Camera manufacturers had better get caught up

Camera manufacturers had better get caught up with the digital algorithms used in smartphones or both professional photographers and camera makers will be endangered species.

How long before the public decides that 25 wedding guests with phone cams will, combined, instantly produce perfectly adequate memories at only the cost of printing.

It is possible that any one camera company can't afford the expertise that a Google or an Apple can bring to bear on developing chips and algorithms. They might have to either license technology or band together.

Cameras start with an advantage in physics (larger sensors, better lenses, more battery, and (very important) internal space. However, they are way behind in processing power.
Here is just one of many scary articles about the Pixel 3;


dpreview article

mangurian said:

Camera manufacturers had better get caught up with the digital algorithms used in smartphones or both professional photographers and camera makers will be endangered species.

Click to expand...

Why?

Those features are designed to make smartphones that have tiny lenses and tiny sensors seem to perform like larger-sensor and larger-lens cameras perform naturally (emphasis on "seem"). The reality is, that performance is still pretty pathetic especially when it comes to moving subjects and the appearance of shallow depth-of-field. I have yet to see one that doesn't make the images look worse rather than better.

mangurian said:

Camera manufacturers had better get caught up with the digital algorithms used in smartphones or both professional photographers and camera makers will be endangered species.

Click to expand...

I think you're missing the big picture entirely.

mangurian said:

How long before the public decides that 25 wedding guests with phone cams will, combined, instantly produce perfectly adequate memories at only the cost of printing.

Click to expand...

If all you want are "memories" with no artistic content, printed at 4x6, that option has been available for decades.

mangurian said:

It is possible that any one camera company can't afford the expertise that a Google or an Apple can bring to bear on developing chips and algorithms. They might have to either license technology or band together.

Click to expand...

There might be a few proprietary algorithms in the mix, but I'd suspect that most of what Google or Apple puts into their cameras is commonly known to the industry, various PP algorithms, running on common CPU cores.

mangurian said:

Cameras start with an advantage in physics (larger sensors, better lenses, more battery, and (very important) internal space. However, they are way behind in processing power.

Click to expand...

true, cameras leave that last important step to the photographer to decide, so no significant internal processing is required. And all that CPU number crunching consumes power, so by not doing it your battery will last longer.

If you have a crappy lens, crappy sensor, and crappy user interface, why not put a little AI in there to make it a little less crappy. Garbage in, garbage out. If all you ever do is take a snapshot and look at the image on the phone screen, then I agree with you that phones have an advantage. But to assume that's how everybody uses a camera would be a bit shortsighted.

dwalby said:

mangurian said:

Camera manufacturers had better get caught up with the digital algorithms used in smartphones or both professional photographers and camera makers will be endangered species.

Click to expand...

I think you're missing the big picture entirely.

Click to expand...

I don't think so.

dwalby said:

dwalby said:

How long before the public decides that 25 wedding guests with phone cams will, combined, instantly produce perfectly adequate memories at only the cost of printing.

Click to expand...

If all you want are "memories" with no artistic content, printed at 4x6, that option has been available for decades.

Click to expand...

Not true. Check the galleries for Pixel 3.

dwalby said:

dwalby said:

It is possible that any one camera company can't afford the expertise that a Google or an Apple can bring to bear on developing chips and algorithms. They might have to either license technology or band together.

Click to expand...

There might be a few proprietary algorithms in the mix, but I'd suspect that most of what Google or Apple puts into their cameras is commonly known to the industry, various PP algorithms, running on common CPU cores.

Click to expand...

Not just a few, but far superior. Read the review and watch The New Screen Savers video review.

dwalby said:

dwalby said:

Cameras start with an advantage in physics (larger sensors, better lenses, more battery, and (very important) internal space. However, they are way behind in processing power.

Click to expand...

true, cameras leave that last important step to the photographer to decide, so no significant internal processing is required. And all that CPU number crunching consumes power, so by not doing it your battery will last longer.

If you have a crappy lens, crappy sensor, and crappy user interface, why not put a little AI in there to make it a little less crappy. Garbage in, garbage out. If all you ever do is take a snapshot and look at the image on the phone screen, then I agree with you that phones have an advantage. But to assume that's how everybody uses a camera would be a bit shortsighted.

