Time for a Marriage of Phone and Compact ?

[Bob A L]

Maybe - I wonder if it would have been different if Canon, Nikon, Sony, had been the one to try it?

 

[Mark B.]

Maybe - I wonder if it would have been different if Canon, Nikon, Sony, had been the one to try it?

Not sure about Sony. As good as their camera gear seems to be, their phones don't seem to have much market penetration at all.

Maybe if Canon or Nikon did a full collaboration with Apple or Samsung.

 

[sportyaccordy]

With my phone I can take photos into a sunrise over water, while getting foreground detail - on that tiny sensor! I'm old enough to remember a time when this couldn't easily be done by professionals with equipment the price of a good car. I know it is done by "combination of multiple images". I know it can't be done by any compact camera I've ever tried.

My question: Is it time for some manufacture to resurrect the sales of compact cameras by 'marrying' the image processing technology found in phones with the (relatively) decent lenses found on many compact cameras?

Samsung ?

Yes yes yes. I would probably replace my ILC kit with a software enhanced RX100.

 

[FrancoD]

Both are companies that have fingers in far too many pies, and specialise in nothing much at all.

Each business unit is pretty specialized. It's not like it's the same people all over the place, trying to do everything.

Of course, I never suggested otherwise. But Samsung and Sony are jacks of all trades and masters of none, really.

In your mind, again there would be millions of people that disagree with you , for example the users of the FF Sony camera, those that have the RX10 (well known to be the best bridge camera) amongst others and of course with Samsung ,amongst others, those that do use their Galaxy phones. BTW, only a few days ago Samsung presented their new batteries for EV ,965 km on a single 9 minute charge and have a lifespan of 20 years.

They make some965 km on a single charge and have a lifespan of 20 years good stuff, but they don't do anything brilliantly unlike the dedicated 'camera' companies such as Nikon, Hasselblad, Leica and Fuji.

Nikon and Fujifilm aren't dedicated camera or imaging companies, either. The latter, in particular, is very diversified.

I know. But their main focus is on imaging. Not making cookers and washing machines. Or Compact Disc players.

Not at all. The camera side of Fujifilm is only 10 % of their sales(about 15% including Optical Devices and Electronic Imaging) , with Nikon is about 30%

(https://www.nikon.com/company/ir/finance/segment/)

Such brand over-saturation has led to a weakening of the actual products relative to other brands. Better to concentrate on particular market niches, than try to be a jack of all trades and master of none.

The reason why companies diversify is because it makes them less dependent on the fortunes of any particular market niche, and less vulnerable to its misfortunes, should they happen. Canon and Nikon have both sought to diversify, by for example acquiring medical businesses, because the camera market is shrinking.

Again; I never said otherwise. But they concentrate on a much narrower range of markets than do Sony and Samsung.

As I pointed out, they are a LOT more divesified than you think. With Canon ,imaging is 21% and that includes more than just cameras. ( https://www.canonwatch.com/canon-ki...al-industry-with-additional-products-instead/)

Anyway, there's no evidence that being active in many different markets necessarily leads to worse products, unless expertise, money and other resources are severely limited and stretched thin.

Sony had no expertise in the world of cameras, so bought Minolta and cannibalised that company, hollowed it out and discarded it. Its early forays into the world of photography were with the now defunct Minolta A-mount, which they then ditched once they'd gained the necessary experience to make a whole new mount and market that. They did steal a march on other brands with their full frame mirrorless cameras, but now Canon and Nikon have caught up and overtaken them. In a relatively short space of time, too.

But regarding being jacks of all trades; can anyone name a particular product that either Samsung or Sony produce today, that is significantly better than anything else? The answer is no, really. Let's be honest.

Sony was designing making and selling still cameras since 1981. The konica Minolta camera division takeover happened in 2006 , 25 year later, when Sony already had a much large market share than Minolta , however the two had been working together for several years prior to that.(as of course also Konica Minolta had been working with others too, for example Hitachi and Sanyo).

