# The Short Answer(s): Smartphones-vs-Cameras



## cgw (Nov 26, 2013)

For all the previous rage and rejection, the problems for camera makers aren't going away:

The Short Answer Part II | Gearophile | Thom Hogan


----------



## pixmedic (Nov 26, 2013)

Thom is kinda off in this article about his "#1 and #2 points" I think.

the camera manufactures HAVE been addressing the "sharing" issue in the sense of getting your pictures to where people can see them. wifi is becoming a more frequently seen feature in cameras, allowing you to get your pictures to smartphones, tablets, and other wireless devices quickly. There has been wifi SD cards for a while now...

as for what your camera can do that your smartphone cant....really Thom? come on now guy....
I have the new Galaxy S phone...so i have a pretty decent camera phone. zoom all the way in on something far away and see how fast that image starts to look like crap. and how shaky the image gets.  Technology has not yet reached the point where digital zoom can _*really*_ compete with optical zoom. that's why lenses are so big. 
the phone cameras are definitely better in low light than they used to be, but nowhere near a larger sensor and fast optical lens. 
im not saying that i don't take plenty of pictures with my phone  so i dont have to drag a camera around, because I do. 

his end statements about marketing....eh, i have mixed feelings on that. hes not really _*wrong*_ there... but at the same time, with all the fancy camera phone marketing, we arent really seeing how good those pictures taken from across the room are turning out. is Thom upset because the camera companies arent directly marketing against phones? Because their TV ads don't show a Nikon or Canon camera totally obliterating a Nokia camera phone with their death rays?
he seems upset that people cannot use their DSLR's as easily as their camera phones to let others access the photos...Has he missed the last few years of P&S cameras?
my old samsung WB150 has built in wifi and built in "sharing" software.  i can upload directly to my phone with the samsung app. or right to my computer. or tablet. or facebook. or other networking site of choice. OR someone else's phone or device.  right from my camera, as long as i have a wifi connection of course. 

I think the short answer is this....
Nikon and Canon have been around a pretty long time. sales have been up, down, and everywhere in between, but they have continued to push ahead for many many years now. Let them do what they do and i am sure they will continue to do so for many many years to come.


----------



## robbins.photo (Nov 26, 2013)

pixmedic said:


> Thom is kinda off in this article about his "#1 and #2 points" I think.



So there I was, on my way to work, minding my own business.  Stopped at the drive through, figured - coffee sounded good this morning.  As I'm waiting somebody drags this large, incredibly dead horse out and starts beating it again, for no earthly reason.  It's a like a zombie Ed pinatta.. rotfl.



> the camera manufactures HAVE been addressing the "sharing" issue in the sense of getting your pictures to where people can see them. wifi is becoming a more frequently seen feature in cameras, allowing you to get your pictures to smartphones, tablets, and other wireless devices quickly. There has been wifi SD cards for a while now...
> 
> as for what your camera can do that your smartphone cant....really Thom? come on now guy....
> I have the new Galaxy S phone...so i have a pretty decent camera phone. zoom all the way in on something far away and see how fast that image starts to look like crap. and how shaky the image gets. Technology has not yet reached the point where digital zoom can _*really*_ compete with optical zoom. that's why lenses are so big.



What can I say other than BING!  



> his end statements about marketing....eh, i have mixed feelings on that. hes not really _*wrong*_ there... but at the same time, with all the fancy camera phone marketing, we arent really seeing how good those pictures taken from across the room are turning out. is Thom upset because the camera companies arent directly marketing against phones? Because their TV ads don't show a Nikon or Canon camera totally obliterating a Nokia camera phone with their death rays?



I think they are both based on the moon.  And I think they call it a "laser".  




> I think the short answer is this....
> Nikon and Canon have been around a pretty long time. sales have been up, down, and everywhere in between, but they have continued to push ahead for many many years now. Let them do what they do and i am sure they will continue to do so for many many years to come.



Bing again! You are on fire!

Lol


----------



## amolitor (Nov 26, 2013)

Always spoiling for a fight aren't ya, cgw? What's weird is that everyone agrees on.. everything, but cgw won't let it go, and insists that there's some sort of holy war going on.

Anyways. As usual, Thom is under the impression that there is a single monolithic "market" for picture-taking devices, and proceeds into the weeds from there. There isn't a monolithic market, there are several distinct markets in play here, some of which are evaporating from the point of view of DSLR makers, and some of which are not.

