Why are people so certain Canon is going to use RF to kill off EOS M?

farmersteve said:

Well we have reached saturation on the smart phone thing. The camera internals can't get much better without getting a thicker phone and that's not going to happen. There might be a shift to computational photography, but even then you will never approach the quality of a large sensor camera. I don't think we'll ever see a large stampede back to big cameras.

Click to expand...

We might not see a stampede, but I think kids growing up with crappy phone cameras could be convinced to buy real cameras. The trick is making it more seamlessly work with phones. Backup to cloud, sharing, transferring to home computers would make using a camera closer to the same convenience of using a phone.

farmersteve said:

We are seeing a small stampede to film cameras for the reasons you state, it just seems more genuine and less corporate. Even DP review has opened a Film Photography sub forum. We might be at steady state for large camera sales.

Click to expand...

Yeah, probably.

farmersteve said:

I really don't see sales changing much from here on out. I do agree that Full Frame is more marketing hype than anything else. Clearly APS-C can do just as well with dedicated lenses.

Click to expand...

Full frame is the dream of great image quality. I’d shoot medium format if I was rich...well, maybe not. My R is pretty damn great already. And C can make great images, but it’s noticeably behind higher end FF. It’ll just take time to bring FF cost and size down to really competitive levels. C will draw in beginners and enthusiasts with great IQ at very low cost. FF will be for the olds with money and time.

Jon555 said:

sportyaccordy said:

I've seen 2 confident declarations of RF killing off M today. How and why? RF = high end, M = low end. It sucks that the two systems aren't interchangable, but they have a common bridge- EF mount. Plus honestly, even if they shared the same mount, most people going from APS-C to FF would be replacing a lot of lenses anyway. EF-S is 20 years old I think, and even when ILC sales were approaching 20 million Canon didn't see the value in fully developing the EF-S line. But they kept updating and developing EF-S nonetheless. So crop is always going to be the basic low end system with FF serving the higher end. Canon needs both ends of the spectrum. It just makes sense.

Click to expand...

My feeling is there is a good chance they will keep EOS-M for people that really want small cameras (it's a surprisingly large market) and everyone else who wants a serious camera will be pushed to FF.

Click to expand...

What's the best investment:

ef-m 22mm f/2.0 + 32mm f/1.4 + sigma 56mm f/1.4

or

RF 35mm f/1.8 IS + RF 50mm f/1.8 IS + RF 85mm f/2.0 IS

The RP is not the best camera, but there will be newer small bodies for the RF mount. Once those longer primes arrived price and IQ might be the biggest differentiators between the two mounts, not size.

--
EF glass = bang for my buck

Thomas A Anderson said:

sportyaccordy said:

If this is satire, it needs to be shorter. If not.... god bless and good luck.

Click to expand...

No, it’s not satire. It’s my genuine hope for the future and my honest assessment of what’s happening today. So many people are worried about bonkers conspiracy theories, but that’s all just a distraction. The best conspiracies happen in plain sight and simply use basic psychological manipulation of huge populations in order to get away with murder in broad daylight. Go look up how long it took for the FDA to form even after Teddy Roosevelt has experienced first hand food manufacturers sending canned rancid meet to soldiers, and that while death from poisoned or rancid food had become commonplace for decades. Look at how long we knew lead in gasoline (and lead in many other common products) caused prenatal problems and developmental issues with children...among other things. Look at how long it took for the public to find out smoking causes cancer and heart disease.

Click to expand...

My grandfather was well aware that smoking caused heart disease and he died in 1935. It might have been strenuously denied, but it was well known over eighty five years ago.

Thomas A Anderson said:

Now people are manipulated by Google, Facebook, etc. into sharing basically all their data while phone companies put on a show of how secure their phones are...they make it next to impossible to shut off all the data sharing between the phone and app makers.

It’s all public information but nobody seems to notice. I tell people and they are shocked to learn how much data companies collect. Sign up for rewards cards from Walgreens or a bookstore? You’re signing up to have your data sold to anyone who wants it.

Click to expand...

Thomas A Anderson said:

farmersteve said:

Well we have reached saturation on the smart phone thing. The camera internals can't get much better without getting a thicker phone and that's not going to happen. There might be a shift to computational photography, but even then you will never approach the quality of a large sensor camera. I don't think we'll ever see a large stampede back to big cameras.

Click to expand...

