# WSJ: MIrrorless sales bad - but not as bad as DSLR sales :)



## brunerww (Feb 11, 2014)

"Shooting a Look at Mirrorless Cameras"


----------



## bribrius (Feb 11, 2014)

I haven't even read it and im excited. I hope the prices drop like a rock.


----------



## Greiver (Feb 24, 2014)

Again with the WSJ trying to talk down SLR's. lol Oh how they've fallen.


----------



## brian_f2.8 (Feb 24, 2014)

According to canonrumors, Canon is leaving the point n shoot business.


----------



## runnah (Feb 24, 2014)

brian_f2.8 said:


> According to canonrumors, Canon is leaving the point n shoot business.



Point and shoots are way dead at this point. I haven't even seen one in the wild for a while.


----------



## pixmedic (Feb 24, 2014)

everything shifted up a notch. 
mirrorless is replacing P&S as the "compact" system, and cell phones are replacing P&S's as the "pocket" camera.


----------



## Derrel (Feb 24, 2014)

runnah said:


> brian_f2.8 said:
> 
> 
> > According to canonrumors, Canon is leaving the point n shoot business.
> ...



Speaking of NOT seeing point and shoot digital cameras in the wild, Majeed and I went over to the Oregon Coast the last weekend of December in 2012, on a gorgeous-weather day, most unusual for late December, and there were more people at Pacific City than I had seen in a long,long time. The surf was pretty big, and at one time, I counted 50 surfers, which is  a HUGE winter-time crowd for that spot. Camera-wise, I was astounded at the number of iPhones in action among the 18-25 year-old crowd. I saw one young woman with a Nikon superzoom P&S, and a couple older women with TINY Canon micro-digicams, but it was about 80% smart phones, probably 5% Point & Shoots, and maybe 15 percent d-slr cameras,mostly enthusiasts with tripods. I also saw ONE medium format rollfilm shooter, but he also had a brand-new-that-week Canon 5D series and 24-70.

I stopped along the beach and talked to maybe 50 people over the course of about three hour, and looked at their cameras, and saw hundreds of people walking around too. MOST of them had smart phones. One, single d-slr user had a brand-new Sony d-slr. I was really surprised at how FEW digital P&S cameras I saw...almost none...it was like smartphone cams had just taken over, and then the enthusiasts with 'pods and d-slrs were a mix of Canon and Nikon shooters. I mention this incident because the Oregon coast is one of **the** bigger tourist spots for photography on the west coast. It is scenic as heck. People take "their cameras" when they go there.




After a few hours at Pacific City, I drove us up to Tillamook Bay, and stopped the car for about one minute,right in the middle of the road, and we both hopped out of the car with our 70-200's on, and shot this oyster boat, anchored at the upper end of Tillamook Bay, on the outgoing tide. It had snowed a couple days before, but only on the higher elevations of the Coast Range. This is my "simulated Ektachrome slide film" processing look.


----------



## bribrius (Feb 24, 2014)

I use a point and shoot 42x ultrazoom 18mp.  Compact enough to carry around reasonably. I mostly have it for the zoom aspect. At 42 zoom it basically covers the majority of dslr lenses. Granted, no where near as well in image quality but it covers them. No concern with changing lenses and cleaning sensors. Small investment. I like it. It works fine 95 percent of the time. I've recommended it to numerous people and for the average person it is a great camera. My problem is the way I use a camera the other five percent of the time you will see me on here bitching and shopping for a new camera. And if I bought a dslr I would probably still carry around the point and shoot except for that five percent. I dread the thought of carrying around a dslr however. I don't even want to deal with multiple lenses unless I have too.
For 85 percent of the photos people take, a camera phone is adequate. For 90 percent of the photos people take a standard point and shoot is accurate. For 95 percent of the photos people take a point and shoot superzoom is adequate. It is the other five percent of the market the dslr and mirrorless are fighting over.


----------



## bribrius (Feb 24, 2014)

pixmedic said:


> everything shifted up a notch.
> mirrorless is replacing P&S as the "compact" system, and cell phones are replacing P&S's as the "pocket" camera.


The vast majority of consumers, do not want to change lenses or buy lenses.


