Time to lose the P&S's!

Hoo-rah. Another one of those keep-it-or-lose-it articles from the NYTimes:
http://finance.yahoo.c​om …times-1557697455.html?x=0

According to the author, P&S camera images won't look much better than your average cell phone camera with it's super-small sensor. Apparently P&S cameras are too big and bulky to carry around everywhere. Apparently APPs make cameras better. The author of this article apparently never owned an S95, or similar high-end P&S cameras.

P&S cameras have begun their long descent of primary camera marketshare, but all I can do is shake my head when I read crap like this. My s95 is in my pocket wherever I go

I think it's more a case that the single primary function device is going to get marginalized to greater and greater degrees over time.

A device that can be your personal computer, text, surf the 'net, play music, take pictures, shoot video, start your car, open your garage, be a voice recorder, etc. etc. is the road that's being travelled now. Why have a dozen separate devices when it can all be done with one. A large segment of society is always willing to sacrifice a bit of quality (say for a good quality point and shoot) for a lot of convenience (a single device which does a decent job at everything).

It's just a tiny percentage of say the camera buying public that join forums like this and actually "care" about the ins and outs of their point and shoot camera. For the majority, an all-in-one device (once it achieves a certain level of competence in several functions) will be where the masses go. However there will always be a market (probably a small but high margin one) for superior quality, single function devices - be it a camera or whatever.

Thanks for sharing that article.

bluenoser23 wrote in post #12113224
I think it's more a case that the single primary function device is going to get marginalized to greater and greater degrees over time.

A device that can be your personal computer, text, surf the 'net, play music, take pictures, shoot video, start your car, open your garage, be a voice recorder, etc. etc. is the road that's being travelled now. Why have a dozen separate devices when it can all be done with one. A large segment of society is always willing to sacrifice a bit of quality (say for a good quality point and shoot) for a lot of convenience (a single device which does a decent job at everything).

It's just a tiny percentage of say the camera buying public that join forums like this and actually "care" about the ins and outs of their point and shoot camera. For the majority, an all-in-one device (once it achieves a certain level of competence in several functions) will be where the masses go. However there will always be a market (probably a small but high margin one) for superior quality, single function devices - be it a camera or whatever.

Thanks for sharing that article.

That's pretty much what I alluded to in my last "paragraph". Casual shooters are going to ditch their $100 P&S's, and stick to the cell phones. If you look at the link provided in the article to an older P&S article (http://www.nytimes.com …a.html?ref=digi​talcameras) written by the same author, there are plenty of examples of the average person being enamored with the ease of use of cell cameras and the way they integrate with online media-sharing services.

Still, just look at the pictures--these people are going to major parades and taking shots with their cell phones... auto shows... pictures with the POTUS!!! C'mon. These are bigger events that you plan for, or only come up once in a lifetime, and these people are using their bloody cell phones. I saw a large number of people at the 2011 Detroit Auto Show armed only with their cell phones. In such situations, cell phone cameras should be considered the LAST resort--if your dedicated camera battery dies, etc. They may as well be using gas generators to power their electronics. It's enough to make a grown man cry.

According to the article, apparently I should ditch my desktop PC and 20Mb/s fiber connection, too.

tkbslc wrote in post #12113430
According to the article, apparently I should ditch my desktop PC and 20Mb/s fiber connection, too.

If you're not a gamer or professional video editor, all you need is a laptop. So say we all

Considering the vast majority of people are incapable of swapping out computer parts, I can follow the logic of the recommendation, but his recommendation completely disregards the minority who are completely competent enough to modify their PC builds for a number of years on a moderate income. He also conveniently forgets to point out that a laptop will cost a good deal more than a similarly configured pre-built PC. That's why I absolutely hate these dumbed-down recommendation articles.

I would never give up my PC. So much easier to fix issues and upgrade than being "stuck" with a laptop.

I read this article and I had to laugh too. Cell phone cameras are better because they have cool photo apps? Really...you mean all those crappy facebook photos I see everyday of people recreating a beatles cover makes the images that much better?

I also like how all these articles assume we all have smart phones. As if I am going to pay that much per month for what essentially is a dumbed down computer. Sure, they are nice and have their place, but not everyone is enthralled with them. GPS is FREE....just pay $80 a month(or more)! Whoop-dee-doo.

I'm not quite sure whether I should laugh at the writer or feel sorry for him. I seriously feel dumber just reading that.

MrWho wrote in post #12113669
I'm not quite sure whether I should laugh at the writer or feel sorry for him. I seriously feel dumber just reading that.

This is where I began to bash my head against an invisible wall:

I absolutely hate phone photos though no doubt Hockney loves them. Having said that, I've been impressed with photos from the iPhone 4.

MOkoFOko wrote in post #12113428
Still, just look at the pictures--these people are going to major parades and taking shots with their cell phones... auto shows... pictures with the POTUS!!! C'mon. These are bigger events that you plan for, or only come up once in a lifetime, and these people are using their bloody cell phones. I saw a large number of people at the 2011 Detroit Auto Show armed only with their cell phones. In such situations, cell phone cameras should be considered the LAST resort--if your dedicated camera battery dies, etc. They may as well be using gas generators to power their electronics. It's enough to make a grown man cry.

That doesn't necessarily follow. Why should Joe Average spend a couple of hundred dollars for a camera he may use once a year (assuming the batteries haven't gone flat in the interim), if that? With us, it's a hobby. We're willing to carry that extra device around with us. But for most people, the pictures they take will get shoved away in a virtual shoebox and forgotten, or shown to others via that same cell phone that they took the picture with. Remember back in the film days when people might find 2-3 vacations and the intervening Christmas celebrations on the same (12 exposure) roll? How many of the people at the Auto Show, snapping madly away with their cell phones, will bother to look at those pictures after the next Monday at school/the office when showing their buddies what they thought was "cool". Even a 3 MP cell phone camera has plenty of resolution for computer wallpaper. For anything more than that, there's the Web and the manufacturer's site.

I think the author's right, in general. What the "entry level" digital cameras are going to have to evolve into are the gateway devices for the hobbyist; with more control and more expandability. They're certainly not going to move into everyone's pocket, no matter how much you may push the price down, not when your cell phone company "gives" you a new camera/phone/MP3 player/game station/browser/mapper​/ereader/message center every 2 years. By way of analogy, look around at the number of people here whose automatic solution for geotagging their photos is to use the cell phone, despite the clear advantages in battery life and accuracy of a dedicated GPS receiver.

Jon wrote in post #12115715
Why should Joe Average spend a couple of hundred dollars for a camera he may use once a year (assuming the batteries haven't gone flat in the interim), if that?

I don’t know anyone who is a ‘snapper’ who has a camera - who only uses it once a year. Nobody. But maybe that’s just the people I know.

My point exactly. They get the camera with the intention of using it, right? The people who wouldn't be bothered with hauling a camera around are quite happy to use their cell phones.

The people who are using their cell phones instead of spending money on getting a camera (that they would only have with them if they

• planned in advance to take pictures
• were prepared to carry a camera in addition to whatever else they might have

bluenoser23 wrote in post #12113224
Why have a dozen separate devices when it can all be done with one.

And have one point of failure...no thank you...the more complicated you make something, the greater the chance it will fail...murphy is going to love the new gadgets