BTW, you are ignoring tat both Samsung and Sony are a group of companies. Each division work separately so the fact that ,say, Samsung has a very large building construction company (they built the Petrona Towers, the tallest building in the world between 19998 and 1004...) does not affect the division that makes phones or Life Insurance or Heavy Industries(BTW, the lagest ship builder in the world...) and the same for Sony , as a matter of fact the division that maks caeras is a cusomer of the division that makes sensors, just like Nikon, Canon and all of the other brands that buy sensors from Sony.

 

[ishwanu]

But regarding being jacks of all trades; can anyone name a particular product that either Samsung or Sony produce today, that is significantly better than anything else? The answer is no, really. Let's be honest.

I'd say the answer is yes - unless you think there are bridge cameras better than the RX10 series or compact pocket - actual pocket size - cameras better than the RX100 series (which has now morphed into the ZV series).

I imagine there are those who find some of Sony's ILCs to be better than the competition.

But of course it all depends on what you think makes one camera 'better' than another.

 

[Hal Wilson]

Of course, I never suggested otherwise. But Samsung and Sony are jacks of all trades and masters of none, really.

In your mind, again there would be millions of people that disagree with you

OK; so people need to stop taking this personally, and get a sense of perspective. It's not a slight on your ego, or character, or purchasing choices. It's merely an opinion based on observation and facts.

BTW, only a few days ago Samsung presented their new batteries for EV ,965 km on a single 9 minute charge and have a lifespan of 20 years.

They make some965 km on a single charge and have a lifespan of 20 years good stuff, but they don't do anything brilliantly unlike the dedicated 'camera' companies such as Nikon, Hasselblad, Leica and Fuji.

Such battery systems aren't new, and rely on infrastructure not yet available or even possible (they require voltages way higher than any domestic system anywhere on Earth). Such a system has yet to be tested in real world use scenarios. As yet, such batteries have yet to be tested to verify the claims made.

I know. But their main focus is on imaging. Not making cookers and washing machines. Or Compact Disc players.

Not at all. The camera side of Fujifilm is only 10 % of their sales(about 15% including Optical Devices and Electronic Imaging) , with Nikon is about 30%

My point was that such companies focus mainly on a particular segment of the industrial market, not all over the place. And do things better as a result.

(https://www.nikon.com/company/ir/finance/segment/)

Again; I never said otherwise. But they concentrate on a much narrower range of markets than do Sony and Samsung.

As I pointed out, they are a LOT more divesified than you think. With Canon ,imaging is 21% and that includes more than just cameras. ( https://www.canonwatch.com/canon-ki...al-industry-with-additional-products-instead/)

It's still essentially focussed mainly on imaging of some kind though. Canon don't make washing machines industrial plant equipment or construct buildings...

Sony was designing making and selling still cameras since 1981.

The Mavica cameras were pretty crap and bettered by others. Plus I'm talking about now, not 40+ years ago.

BTW, you are ignoring tat both Samsung and Sony are a group of companies. Each division work separately so the fact that ,say, Samsung has a very large building construction company (they built the Petrona Towers, the tallest building in the world between 19998 and 1004...)

The construction division built one tower of the two. They didn't design it, however.

does not affect the division that makes phones or Life Insurance or Heavy Industries(BTW, the lagest ship builder in the world...)

No; you're reading poorly written articles found on Google, and presenting that as fact.

https://ouco-industry.com/top-20-sh...ration (CSSC,prominent defense group in China.

and the same for Sony , as a matter of fact the division that maks caeras is a cusomer of the division that makes sensors, just like Nikon, Canon and all of the other brands that buy sensors from Sony.

My original point was that Samsung and Sony aren't the best at anything in particular; Sony's sensor division relies on custom from others to survive. It operates independently of Sony's own camera division, for good reason. Other brands realise the potential of Sony's sensors better than Sony themselves.

