The final death knell for P&S as we know it?

<p>And the beginning of a camera war in cell phones? The new Nokia Windows phone is supposed to have a nice little Zeiss in it, but this is a different beast altogether. Sign of the times and the future, as always, is an interesting place.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/new-cyberhsot-mobile-versus-newly-announced-samsung-s4-zoom/">http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/new-cyberhsot-mobile-versus-newly-announced-samsung-s4-zoom/</a></p>

<p>Looks like Nokia simply glued a phone to the back of a P/S camera.</p>

<p>If that's the wave of the future, what's going to make users throw it away first? Obsolete phone and features? or obsolete camera function?</p>

<p>It's a brilliant strategy to market built-in-obsolescence electronics by merging everything, just the reverse of how Hi-FI evolved when consumer preference went from consoles to components way back when.</p>

<p>The best solution to me is an Android powered camera with all the multifunction smarts but omit the phone.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The best solution to me is an Android powered camera with all the multifunction smarts but omit the phone.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Careful what you wish for. :)<br>

<a href="http://www.mirrorlessrumors.com/hot-first-images-of-the-samsung-galaxy-nx-mirrorless-system-camera/">http://www.mirrorlessrumors.com/hot-first-images-of-the-samsung-galaxy-nx-mirrorless-system-camera/</a></p>

<p> </p>

<p>I'll wait to buy when they build a camera and cellphone into my shoe! I want to get some miles out of my next purchase.</p>

<p>I won't really know what to think about this until Leslie comments.<br /><br />In the meantime, I'll have to muddle through and take pictures with some clumsy 2012-vintage things I'm already carrying around. I'm glad my "phone" (an antiquated iPhone 5, which is a small computer that happens to make phone calls, too) has a surprisingly decent little camera built in - I use it all the time to make visual notes and snapshot-ish images. But when I want a better smartphone for some reason and leave it behind, I won't feel like I'm ditching "one of my cameras." Just doesn't feel like that at all.</p>

<p>I don't care what these things do. I still want my camera to be a camera, and not think about it getting a virus or how much data I have left on its family plan or whether I need a new body to get the latest version of the OS or whether the NSA is receiving copies of all my photos because my Android camera uploads everything to my "private" Google feed.</p>

<p>Andy, Android is just an operating system to utilize the power of ARM processors. An Android powered camera doesn't need Internet, Google, or anything other than to harness the power of the processor to perform advanced camera functions to any extent a manufacturer wants. </p>

<p>Compact camera sales are dropping rapidly. </p>

<p>Jan 2012 - compact sales dropped 30%<br>

http://www.techradar.com/us/news/photography-video-capture/cameras/compact-camera-sales-drop-by-30-1054578</p>

<p>May 2013 - Nikon expect compact sales to be down 18% from last year.<br>

http://www.euroinvestor.com/news/2013/05/09/nikon-profits-drop-on-weak-compact-camera-sales/12328441</p>

<p>Jan 2013 - Canon expects a 7% drop from last year.<br>

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/30/canon-earnings-sales-idUST9E8FU02E20130130</p>

<p>May 2013 - Olympus to stop producing the cheapest V series compacts.<br>

http://www.dpreview.com/news/2013/05/16/olympus-to-axe-cheapest-point-and-shoots</p>

<p>I could go on, read sansmirror.com if you want to see more. I asked 10 of my friends over the past 6 months what it would take for them to buy a compact camera. 8 of them said even if it was free they wouldn't use it as they'd just use their smartphone since it is far easier to share/post/email/etc. </p>

<p>Agree with Walt that the death of basic P&S cameras, and video cameras, such as the Flip, has long begun. Just like the arrival of iPod brought down the HF music business. The vast majority of the people much prefer to bring their favorite things along even at the expense of some loss of quality. </p>

<p>The P&S cameras are squeezed from one side by the smart phone and from the other by the mirrorless dSLR-like cameras. They have to be really special to find a niche or they will be gone soon as more and more people have smartphones.</p>

<p>Michael,</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The best solution to me is an Android powered camera with all the multifunction smarts but omit the phone.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><a href="http://www.nikonusa.com/en/Nikon-Products/Product/Compact-Digital-Cameras/26356/COOLPIX-S800c.html#Fun&Innovative">Already exists for quite a bit.</a><br>

__<br>

I'm using my smartphone more and more, but in a way much like Matt described. It isn't going to be my primary camera any time soon, but it is more convenient than the cheap P&S that I have, and usually better quality images too. It's not surprising what is happening at the low end of the P&S market.<br>

But whether that makes that people want to take their smartphone as far into the camera territory as these new phones (S4 Zoom, Cybershot Mobile, Nokia 808 Pureview and its rumored WinPhone based follow-up) is yet another thing. These 'smartphocams' do add a lot of bulk, and I think for the large crowd, that's just a step too much. There will be market, but to me it seems relatively niche. It's, in my view, not the S4 Zoom that will kill the low-end P&S market, it's the normal Galaxy S4 (and the iPhone 5, Lumia 925, HTC One and all those others).</p>

