Is digital dead now?

soupdragon

soupdragon

Messages
2,523
Name
Tony
Edit My Images
Yes
Seems to me that digital slrs and mirrorless cameras have reached peak sales now and are on the decline. Canon and Nikon revenue reports support this.
The iphone appears to have matched or even excelled (in some cases) ILC cameras and is certainly more portable. I'm not just talking apple, Samsung and whatever are all doing the same thing.
So, is there any future for slr/mirrorless cameras outside photo journalism?
I personally hope not. so as soon as the masses fall out of love with the latest, greatest and most megapixeled loaded digicam the better.
It'll give a film old timer like me hope that the materials for my art are available for years to come.

Digital sucks!

Hybrid is OK though.
 
GreenNinja67 said:
People don't buy a smartphone for the camera.

A phone will never match what you can do with a proper camera.

As for the technology in modern mirrorless cameras we've never had it so good. I can't see the major manufacturers going under quite yet.

Oh, and digital's great, as is film.
Click to expand...
People certainly do buy smartphones for the camera. Photographers maybe not.

My bet is that an overwhelming number of people that use a smartphone for taking pictures (that may well have used a point-and-shoot camera in the past) actually know very little about cameras and photography and don't care much either.
 
soupdragon said:
The iphone appears to have matched or even excelled (in some cases) ILC cameras
Click to expand...

No matter how many times I hear and read this I've still seen no real evidence of this as whenever I look at a smartphone image on my pc they've never ever matched what I can get from any digital camera I own or have owned for quite some time... apart from a couple of ancient compacts I still have.

And then there's the negatives of smartphone photography. They have no ergonomics at all and I hate holding them at half arms length and jabbing at them with a finger. It is for me at least just a joyless awful experience. Good luck to those who like using them and to those who think the IQ is acceptable.
 
Last edited:
Improved photography specs seem to be the biggest selling points when a new model of smartphone is launched.

The purchasing of dedicated digital cameras has certainly gone from mainstream to niche, but it isn't dead though, just like film photography isn't dead.
 
If SLRs were dead I doubt if Sony would have just released the first global shutter camera.

Most people don't take a camera anywhere these days as the mobile phone does a better job for general photography and sharing that picture elsewhere immediately.
 
GeeJay57 said:
People certainly do buy smartphones for the camera. Photographers maybe not.

My bet is that an overwhelming number of people that use a smartphone for taking pictures (that may well have used a point-and-shoot camera in the past) actually know very little about cameras and photography and don't care much either.
Click to expand...
They don't buy the smartphone for the camera, some choose the specific smartphone because of it's camera like capabilities.
IE If someone brought out a smartphone without the phone and data capabilities, they wouldn't buy it.
However, having then got a smartphone with a camera, they see no reason to buy a separate camera, as they believe they already have one.
 
woof woof said:
I'll use one and every second I'm using it I'll be wishing I had a camera with me. Ditto when I look at the results.
Click to expand...
Certainly a phone’s ergonomics are terrible. The output can be good, depending on final use. But try to make them perform like even a mediocre camera and you’re on a loser.
 
The camera functionality is a big selling point for smartphones. Samsung, Apple et al wouldn't be doing that if it wasn't an important and differentiating feature.
 
GreenNinja67 said:
People don't buy a smartphone for the camera.

A phone will never match what you can do with a proper camera.

As for the technology in modern mirrorless cameras we've never had it so good. I can't see the major manufacturers going under quite yet.

Oh, and digital's great, as is film.
Click to expand...
"Proper Camera" I'd love to hear a definition of that.
I do like you though.
 
Stephen L said:
Certainly a phone’s ergonomics are terrible. The output can be good, depending on final use. But try to make them perform like even a mediocre camera and you’re on a loser.
Click to expand...

As I've mentioned several times on this site Mrs WW is constantly swapping pictures with friends and family and most of the incoming ones are taken with smartphones. These pictures can look nothing short of stunning on a smartphone or even a tablet screen but to date I've never seen one which stands comparison to a picture taken with one on my cameras when viewed on my pc.

For me this is no real surprise as the camera part of the smartphone and its software must be geared towards making the pictures look good on the smartphone screen. When incoming smartphone pictures are transferred to and viewed on my pc their shortcomings are usually very apparent to me.
 
woof woof said:
As I've mentioned several times on this site Mrs WW is constantly swapping pictures with friends and family and most of the incoming ones are taken with smartphones. These pictures can look nothing short of stunning on a smartphone or even a tablet screen but to date I've never seen one which stands comparison to a picture taken with one on my cameras when viewed on my pc.

For me this is no real surprise as the camera part of the smartphone and its software must be geared towards making the pictures look good on the smartphone screen. When incoming smartphone pictures are transferred to and viewed on my pc their shortcomings are usually very apparent to me.
Click to expand...
So much depends on what people want to do with their images. Posting on social media, sharing with friends etc.. Smartphone pictures are good enough. Blown up and hanging on the wall, maybe not so good.

My other half recently got an iPhone 15. It has a (no doubt tiny) 48MP sensor. I've not taken a critical look at any of the pictures yet, but they look ok on her iPad.
 
Of the entire set up though - the phone's still awkward as a seperate entity!
 
woof woof said:
No matter how many times I hear and read this I've still seen no real evidence of this as whenever I look at a smartphone image on my pc they've never ever matched what I can get from any digital camera I own or have owned for quite some time... apart from a couple of ancient compacts I still have.

