If you want me to get a better camera then you need to pay for it since I cannot afford one.You're done then! The future of your digital camera is…your digital camera, no additional discussion needed.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
The future of digital cameras
- Thread starter jwolf6589
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
That costs as much as an entry level DSLR. You just have no desire to own a more adventurous camera. There’s nothing wrong with that. It’s weird that you’re feeling the need to justify this. Nobody here is judging anyone else on how they acquire their photos.
Compared to my previous camera which was a 2009 Powershot, my present camera was quite an upgrade in being adventurous.
I’m not interested in you getting any other camera. I just don’t know the impetus behind your original question if all you can say is your camera doesn’t need to get any better for you. It works for you. Awesome. It doesn’t work for me. Simple. And easy ?. We all get what we want. The world is full of great cameras.
I think they can make substantial progress, and good things will emerge from that, whatever happens. Smartphones OS and its video capture algorithm and technology continuously develop and grow, improving and altering body size and lens. If camera makers don't, Samsung or Apple will perceive a hole in the market, releasing their own DSLR iPhone adapters.
I agree with this. The major issue with the dedicated camera market is that they’re not focussed on software as much as the smartphone companies are.
I guess I would characterize it that the dedicated camera manufacturers aren't focused on the same types of software that phone manufacturers are. Phones and many dedicated cameras present different engineering problems (as I see it, anyway) and therefore need different types of software (and hardware). There will be a level of convergence at some point, I'm sure.
More and more will stop buying dedicated cameras and only use smart phones. The same can be said of the video camera/camcorder market. Also I fear Garmin's GPS models may lose sales as well because most use their phones. However what most naive persons do not understand is that Garmin GPS units work in areas with no cell reception.
Looking at the second hand prices of the usual suspects (DSLR, full frame and cropped, lens etc.), they are still sought after or the prices would be low I expect?
My own personal take is there are enough users at the moment to satisfy both in their own niche. Go to an air show for example, the flight line is not using mobiles.
Edit. Flight line. Easier to spot all the big lens, I assume some mobile use.
My own personal take is there are enough users at the moment to satisfy both in their own niche. Go to an air show for example, the flight line is not using mobiles.
Edit. Flight line. Easier to spot all the big lens, I assume some mobile use.
The general public is possibly using phones for generic snapshots. People that are interested in the planes and photographing them from a distance and in flight are using at least a P&S with long reach like yours or dedicated cameras with longer, faster lenses.
Yep, hard to sit on some of the stands without getting in the way of someone else's long lens then the chatter of shutters going full chat like a load of machine guns at a cross over on some manoeuvre. Flight line is usually very expensive glass territory, and many are trying for the perfect static display shots.
Always looking around at what other kit is in use and wondering what body parts to sell to get the same.
100%. It’s the same as going to any sporting events. Majority of the general population just use a phone but if your really want pictures that are worth giving a second look at, you need those long super lenses.
I look at my mobile phone camera as snap and forget. On the other hand, the Fuji X100t, that output will get edited. The dedicated camera is meant for one purpose - to take photographs - I can't make calls on it, bummer.
Personally I don't see a huge market for Franken phones with DSLR add-ons. I have a Moment case that accepts lenses, and the phone becomes, well, not a phone - not pocketable, hand hold/carry only. Those accessories are fun to play with, occasionally.
Personally I don't see a huge market for Franken phones with DSLR add-ons. I have a Moment case that accepts lenses, and the phone becomes, well, not a phone - not pocketable, hand hold/carry only. Those accessories are fun to play with, occasionally.
So, yesterday afternoon I went with my wife to watch her brother, sister, and brother's girlfriend play in a soccer game. Nothing fancy-just some recreational teams that play a couple of organized games at a city park every Sunday.
In any case, I figured, what the heck, I'll get some photos of them playing. I grabbed my D3s(hadn't used that one in a while), 70-200mm f/2.8 VR, and 300mm f/4 AF-S.
