cell phones making M4/3 and DSLRs obsolete

juncction wrote:

cba_melbourne wrote:

Another example of a very much smartphone sized camera from the early 80's. It's film frame was 10x8mm, or about 9% the area of a 135 film frame. It never succeeded. Why? Would it have decimated SLR cameras if it was able to send SMS?

I don't know much about these cameras (though I read the Kodak Disc 4000 failed due to abysmal image quality), but I do know about cellphones and their effect on pretty much every other product.

The reason why cellphones today are taking over isn't just because of their compact nature (though it is one of the reasons), the bigger reason is that it has become a lifestyle that is supported by MANY multi-billion dollar companies that have been pouring countless dollars into it, thus making it become a staple household product.

Who would have known that so many companies (ones that would regularly not work together) would contribute to supporting a singular type of product. What's also insane is that Telephone Companies, Fitness Companies, Taxi Services, Banks... well pretty much anyone really, can use the built-in features of the smartphone (which also happens to house a camera) to make money. As long as all these companies continue to invest money, people's lifestyles will continue to shape around it and it will continue to propel the smartphone as the all-in-one tool for all your needs. Why buy a device that has one specific function when you can spend much less and have it all in your pocket?

- FF has 3.5 times the sensor area of M34

IQ difference is not significant, the M34 format is a success

- FF had 9.8 times the film area of disc film

IQ compared as absymal. The format fails.

- M34 has 30 times the sensor area of smartphones

And smartphones not only succeed, but we are discussing if they are going to make M34 obsolete?

The Swiss Army Knife and the US Leatherman are great successes too, but have they made butcher knifes obsolete?