And then there's the negatives of smartphone photography. They have no ergonomics at all and I hate holding them at half arms length and jabbing at them with a finger. It is for me at least just a joyless awful experience. Good luck to those who like using them and to those who think the IQ is acceptable.
Click to expand...
I have seen pictures from smart phones that are truly breath taking. I have no idea if they can be enlarged or described as "Fine Art" or otherwise.
You appear to have lost sight of what the latest generation are "In to"!
The iphone generation don't care about pixel peeping or composition for that matter, all that matters is that their green Thai Curry looks amazing.
 
soupdragon said:
I have seen pictures from smart phones that are truly breath taking. I have no idea if they can be enlarged or described as "Fine Art" or otherwise.
You appear to have lost sight of what the latest generation are "In to"!
The iphone generation don't care about pixel peeping or composition for that matter, all that matters is that their green Thai Curry looks amazing.
Click to expand...
Pixellated tofu hasn't never interested me much.
 
srichards said:
If SLRs were dead I doubt if Sony would have just released the first global shutter camera.

Most people don't take a camera anywhere these days as the mobile phone does a better job for general photography and sharing that picture elsewhere immediately.
Click to expand...
Sony's shutter is just another gimmick to keep digital cameras alive.
it's only a matter of time before it's simulated in a phone.
 
Ed Sutton said:
Digital isn't dead, cameras in phones are digital. :)

Personally I think film sucks and the sooner it stops being made the better.. :D
Click to expand...
Oh dear! never taken a proper photograph then!
 
soupdragon said:
I have seen pictures from smart phones that are truly breath taking. I have no idea if they can be enlarged or described as "Fine Art" or otherwise.
You appear to have lost sight of what the latest generation are "In to"!
The iphone generation don't care about pixel peeping or composition for that matter, all that matters is that their green Thai Curry looks amazing.
Click to expand...

I haven't lost touch with what the latest generation are into at all. I've seen smartphone pictures which look stunning on a smartphone but not on my pc.

This is not just a difference of opinion between allegedly out of touch me and younger people as there are, believe it or not, younger people using even high end camera kit. Me and others are in a minority though as a majority of others don't really care about a smartphones awful ergonomics or that their smartphone picture may look less good when viewed on something other than on a smartphone screen.

I suppose it's the same in many areas of interest. For example there are car enthusiasts who think that the Lotus Elise is a very nice thing and they have a point. I owned one. It was an exciting car to drive. Others and maybe a majority see cars as white goods to get them from A to B and any thought of enjoyment doesn't enter their minds. To me smartphones are photographic white goods. They function to a degree and within their limitations whilst showing their weaknesses in some situations and overall being joyless.
 
Last edited:
GreenNinja67 said:
I must be one of the rare ones that would sooner not take a photo if I only had my phone on me.
Click to expand...

I certainly wouldn't take a photo with my phone and then offer it up on my Flickr page. Camera phones can't compete with a goo dSLR or a mirrorless ILC camera and filters. The resolution of camera phones are also nowhere near as good.

I only use my camera phone to take a pic of something out of stock in the supermarket to prove to my wife that I haven't forgotten to buy it.
 
When I first started photography around 50 years ago, there was a small minority of people for whom photography was a serious hobby and they were prepared to spend significant amounts on equipment to support that hobby. I know many in my family who just take images with a phone and share on social media but they do not regard this as a hobby. I believe a small minority will continue to pursue photography as a hobby and may have to pay higher prices for film or DSLR equipment (and ML) in future but will.

Dave
 
personally I think - Horses for courses, my daughter has a DSLR as do I - I bought it for her to do her University degree in Wildlife and Natural History Photography in Falmouth, she got the degree - uses her phone for social media as its 'there' and then to put the image up on the 'app' straight away, (as does my wife and other daughter ) but she uses her camera when out to take photographs for her pleasure in doing so and to 'develop'. Both are valid and both function for her in the way she wants the end result to be. As an engineer ( retired ) its the old adage - use the right tool for the job - lots of space for all of us, and am I a 'real' photographer ? - well you will be able to see a few of my images printed and mounted by me and hanging in the Saatchi Gallery in London in a few months time so you can decide :)
 
Last edited:
Marc said:
Bought one of THESE last year certainly improved the ergonomics.
Click to expand...
Kind of defeats the object of having a phone you can carry in your pocket. Suppose it depends on your priorities.
 
I don't think you can blame a smart phone because of Nikon and canon sales decrease .......blame fuji lol
 
srichards said:
If SLRs were dead I doubt if Sony would have just released the first global shutter camera.

Most people don't take a camera anywhere these days as the mobile phone does a better job for general photography and sharing that picture elsewhere immediately.
Click to expand...
Sony will have other uses for their sensor, military, commercial. medical etc, and the amateur/consumer market is an ideal testing and proving ground.
 
srichards said:
If SLRs were dead I doubt if Sony would have just released the first global shutter camera.

Most people don't take a camera anywhere these days as the mobile phone does a better job for general photography and sharing that picture elsewhere immediately.
Click to expand...

First handheld battery powered consumer global shutter camera, global shutters in industrial/scientific applications have been around for years.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top