----------



## runnah (Feb 24, 2014)

Derrel said:


> Speaking of NOT seeing point and shoot digital cameras in the wild, Majeed and I went over to the Oregon Coast the last weekend of December in 2012, on a gorgeous-weather day, most unusual for late December, and there were more people at Pacific City than I had seen in a long,long time. The surf was pretty big, and at one time, I counted 50 surfers, which is  a HUGE winter-time crowd for that spot. Camera-wise, I was astounded at the number of iPhones in action among the 18-25 year-old crowd. I saw one young woman with a Nikon superzoom P&S, and a couple older women with TINY Canon micro-digicams, but it was about 80% smart phones, probably 5% Point & Shoots, and maybe 15 percent d-slr cameras,mostly enthusiasts with tripods. I also saw ONE medium format rollfilm shooter, but he also had a brand-new-that-week Canon 5D series and 24-70.  I stopped along the beach and talked to maybe 50 people over the course of about three hour, and looked at their cameras, and saw hundreds of people walking around too. MOST of them had smart phones. One, single d-slr user had a brand-new Sony d-slr. I was really surprised at how FEW digital P&S cameras I saw...almost none...it was like smartphone cams had just taken over, and then the enthusiasts with 'pods and d-slrs were a mix of Canon and Nikon shooters. I mention this incident because the Oregon coast is one of **the** bigger tourist spots for photography on the west coast. It is scenic as heck. People take "their cameras" when they go there.  <img src="http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=67534"/>  After a few hours at Pacific City, I drove us up to Tillamook Bay, and stopped the car for about one minute,right in the middle of the road, and we both hopped out of the car with our 70-200's on, and shot this oyster boat, anchored at the upper end of Tillamook Bay, on the outgoing tide. It had snowed a couple days before, but only on the higher elevations of the Coast Range. This is my "simulated Ektachrome slide film" processing look.



We've talked but I say the next 5-10 years will be smart phones and pro grade mirror less cameras.

Same with video cameras the number of consumer grade video cameras had been halved and halved again in the last 10 years. 

Smart phones have replaced the point and shoot and the home video camera. They won't every replace professional and rich amateur grade equipment but any bridge camera will be dead.

And I type this on my iPhone that had a camera as good as most 5 year old point and shoots.


----------



## bribrius (Feb 24, 2014)

runnah said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > Speaking of NOT seeing point and shoot digital cameras in the wild, Majeed and I went over to the Oregon Coast the last weekend of December in 2012, on a gorgeous-weather day, most unusual for late December, and there were more people at Pacific City than I had seen in a long,long time. The surf was pretty big, and at one time, I counted 50 surfers, which is a HUGE winter-time crowd for that spot. Camera-wise, I was astounded at the number of iPhones in action among the 18-25 year-old crowd. I saw one young woman with a Nikon superzoom P&S, and a couple older women with TINY Canon micro-digicams, but it was about 80% smart phones, probably 5% Point & Shoots, and maybe 15 percent d-slr cameras,mostly enthusiasts with tripods. I also saw ONE medium format rollfilm shooter, but he also had a brand-new-that-week Canon 5D series and 24-70. I stopped along the beach and talked to maybe 50 people over the course of about three hour, and looked at their cameras, and saw hundreds of people walking around too. MOST of them had smart phones. One, single d-slr user had a brand-new Sony d-slr. I was really surprised at how FEW digital P&S cameras I saw...almost none...it was like smartphone cams had just taken over, and then the enthusiasts with 'pods and d-slrs were a mix of Canon and Nikon shooters. I mention this incident because the Oregon coast is one of **the** bigger tourist spots for photography on the west coast. It is scenic as heck. People take "their cameras" when they go there.
> ...


if it is a mirrorless camera with a fixed lense, doesn't that still make it a point and shoot?


----------



## robbins.photo (Feb 24, 2014)

bribrius said:


> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> > everything shifted up a notch.
> ...



The vast majority of them wouldn't have too, it would be just like having a DSLR and nothing other than he kit lens, and I'm sure that's the way it is for a lot of folks.  They get a D3200 or T5I from Walmart or best buy with the kit lens and never buy or use any other lens for the camera at all.   So really I doubt for most of those folks mirrorless/DSLR would really matter and frankly neither would lens options or the ability to change a lens. 

Not really a big deal though, I have a feeling that the entire premise of this article would have been blown out of the water completely had they just done a quick poll of the folks buying mirrorless cameras and asked them two simple questions.  "Do you own a DSLR" and "Is this mirrorless camera going to be used to completely replace it?"