And besides all that; sensors are not finished products like cameras are. They are merely components. The whole is greater than the sum of the parts.

Sony and Samsung make good products. Some excellent ones, I've never claimed otherwise. But they simply aren't at the pinnacle in any market segment. And perhaps that dilution of involvement in myriad markets has caused them to lose their way somewhat; Sony once made the Walkman, the MiniDisc player and some great mid range Hi-Fi gear. They were innovators and leaders. That time has long passed. Samsung? Having the largest market share in mobile 'phones is meaningless in relation to product quality; Samsung make a lot of crap 'phones, whereas Apple concentrate on the upper end of the market and make the best 'phones. McDonalds is the world's largest 'restaurant' chain; their 'food' is absolute garbage by any standards. Market dominance is no indicator of quality.

So let's move on.

 

[Hal Wilson]

Maybe if Canon or Nikon did a full collaboration with Apple or Samsung.

And back to the actual topic; I believe that such a colab would be far more successful than previous attempts. Because you're combining those companies who produce the best products, at the pinnacle of design and technology, who really deliver the goods.

For me, it would have to be either Canon or Nikon and Apple. That would truly rock.

 

[Hal Wilson]

But regarding being jacks of all trades; can anyone name a particular product that either Samsung or Sony produce today, that is significantly better than anything else? The answer is no, really. Let's be honest.

I'd say the answer is yes - unless you think there are bridge cameras better than the RX10 series or compact pocket - actual pocket size - cameras better than the RX100 series (which has now morphed into the ZV series).

The Nikon P900/1000 cams are arguably more useful for someone wanting such a thing. The RX100s are just compact cameras, nothing amazing. The Ricoh GR.x cams have larger sensors, better image quality and are just as pocketable, albeit not with a zoom. It's an already tiny niche market anyway, hence why no-one else bothers much if at all. The Nikon DL range would have blown the Sony's away, yet Nikon didn't even bother to release them. Tells you everything about that niche market segment.

I imagine there are those who find some of Sony's ILCs to be better than the competition.

I'm sure there are. I have no problem with that.

But of course it all depends on what you think makes one camera 'better' than another.

For me, the Nikon Z range has a superior lens mount; far more versatile and allows for better quality optical designs to be used. Better ergonomics than anything Sony make. Better build quality. Some of the newer Canon ML cameras look fantastic too. Sony enjoyed a brief mirrorless heyday, but that's over now.

 

[sportyaccordy]

Of course, I never suggested otherwise. But Samsung and Sony are jacks of all trades and masters of none, really.

In your mind, again there would be millions of people that disagree with you

OK; so people need to stop taking this personally, and get a sense of perspective. It's not a slight on your ego, or character, or purchasing choices. It's merely an opinion based on observation and facts.

BTW, only a few days ago Samsung presented their new batteries for EV ,965 km on a single 9 minute charge and have a lifespan of 20 years.

They make some965 km on a single charge and have a lifespan of 20 years good stuff, but they don't do anything brilliantly unlike the dedicated 'camera' companies such as Nikon, Hasselblad, Leica and Fuji.

Such battery systems aren't new, and rely on infrastructure not yet available or even possible (they require voltages way higher than any domestic system anywhere on Earth). Such a system has yet to be tested in real world use scenarios. As yet, such batteries have yet to be tested to verify the claims made.

I know. But their main focus is on imaging. Not making cookers and washing machines. Or Compact Disc players.

Not at all. The camera side of Fujifilm is only 10 % of their sales(about 15% including Optical Devices and Electronic Imaging) , with Nikon is about 30%

My point was that such companies focus mainly on a particular segment of the industrial market, not all over the place. And do things better as a result.

(https://www.nikon.com/company/ir/finance/segment/)

Again; I never said otherwise. But they concentrate on a much narrower range of markets than do Sony and Samsung.

