Point and shoot cameras -- no more?

[ShinySideUp]

End of Point and Shoot

Came across this short video while browsing YouTube.

I had to have a look afterwards to see if what he was saying about all these little compact cameras disappearing was true and it is. WEX, for example, have lots listed but almost all of them are 'out of stock'. The guy is right, it is rather a shame to see the end of these little cameras but, as far as Mr GenericPhoneUser is concerned, his phone is more convenient and, [very] arguably, better. Another nail in the coffin of 'real' photography.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

Another nail in the coffin of 'real' photography.

It depends what you think "real" photography is.

 

[ShinySideUp]

It depends what you think "real" photography is.

Hence my quote marks, that is open to debate; I certainly don't want this deteriorate into how good or bad phones are for 'real' photography (although outside of quickie pictures of my dogs doing silly things, I find my phone camera to be virtually useless (and it's not a cheap one)). I take a small Olympus MFT with me wherever I go.

 

[lindsay]

It's pretty logical that for people who just want convenience, and those whose whole life is found on their phone, they have no interest in a P&S camera which then has to have images uploaded to a computer - a lot of people don't even bother with a computer if they can do everything on their phone. However we see a steady, if small, stream of people who find they enjoy taking photos and want to move to something better, coming to TP and I'm sure other websites, asking for advice about what camera to buy. I just think that in the case of photography, the "sprat to catch a mackerel" is the phone camera now rather than the P&S.

 

[cambsno]

I do see this market as pretty pointless. The latest phones are good, especially in good light (indoors and dark, less so) and we always have them on us. Most will either rely on phones or invest in a 'proper' camera.

 

[LCPete]

Yes agree there is no market for them a real shame though
Phone camera is ok in good light but for anything I care about I either use m proper camera on my Sony rx 100 mk 1 don't know if it’s classed as a point and shoot but the image quality is still better than my iPhone

 

[lindsay]

Good point inferred by Pete, that the modern pocket-sized bridge cameras are way better than P&S's, admittedly much more expensive but you have to perceive the need/desire to buy them, whereas P&S's were always just something people had as a cheap and cheerful holidays camera rather like the original Kodak box and brownie and autographics etc.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

...but the image quality is still better than my iPhone

Once again, that depends on what you mean by "image quality".

I think that, for most purposes, a phone image is superior to any other image for one over-riding reason: the user has the phone in their hand when the image is there to be captured. I write as someone who always has a camera with him and prefers to use the camera rather than the phone.

 

[swanseamale47]

I think it's the "snapper" who years ago would have a compact for the odd photos are the ones no longer buying. Buying now are mostly keen photographers who want a pocket camera thats better or more useable than a phone camera.
I suspect with mirrorless getting smaller, micro 4/3 being fairly small and many compacts getting bigger. Many of the later now carry a real camera where before they had a compact.
The phone is let down for me by the lack of a really good zoom lens (at least the ones I've tried) yes they have got better, but I dont think they are quite there yet.

 

[velocette]

For years I always carried a compact, latterly a reasonable one like a Canon Powershot G1 or my current Sony RX 100 and couldn't be bothered with phones. Now however I only carry a camera for specific purposes as the phone does caterers for most of my needs especially my type of street photography and the dreaded record shot. The Sony would do it better but by the time I got it out and on the subjects probably gone. So unfortunately the phone suits me fine. Doesn't stop me still buying lenses for the DSLR's though.

 

[ShinySideUp]

I think it's the "snapper" who years ago would have a compact for the odd photos are the ones no longer buying. Buying now are mostly keen photographers who want a pocket camera thats better or more useable than a phone camera.
I suspect with mirrorless getting smaller, micro 4/3 being fairly small and many compacts getting bigger. Many of the later now carry a real camera where before they had a compact.
The phone is let down for me by the lack of a really good zoom lens (at least the ones I've tried) yes they have got better, but I dont think they are quite there yet.

Mind you, if you believe some of the YouTube videos, it's quite possible that MFT is on its way out too; personally, I love my little Olympus and it is my general everyday camera.

On the phone thing, perhaps I would use it a lot more if I didn't have the constant fear, when trying to use it one-handed, of dropping the thing onto a concrete floor; a dedicated shutter button on the side would help a lot (I'm sure some already have one, mine does not).