To assume that Nikon and Canon and Sony have not done the correct market segmentation exercise is perhaps not the height of arrogance, but it's up there. Thom's not in the business of truth-telling, though, he's in the business of click-hunting. Once you realize that virtually every single thing on the web is about getting clicks, a lot of stuff makes more sense.


----------



## cgw (Nov 26, 2013)

More messengers to shoot:

Google Confirms that RAW Capability and Burst Mode are On Their Way to Android


----------



## amolitor (Nov 26, 2013)

WAT


----------



## robbins.photo (Nov 26, 2013)

amolitor said:


> Anyways. As usual, Thom is under the impression that there is a single monolithic "market" for picture-taking devices, and proceeds into the weeds from there.



Ok, so what your saying here is if I wanted to find a really dead horse to beat on, I should be looking in the weeds.  Ok.. good tip.. lol


----------



## robbins.photo (Nov 26, 2013)

cgw said:


> More messengers to shoot:
> 
> Google Confirms that RAW Capability and Burst Mode are On Their Way to Android



In additional news, Google also confirms that images shot with a tiny lens with almost zero optical magnification abilities are still going to suck.


----------



## pixmedic (Nov 26, 2013)

cgw said:


> More messengers to shoot:
> 
> Google Confirms that RAW Capability and Burst Mode are On Their Way to Android



I really don't know why you are treating this as an "us -vs- Thom" thing.  or even a "camera phone -vs- camera" thing. 
I mean, at what point will YOU sell all of your gear and just use your cell phone as your primary camera?
when it can shoot raw? when it can shoot burst? when they have manual controls? when it has more megapixels?
or....never? 

Thom is taking a pretty narrow view on this...and i think it shows in his two articles. 
in part two, Thom's entire second paragraph pretty much says "even if they do what i tell them to do, it wont make any difference"
so...what IS the point of his rantings on sales, and design, and marketing if, as Thom put it, "that ship has already sailed"?
Don't get me wrong, i really have no issues with Thom. hes just another guy writing his opinion. Its no different than any of us writing our opinions here on the forum. his are just read more. 

The issue i DO have with this particular article though, is that he is spouting on about how the camera manufactures have not implemented features of convenience like people are using in their cell phone camera...this is simply not true. (see my above post) Because honestly, there are just as many ways to share photos from my samsung WB150 than there are on my cell phone, aside from a MMS text message. And that is an older P&S. not even close to the newest samsung model in that lineup. 
I can only imagine that even newer cameras have made some improvements on it.  seriously...has Thom not actually _*looked*_ at any P&S cameras in the last 4 years?
granted, DSLR's have not implemented the same convenience features that the smaller cameras have, but in all reality, its the smaller camera market that the cell phones are really affecting more than the DSLR market.  From what I have seen, you can share the CRAP out of photos right from your camera using a wifi hotspot or home network. 

As for Thom's insistence that people cannot share photos from their camera as easily as they can from their phone....
maybe from a DSLR...but from a P&S? Please Thom..._*please *_go pick up a new wifi P&S and see just how friggen _*easy*_ it is to scroll through the photos, pick what you want, and automatically have a boatload of sharing options pop up on the menu. it is just as easy to share from our older samsung P&S as it is from our Galaxy S phones.  And no Thom....the options are NOT buried under a ton of menus and buttons. I push one button to bring up the pictures on the back of the phone, and one button to bring up the sharing options. the click on what i want. I can even select multiple pictures on the camera.  how much easier do you want it?  Or is Thom's camera phone telepathic? 

obviously this process is more complicated on a DSLR...but, that is a totally different market as well. Thom is throwing everyone into the same category. 
people that take pictures. As for raw files and processing...once cell phones can shoot raw, they will be under the same processing limitations as if you shot raw with a DSLR. only good to send to someone if they can process the raw file.


----------



## Derrel (Nov 26, 2013)

I think amolitor's point touches on something that Thom himself wrote a few days ago. Thom answered the question of why Nikon has not made a 4/3 or micro 4/3 format camera; because manufacturers of leading products do NOT "enable" or "acknowledge" their competitors by engaging with them in the same,exact market. Olympus has sold a quaint number of its expensive OM-D mirrorless cameras, while Canon and Nikon have sold tens of millions of d-slrs; there is no rational need or reason to "enable" Oly's position in a niche market by spending a billion Yen on R&D to develop an offering that would bring in a drop in the bucket in sales. In other words, there really ARE *MULTIPLE MARKETS* for the camera makers.