We might not see a stampede, but I think kids growing up with crappy phone cameras could be convinced to buy real cameras. The trick is making it more seamlessly work with phones. Backup to cloud, sharing, transferring to home computers would make using a camera closer to the same convenience of using a phone.

Click to expand...

Cameras integrate with phones well enough. The hurdles are convenience and incremental value. No matter how seamless the integration, a camera will always be an external device to buy/learn/carry. And for people who are OK with phone IQ, the incremental improvements from a camera are pointless.

Plus you have to remember that while phones are obviously not close to "real" cameras on a technical basis, they've closed the gap a good bit. If kids couldn't be convinced to buy real cameras 5-10 years ago, when camera phones totally sucked, what makes you think kids will want them now, when they are approaching some level of decency? That war has been lost.

Sittatunga said:

stevvi said:

Wonderful :-D

Click to expand...

Did you read it on your phone too?

Click to expand...

I'm a Luddite... I hate using my phone for anything other the briefest calls or texts.

Thomas A Anderson said:

sportyaccordy said:

If this is satire, it needs to be shorter. If not.... god bless and good luck.

Click to expand...

No, it’s not satire. It’s my genuine hope for the future and my honest assessment of what’s happening today. So many people are worried about bonkers conspiracy theories, but that’s all just a distraction. The best conspiracies happen in plain sight and simply use basic psychological manipulation of huge populations in order to get away with murder in broad daylight. Go look up how long it took for the FDA to form even after Teddy Roosevelt has experienced first hand food manufacturers sending canned rancid meet to soldiers, and that while death from poisoned or rancid food had become commonplace for decades. Look at how long we knew lead in gasoline (and lead in many other common products) caused prenatal problems and developmental issues with children...among other things. Look at how long it took for the public to find out smoking causes cancer and heart disease.

Now people are manipulated by Google, Facebook, etc. into sharing basically all their data while phone companies put on a show of how secure their phones are...they make it next to impossible to shut off all the data sharing between the phone and app makers.

It’s all public information but nobody seems to notice. I tell people and they are shocked to learn how much data companies collect. Sign up for rewards cards from Walgreens or a bookstore? You’re signing up to have your data sold to anyone who wants it.

Click to expand...

I feel pretty secure using the Apple iPhone

google is way too blatant and heavy handed.



on the topic of phones maturing, they are not done innovating yet. The day entry level phones have quad cameras, is when you can possibly claim maturity. Processing power can still improve things, like the iPhone SE camera. Same camera as the iPhone 8, but much better results.

Yes it would have to do at least 10FPS with at least 83MP’s for $1700.

Sittatunga said:

Thomas A Anderson said:

sportyaccordy said:

If this is satire, it needs to be shorter. If not.... god bless and good luck.

Click to expand...

No, it’s not satire. It’s my genuine hope for the future and my honest assessment of what’s happening today. So many people are worried about bonkers conspiracy theories, but that’s all just a distraction. The best conspiracies happen in plain sight and simply use basic psychological manipulation of huge populations in order to get away with murder in broad daylight. Go look up how long it took for the FDA to form even after Teddy Roosevelt has experienced first hand food manufacturers sending canned rancid meet to soldiers, and that while death from poisoned or rancid food had become commonplace for decades. Look at how long we knew lead in gasoline (and lead in many other common products) caused prenatal problems and developmental issues with children...among other things. Look at how long it took for the public to find out smoking causes cancer and heart disease.

Click to expand...

My grandfather was well aware that smoking caused heart disease and he died in 1935. It might have been strenuously denied, but it was well known over eighty five years ago.

Click to expand...

Still the science deniers were testifying to Congress the exact opposite and the tobacco industry was hiding studies proving it for another half century after your grandfather passed so that public policy that might save lives wouldn’t dent their profit margins.

Before the FDA people were sickened and died due to food-born illness all the time but until laws finally went into effect decades later they had to put up with it because the other option was starvation.

Sittatunga said:

Sittatunga said:

Now people are manipulated by Google, Facebook, etc. into sharing basically all their data while phone companies put on a show of how secure their phones are...they make it next to impossible to shut off all the data sharing between the phone and app makers.