 

[ecoleman]

It's also a real pitty that corded rotary dial home phones are gone now. No way to make "real" telephone calls anymore.

If I wasn't carrying my DSLR around with me, a always had a Canon G1Xii with me but these days I can get excellent results with my iPhone shooting 48mp Raw images. I just don't see the point in taking it with me.

Of course for "Real" photography I have my R5, but it's digital, so is it real?

 

[Mintchocs]

There are a couple of channels on YouTube that buy auction lots of of these cameras and then resell them. I asked who buys these compacts and he said some people just want a cheap replacement of a similar camera that broke!

 

[woof woof]

Over the years I've got a lot of pleasure out of simple cameras. In my film days I always had a fixed focus 35mm compact, perfect for snapping on days out and holidays. In my digital days and years ago I had and still have a credit card footprint sized Medion compact and by any measure it's pretty awful but I loved using it. I also still have a Canon Ixus and I deeply regret giving my Panasonic LF1 away to a relative who pleaded for it.

Phones may be as good or even better than these ancient digital efforts but I do hate using them for photography and there's just nothing I like about the handling and use so I do think it is a great shame if compacts are gone.

I d have a Panasonic TZ100 and it is quite compact and it'll be a shame if that class of camera go too. I was sad to see that the Panasonic GX80 and GX9 I have are out of production too.

 

[cambsno]

Mind you, if you believe some of the YouTube videos, it's quite possible that MFT is on its way out too; personally, I love my little Olympus and it is my general everyday camera.

On the phone thing, perhaps I would use it a lot more if I didn't have the constant fear, when trying to use it one-handed, of dropping the thing onto a concrete floor; a dedicated shutter button on the side would help a lot (I'm sure some already have one, mine does not).

On iphones you can do that but you can also buy 'grips' with a shutter button so you hold a bit like a camera

 

[Craikeybaby]

Mind you, if you believe some of the YouTube videos, it's quite possible that MFT is on its way out too; personally, I love my little Olympus and it is my general everyday camera.

On the phone thing, perhaps I would use it a lot more if I didn't have the constant fear, when trying to use it one-handed, of dropping the thing onto a concrete floor; a dedicated shutter button on the side would help a lot (I'm sure some already have one, mine does not).

You can usually use the volume buttons. Although it is rumoured that the next iPhone will have a dedicated "capture" button: https://appleinsider.com/articles/2...-capture-button-with-dslr-style-focus-feature

FWIW, I still prefer to use my X100V when I am out and about, it stretches the definition of compact though.

 

[cambsno]

You can usually use the volume buttons. Although it is rumoured that the next iPhone will have a dedicated "capture" button: https://appleinsider.com/articles/2...-capture-button-with-dslr-style-focus-feature

FWIW, I still prefer to use my X100V when I am out and about, it stretches the definition of compact though.

Same here. But I think if it as a compact. Compared to my old d700 or newer xt3 with 1.4 glass it is. Can fit on a belt and go in a small bag. Can be work round shoulder with little impact too.

 

[swanseamale47]

Mind you, if you believe some of the YouTube videos, it's quite possible that MFT is on its way out too; personally, I love my little Olympus and it is my general everyday camera.

On the phone thing, perhaps I would use it a lot more if I didn't have the constant fear, when trying to use it one-handed, of dropping the thing onto a concrete floor; a dedicated shutter button on the side would help a lot (I'm sure some already have one, mine does not).

Some when in camera mode use the volume button as a shutter release, most Samsungs and I'm told Iphones have this feature.
Edit someone beat me too it.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

Mind you, one thing I haven't experimented with enough, is using an iPad.

Compact it's not but it does give that marvellous "view camera" experience without the hassle of darkslides...

 

[Faldrax]

Interestingly there is actually a resurgence in the compact P&S market - but for old, s/h ones, which have become the 'in thing' for teenage / young adults to use to post travel/holiday snaps from to Instagram etc.
My 19yr old daughter chose an old Canon Ixus we had from years back, and uses it in preference to her iPhone for a lot of what she takes.

As for 'current' compact / bridge cameras - even mid range phones will have cameras / processing that will give 'better' results than most compact cameras for the sort of shots that they were mostly used for - so it's only those that offer greater control, zoom range, etc. that people would be considering, and the price of those will have many either dropping the idea, or looking at entry level interchangeable lens cameras (which are a similar price, or cheaper in some cases).