Click to expand...

I love my camera and lenses and I enjoy post-processing on my PC. I just want the other in camera options available so that Canon, Nikon and others remain viable on the prosumer market.

Simple solution: shoot in raw format. Take advantage of processing options as they appear in PP software.

mangurian said:

Camera manufacturers had better get caught up with the digital algorithms used in smartphones or both professional photographers and camera makers will be endangered species.

How long before the public decides that 25 wedding guests with phone cams will, combined, instantly produce perfectly adequate memories at only the cost of printing.

It is possible that any one camera company can't afford the expertise that a Google or an Apple can bring to bear on developing chips and algorithms. They might have to either license technology or band together.

Cameras start with an advantage in physics (larger sensors, better lenses, more battery, and (very important) internal space. However, they are way behind in processing power.
Here is just one of many scary articles about the Pixel 3;

Click to expand...

I have to disagree with just about everything you're saying. But instead of a long 2000 word essay, I'm just going to summarize:

Camera Companies will continue to make cameras as long as photographers continue to buy them. If/when customers stop doing so, then they will either walk away from the market, or change what they make in an effort to appeal to whatever is in demand.

It really is that simple.

Lee Jay said:

mangurian said:

Camera manufacturers had better get caught up with the digital algorithms used in smartphones or both professional photographers and camera makers will be endangered species.

Click to expand...

Why?

Those features are designed to make smartphones that have tiny lenses and tiny sensors seem to perform like larger-sensor and larger-lens cameras perform naturally (emphasis on "seem"). The reality is, that performance is still pretty pathetic especially when it comes to moving subjects and the appearance of shallow depth-of-field. I have yet to see one that doesn't make the images look worse rather than better.

Click to expand...

I agree on image quality, but I would like to see cameras get much better with connectivity. As a Nikon user, which may shape my frustration with this, why a $3000 camera body struggles so mightily with a wireless connection when a $50 smart phone can do it seamlessly is beyond me.

mangurian said:

dwalby said:

mangurian said:

Camera manufacturers had better get caught up with the digital algorithms used in smartphones or both professional photographers and camera makers will be endangered species.

Click to expand...

I think you're missing the big picture entirely.

Click to expand...

I don't think so.

mangurian said:

mangurian said:

How long before the public decides that 25 wedding guests with phone cams will, combined, instantly produce perfectly adequate memories at only the cost of printing.

Click to expand...

If all you want are "memories" with no artistic content, printed at 4x6, that option has been available for decades.

Click to expand...

Not true. Check the galleries for Pixel 3.

mangurian said:

mangurian said:

It is possible that any one camera company can't afford the expertise that a Google or an Apple can bring to bear on developing chips and algorithms. They might have to either license technology or band together.

Click to expand...

There might be a few proprietary algorithms in the mix, but I'd suspect that most of what Google or Apple puts into their cameras is commonly known to the industry, various PP algorithms, running on common CPU cores.

Click to expand...

Not just a few, but far superior. Read the review and watch The New Screen Savers video review.

mangurian said:

mangurian said:

Cameras start with an advantage in physics (larger sensors, better lenses, more battery, and (very important) internal space. However, they are way behind in processing power.

Click to expand...

true, cameras leave that last important step to the photographer to decide, so no significant internal processing is required. And all that CPU number crunching consumes power, so by not doing it your battery will last longer.

If you have a crappy lens, crappy sensor, and crappy user interface, why not put a little AI in there to make it a little less crappy. Garbage in, garbage out. If all you ever do is take a snapshot and look at the image on the phone screen, then I agree with you that phones have an advantage. But to assume that's how everybody uses a camera would be a bit shortsighted.

Click to expand...

I love my camera and lenses and I enjoy post-processing on my PC. I just want the other in camera options available so that Canon, Nikon and others remain viable on the prosumer market.

Click to expand...

When my iPhone can capture images like this then Canon can start worrying



Some of us take images that actually need pro gear.

--
Don Lacy
https://500px.com/lacy
http://www.witnessnature.net/

Mackiesback said:

Lee Jay said:

mangurian said:

Camera manufacturers had better get caught up with the digital algorithms used in smartphones or both professional photographers and camera makers will be endangered species.