I have a feeling the majority of current mirrorless owners would answer the first question yes and the second question no - the assumption made by most of these incredibly poorly researched overhyped articles is that the consumer made a choice between owning either a DSLR or Mirrorless and went Mirrorless - but as it turns out that doesn't seem to be the case.  From what I've seen the vast majority of mirrorless buyers already own a DSLR and they plan on keeping it and using it, they want a mirrorless not to replace the DSLR but rather to have something that is easier to carry around for times when the full blown DSLR would just be a bit too much.

Granted this isn't based on a scientific poll, but from what I've seen it does seem to be the most common profile of the mirrorless owners I've run into of late.  Me I'd love to get a mirroless myself at some point, have something with some decent IQ that I could carry around with me when the DSLR just wouldn't be all the convenient to have on me.  But you know even if I get one it won't replace my DSLR for serious shooting.  It would just be a nice compliment to what I already have.


----------



## bribrius (Feb 24, 2014)

robbins.photo said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> > pixmedic said:
> ...


what if you rephrase the question? Why WOULDN'T mirrorless replace the dslr? Find the key reasons you think it wouldn't. The downfalls of mirrorless. And then decide if you believe that in time those restrictions wouldn't be overcome by technology. Things often don't change overnight, but big changes happen often in small unnoticeable increments over time. Each day the dslr is left on the shelf and the mirrorless or other camera is grabbed instead is a increment. At the moment it seems dslr has the advantage in action/sports shooting. Not sure how long that will be so.


----------



## robbins.photo (Feb 24, 2014)

bribrius said:


> robbins.photo said:
> 
> 
> > bribrius said:
> ...



Will they be overcome?  Maybe, at some point.  Will that still mean that mirroless will replace DSLR, not necessarily.  It's possible, but not inevitable.  Much like Beta max never caught on and VHS did - there is a lot more in play than which technology is better, your looking at intrinsic market forces that will have far more long term impact on that question.  I have no problem with a mirrorless system, I can see certain advantages to them that I rather like - but there are some disadvantages that will have to be overcome before they are really ready to be considered a replacment for the DSLR, and even if they do eventually get to that point that is no guarantee that they will replace the DSLR.

For me though it's about features vrs price - not about the internal workings of the camera itself.  I could care less if there is a little mirror inside the thing flipping up and down or not, what matters to me is how it performs in the real world.  Right now I haven't seen a mirrorless system that could replace my DSLR, at least not effectively for the way I use it.  Will that change someday?  Sure, probably.  Does that mean the mirrorless will completely replace the DSLR at some point?  Maybe, but then again maybe not.  

As for these articles, for the most part they are poorly researched and they don't really give you a clear picture of the market as a result.  They all start out with the same ridiculous premise, that the buyer is choosing to only have a cell phone/mirrorless/DSLR etc - and by starting from that bad premise they all fail miserably from there - because the truth is a good portion of the mirroless market does own more than just a mirrorless.

So my issue here is with a badly written article based on a false premise, not with mirrorless technology itself.


----------



## TreeofLifeStairs (Feb 24, 2014)

robbins.photo said:


> Will they be overcome?  Maybe, at some point.  Will that still mean that mirroless will replace DSLR, not necessarily.  It's possible, but not inevitable.  Much like Beta max never caught on and VHS did - there is a lot more in play than which technology is better, your looking at intrinsic market forces that will have far more long term impact on that question.  I have no problem with a mirrorless system, I can see certain advantages to them that I rather like - but there are some disadvantages that will have to be overcome before they are really ready to be considered a replacment for the DSLR, and even if they do eventually get to that point that is no guarantee that they will replace the DSLR.  For me though it's about features vrs price - not about the internal workings of the camera itself.  I could care less if there is a little mirror inside the thing flipping up and down or not, what matters to me is how it performs in the real world.  Right now I haven't seen a mirrorless system that could replace my DSLR, at least not effectively for the way I use it.  Will that change someday?  Sure, probably.  Does that mean the mirrorless will completely replace the DSLR at some point?  Maybe, but then again maybe not.  As for these articles, for the most part they are poorly researched and they don't really give you a clear picture of the market as a result.  They all start out with the same ridiculous premise, that the buyer is choosing to only have a cell phone/mirrorless/DSLR etc - and by starting from that bad premise they all fail miserably from there - because the truth is a good portion of the mirroless market does own more than just a mirrorless.  So my issue here is with a badly written article based on a false premise, not with mirrorless technology itself.



