Could Apple become a major player in the serious camera arena via the iPhone? Sony is starting to tinker with integration of photo and video through smartphones. I still think Apple should buy up Nikon and so the same.

[fstoppers.com]

irrorless hasn't only won the battle, it's won the war. Last year — 2020 — was a landmark as more mirrorless cameras were shipped than DSLRs. It is the primary design choice for manufacturers and is therefore the future of the camera. However, the future of photography undoubtedly lies with the smartphone.
It appears so obvious looking back over the last ten years, that it seems inconceivable that mirrorless wasn't considered the future of camera design when it first appeared. However, the vested interests of CaNikon kept the DSLR dream alive — along with their income streams — which let other manufacturers dabble to see what the market was interested in. And dabble they did after Olympus and Panasonic debuted Micro Four Thirds, with Sony, Nikon, Pentax, Canon, Fuji, and Leica all introducing new systems. This has to be viewed within the context of global camera shipments which peaked at 121 million units (¥1643 million) in 2010. OK, of these some 109 million were integrated cameras — high quantity, low value — but it did generate significant income and profit for manufacturers which in part funded the system development. But as soon as that spike in income had arrived, it rapidly began to disappear with 2020 marking a new low point of 9 million units shipped (¥420 million).

Mirrorless cameras are only half of the photography equation. That dramatic drop in CIPA camera shipments from 121 million in 2010 doesn't mean there are fewer cameras shipping. Far from it, as in 2019 some 1,500 million smartphones shipped, depending upon whose figures you believe. Every single one of those had a camera in it. It's perhaps self-evident that the smartphone has all but killed the camera industry, but the scale and enormity of putting a camera in the hands of 7.5 billion people or about 96% of the global population is truly astonishing. We are genuinely at a point where virtually everybody takes a photo; no wonder Google stopped unlimited free photo storage!

Now obviously smartphones do far more than take photos, but this remains an important component of any phone design to the point that there has been a continual arms race since the original iPhone which shows no sign of abating. Talking of Apple, they held a 14.5% market share in 2019, lagging behind Huawei (17.6%), and Samsung (21.8%). Does that sound familiar? Yes, three companies control some 54% of the smartphone market so what they do with their cameras is critical not just to other smartphone manufacturers but also to camera manufacturers. In fact, while we see some inroads in partnerships between smartphone and camera manufacturers, it's surprising this isn't more widespread and, indeed, that the partnerships don't work in both directions. Hasselblad recently partnered with OnePlus, but we have seen Leica and Huawei, Zeiss with Sony (and a number of others), and possibly Samsung with Olympus.

---

Ways to improve web conference image and sound quality. [forums.macresource.com]






Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/16/2021 04:31PM by pRICE cUBE.

amateur photography sure, and niche "pro" photography, likely. In my opinion, you need a physically big sensor and high quality optics to generate quality files to work with. Gimmicky filters built into a phone smacks of amateurs.

Back around about 1997, Kodak did a study and found out that maybe 1 negative out of a 36 exposure roll of film was printed larger than 4x6". Even today, that is the size of a cell phone screen. How many iPhone pics end up as large wall art? How many iPad videos end up on a movie theater's screen?

---

********************************************
“A sword never kills anybody; it is a tool in the killer's hand.” Seneca the Younger

The police have no duty to respond. See Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005) or Warren v. District of Columbia[1] (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981)

Judge Lee wrote that “we cannot jettison our constitutional rights, even if the goal behind a law is laudable." 9th Circuit Court of Appeals

[www.youtube.com]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/16/2021 05:24PM by Racer X.

Quote
Racer X
Back around about 1997, Kodak did a study and found out that maybe 1 negative out of a 36 exposure roll of film was printed larger than 4x6". Even today, that is the size of a cell phone screen. How many iPhone pics end up as large wall art? How many iPad videos end up on a movie theater's screen?

One reason I have not felt an urgent need to upgrade my D90 is that I have no need for the massive file sizes of the higher megapixel cameras. I don't print anything that needs that size, and I don't want to have to store them either.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/16/2021 08:13PM by Acer.

Absolutely Acer. If it still meets your needs, why change?

---

********************************************
“A sword never kills anybody; it is a tool in the killer's hand.” Seneca the Younger

The police have no duty to respond. See Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005) or Warren v. District of Columbia[1] (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981)

Judge Lee wrote that “we cannot jettison our constitutional rights, even if the goal behind a law is laudable." 9th Circuit Court of Appeals

[www.youtube.com]

I think that the camera industry has been stuck in a rut for decades. They had a brief flurry of innovation in the 1970s, with exciting stuff like the OM-2, then a bit more excitement when autofocus got decent, but then they stuck with the same old (at least 70 year old technology) ridiculous mechanical mirror system way beyond the point where it was an anachronism. MILCs should have dominated starting 20 years ago but weren't accepted by the very conservative photography establishment.

I don't understand why one of the big guns in hardware hasn't partnered with Apple to produce a set of high end cameras with Apple's computational photography chops integrated into the system. That is what would be needed to get buyers more interested in MILCs. DSLRs are dead except for minor niche uses IMHO.

---

"In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,' and then they would actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion." (1987) -- Carl Sagan



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/16/2021 10:24PM by davester.

Quote
davester
MILCs should have dominated starting 20 years ago but weren't accepted by the very conservative photography establishment.

Part of what held mirrorless back was the viewfinder, which is its own tiny LCD or similar. That technology didn't really "catch up" to the quality of simply viewing through the pentaprism and mirror until the last view years. But Canon's and Nikon's stubbornness to initially invest in mirrorless also delayed the inevitable switch.