Click to expand...

Why?

Those features are designed to make smartphones that have tiny lenses and tiny sensors seem to perform like larger-sensor and larger-lens cameras perform naturally (emphasis on "seem"). The reality is, that performance is still pretty pathetic especially when it comes to moving subjects and the appearance of shallow depth-of-field. I have yet to see one that doesn't make the images look worse rather than better.

Click to expand...

I agree on image quality, but I would like to see cameras get much better with connectivity. As a Nikon user, which may shape my frustration with this, why a $3000 camera body struggles so mightily with a wireless connection when a $50 smart phone can do it seamlessly is beyond me.

Click to expand...

I have wireless on some of my cameras. I find it to be hurtful rather than helpful. It's simply easier (and much faster - 100MB/s) to remove the card and put it in a card reader. In fact, I find it easier to get images from my cameras than from my phone.

Mackiesback said:

Lee Jay said:

mangurian said:

Camera manufacturers had better get caught up with the digital algorithms used in smartphones or both professional photographers and camera makers will be endangered species.

Click to expand...

Why?

Those features are designed to make smartphones that have tiny lenses and tiny sensors seem to perform like larger-sensor and larger-lens cameras perform naturally (emphasis on "seem"). The reality is, that performance is still pretty pathetic especially when it comes to moving subjects and the appearance of shallow depth-of-field. I have yet to see one that doesn't make the images look worse rather than better.

Click to expand...

I agree on image quality, but I would like to see cameras get much better with connectivity. As a Nikon user, which may shape my frustration with this, why a $3000 camera body struggles so mightily with a wireless connection when a $50 smart phone can do it seamlessly is beyond me.

Click to expand...

There is actually an answer to that question.

The radio circuitry in a $50 smartphone is actually a chip/part that used to cost more than it does now. But as smartphones took off 10-15 years ago, they went from being manufactured in the 100's of thousands -> to millions -> to tens of millions annually. As such the driving force to shave every single penny off the cost of manufacturing is a very important aspect. Ultimately every separate piece/part/chip of the smartphone has systematically been integrated onto a single large "system-on-a-chip" (SOC).

But here's the thing... you can only justify that if you are producing those SOC's by the tens of millions. You really do need those economies of scale.

Canon, Nikon, Sony, Pentax, etc don't sell that many $3000 cameras. So their cost to add the same functionality (including the software which they aren't really experts in) would add more to the cost of the camera than they think the feature would attract in additional sales.

I'm not saying I agree with that decision either. But I believe their thinking is that a better choice is closer integration with smartphones. Not co-opting smartphone features into the camera.

Also remember that the $50 smartphone costs way more than $50 if you are not "renting/leasing" it from the phone company. Have you seen what they cost unlocked?

iPhone XS with phone plan: $37/month for 30 months (AT&T)

Unlocked iPhone XS from Apple: $999

Unlocked iPhone 8 from Walmart: $599

It's only been four days since the last computational photography thread was started.

I thought it was a weekly ritual, but I may have to readjust.

I think art and commercial photography will not be replaced, but in the same way that superb audio has given way to mp3 music and comparatively poor reproduction equipment. Joe and Jane average person might very well settle for less in the visual reproduction arena. Audio equipment makers didn't think their market would dry up either. I would hate to see Canon, Nikon, etc suffer the same fate, by over-estmating the expectations of their customers. Trade-off between quality and price.

nope. Phones are trying tricks to mimic what SLR cameras naturally do

dwalby said:

mangurian said:

Camera manufacturers had better get caught up with the digital algorithms used in smartphones or both professional photographers and camera makers will be endangered species.

Click to expand...

I think you're missing the big picture entirely.

dwalby said:

How long before the public decides that 25 wedding guests with phone cams will, combined, instantly produce perfectly adequate memories at only the cost of printing.

Click to expand...

If all you want are "memories" with no artistic content, printed at 4x6, that option has been available for decades.

Click to expand...

Yep. Put a disposable film camera on every table at the reception and ask they be left behind

dwalby said:

dwalby said:

It is possible that any one camera company can't afford the expertise that a Google or an Apple can bring to bear on developing chips and algorithms. They might have to either license technology or band together.