I'm just surprised to hear some serious feedback from you. Usually it's just a comical one liner.


----------



## robbins.photo (Feb 25, 2014)

TreeofLifeStairs said:


> robbins.photo said:
> 
> 
> > Will they be overcome?  Maybe, at some point.  Will that still mean that mirroless will replace DSLR, not necessarily.  It's possible, but not inevitable.  Much like Beta max never caught on and VHS did - there is a lot more in play than which technology is better, your looking at intrinsic market forces that will have far more long term impact on that question.  I have no problem with a mirrorless system, I can see certain advantages to them that I rather like - but there are some disadvantages that will have to be overcome before they are really ready to be considered a replacment for the DSLR, and even if they do eventually get to that point that is no guarantee that they will replace the DSLR.  For me though it's about features vrs price - not about the internal workings of the camera itself.  I could care less if there is a little mirror inside the thing flipping up and down or not, what matters to me is how it performs in the real world.  Right now I haven't seen a mirrorless system that could replace my DSLR, at least not effectively for the way I use it.  Will that change someday?  Sure, probably.  Does that mean the mirrorless will completely replace the DSLR at some point?  Maybe, but then again maybe not.  As for these articles, for the most part they are poorly researched and they don't really give you a clear picture of the market as a result.  They all start out with the same ridiculous premise, that the buyer is choosing to only have a cell phone/mirrorless/DSLR etc - and by starting from that bad premise they all fail miserably from there - because the truth is a good portion of the mirroless market does own more than just a mirrorless.  So my issue here is with a badly written article based on a false premise, not with mirrorless technology itself.
> ...



Well I do go a little more in depth on some things than others.  A lot depends on subject matter and mood.

Sent from my LG-LG730 using Tapatalk


----------



## astroNikon (Feb 25, 2014)

I still use my P&S but for mostly video recordings of my kids concerts and stuff.  
I mostly use my iPhone for a pocket camera, just way too convenient and the photo quality is better than the P&S.

a mirrorless camera with a small lens just seems like a higher quality P&S


----------



## Derrel (Feb 25, 2014)

The UK's Amateur Photographer magazine today released an article about why DSLR cameras still outsell mirrorless cameras by a huge margin. A summary of their findings are here: AP special report explains why DSLR still sells better than Mirrorless system cameras. | Mirrorless Rumors

"Last week we reported how *2013 mirrorless sales fell by 34% in UK*. Now Amateur Photographer investigated the reason why DSLR is still more popular than mirrorless cameras. They say:"  

read the summary at the link. 

A 34% sales drop in a year, and the WSJ says what>>>>>>>> *?*


----------



## brian_f2.8 (Feb 26, 2014)

Well I know that one mirror less camera was sold yesterday. I decided to buy an XE-2 and a 35 f1.4. I kept looking at the XT-1 and after a while, I felt it wasnt really the look I wanted. I dont like how the middle rises up, too many dials, maybe I need to see it in person. I just want something plain n simple, shoots in manual mode and has the ability to change lens. I realized that I dont have a camera. I have 2 D3's that are used for pro sports. I dont feel like walking around with one of those and a 24-70. 

The specs of the XE-2 and XT-1 are very similar. I wanted a f1.4 lens because who knows what kind of lighting I will be in. There is a flash but I rarely use flash. I wont use the Fuji for pro sports. This Fuji replaces my iphone to take pics at the park, friends weddings, day trips and just about whatever else I feel like shooting. I like how I can take a pic, transfer the image to my phone.  

My biggest concern is, will I like this? Am I ok with spending 1400$ and the quality is ok? This thing better be damn good. If not I think Im going to buy a D800. Yeah I know big n clunky but Im giving the mirror less market a fair opportunity. At the very least Ill wind up with a nice Nikon pro body with super high resolution. Ill enjoy the kids pictures and my clients will love the high quality images.


----------



## Gavjenks (Feb 26, 2014)

Just wanna throw this out there: Cell phones *are* mirrorless cameras. Not sure about why a hard distinction is being made. There is a smooth continuum of mirrorless from the crappiest cell phone to the high end Sony full frames. I'm not aware of any sharp natural cutoff.