It’s all public information but nobody seems to notice. I tell people and they are shocked to learn how much data companies collect. Sign up for rewards cards from Walgreens or a bookstore? You’re signing up to have your data sold to anyone who wants it.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

sportyaccordy said:

Thomas A Anderson said:

farmersteve said:

Well we have reached saturation on the smart phone thing. The camera internals can't get much better without getting a thicker phone and that's not going to happen. There might be a shift to computational photography, but even then you will never approach the quality of a large sensor camera. I don't think we'll ever see a large stampede back to big cameras.

Click to expand...

We might not see a stampede, but I think kids growing up with crappy phone cameras could be convinced to buy real cameras. The trick is making it more seamlessly work with phones. Backup to cloud, sharing, transferring to home computers would make using a camera closer to the same convenience of using a phone.

Click to expand...

Cameras integrate with phones well enough. The hurdles are convenience and incremental value. No matter how seamless the integration, a camera will always be an external device to buy/learn/carry. And for people who are OK with phone IQ, the incremental improvements from a camera are pointless.

Click to expand...

Only if one actually believes there is only a marginal increase in ability, usability, and quality over their smartphone. The differences in those metrics are rarely minor, depending on the circumstances of course. If there’s sunlight and little motion with a subject nearby then a phone can be fine (the subject may be still, but not for long).

sportyaccordy said:

Plus you have to remember that while phones are obviously not close to "real" cameras on a technical basis, they've closed the gap a good bit.

Click to expand...

What has closed the gap is the marketing hype pushed by phone companies that would have one believe such a patently ludicrous idea. From zoom lenses to lightning fast focus and decent low light image quality, larger sensors put phones to shame. Good enough? For many who don’t care or know better, yes. I’ve helped quite a few people learn why their phones are inadequate and what a real camera can do. Marketing has people convinced processing gimmicks make up the difference. Bull.

sportyaccordy said:

If kids couldn't be convinced to buy real cameras 5-10 years ago, when camera phones totally sucked, what makes you think kids will want them now, when they are approaching some level of decency?

Click to expand...

But they did. And the real issue is cameras are so good now the upgrade cycle of the early 2000’s is gone.

sportyaccordy said:

That war has been lost.

Click to expand...

Yeah, probably. But phones still suck.

viska said:

Fuji owners can spend small amounts and still achieve plenty.They have entry level that is above others entry level for similar outlay.

Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure Canon is the best when it comes to entry level and professional level gear.

sportyaccordy said:

I've seen 2 confident declarations of RF killing off M today. How and why? RF = high end, M = low end. It sucks that the two systems aren't interchangable, but they have a common bridge- EF mount. Plus honestly, even if they shared the same mount, most people going from APS-C to FF would be replacing a lot of lenses anyway. EF-S is 20 years old I think, and even when ILC sales were approaching 20 million Canon didn't see the value in fully developing the EF-S line. But they kept updating and developing EF-S nonetheless. So crop is always going to be the basic low end system with FF serving the higher end. Canon needs both ends of the spectrum. It just makes sense.

Click to expand...

I think it is because enthusiasts don't get the M. They see the shallow lens range and think canon don't care about they system. But it's more that the people buying them don't care about then range of lenses. They like that they can change them because they want a real camera but aren't actually going to buy any of the more exotic lenses.

It's frustrating to enthusiast because we want our go to lenses. I would buy into the system if it had a fast 24 equivalent and some f4 zooms but another enthusiast would want two other specific lenses and we just aren't enough business.

sportyaccordy said:

I've seen 2 confident declarations of RF killing off M today. How and why? RF = high end, M = low end. It sucks that the two systems aren't interchangable, but they have a common bridge- EF mount. Plus honestly, even if they shared the same mount, most people going from APS-C to FF would be replacing a lot of lenses anyway. EF-S is 20 years old I think, and even when ILC sales were approaching 20 million Canon didn't see the value in fully developing the EF-S line. But they kept updating and developing EF-S nonetheless. So crop is always going to be the basic low end system with FF serving the higher end. Canon needs both ends of the spectrum. It just makes sense.

Click to expand...

I'm with you on this one, except I don't even think it "sucks".

Canon based their strategy on their data, which was telling them that the much-vaunted aspirational upgrade path, where a new hobbyist buys into an APS-C body, but equips it with FF lenses, in preparation for moving up to FF bodies as they 'mature' as a system-based photographer, was simply a myth and didn't happen often enough to be worth designing camera systems around. I think the data was saying about 7% of FF buyers got into it that way (or was it 7% of APS-C owners moved up to FF that way?--not sure).