 

[Adam-G]

I think it's a bit of a shame that they've died a death but they were always a device that was made to appeal the one click convenience crowd, an area that phones have now far surpassed in terms of that convenience and the immediacy of use for sharing photos.

The quality argument is a totally different thing. I think the "best camera is the one you have with you" is a bit of a forever in flux strawman.

I saw a Kingfisher on the river the other day around 40 feet away. My "best camera" if we go by the cliché in that situation would be the Samsung Galaxy Flip I had in my pocket which in that shooting scenario and many others is about as much use as trying to scratch your balls with a lump hammer.

In that instance I may as well not have a camera with me at all. I'd rather wait until I can engineer a shooting situation that will give me a shot I'm happy with and worth keeping, rather than a perfunctory documentary smudge of something totally unidentifiable.

 

[ShinySideUp]

On iphones you can do that but you can also buy 'grips' with a shutter button so you hold a bit like a camera

Ah, the irony; you can buy a 'grip' that makes ones phone handle like a camera. Or, one could just use a camera.

 

[ShinySideUp]

Turns out, following a post above, that I CAN use the volume buttons as a shutter button; unfortunately it puts the shutter button on the left and no camera I have ever owned does that. I'd probably get used to it I suppose.

 

[Don Fischer]

My son uses his phone for all his photo's. He doesn't know how to get them on a computer though so none get printed. He does take some decent looking photo's with it but I would like to see prints made from them. As for point and shoot cameras, I believe there are two types' I've tried the inexpensive one's and I did get some pretty good photo from them. Problem is they, the phones themselves do last for my needs. I like to carry one in the field with me working my dogs, much more convenient that carrying my DSLR. Had a couple that lasted me about a year before it took a dump. And when I got them I was hoping at around $300 they would last longer, they didn't! I still carry a point and shoot with me, a Panasonic SX 100. Paid a bunch over $300 for it and hurt writing the check. But this is a much better built camera and take's photo's about on par with my Nikon 7000! It does not have one of those super zoom lenses but rather a 25-200 which is about perfect for what I use it for. I've made a few 12x24 enlargement's with it and they come out real nice. Someone doing walk around in town would be pretty well served with this camera. On the down side I bought it used for a little over $400. The menu was messed up by the previous owner and I was pulling my hair out trying to use it till I got help on here. Fit's in a nice little belt pouch and goes every where with me. Pretty easy at times to forget it's a point and shoot. So in my mind there are [point and shoot's and there are point and shoots. The inexpensive ones do take some nice pictures but don't last very well for what I use them for. The more expensive one's take really nice photo's and are seeming to last. If I could afford a Leica I might try one but from photo's I've seen, they look to large to serve my needs. And of course I can't afford them. But says on my Panasonic the it does have Leica lens. new I think they are just under $600! To me that is a lot of money which is why I went with used.

So, I think there are several different classes of point and shoot. From the really inexpensive to the expensive such as Leica. I think the Leica is a point and shoot!

If I compare it to my son's cell phone, that phone cost him something like $800! And he still has to pay for service every month! Then again he can't get his photo's out of it either. I think someone called it right. For cell phone user's it's convenient and does a number of other things. He use's his cell phone as his computer! The ironic part is he also has a Nikon D5000 I'd gave his daughter several years ago because she was tired of taking photo's with her phone. Well she never used it the first time and he took it over and now he's never used it! They do prefer their cell phones. Like to see some prints from them someday but neither know how to do it! I would think given a bit more time the small inexpensive point and shoots are gonna be history!

 

[bovey9]

Interestingly there is actually a resurgence in the compact P&S market - but for old, s/h ones, which have become the 'in thing' for teenage / young adults to use to post travel/holiday snaps from to Instagram etc.
My 19yr old daughter chose an old Canon Ixus we had from years back, and uses it in preference to her iPhone for a lot of what she takes.

As for 'current' compact / bridge cameras - even mid range phones will have cameras / processing that will give 'better' results than most compact cameras for the sort of shots that they were mostly used for - so it's only those that offer greater control, zoom range, etc. that people would be considering, and the price of those will have many either dropping the idea, or looking at entry level interchangeable lens cameras (which are a similar price, or cheaper in some cases).