As I pointed out, they are a LOT more divesified than you think. With Canon ,imaging is 21% and that includes more than just cameras. ( https://www.canonwatch.com/canon-ki...al-industry-with-additional-products-instead/)

It's still essentially focussed mainly on imaging of some kind though. Canon don't make washing machines industrial plant equipment or construct buildings...

Sony was designing making and selling still cameras since 1981.

The Mavica cameras were pretty crap and bettered by others. Plus I'm talking about now, not 40+ years ago.

BTW, you are ignoring tat both Samsung and Sony are a group of companies. Each division work separately so the fact that ,say, Samsung has a very large building construction company (they built the Petrona Towers, the tallest building in the world between 19998 and 1004...)

The construction division built one tower of the two. They didn't design it, however.

does not affect the division that makes phones or Life Insurance or Heavy Industries(BTW, the lagest ship builder in the world...)

No; you're reading poorly written articles found on Google, and presenting that as fact.

https://ouco-industry.com/top-20-sh...ration (CSSC,prominent defense group in China.

and the same for Sony , as a matter of fact the division that maks caeras is a cusomer of the division that makes sensors, just like Nikon, Canon and all of the other brands that buy sensors from Sony.

My original point was that Samsung and Sony aren't the best at anything in particular; Sony's sensor division relies on custom from others to survive. It operates independently of Sony's own camera division, for good reason. Other brands realise the potential of Sony's sensors better than Sony themselves.

And besides all that; sensors are not finished products like cameras are. They are merely components. The whole is greater than the sum of the parts.

Sony and Samsung make good products. Some excellent ones, I've never claimed otherwise. But they simply aren't at the pinnacle in any market segment. And perhaps that dilution of involvement in myriad markets has caused them to lose their way somewhat; Sony once made the Walkman, the MiniDisc player and some great mid range Hi-Fi gear. They were innovators and leaders. That time has long passed. Samsung? Having the largest market share in mobile 'phones is meaningless in relation to product quality; Samsung make a lot of crap 'phones, whereas Apple concentrate on the upper end of the market and make the best 'phones. McDonalds is the world's largest 'restaurant' chain; their 'food' is absolute garbage by any standards. Market dominance is no indicator of quality.

So let's move on.

Naw you dont get to decide when we move on lol. You made a claim, defend it.

How exactly has Sony's "dilution" negatively impacted their cameras? You yourself said they are good to excellent. What would be improved if they "focused" on them more? How should they focus on them? How are they any more or less focused than they used to be? The more I read your opinion the less sense it makes.

And no, people disagreeing with you isn't them taking your opinions personally. Some words on a website don't affect how my camera works or my life in general. But if you post something on a discussion board, people are probably going to discuss it. And IMO your criticisms of Sony and Samsung don't make much sense, even by your own words.

 

[Hal Wilson]

So let's move on.

Naw you dont get to decide when we move on lol.

No I do, and we have. Thanks.

 

[ishwanu]

But regarding being jacks of all trades; can anyone name a particular product that either Samsung or Sony produce today, that is significantly better than anything else? The answer is no, really. Let's be honest.

I'd say the answer is yes - unless you think there are bridge cameras better than the RX10 series or compact pocket - actual pocket size - cameras better than the RX100 series (which has now morphed into the ZV series).

The Nikon P900/1000 cams are arguably more useful for someone wanting such a thing. The RX100s are just compact cameras, nothing amazing.

The longer zoom ranges of the Nikons make them 'better' for some people, but their smaller sensor image quality is decidedly worse. The image quality of the Sonys is indeed amazing by comparison.

The Ricoh GR.x cams have larger sensors, better image quality and are just as pocketable,

Not necessarily just as pocketable. The sizes and shapes are different, and if you want an eye level viewfinder - which is essential IMO - you have to buy that and add it on.

albeit not with a zoom.

Yes, single focal length only, so the Ricohs are not 'better' for everyone. They're just different.

When comparing the bridge cameras, you've implied that zoom range trumps image quality. When comparing the pocket cameras, you've implied that image quality trumps zoom range. I take the opposite positions, so it's only our definitions of 'better' that differ.