The other 93% were staying in APS-C, or buying their first FF bodies without already having FF lenses in the same system.

So what really happens, in terms of market realities, is that in general, photographers buy APS-C and stay there, in which case FF lenses are a waste of size and money, or move to FF bodies without regard for their prior investment in APS-C.

So the vast majority of people who buy M system are not on their way up to R. They are a different market and need moderately priced compact systems. Canon are delivering that.

Then we have FF buyers. Top FF systems are expensive, so Canon are providing cheap entry points to get them into this more high-profit segment, which makes sense because they and Nikon tried the up-sizing path with DSLR and the data showed it failed.

cheers

viska said:

Fuji owners can spend small amounts and still achieve plenty.They have entry level that is above others entry level for similar outlay.

Click to expand...

maybe now, but prior models of the X-A series were fk'ing dogs .. the AF was slower than the original EOS-M. I had the X-A5 and it was a complete piece of junk. I was shocked how bad it was. Everyone talked about how good fuji was, blah blah blah... the thing was downright lethargic focusing on even a static object in good light.

and it didn't even come with a AC battery charger, had to buy that separate.

and there's not a system out there that can replace the EF-M 11-22 for $399 USD. Just sayin'.

thunder storm said:

Jon555 said:

sportyaccordy said:

I've seen 2 confident declarations of RF killing off M today. How and why? RF = high end, M = low end. It sucks that the two systems aren't interchangable, but they have a common bridge- EF mount. Plus honestly, even if they shared the same mount, most people going from APS-C to FF would be replacing a lot of lenses anyway. EF-S is 20 years old I think, and even when ILC sales were approaching 20 million Canon didn't see the value in fully developing the EF-S line. But they kept updating and developing EF-S nonetheless. So crop is always going to be the basic low end system with FF serving the higher end. Canon needs both ends of the spectrum. It just makes sense.

Click to expand...

My feeling is there is a good chance they will keep EOS-M for people that really want small cameras (it's a surprisingly large market) and everyone else who wants a serious camera will be pushed to FF.

Click to expand...

What's the best investment:

ef-m 22mm f/2.0 + 32mm f/1.4 + sigma 56mm f/1.4

or

RF 35mm f/1.8 IS + RF 50mm f/1.8 IS + RF 85mm f/2.0 IS

The RP is not the best camera, but there will be newer small bodies for the RF mount. Once those longer primes arrived price and IQ might be the biggest differentiators between the two mounts, not size.

Click to expand...

Depends what weight/bulk you are happy carrying around plus what amount of money matters to you.

There's a limit as to how small you can make a RF camera, the limit for M is smaller (smaller mount, smaller sensor).

The R6 is allegedly getting announced in c. 3 weeks, worth seeing what it looks like.

https://camerasize.com/compact/#829.349,815.790,ha,t

So what the best entry level?

Ditto PG?

What glass did you have on the xa5?

Thomas A Anderson said:

sportyaccordy said:

Thomas A Anderson said:

farmersteve said:

Well we have reached saturation on the smart phone thing. The camera internals can't get much better without getting a thicker phone and that's not going to happen. There might be a shift to computational photography, but even then you will never approach the quality of a large sensor camera. I don't think we'll ever see a large stampede back to big cameras.

Click to expand...

We might not see a stampede, but I think kids growing up with crappy phone cameras could be convinced to buy real cameras. The trick is making it more seamlessly work with phones. Backup to cloud, sharing, transferring to home computers would make using a camera closer to the same convenience of using a phone.

Click to expand...

Cameras integrate with phones well enough. The hurdles are convenience and incremental value. No matter how seamless the integration, a camera will always be an external device to buy/learn/carry. And for people who are OK with phone IQ, the incremental improvements from a camera are pointless.

Click to expand...

Only if one actually believes there is only a marginal increase in ability, usability, and quality over their smartphone. The differences in those metrics are rarely minor, depending on the circumstances of course. If there’s sunlight and little motion with a subject nearby then a phone can be fine (the subject may be still, but not for long).

Click to expand...

You are confusing potential increases with practical increases. Everyone knows "real" cameras are more capable. This is why if they hire a "real" photographer to shoot an event like a wedding, they want them to use a "real" camera. But for every day casual shooting of photos that are mainly gonna be viewed on a tiny phone screen, no, nobody needs a "real" camera.

