a wifi network, to upload images.

My Olympus iPad can connect to a mobile device, but the process is incredibly clunky:

1. Activate wifi on camera.

.
.
.

Click to expand...

Jim Salvas said:

10. Upload photo to chosen internet site.

This is not exaggerated. It's how it works.

Click to expand...

Isn't that a pretty good argument for not bothering with WiFi in the first place? For me (speaking only for myself), I would prefer any additional complexity in the camera to be in other areas.

Brad Bohland said:

"We already have big names in smartphones such as HTC, Nokia, Sony and LG struggling to make sales and profits in smartphones. And these companies have been in the business for years. I think most consumers would even be more skeptical about buying a Canon or Nikon smartphone. Besides, there's no guarantee that Canon or Nikon could actually make a smartphone camera that was better than current smartphones, because smartphone cameras are a completely different animal from stand-alone cameras. Very different.

The other issue is the relationship various smartphone manufacturers have with cell phone carriers. Canon and Nikon have no relationships or partnerships. They would have a very hard time getting their smartphones into stores. It would be pretty difficult to sell your smartphone in any significant quantities if the cellphone carriers and stores don't want to carry your product because they already carry so many other smartphones from so many other established smartphone brands. The competition is fierce in smartphones, and Samsung and Apple are king. Everyone else is just picking up the table scraps. The likelihood of Canon or Nikon being successful at entering the smartphone market are slim to nil. And even if they were able to get into stores, most consumers would still opt for the more well-known and popular smartphones. It would really only be a small portion of Canon and Nikon fans who would end up buying a Canon or Nikon smartphone. So in the greater context of the smartphone market, a Canon and Nikon smartphone would probably be a costly flop for these companies. For sure, it would be a monstrously huge risk."

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/55655053

Click to expand...

On this I agree. The smartphone market is already saturating in the developed countries. Apple already has a rather substantial mobile imaging group that is working on advanced imaging features for their phones and tablets. The technical needs of the smartphone imaging systems are radically different than those of the traditional camera market, so trying to glue the two disparate paradigms together, as has been tried, is not going to work well, particularly if a company that has no idea how to design or sell to the software market tries to go it alone. Perhaps a licensing arrangement with the big phone producers might be the only way to approach this, but Nikon and Canon have essentially zero resonance in the younger demographics...unlike, say, GoPro.

The value added in the photographic market is now coming from the software, not so much the hardware. There is still a vast amount of improvement to be had by making truly problem-solving user interfaces and workflow tools, rather than accreting more features onto an overburdened and ill-suited foundation (think Oly's overflowing and confusing menu system). The traditional camera manufacturers have remade themselves massively over the past 15 years in the sense that they became manufacturers of not only the picture-taking apparatus but much of the picture storage-and-production apparatus, and in the process grew massive firmware development groups whose task it was to improve the storage-and-production technology. But that was an internal makeover...the user has not seen similar advances, except by 3rd parties and by software-centric players outside the traditional photographic sphere. In effect, the camera companies have one very strong arm and one withered one, where they really need two strong arms to prosper.

mosswings said:

Neil-H said:

Lee Jay said:

"If you travel, your serious camera doesn’t really help you share immediately with folks back home.

If you go to an event, your serious camera doesn’t really help you share immediately with folks back home.

If you’re at the hospital with your first born, ditto."

My response to that is, so what? When a good photograph is seen by others is rarely what differentiates a good photograph from a poor photograph.

Does this photo make you smile any less because you're seeing it now rather than the second it was taken?

--
Lee Jay

Click to expand...

Exactly, and great photo there. It's almost as if the social media addicts think if it's not shared immediately, then it's not worth anything. I think this comes from a lack of patience, perhaps you may call it ADD or something like that, they must live in the moment and not a second beyond. It's all in line with POP music and fads that come and go within the same week.

This need for instantaneous gratification is also one of the causes of so many social problems in our society, people's values are really screwed up. They make lite of it as if "it's only social media" but that's not the point, the point is it's a symptom of the larger problem underneath.

Click to expand...

Oh, for heaven's sake. This is not an either-or proposition. It's simply adding the ability to communicate easily from your primary photographic tool for those situations in which such an ability could be valuable, not the erosion of photographic and cultural moral fortitude.

Let me give you an example, taken from my initial response to this question: It is a heck of a lot easier to use the one, more capable camera to take pictures that to be constantly switching between the superior photographic tool and one with an inadequate optical system and inappropriate angle of view simply because the inadequate tool can share images better. Hence what we found with my wife's stylus 1 is that it had a combination of photographic capability and communicativity that made it a more versatile tool than my big iron.

Now if you're arguing purity here - that one should not release an image that has not been fully edited, curated, and rights-protected - fine, but that doesn't increase camera sales, and it's pretty dismissive. At least this photographer has a certain level of production that he likes to meet in his "casual" work that is beyond the ability of the smartphone. Why not EXPAND the useability of that superior tool, rather than denigrate the photographer who could benefit from it? Sometimes providing a well integrated feature can enable methods of work that resonate across the use spectrum.

Click to expand...

1) I'm not sharing a photo I haven't processed.

2) I'm not sharing my location with anyone, so I'm not sharing any photos real-time.

3) Anyone who does (which seems to be most people) is crazy, in my opinion.

--
Lee Jay

Lee Jay said:

"If you travel, your serious camera doesn’t really help you share immediately with folks back home.

If you go to an event, your serious camera doesn’t really help you share immediately with folks back home.

If you’re at the hospital with your first born, ditto."

My response to that is, so what? When a good photograph is seen by others is rarely what differentiates a good photograph from a poor photograph.

Does this photo make you smile any less because you're seeing it now rather than the second it was taken?

--
Lee Jay

Click to expand...

agree. yet for many ppl in this short attention span culture, they kind of miss that point....to a degree.

Good job. Thanks.

The "bulk" of the market doesn't care a bit about photography, and never will. You will never get them to buy anything aside from their cell phone no matter how good or how connected it is.