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?

+1 and I don't think that trend is going to go away.......

OZ Steve wrote:

+1 and I don't think that trend is going to go away.......

Just a return to "normal". For all the time I used film (about 50 years ... ), very, very few people had or used other than very basic cameras - Instamatics and basic fixed lens cameras (some of which were much better than others).

johnpatrickbishop wrote:

There really is no comparison to the photos from my new Panasonic G7, to say nothing of my trusty Nikon. So while it's definitely true that the cellphone can't be beat for portability, for those who still care about quality, the cellphone is still not up to the task.

I wouldn't speak so soon. Check out the detail on this bird (iPhone 7)

And the next generation of phones will combine information from multiple sensors. The next Samsung phone is rumored to have an UWA lens equivalent to 10mm. Wider than anything in the M43 system.

Boss of Sony wrote:

johnpatrickbishop wrote:

There really is no comparison to the photos from my new Panasonic G7, to say nothing of my trusty Nikon. So while it's definitely true that the cellphone can't be beat for portability, for those who still care about quality, the cellphone is still not up to the task.

I wouldn't speak so soon. Check out the detail on this bird (iPhone 7)

And the next generation of phones will combine information from multiple sensors. The next Samsung phone is rumored to have an UWA lens equivalent to 10mm. Wider than anything in the M43 system.

I don't care much about the UWA option but the bird looks great! I don't really shoot much with my cell phone and I wonder if even I had something better (like presumably this iPhone is) if I'd end up shooting much with it as I don't like the experience as much as with a dedicated camera. Still, I have nothing against cell phone photography and in fact I love the idea that something so tiny is capable of capturing so much detail... We're living in the future!
Nice photo...

That is a very cool phone. I like it. I do not suppose that it is the kind of thing sold in shops in units of one though - they probably only sell to corporates with orders of multiple units.

It also costs $3,350...each!

Ouch! Lots of money, just for being allowed to take it inside a nuclear bomb manufacturing site...

And in 2 years it will be obsolete just like any other smartphone.

If that'll be so, let it be.

Nothing lasts forever.

I don't know what's in the other's mind. But for me, I enjoy shooting with the camera while the camera last.

...

M4/3 and dSLR will be obsolete if-and-only-if the phone camera is significantly better than them. Better in whatsoever aspect is not important. By that time, I'll will turn to it. You'll too.

...

Tape and grammophone had been going this path before. Betamax made war with VHS before both were extincted while CD, iPod emerged. Someone had cried days and nights when iPod gone, but not the world. Now those who had cried almost forget what is it while listen through streaming over their phone.

Do you know where you're going to?

..

I reply to tbis topic via the 10" tablet. My 2 notebooks are not obsoleted by world's consensus yet. But I rarely use them now because the tab is significantly better for DPR'ing & eSocializing. If the day comes when the tab could make them obsolete, I don't care even 4 bits.

To me, being able to change out cards, lenses is worth it to me to have a camera.  Plus, I can carry 2-3 batteries, just in case.  All things being equal, I prefer to have a camera for photos and a phone for talking.  If I don't have a camera, a phone is better than nothing.  But, the flexibility of a camera, at this point, can't be beaten, at least to me.

I'd read the title, but not the body, of the original post before I went off  to take care of my business this morning.  And I thought I'll just take my cell phone, to see how well I like just carrying that, instead of one of my bigger MFT cameras.

As I was coming out the door, I saw a pretty sign that somebody had put up to advertise attractions, and I snapped a picture of it.

And then I became aware, of a voice singing "Don't Tell Mama I Was Drinking" and oh, it was beautiful, but due to the acoustics of the square, I couldn't make out the location of it.   And right then, I'd wished I'd not went off without an Olympus MFT camera, so that if I found a group of my people singing, I could make great shots of it, and record a bit of video, without looking like somebody taking pictures with a cell phone.