Click to expand...

There might be a few proprietary algorithms in the mix, but I'd suspect that most of what Google or Apple puts into their cameras is commonly known to the industry, various PP algorithms, running on common CPU cores.

dwalby said:

Cameras start with an advantage in physics (larger sensors, better lenses, more battery, and (very important) internal space. However, they are way behind in processing power.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

bobkoure said:

Simple solution: shoot in raw format. Take advantage of processing options as they appear in PP software.

Click to expand...

My point is that Joe/Joan Q Public will likely be happy with the instantaneous out of camera result. I think this is undeniable when you look at young folks snapping landscapes and images on exotic trips/vacations using their phones and not bothering to carry a camera.

Excellent points!

In the smartphone, "proper" cameras are indeed confronting an existential threat of monumental proportions.

Tomorrow, if wedding guests start demanding that their "stills" look like those live photos Apple and Google smartphones produce, what will pro wedding photographers toting their 10lb DSLR-lens combos do?

Cry "uncle?" Roll over and play dead? Run for the hills?

73Instamatic said:

t instead of a long 2000 word essay, I'm just going to summarize:

Camera Companies will continue to make cameras as long as photographers continue to buy them. If/when customers stop doing so, then they will either walk away from the market, or change what they make in an effort to appeal to whatever is in demand.

It really is that simple.

Click to expand...

I agree. It is that simple. I think I know the eventual outcome, which is the same as what has happened in the audio industry. Recording studios, audio equipment manufacturers, record companies all shrunk or demised with a few exceptions because folks decided MP3 was good enough. I downloaded all of the albums I could not afford 50 years ago for $1 to $3 per album on Amazon. Thank heavens the original tapes were saved.

There will always be pro audio and there will always be pro photo, but on a different scale.

Hope I am wrong, because the next generation of amateurs (such as myself) will be priced out of the market. No more APC- mirrorless cameras and lenses without red bands on them. yikes.

Get Rekt said:

Excellent points!

In the smartphone, "proper" cameras are indeed confronting an existential threat of monumental proportions.

Tomorrow, if wedding guests start demanding that their "stills" look like those live photos Apple and Google smartphones produce, what will pro wedding photographers toting their 10lb DSLR-lens combos do?

Cry "uncle?" Roll over and play dead? Run for the hills?

Click to expand...

to part the waves of smartphone users blocking each other (and everyone else) from getting the shot with their 28mm 'lens' at 5 feet. If they're lucky enough, they might even catch some of the flash illumination from someone with a real camera.

mangurian said:

I think art and commercial photography will not be replaced, but in the same way that superb audio has given way to mp3 music and comparatively poor reproduction equipment. Joe and Jane average person might very well settle for less in the visual reproduction arena.

Click to expand...

of course they will, there's ample evidence that this has already happened

mangurian said:

Audio equipment makers didn't think their market would dry up either. I would hate to see Canon, Nikon, etc suffer the same fate, by over-estmating the expectations of their customers. Trade-off between quality and price.

Click to expand...

they've already experienced this in the P&S market, which was the natural victim of the phone camera transition.

But DSLR shooters aren't the same as P&S shooters, and all cameras aren't the same, so there are some markets that will remain mostly intact. The market is going to be less dynamic than it was 15 years ago, but it isn't going to collapse.

mangurian said:

Camera manufacturers had better get caught up with the digital algorithms used in smartphones or both professional photographers and camera makers will be endangered species.

How long before the public decides that 25 wedding guests with phone cams will, combined, instantly produce perfectly adequate memories at only the cost of printing.

It is possible that any one camera company can't afford the expertise that a Google or an Apple can bring to bear on developing chips and algorithms. They might have to either license technology or band together.

Cameras start with an advantage in physics (larger sensors, better lenses, more battery, and (very important) internal space. However, they are way behind in processing power.
Here is just one of many scary articles about the Pixel 3;

dpreview article

Click to expand...

Sorry, but DSLR && Mirrorless cameras will never be outdone by a smartphone. Even if they did, I personally wouldn't want to rely on my wedding guests to snap photos of my wedding nor would I expect them to. As a guest at a wedding I'm there to have fun and enjoy seeing the people get married not taking pictures.