<p>I guess I am am outlier. I want things that do the job WELL, not just good enough. Too many people just want a picture of them doing something or being there. I have found it hard to talk to people about the difference between an snap shot and a picture that you have creative control over. A smart phone, or any other multi-device portable thing just doesn't have what I want. But, since I do this for more than just being able to show my mug on Facebook, like so many want, I must be the minority.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I have to admit that since my company gave me a Razr Maxx, I haven't been keeping my Canon S95 P&S on my belt. While the S95 works way better than the cell phone, I guess I got lazy. On the other hand, on my trip, I did take my S95 on my belt.It seems that I'm taking my P&S like when I would take my MF camera. When I was going out specifically to shot pictures. But day to day, my cell phone seems to have taken over my P&S.</p>

<p>The best solution to me is an Android powered camera with all the multifunction smarts but omit the phone.<br /> Why is that the "best solution"?</p>

<ul>

<li>Two devices means pocket clutter (and the thing most dangerous to a piece of high-tech glass is another piece of high tech glass). What killed the camcorder as we used to know it? The P&S ate the camcorder, the phone ate the P&S and the PDA. Average people, not photo.netters, want to carry as few devices as possible to work, play, vacation, etc.</li>

<li>The phone and the camera duplicate a ton of expensive components: power system, battery, memory. We're dealing with an $18 chipset (at a million units) to add the phone. (Apple set a fairly artificial $130 difference between iPad models with and without a transceiver, and Amazon followed suit with exactly that same $130 difference on Kindle HD, but that's the premium brands seeing what they can get away with. Amazon knew better than to try that on the Paperwhite 3G, where the transceiver is just $60 extra. Some day, it won't be "extra", it will be "expected").</li>

</ul>

<p>If the goal would be to not have two devices, why should the Android camera omit the phone (requiring the user to also have a phone)? If the idea is that the phone kills the P&S that's not a phone, why is this any better? This is crappy consumer grade P&S (at a time when companies are withdrawing from that market because nobody is buying those) that duplicates functions of a phone that people already have in their pocket. Outside of gadget lovers, what's the market?</p>

<p>I'm with John here. Maybe we're outliers but I have one of the better phone-cameras (iPhone 5) and only use it when I want a quick shot to send in a text. Good small cameras that handle well and minimize annoyances (currently for me that's an X20) do a much better job for photos. If I really wanted a better phone+camera solution, I wouldn't stick a low-consumer-grade camera on the back of my phone (or a non-phone PDA), I'd get some wireless connectivity going between a good camera and a phone.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>If the goal would be to not have two devices, why should the Android camera omit the phone (requiring the user to also have a phone)?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Did anyone say that the Android cameras were omitting the phone? The article that Dave Smith linked was about the "S4 Zoom" and the "Cybershot Mobile". The first most definitely has a phone, and the second is rumored to (which is appropriate, as the device itself is a rumor).</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Too many people just want a picture of them doing something or being there.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

Too many? For over a hundred years, the primary use of cameras has been to record events. And that's probably over 90% for a lot of that time. That you don't see that as important for people says more about you than them.<br>

</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I have found it hard to talk to people about the difference between an snap shot and a picture that you have creative control over.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

I'm sure that comes from your attitude. What you say reflects a lack of interest and understanding in what other people want to do.<br>

</p>

<blockquote>

<p>A smart phone, or any other multi-device portable thing just doesn't have what I want.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

So that's you. Why impose what you want on other people? Sounds like you think you are better than other people because of how you want to use a camera.<br>

<br />FWIW, I shot for a number of years with a medium format pinhole camera. The "technical image quality" was lower than the cameras in phones for at least the last six years. Yet nobody ever said anything about it. People looked at the photos and found them interesting. They bought them, I had them in shows. They are soft, with infinite dof, and often subject to flare issues from reflections inside the pinhole. Yet nobody complained about them. And, interestingly enough, I saw pinhole shots with similar technical quality in museums. And nobody complained.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Did anyone say that the Android cameras were omitting the phone?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>What I was referring to was:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>The best solution to me is an Android powered camera with all the multifunction smarts but omit the phone.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>But I see that the Samsung camera-phone in the article is an Android phone with a camera on the back. The reason I think that's a bad idea is that the package is too large. With the way the lens and grip stick out it would be cumbersome in a pocket. If they made one the thickness of a Canon Elph but a bit wider and taller to accommodate the larger screen of a typical smartphone I could see some people buying it.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>So that's you. Why impose what you want on other people? Sounds like you think you are better than other people because of how you want to use a camera.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'm sorry but I must interject, here. You, Jeff, are reading into John's comment more than what is actually there (you've done this to me once, maybe twice, but whatever). To keep it short: he clearly wrote "outlier" and "minority". I'm already not impressed with unjustified, snarky comments from fellow members (though easily forgivable - there are no long-term grudges AFAIK). But coming from a moderator it's grossly improper.</p>

<p>Further, I refer you to the Terms and Conditions of Use, section 4, paragraph 7, which imply that attacks ad hominem ("degrading, harassing or humiliating") are violations of PN policy.</p>

<p>You don't understand what an ad hominem attack is. There was no harassing or humiliating, there was nothing personal in there. It was strictly about the words.</p>

<p>And for anyone that continues to think that their tools are more important than their photographs, I can highly recommend <a href="http://zonezero.com/zz/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1399&catid=2&Itemid=7&lang=en">this set of galleries</a> to anyone with an open mind. If you already believe that phone cameras are only for snapshooters, don't bother.</p>

<p>i have the amazing Nokia lumia 920 and its camera is that, just amazing but i have to say LG beat Sony to the punch quite a while ago<br>

http://reviews.cnet.co.uk/mobile-phones/lg-ku990-viewty-review-49292601/</p>