And about then, the singing wound up, and then the unmistakable steel guitar lead to "Be Careful of Stones That You Throw" by the original Hank Williams broke out, and I knew that it was just a boom box playing the local radio station.  I saw a construction worker on a scaffold, with a boom box, painting the old Heck Saddlery building, and waved to them as I passed by.

That reminded me to stop by the Silvey Shoe Repair by the barbershop, but she's still out because of her knee surgery, and after that I rambled over to the Dollar General to get some target supplies for my friends at the Shooter's Club, and took care of some more business, then made it home.

And then I downloaded the cell phone picture, and read the original post entirely, and decided that anybody so blessed as I was to live in the Ozarks, should carry both a cell phone and a real, honest to God, Olympus MFT camera.

The cell phone quality isn't the best, but it beats no camera at all, and it makes you stop and see the beauty of your surroundings.

Then if you want to do it up right, you should take a real camera, and go after it.

Be careful of stones that you throw, concerning cell phone cameras.

They might trick people into appreciating, what they already have.

Ok ok, settle down. None of this is my fault.

So you've got a good shot in front of you, there is no question that a pro camera would capture more detail, and give higher quality snapshot than a phone camera. This is well established and I shouldn't have to repeat it.

I'm just about saying that m4/3 and dslr cameras aren't at any risk of becoming obsolete, lot's of people will still need and want them. Phones will obviously sell in larger numbers, but shouldn't take many sales away from higher-end cameras.

While my MFT camera will certainly capture a much better image in almost every way (even my wife *generally* agrees), there are some distinct advantages of cell phones:

* People generally have them in their pockets

* It's oh so easy to backup your photos and share them with friends, family.  So much simpler than using the flashair card I have in my E-PM2

* Pictures are automatically GPS tagged

* Some cellphones (Google Pixel, modern iPhones) quite acceptable pictures nowadays (much better than even 3-4 years ago)

Also, this may be my wife, but she is used to the fisheye type selfie look and gets self conscious with more reasonable focal lengths.  Sometimes she insists I take a picture of her with a low-end cell phone specifically.

Anyhow, the pocketability factor may be an intrinsic difference between real cameras and cell phones, but some of the shareability issues absolutely could be resolved by camera manufacturers.  An Olympus MFT that ran Android and had a sim card would be pretty nifty.

martok80 wrote:

An Olympus MFT that ran Android and had a sim card would be pretty nifty.

Both Samsung and Panasonic have tried this in the past. Neither model is still available - sad as IMHO it’s a great idea to have a device that is primarily a camera first but has smart-phone capabilities...

IMO m43 (and others) will have to add features like this to survive...

‘my GX9 with wi-if and BT LE is the closest yet to having built in GPS/file transfer but it’s still very flaky

martok80 wrote:

While my MFT camera will certainly capture a much better image in almost every way (even my wife *generally* agrees), there are some distinct advantages of cell phones:

* People generally have them in their pockets

* It's oh so easy to backup your photos and share them with friends, family. So much simpler than using the flashair card I have in my E-PM2

* Pictures are automatically GPS tagged

* Some cellphones (Google Pixel, modern iPhones) quite acceptable pictures nowadays (much better than even 3-4 years ago)

Agree. The real culprit is the Huge Jump in Smartphone Image Quality year to year.

Every year, Smartphone image improve by leaps & bounds

Every year, Smartphone increasing produce better images than 1 year before

Difference 1 year can make

Every year, Smartphone gain new feature, that is even missing in current dedicated camera like a Dual Tone flash to prevent too warm or too blue white balance

Smartphone in 2018 is more than good enough to cover photographic needs of an average consumer.  As the result, less and less consumer are willing to pay $800 for a Low~Mid-ranged M43 (Panasonic GF7, GF8, GM1/GM5, Olympus E-PL7, E-PL8, EM10, EM10 II).  They simply rush and buy an iphone.

This reduced M43 market into just Advance Enthusiast (DPR) & PRO market that is both Bigger & more Expensive.  I think the latest rush to FF Mirrorless is in part the result of average consumer abandoning dedicated camera, forcing camera manufacture to seek PRO who tend to want FF sensor.