Again, in the last year, "mirrorless cameras" sold 39,000 units in North America. *Thirty-nine thousand mirroless* cameras. Pshaw. And yet, Thom has an entire website devoted to this tiny niche. Why would that be? Is it simply for the B&H Photo advertising revenue he gains from sansmirror.com?

Thom basically wrote an article a few days ago that stated that "instant sharing" is the new Holy Grail. He basically named Samsung, Sony, Apple, Microsoft, Google, Canon, FujiFilm,Nikon,Olympus,Panasonic, Ricoh/Pentax, and the tablet making companies, as having not enough imagination to see how to rescue the whole segment, to revolutionize image sharing. What I cannot figure out is how with all the people they employ is how Samsung, Sony, Apple, Microsoft, Google, Canon, FujiFilm, Nikon, Olympus,Panasonic, Ricoh/Pentax, and the tablet making companies do not snatch Thom Hogan up and put him in charge of running their most-lucrative divisions. I mean, chit, he's got more imagination, and more know-how than alllll of the people who work at Samsung, Sony, Apple, Microsoft, Google, Canon, FujiFilm,Nikon,Olympus,Panasonic, Ricoh/Pentax, and the tablet making companies.

I think a $25 Million per year salary would be about right for him. Oh, wait...that's not imaginative enough....maybe he needs a big salary *and *a Tony Sparks-made jumping the shark suit too.


----------



## Overread (Nov 26, 2013)

Derrel said:


> In other words, there really ARE *MULTIPLE MARKETS* for the camera makers.



Not only that but individual people might belong to more than one market. I've seen a good few DSLR users buying those m4/3rds cameras because they still love the DSLR - still buy things for it and stil use it; they just want something as well that is all around smaller and yet similarly high quality


----------



## amolitor (Nov 26, 2013)

Thom likes to explain stuff by finding single reasons, which is:

a) never accurate
b) just exactly what people want to hear (see also: click-hunting)

To characterize the success of digital as entirely a result of instantaneous review is simply silly. Certainly it's an important piece of the puzzle, but it's not the whole story by any means. To characterize the success of the cell phone camera as entirely the result of instantaeous sharing is, if anything, even sillier. By standing up the entire market for cameralike technology as driven by single needs, Thom creates a simplified picture of the world in which Thom has the answers. The trouble is, for Thom, that the world he's imagined isn't the real world, or even a useful model of it. It's simplified to the point of uselessness.

The market for cameralike technologies consists of several distinct segments, and each segment is driven by a collection of needs, problems, and desires. Simply hitting a solution to a single problem really hard is a recipe for failing in all markets simultaneously.

I can't even recall cgw's position, to be honest. Isn't it "the DSLR is dead, long live the cell phone" or something? Anyways, the BIG question is: how many articles in a row of Thom's does cgw have to post as 'Interesting Articles' before we conclude that cgw is in fact Thom, desperately flogging his interlocking conglomeration of gradually sinking web sites?


----------



## Derrel (Nov 26, 2013)

The premise he is operating on is that *instant sharing *is the single most-important key to success for a camera device. That is a simplistic, dumb premise. Cameras have many other benefits to their buyer; status (think Leica, think flagship Nikon or Canon);highest-possible image quality; huge lens selections for specialty shooting (think Canon MP-E 65 ultra-macro lens); highest-quality multi-flash with radio triggering (think Canon RT 600 speedlights); ultra-quality images in the worst possible low-light conditions (think Canon 6D, Canon 5D-III, Nikon D4); and so on and so on.

There has always been a pretty broad contingent of photography enthusiasts who strive for the highest image quality, or "the best" tools, and the "high-end" stuff, and are willing to take the time it takes to achieve the highest image quality. This high-quality market segment is different from the segment that wants instant sharing of unedited, unoptimized, happy-happy snaps from a cellphone camera.

Writing an article that assumes that "instant sharing" is the KEY FACTOR in growth is asinine. It assumes that the entire camera and the entire photography markets are based on sheer "instantaneous image movement". That's bullspit. It's NEVER been about that.

His assertion is almost as facile as saying that Twitter will make literature as we know it obsolete....I mean, *Twitter is INSTANT SHARING* of one's thoughts in written format. Therefore, Twitter will revolutionize literature, and writing, and self-publishing.


----------



## robbins.photo (Nov 26, 2013)

Derrel said:


> Thom basically wrote an article a few days ago that stated that "instant sharing" is the new Holy Grail.



So would this make CGW a Knight Templar?


----------



## robbins.photo (Nov 26, 2013)

Overread said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > In other words, there really ARE *MULTIPLE MARKETS* for the camera makers.
> ...