It's an already tiny niche market anyway, hence why no-one else bothers much if at all. The Nikon DL range would have blown the Sony's away, yet Nikon didn't even bother to release them. Tells you everything about that niche market segment.

That's irrelevant. The conversation you raised is not about market segment. It's about 'better' products.

I imagine there are those who find some of Sony's ILCs to be better than the competition.

I'm sure there are. I have no problem with that.

Good, because people who buy them are very likely doing so because they consider them 'better' than the competition.

But of course it all depends on what you think makes one camera 'better' than another.

For me, the Nikon Z range has a superior lens mount; far more versatile and allows for better quality optical designs to be used. Better ergonomics than anything Sony make. Better build quality. Some of the newer Canon ML cameras look fantastic too. Sony enjoyed a brief mirrorless heyday, but that's over now.

I think you're agreeing that what's 'better' is simply a matter of opinion, not some universally shared combination of criteria. Thus, my opinion is that Sony does make a number of products that are better than the competition.

 

[FrancoD]

He is confusing his own bias with facts.

 

[Sonyshine]

…While the camera manufacturers do little but creep up market watching their market share dwindle.

‘‘Twas ever thus.

 

[Sonyshine]

Creates the Leica look on your iPhone.....

 

[Bob A L]

New example, yesterday went to the big city which is a two hour drive each way primarily to visit son-in-law who is in hospital. Of course also a stop for dinner etc. Not enough free time to consider main camera and lenses besides the possible theft threat in city, so elected to take my little Panasonics 1" sensor ZS100 in it's little pouch. Once at hospital, slipped Panasonic in underfloor compartment for safety where it stayed for rest of the day and my iphone 13pro assumed the duties of being camera of the day as it always lives in my pants pocket and is always there, besides the fact that it gave me turn by turn directions and led me to the hospital parking garage without a misstep, and then reverted back to being my camera for the day again. And again my phone came through with flying colors, for getting me where I needed to be, recording several very interesting photos through the day, contacting my daughter for instructions to son-in-law's room in the huge hospital, watching part of a car race, and playing a game or two of soiitare while in waiting room. All without even 1 extra item to bother with. Edit to add, this little camera in my pocket also shared recent photos of my great grandchildren, who are daughter and son-in-laws grandchildren playing, and also made a short video of him and daughter in hospital to take home to great grandkids to show them that their grandpa was looking pretty good.

Now thinking really hard about taking up a really good offer from MPB on the Panasonic.

 

[bjn70]

I don't agree with the question. For almost any non-enthusiast who would buy a compact camera a current cellphone will do the same job.

Years ago I bought a Canon SD1000 which is a small point and shoot, about the size of a deck of cards. It was easy to drop in my pocket and carry around. A few years later I got an iphone6 and one day I compared photos from the 2 devices. When I found that the iphone was as good or better I stopped using the little Canon. Now I have some version of iphone 15 with multiple cameras. Under some conditions it is hard to tell its images from my DSLR.

The question I want addressed is when the functionality of the phone camera will make its way into modern mirrorless. Consider the size of the actual hardware inside the cellphone. Today many photographers look down their noses at any camera with a sensor smaller than FF but in reality an APS-C sensor is not really all that much smaller than FF. Consider the size of the hardware in a cellphone, just a tiny fraction of the size of an APS-C camera, and consider how the image quality compares. What kind of image quality could we get from APS-C, or FF, with that same technology applied? Surely the processors in current mirrorless, processors that can do real time face detection, could handle the processing that a cellphone does for its photography.

 

[Marty4650]

Because every phone needs a camera today, but every camera user already has a phone. No one needs or wants a "camera that can make phone calls."

Ask any photo enthusiast. Would they rather have one more stop of ISO ability, or would they rather have a camera that can make text messages? See what they say.