This might shock or even disgust you, but these days I do the bulk of my shooting on my phone! However for important stuff- i.e. the upcoming birth of my 2nd child- I have my "real" camera ready to go.

Thomas A Anderson said:

Thomas A Anderson said:

Plus you have to remember that while phones are obviously not close to "real" cameras on a technical basis, they've closed the gap a good bit.

Click to expand...

What has closed the gap is the marketing hype pushed by phone companies that would have one believe such a patently ludicrous idea. From zoom lenses to lightning fast focus and decent low light image quality, larger sensors put phones to shame. Good enough? For many who don’t care or know better, yes. I’ve helped quite a few people learn why their phones are inadequate and what a real camera can do. Marketing has people convinced processing gimmicks make up the difference. Bull.

Click to expand...

So you don't think "real" camera companies engage in marketing hype? That's what marketing is- a pitch to get you to buy something, often through exaggerated or even ridiculous claims. Your shameless bias is showing.

And I'm not so much sure you "helped" your friends as much as bullied them into buying a camera they probably didn't need. To you it's less a journey to expand one's photographic capabilities and more a religious crusade against the evil smartphone, and those "who don't care or know better." Why should one "care or know better"? Reading your posts, it seems like "real" cameras cause you more heartburn and consternation than happiness and fulfillment.

Thomas A Anderson said:

Thomas A Anderson said:

If kids couldn't be convinced to buy real cameras 5-10 years ago, when camera phones totally sucked, what makes you think kids will want them now, when they are approaching some level of decency?

Click to expand...

But they did. And the real issue is cameras are so good now the upgrade cycle of the early 2000’s is gone.

Click to expand...

They didn't. Camera sales have fallen every year since 2012, while phones either rose or stayed flat. They're not interested.

Thomas A Anderson said:

Thomas A Anderson said:

That war has been lost.

Click to expand...

Yeah, probably. But phones still suck.

Click to expand...

Finally, your first bit of honesty. The questions you need to ask yourself aren't about things like why people use phones or whatever. You need to do some soul searching and ask why you are so wound up over something as insignificant as the device choices of strangers. It makes absolutely no sense to be so angry and indignant over something so trivial. People like to use phones instead of real cameras. OK, so? Who cares? Are you this desperate for a distraction or is your life this devoid of meaning and substance? Those are the kinds of things you really need to think about.

TN Args said:

sportyaccordy said:

I've seen 2 confident declarations of RF killing off M today. How and why? RF = high end, M = low end. It sucks that the two systems aren't interchangable, but they have a common bridge- EF mount. Plus honestly, even if they shared the same mount, most people going from APS-C to FF would be replacing a lot of lenses anyway. EF-S is 20 years old I think, and even when ILC sales were approaching 20 million Canon didn't see the value in fully developing the EF-S line. But they kept updating and developing EF-S nonetheless. So crop is always going to be the basic low end system with FF serving the higher end. Canon needs both ends of the spectrum. It just makes sense.

Click to expand...

I'm with you on this one, except I don't even think it "sucks".

Canon based their strategy on their data, which was telling them that the much-vaunted aspirational upgrade path, where a new hobbyist buys into an APS-C body, but equips it with FF lenses, in preparation for moving up to FF bodies as they 'mature' as a system-based photographer, was simply a myth and didn't happen often enough to be worth designing camera systems around. I think the data was saying about 7% of FF buyers got into it that way (or was it 7% of APS-C owners moved up to FF that way?--not sure).

The other 93% were staying in APS-C, or buying their first FF bodies without already having FF lenses in the same system.

So what really happens, in terms of market realities, is that in general, photographers buy APS-C and stay there, in which case FF lenses are a waste of size and money, or move to FF bodies without regard for their prior investment in APS-C.

So the vast majority of people who buy M system are not on their way up to R. They are a different market and need moderately priced compact systems. Canon are delivering that.

Then we have FF buyers. Top FF systems are expensive, so Canon are providing cheap entry points to get them into this more high-profit segment, which makes sense because they and Nikon tried the up-sizing path with DSLR and the data showed it failed.

cheers

Click to expand...

As some of the posts in here showed, we're not talking to people who deal in data or logic. Some of the predictions and explanations are pure fight or flight responses. The decline of camera sales; the perceived lack of investment/priority on EOS M; cell phones- people view these less as market changes and more as existential threats, prompting all kinds of conspiracy theories and other nonsense.