----------



## brian_f2.8 (Feb 26, 2014)

Yes cell phones are mirror less but they do not have the capabilities of the fuji, sony, canon among other brands have. A t2i is a dslr and so is a 1Dx but much different capabilities.


----------



## pixmedic (Feb 26, 2014)

Gavjenks said:


> Just wanna throw this out there: Cell phones *are* mirrorless cameras. Not sure about why a hard distinction is being made. There is a smooth continuum of mirrorless from the crappiest cell phone to the high end Sony full frames. I'm not aware of any sharp natural cutoff.



i usually use the term MILC, although even that is not an all-encompassing divider since some high end mirrorless cameras have a fixed lens. 
i _*think*_ however, technical similarities aside, that it is generally agreed upon that "cell phone cameras" are their own "category" and it is probably safe to assume that it is an acceptable separation. 

As for the categorical differences between cameras such as a P&S like my samsung WB150 and a full frame fixed lens mirrorless camera....I think we will just have to leave it up to the context of the discussion to determine the levels of separation. They are both mirrorless, both have a fixed lens...the only differences are features, price,  and performance. 

perhaps it is sensor size that is more the segregating factor.  FX, APS-C, M4/3, P&S size (whatever that is), cell phones...

with the crazy amounts of camera options available today, its really hard to pin down _*one *_category for a lot of them. 
some DSLR's are getting smaller, some mirrorless are getting bigger...FX sensors in smaller bodies..etc etc. 
the best we can do is list what options we need/want and compile a list of what cameras meet that criteria and not care so much about what "category" they fall into.


----------



## Gavjenks (Feb 26, 2014)

Sensor size is probably the best criterion IMO, yes. Correlates pretty reliably with general quality, with exceptions.


----------



## Derrel (Feb 26, 2014)

SOme good points brought up by Gavjenks and pixmedic. The separation of smartphone cameras and mirrorless cameras makes perfect sense; the smartphone camera are, for the vast majority of sales, sold by "phone stores", along with two-year contracts, and the in-store competing models are OTHER PHONES, tablets, and super-phones and NOT *cameras* made by Nikon or Canon or Ricoh, or whoever, because those dealers are not authorized camera dealers. So yes, a smartphone with a camera is a "mirrorless camera", but then so is a viewfinder camera, a rangefinder camera, and a 4x5 or 8x10 view camera, most technical cameras, and all videocameras, as well as old Kodak Instamatics, and so on.

MILC or Mirrorless Interchangeable Lens Camera is the latest moniker of what many wanted to call EVIL, electronic viewfinder interchangeable lens camera, but EVIL never stuck. But what about the high-end compacts, like the Fuji X100s? It's mirrorless, but it costs over twice what a low-end Canon or Nikon d-slr costs. It has a non-interchangeable lens, but it's an expensive camera. I think lumping smartphones in with mirroless cameras is just a form of semantic masturbation...and it's a ridiculous game, really. The two items, smart phones and mirrorless cameras, are clearly separate. One class has a fricking PHONE in eacxh and every unit, and has tens of thousands of apps available, and it can browse the web, send e-mail, and so on; a mirroless camera OTOH, MIGHT, and I say *MIGHT have WiFi* capability if it's one of around two dozen models, but it cannot perform even a fraction of the operations a smartphone can.

I find it comical, the bullspit "analysis", and the "analysis" videos I have seen. I saw an "analysis" video with three 20-something young hotshots from Bloomberg News, in an office. Dufus #1 predicted that mirrorless cameras would replace the d-slr soon, and opined that "d-slrs are already obsolete". Dufus #2 played the Yes Man, while Dufus #3 played the Doubting Naysayer role. It was comical. Predicting ANYTHING in high-technology OR in consumer electronics, is a crapshoot at the very best. Plenty of perfectly fine, even superb, solutions and products have died on the vine. Mini disc, Betamax, 3-D TV, Blue Ray, VHS-C, Hi-8 video, 8-track tape, reel-to-reel tape, Quadrophonic Stereo (laughing at that name!), the Zune MP3 player...each and every one of these technical marvels had VERY limited lifespans, and each and every one was hailed as, "the next big thing". All basically deader than a doornail as far as mass adoption products.