The camera is a bonus on a smartphone. And if it is very good camera then it is a nice bonus. But photographers aren't demanding that their cameras surf the web, make phone calls, visit social media sites, or play games. They just want good connectivity to upload their photos faster.

And this isn't all about image quality, because the best smartphones today exceed the picture taking needs of most of their users. It is more about ergonomics, and controls. The high end photo enthusiast will ALWAYS appreciate a phone that takes better photos, but if they want to do serious photography, they will prefer a real camera.

Sure, there are photographers who will use an iPhone to do a fashion shoot, just to prove it can be done. But the smartphone hasn't hurt the sales of high end medium format cameras one bit. If a smartphone could "do the job just as good" then why do they spend $40,000 for for high end cameras and lenses?

 

[Bob A L]

Don't think I'd want to dig out a Z9 every time I needed to make a phone call :-D

Also, personal opinion only, that with the photo quality that comes with any modern digital ilc camera, I really don't think anybody actually needs to spend $40,000 either.

 

[Bender79ita]

With my phone I can take photos into a sunrise over water, while getting foreground detail - on that tiny sensor! I'm old enough to remember a time when this couldn't easily be done by professionals with equipment the price of a good car. I know it is done by "combination of multiple images". I know it can't be done by any compact camera I've ever tried.

My question: Is it time for some manufacture to resurrect the sales of compact cameras by 'marrying' the image processing technology found in phones with the (relatively) decent lenses found on many compact cameras?

Samsung ?

IIRC Samsung tried a similar approach already (ILC), but failed by being way ahead of the time (IMO).

What we might see more frequently might be photography tools for smartphones, like this power bank/grip here:



Basicly instead of adding a bunch of features to a camera, this is trying to solve what is one of the aspects that some photographers don't like about smartphones (the ergonomics).

If we will see some "device" with decent ergonomics, lens(es?) and sensor(s?)... in what "basic shape" and manufactured by whom... that only time will tell, your guess is as good as mine there.

 

[Fujiuseruk]

Both are companies that have fingers in far too many pies, and specialise in nothing much at all.

Each business unit is pretty specialized. It's not like it's the same people all over the place, trying to do everything.

Of course, I never suggested otherwise. But Samsung and Sony are jacks of all trades and masters of none, really.

They make some good stuff, but they don't do anything brilliantly unlike the dedicated 'camera' companies such as Nikon, Hasselblad, Leica and Fuji.

Nikon and Fujifilm aren't dedicated camera or imaging companies, either. The latter, in particular, is very diversified.

well Nikon also make sporting optics and Fujifilm imaging department most certainly isn’t their main business.
They deal in medical , printing and tv/ cinema equipment

I know. But their main focus is on imaging. Not making cookers and washing machines. Or Compact Disc players.

Such brand over-saturation has led to a weakening of the actual products relative to other brands. Better to concentrate on particular market niches, than try to be a jack of all trades and master of none.

The reason why companies diversify is because it makes them less dependent on the fortunes of any particular market niche, and less vulnerable to its misfortunes, should they happen. Canon and Nikon have both sought to diversify, by for example acquiring medical businesses, because the camera market is shrinking.

Again; I never said otherwise. But they concentrate on a much narrower range of markets than do Sony and Samsung.

Anyway, there's no evidence that being active in many different markets necessarily leads to worse products, unless expertise, money and other resources are severely limited and stretched thin.

Sony had no expertise in the world of cameras, so bought Minolta and cannibalised that company, hollowed it out and discarded it. Its early forays into the world of photography were with the now defunct Minolta A-mount, which they then ditched once they'd gained the necessary experience to make a whole new mount and market that. They did steal a march on other brands with their full frame mirrorless cameras, but now Canon and Nikon have caught up and overtaken them. In a relatively short space of time, too.

But regarding being jacks of all trades; can anyone name a particular product that either Samsung or Sony produce today, that is significantly better than anything else? The answer is no, really. Let's be honest.

Well there’s a whole bunch from Sony here







--
It’s all about the zoom.