Canon's 2 tiered strategy as well as the different customer bases seem obvious to me, but when one is totally gripped by fear and anger, facts and conspiracies often change places as the mind seeks comfort rather than logic.

TN Args said:

sportyaccordy said:

I've seen 2 confident declarations of RF killing off M today. How and why? RF = high end, M = low end. It sucks that the two systems aren't interchangable, but they have a common bridge- EF mount. Plus honestly, even if they shared the same mount, most people going from APS-C to FF would be replacing a lot of lenses anyway. EF-S is 20 years old I think, and even when ILC sales were approaching 20 million Canon didn't see the value in fully developing the EF-S line. But they kept updating and developing EF-S nonetheless. So crop is always going to be the basic low end system with FF serving the higher end. Canon needs both ends of the spectrum. It just makes sense.

Click to expand...

I'm with you on this one, except I don't even think it "sucks".

Canon based their strategy on their data, which was telling them that the much-vaunted aspirational upgrade path, where a new hobbyist buys into an APS-C body, but equips it with FF lenses, in preparation for moving up to FF bodies as they 'mature' as a system-based photographer, was simply a myth and didn't happen often enough to be worth designing camera systems around. I think the data was saying about 7% of FF buyers got into it that way (or was it 7% of APS-C owners moved up to FF that way?--not sure).

The other 93% were staying in APS-C, or buying their first FF bodies without already having FF lenses in the same system.

So what really happens, in terms of market realities, is that in general, photographers buy APS-C and stay there, in which case FF lenses are a waste of size and money, or move to FF bodies without regard for their prior investment in APS-C.

So the vast majority of people who buy M system are not on their way up to R. They are a different market and need moderately priced compact systems. Canon are delivering that.

Then we have FF buyers. Top FF systems are expensive, so Canon are providing cheap entry points to get them into this more high-profit segment, which makes sense because they and Nikon tried the up-sizing path with DSLR and the data showed it failed.

cheers

Click to expand...

I agree with this view on the M. When we had our Rebel XS that came with two kit lenses, we never added another lens. We had 18 - 300 covered. This was before phones were any good. This was good enough for our interests at the time. Bought it in 2010. We traveled a bit with it and got much better shots than we did with our point and shoots.

Four years later we bought a Rebel SL-1 body with a Sigma 18-250 because we wouldn’t have to change lenses out. Yay! We had yet to get a smart phone so this was our only photography tool. Never bought another lens. We beat that thing up. Drove it all over the US. From Maine to Florida. From Los Angeles to Glacier NP. Many places in between. Rubber grip came off. The zoom ring on the lens came loose. It was time. Dropped it down a hill and watched it roll to the edge of a stream. Good times. Still works. I try to teach my kids some basics with it.



Going to full frame wasn’t any huge loss because we didn’t have a big investment in equipment. It’s not like I was worried if it could work with our couple kit lenses bought over 10 years.



With this purchase (the RP), I’ve taken a much greater interest in learning what this camera can do and what I can do as a photographer. It’s been fun and I have more time now to do it.



Still trying to convince my wife to get an M6II just for a smaller all around. Probably with the 18-150 and the 32 /1.4 and be done with it. She has a much better eye for candids than I do. I have a bit more patience and interest in setting up shots. Trading lenses back and forth isn’t really a concern or interest. I know the phone is good enough for candid stuff, but they will sometimes get blown up in Shutterfly photo albums that we order, so the sensor size and resolution is important to us.

sportyaccordy said:

Thomas A Anderson said:

farmersteve said:

Well we have reached saturation on the smart phone thing. The camera internals can't get much better without getting a thicker phone and that's not going to happen. There might be a shift to computational photography, but even then you will never approach the quality of a large sensor camera. I don't think we'll ever see a large stampede back to big cameras.

Click to expand...

We might not see a stampede, but I think kids growing up with crappy phone cameras could be convinced to buy real cameras. The trick is making it more seamlessly work with phones. Backup to cloud, sharing, transferring to home computers would make using a camera closer to the same convenience of using a phone.

Click to expand...

That war has been lost.

Click to expand...

I don't think so. Photography is big. What would social media be without photography and video? Totally lame, that's what. Habit's change, people do things differently. Phones are the hype of the moment, but are they the be all end all for all time?