Wait, your actually allowed to own more than one type of camera?  Insanity.  Truly... lol


----------



## robbins.photo (Nov 26, 2013)

pixmedic said:


> I mean, at what point will YOU sell all of your gear and just use your cell phone as your primary camera?
> when it can shoot raw? when it can shoot burst? when they have manual controls? when it has more megapixels?
> or....never?



Put me down for "two days after hell freezes over". Even assuming I could get anywhere near the kind of image quality on a cell phone that I do with my DSLR, I still would prefer my DSLR. Just trying to properly frame a shot with a cell phone is a total nightmare. Thanks but I really like the ergonomics of the DSLR. I really don't mind carrying around a few pounds of equipment to be able to get the kind of shots I want.


----------



## pixmedic (Nov 26, 2013)

Derrel said:


> The premise he is operating on is that *instant sharing *is the single most-important key to success for a camera device. That is a simplistic, dumb premise. Cameras have many other benefits to their buyer; status (think Leica, think flagship Nikon or Canon);highest-possible image quality; huge lens selections for specialty shooting (think Canon MP-E 65 ultra-macro lens); highest-quality multi-flash with radio triggering (think Canon RT 600 speedlights); ultra-quality images in the worst possible low-light conditions (think Canon 6D, Canon 5D-III, Nikon D4); and so on and so on.
> 
> There has always been a pretty broad contingent of photography enthusiasts who strive for the highest image quality, or "the best" tools, and the "high-end" stuff, and are willing to take the time it takes to achieve the highest image quality. This high-quality market segment is different from the segment that wants instant sharing of unedited, unoptimized, happy-happy snaps from a cellphone camera.
> 
> ...



yes but...
for some reason, Thom missed the whole fact that many P&S cameras can already "instantly share"  via wifi to multiple social media sites as well as file uploading sites and other wifi enabled devices. yet, he seems to ramble on that camera manufactures refuse to take his advice and implement those features. features i might add, that have been on our P&S camera for years. has he just missed those cameras? is he even paying attention to what features the camera manufacturers are putting in cameras now days? or is he just writing his articles based on cameras circa 1999?


----------



## Derrel (Nov 26, 2013)

Pix, I do not think there is anybody who can figure out why Thom is so cocksure about how fantastic his ideas are, and why the camera makers do not listen to him. Maybe it's because they have billions of Yen riding on even simple decisions, and missteps could be fatal, whereas he gets money from clicks on the internet, and from selling books that tell people how to operate their cameras, and from selling workshops. It's easy to sit back and tell mega-companies how to run things when one has absolutely ZERO "skin in the game". It's another matter entirely when the livelihood of thousands depends on actually making and selling products world-wide.

I must confess, I thought that there were only a handful of P&S digital cameras that can interface with "anything", and so far, WiFi is built-in on I think only the Canon 6D, and maybe one other d-slr camera. In Nikon's case, they have 16 d-slr models (yes, sixteen!) currently listed on their official web sites. And as far as I know, all 16 rely on an external, add-on accessory to do Wi-Fi connectivity.

I do think maybe the camera companies could do more TV advertising, and also better advertising.


----------



## pixmedic (Nov 26, 2013)

Derrel said:


> Pix, I do not think there is anybody who can figure out why Thom is so cocksure about how fantastic his ideas are, and why the camera makers do not listen to him. Maybe it's because they have billions of Yen riding on even simple decisions, and missteps could be fatal, whereas he gets money from clicks on the internet, and from selling books that tell people how to operate their cameras, and from selling workshops. It's easy to sit back and tell mega-companies how to run things when one has absolutely ZERO "skin in the game". It's another matter entirely when the livelihood of thousands depends on actually making and selling products world-wide.
> 
> I must confess, I thought that there were only a handful of P&S digital cameras that can interface with "anything", and so far, WiFi is built-in on I think only the Canon 6D, and maybe one other d-slr camera. In Nikon's case, they have 16 d-slr models (yes, sixteen!) currently listed on their official web sites. And as far as I know, all 16 rely on an external, add-on accessory to do Wi-Fi connectivity.
> 
> I do think maybe the camera companies could do more TV advertising, and also better advertising.



its been a lot slower in the DSLR's, but again, as you mentioned, its a different market. 
a lot of P&S cameras already have wifi, and built in software for instant sharing. 
i think eventually the DSLR's might get those features too, but i think the market share actually wanting to do that is much smaller. 
especially considering many people with a DSLR shoot raw and/or will want to edit their photos before posting to a website.


----------