The reports of the death of the d-slr seem to be premature and exaggerated. SALES of mirrorless cameras need to be separated out from SHIPMENTS. Manufacturers can ship a lot of old inventory, but until it sells, it's meaningless. ANd from what I see, mirrorless cameras on super-blowout, clearance prices,  is a fairly common way that mirrorless cameras are being sold. A good part of the issue I think is that small MILC's that have lower technical capabilities than even economy-model d-slr's are being priced at 2x the price of those economy d-slrs. Price is a big problem, and only a relative few can afford $1,400 compact cameras, meanwhile low-end d-slrs sell for $500-$550 with a lens. Sales numbers for Olympus and Fuji are in the less-than 400,000 units per YEAR. Those are piddly numbers compared to the sales numbers for Canon and Nikon d-slrs. Oly announced they had sold what was it? 683,000 cameras in two years??? Pshaw...


----------



## Gavjenks (Feb 26, 2014)

> So yes, a smartphone with a camera is a "mirrorless camera", but then so is a viewfinder camera, a rangefinder camera, and a 4x5 or 8x10 view camera, most technical cameras, and all videocameras, as well as old Kodak Instamatics, and so on.


That's sort of my underlying point: Whether it has a mirror or not is a weird criterion in general for people to fixate on so much IMO, since at the moment of capture, no cameras have mirrors in the optical stream (AFAIK).
So it's purely ergonomics. It's like dividing the camera world by the color of paint or how sturdy the hotshoe is or whatever. Things that might matter, but not really central to image quality.


----------



## Derrel (Feb 26, 2014)

Gavjenks said:


> > So yes, a smartphone with a camera is a "mirrorless camera", but then so is a viewfinder camera, a rangefinder camera, and a 4x5 or 8x10 view camera, most technical cameras, and all videocameras, as well as old Kodak Instamatics, and so on.
> 
> 
> That's sort of my underlying point: Whether it has a mirror or not is a weird criterion in general for people to fixate on so much IMO, since at the moment of capture, no cameras have mirrors in the optical stream (AFAIK).
> So it's purely ergonomics. It's like dividing the camera world by the color of paint or how sturdy the hotshoe is or whatever. Things that might matter, but not really central to image quality.



I kind of want a sexy, new red Nikon D3300! Lol.


----------



## robbins.photo (Feb 26, 2014)

Gavjenks said:


> > So yes, a smartphone with a camera is a "mirrorless camera", but then so is a viewfinder camera, a rangefinder camera, and a 4x5 or 8x10 view camera, most technical cameras, and all videocameras, as well as old Kodak Instamatics, and so on.
> 
> 
> That's sort of my underlying point: Whether it has a mirror or not is a weird criterion in general for people to fixate on so much IMO, since at the moment of capture, no cameras have mirrors in the optical stream (AFAIK).
> So it's purely ergonomics. It's like dividing the camera world by the color of paint or how sturdy the hotshoe is or whatever. Things that might matter, but not really central to image quality.



Actually I think you might be onto something with this color thing.  I mean ok, basic black - fine.  Classy, elegant, slimming - makes sense.  White?  Eh, not my cup of tea but I guess it won't clash with your Ipad that way.  But bronze?  Seriously?  Bronze!  I mean what is the thought process there?  So you won't stand out at the renaissance fair?  Lol


----------



## Greiver (Feb 26, 2014)

I'm starting to think the WSJ has some kind of vendetta against SLR's, or they put money into mirrorless cameras and are trying to force people to see them the way they do and put money into them. lol


----------



## brian_f2.8 (Feb 26, 2014)

As far as design goes, the new nikon 1 concept caught my eye. However, Im trying the Fuji system.


----------



## Civchic (Mar 6, 2014)

You know who's still using P&S?  My 4.5 year old.  I don't trust him with my phone or DSLR (too expensive to replace, his hands are too small for the DSLR, and for the DSLR he's still not smart enough for anything but full auto anyway).  BUT he really likes taking photos and actually has a pretty decent eye.  Little kids cameras are tough but TERRIBLE, so I gave him my old P&S.  He loves it.

For just casual photos, my Samsung Galaxy S3 takes pretty great pictures, and has quite a few settings to choose from.  And it's already always in my pocket.  Before I got the "real" camera, we took it, a Blackberry Bold, and two P&S to Arizona with us, and the Galaxy took the best photos by far.


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Mar 6, 2014)

WSJ  <----    LoL


----------