Even though all of that equipment is fairly old now, I still managed to get a bunch of good shots with it. 3D tracking dynamic 51 point AF that worked great as long as I kept it tracking once I'd managed to get it locked onto the subject I wanted and made sure it didn't get "distracted." Back button focusing combined with the focus lock buttons on the 70-200(not that focus lock was a ton of use for something this fast moving) helped me control focus well. Properly timed 11fps bursts captured good sequences of action, and having the freedom to crank the ISO up to keep the shutter speeds high enough (1/500 in some cases to show some motion blur, generally 1/2000 or faster to kill any) made things easy.
I'd have a hard time doing all of that with a P&S even if it was in "sports" mode.
In any case, I figured, what the heck, I'll get some photos of them playing. I grabbed my D3s(hadn't used that one in a while), 70-200mm f/2.8 VR, and 300mm f/4 AF-S.
Even though all of that equipment is fairly old now, I still managed to get a bunch of good shots with it. 3D tracking dynamic 51 point AF that worked great as long as I kept it tracking once I'd managed to get it locked onto the subject I wanted and made sure it didn't get "distracted." Back button focusing combined with the focus lock buttons on the 70-200(not that focus lock was a ton of use for something this fast moving) helped me control focus well. Properly timed 11fps bursts captured good sequences of action, and having the freedom to crank the ISO up to keep the shutter speeds high enough (1/500 in some cases to show some motion blur, generally 1/2000 or faster to kill any) made things easy.
I'd have a hard time doing all of that with a P&S even if it was in "sports" mode.
Yeah but a P&S does not take extra skill. It’s a camera for boneheads like me.
Well yesterday I went to the baseball stadium and noticed many fans taking photos/videos with phones. Did not see a single fan taking pictures with a pro camera or P&S. However on the playing field I noticed not a single pro using a phone to take shots. All cameras were pro video cameras or pro still shot cameras.
A lot of stadiums prohibit “professional” cameras for the average spectator. And what is deemed “professional” varies location to location.
But i would not inherently assume that because you didn’t see larger cameras that people didn’t want to use them.
Last edited:
It would likely be frowned upon to lug around a 600mm lens and a monopod inside the stadium. People have phones so that's what they'll use. They won't (and can't) come back with closeups of the game but they're probably concentrating on shots of themselves and friends/families at the event anyway. Any pros on the sidelines are concentrating on (and getting paid for) the event itself, where a phone isn't going to offer what they need.
Even a Point and Shoot needs a good eye to make the image look good. Anyone can take a picture with anything they want. The goal is making it look interesting.
Back in the day (Not that long ago) in the UK stadia and I assume same elsewhere, photography was forbidden. Before phones with camera's worth a jot took off.
I remember mass developing facilities and major events for international press and phone lines to wire images, some were lucky and their desks paid for ISDN.
Now you cannot prevent people taking their phones in and in all reality the pictures are not likely to make the sports pages (quite funny seeing flashes go off on night matches). If you watch the snappers, they will have 2+ camera's on them the with long or wide lenses (all pro kit, imagine a Canon 1D or three with some L lens rattling around a snapper). They don't mess around changing lenses, they swap camera's to get the right lens. And they don't need developing these days.
But paid for rights are very coveted and if you turned up with anything remotely looking pro and not on the camera gantry or pitch side with the OB without a pass, I expect someone to have a chat in you ear 'ole and possibly turfed out.
Many years ago, I remember when Mark McGwire was chasing the home run record. Near the end of the season, seemingly with every pitch, the entire stadium lit up with flashbulbs. It was quite a spectacle. The funny part was this was still in the pre-digital age of photography, and I suspect most of those were your one-time-use film cameras. The number of non-keepers had to have been through the roof, since the guy only hit 70 home runs that year, and he took way more pitches than that!
Last edited:
McGwire took more than pitches as did Sosa in that season of shame. Undoubtedly some good photos were also taken.