I live in Devon and it's the same here. I have two teenage girls both use compacts as it's the in thing. Lots of their friends have them too. The trouble with current compacts is they are so far behind the latest phones in how they produce a finished result. The dynamic range some of these new phones can capture is amazing.

 

[johnty52]

Turns out, following a post above, that I CAN use the volume buttons as a shutter button; unfortunately it puts the shutter button on the left and no camera I have ever owned does that. I'd probably get used to it I suppose.

You do know you can turn the phone 180 degrees and the vol/Shutter button is then on the right ? You can also turn the phone on its 'head' and rest on the floor to get a 'very' low view point, good for puddle reflection shots. I'm not a phone fan-boy but I do like taking pictures and spur of the moment shots when I want, so I learned how to use the phone as a camera - they're very good.

 

[ShinySideUp]

You do know you can turn the phone 180 degrees and the vol/Shutter button is then on the right ? You can also turn the phone on its 'head' and rest on the floor to get a 'very' low view point, good for puddle reflection shots. I'm not a phone fan-boy but I do like taking pictures and spur of the moment shots when I want, so I learned how to use the phone as a camera - they're very good.

At the bottom, just as weird

 

[viewfromthenorth]

I still find a compact camera as an indispensable part of my kit.

However, I use my phone quite a lot for photography though and find it a useful tool, especially for taking a test shots at different focal lengths to help me see different perspectives before deciding if I want to swap lenses on my Nikon.

What I have found is that phone pictures look great when viewed on a phone, but they fall apart when viewed on a big screen or when printed bigger than A4. And by fall apart, I mean the way detail is resolved especially in the background of the main subject. However I’m definitely in the minority of camera phone users who actually take the photos off the phone and look at them on screen and sometimes print them! But for quick snaps to capture moments, or even just to record things for reference it’s great.

I also have a Sony RX100 that slips in my pocket and while not up to the standard of M4/3 or a crop sensor, it’s certainly a step up from an iPhone so this does get an awful lot of use. I’m much happier printing A3 from this as well, although I recognise that isn’t high up on everyone’s list of criteria!

 

[LongLensPhotography]

One point that probably nobody raised (sorry if I missed) is that most people have zero clue about quality of light, shadows, colour fidelity, perspective or composition. They never print anything. So a bloody iPhone is just fine for them considering the limitations of their audiovisual capabilities and just the mere need to create a record. The convenience factor then takes over.
Phones don't have great iq. The footage I'm seeing from iPhone 13 or 14 (I don't even care which one) is really shoddy but so is anything coming off 1/2.5" compacts, which are in fact much worse in many cases, or just about equal at best
Once you get to 1" or larger this starts to improve. There are just selected few compacts and ultra premium phone models that have this. So this is really not a part of this debate for now; you really have to consider mainstream including 2-3 year old devices

 

[arturo7]

Hopefully the Polaroid will stay around. How else are we going to have fridge pics?

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

One point that probably nobody raised (sorry if I missed) is that most people have zero clue about quality of light, shadows, colour fidelity, perspective or composition.

I'm pretty sure that most people know as much as yourself about such matters. The language they use to describe their opinions may be different to your own but their opinions have exactly the same validity as yours.

So a bloody iPhone is just fine for them

Gosh! I didn't know that blood soaked iPhones are a common problem. Has anyone asked Apple about this phenomenon?

Phones don't have great iq.

I suspect that (roughly) 2 billion iPhone buyers hold a different opinion.

 

[LongLensPhotography]

I'm pretty sure that most people know as much as yourself about such matters. The language they use to describe their opinions may be different to your own but their opinions have exactly the same validity as yours.

Respectfully, this couldn't be further from truth. I won't go into details. You either get it or you don't. Sorry.

to clarify most of us are capable of doing things, interpreting data etc, but unless we are trained in it, usually that's just a waste of time. Hands up how many of you can for example solve a matrix or differential equation without aids or reading up? Not many, and truth be told I have long forgotten it too. So you don't expect me to have a proper understanding in these things. And likewise I hope you are not suggesting the photographic education is about just a few fancy colours and simple outlines people learn in kindergatens and usually leave it at that. There you go

I suspect that (roughly) 2 billion iPhone buyers hold a different opinion.

That just reinforces my statement. It must be OK for calling, although in my experience it evens fails on that account too often, A fashion statement perhaps. I am happy they use this garbage - keeps us employed.

 

[Adam-G]

I'm pretty sure that most people know as much as yourself about such matters. The language they use to describe their opinions may be different to your own but their opinions have exactly the same validity as yours.

I get where you're coming from here in terms of language used sometimes does not always indicate the depth of someone's knowledge but also there's a huge assumption that @LongLensPhotography doesn't know more about photography than the average person who whips a phone out of their pocket and presses a shutter button a few times a week.

Every one is of course entitled to an opinion but there is a growing culture whereby people have come to see their opinions as sacred cows to never be countered or reproached. The phenomenon of 'my opinion is as good as your knowledge' is a very real one.

I'm not implying you lack knowledge so please don't take it that way but the law of averages strongly suggest that anyone on this forum who's prioritised developing themselves as a photographer over years and years will know more than the average person who takes photographs in the most convenient way possible on a device that does a million other jobs.

And that isn't me saying phone photography is inherently bad. It is plenty good enough for most people and that is entirely valid too.

My friend is a published and peer reviewed molecular and cellular biologist. She has attained this knowledge over years of intensive study and work in some of the most complex scientific areas you can think of. Anything she puts forward, despite it having tangible, repeatable data is automatically picked apart to the point of proof or disproof by dozens of similarly smart, experienced people until it can be stated as scientific fact.

I would not dream to assume that because I've been sick a few times that my opinion on noroviruses is valid or useful in her presence.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

Respectfully, this couldn't be further from truth.

Your opinion and one I disagree with.

Hands up how many of you can for example solve a matrix or differential equation without aids or reading up?

Utterly irrelevant to the current discussion.

We're talking about perceptions here, not mathematics. Pretending that opinions on a picture are in any way comparable to using a mathematical technique is purest whataboutary.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

I would not dream to assume that because I've been sick a few times that my opinion on noroviruses is valid or useful in her presence.

As I have pointed out above, no opinion about a picture is in any way comparable to the practice of a technical skill.

At the end of the day, all anyone can say about any general picture is "I like it" or "I don't like it", Of course, if the discussion is about an image for a technical purpose, such as a crime scene photograph or a picture of a piece of machinery, then specific criteria can be applied.

 

[Adam-G]

As I have pointed out above, no opinion about a picture is in any way comparable to the practice of a technical skill.

At the end of the day, all anyone can say about any general picture is "I like it" or "I don't like it", Of course, if the discussion is about an image for a technical purpose, such as a crime scene photograph or a picture of a piece of machinery, then specific criteria can be applied.

I made no reference to someone's opinion of an individual photograph. I referred to your inference that a member here knew nothing more about photography than people who have next to no interest.

You have a habit of moving goalposts within a discussion.

Whether you like it or not, there is technicality to photography and it often has a direct relationship to enabling and improving your creative vision.

A fully out of focus, poorly exposed, camera shake riddled photograph may convey a sense of chaos (intentional or otherwise) and be enjoyed or liked by someone, nobody is denying that. But the technical aspects that make the photo are also open to the accurate judgment that it's out of focus, poorly exposed and has camera shake.

There is a frequent strand you like to pull at that image quality doesn't matter yet you too will have an opinion on what your acceptable levels of quality are to you. Others have a different approach and that's fine.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

You have a habit of moving goalposts within a discussion.

Au contraire, I have a habit of keeping to the point, where possible.

There is a frequent strand you like to pull at that image quality doesn't matter

In a picture, "quality" is in the eye of the beholder - see Robert Capa's iconic image of the D-day landings..

 

[Nod]

IF more of Capa's rolls of film had survived, I doubt the roll that keeps being shown would have made the cut!

 

[Phil V]

IF more of Capa's rolls of film had survived, I doubt the roll that keeps being shown would have made the cut!

Not to mention the conflation of IQ (quantitative) with ‘the quality of an image’ (qualitative)

But it’s on these occasions one has to remember that almost half of all people are below average intelligence

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

IF more of Capa's rolls of film had survived, I doubt the roll that keeps being shown would have made the cut!

I agree.

However, they didn't, courtesy of a mix up in the darkroom. So what we're left with is what did survive and they are the blurred, out of focus and grainy pictures which capture the event and have been reproduced time after time in many media.