PDA

View Full Version : Why Apple Could Kill Your Camera


MacBytes
Jul 7, 2009, 07:33 AM
http://www.macbytes.com/images/bytessig.gif (http://www.macbytes.com)

Category: Opinion/Interviews
Link: Why Apple Could Kill Your Camera (http://www.macbytes.com/link.php?sid=20090707083358)
Description:: none

Posted on MacBytes.com (http://www.macbytes.com)
Approved by Mudbug

shamino
Jul 7, 2009, 10:50 AM
The article is very misleading. It compares the iPhone to an $8000 SLR camera. Well, how about comparing it to the point-and-shoot cameras it is supposedly going to kill?

Example 1: Kodak's Z1012IS (http://www.kodak.com/eknec/PageQuerier.jhtml?pq-path=12454&pq-locale=en_US), with an MSRP of $250 ($200-250, based on a Google shopping search). This camera takes pictures at 10MP resolution, has a 12x optical zoom lens and can shoot HD video. It also records to SD and SDHC cards, so you don't have to dock it to a computer as the memory fills up.

Example 2: Kodak's C813 (http://www.kodak.com/eknec/PageQuerier.jhtml?pq-path=11580), with an MSRP of $80 ($40-75, based on a Google shopping search). It has 8MP resolution and a 3x optical zoom. It also uses SD and SDHC cards for storage.

The iPhone with its 3MP, no-zoom lens, and no removable storage media (using the same storage your music and applications use) looks great compared to other phones, but it doesn't even come close to being a camera-killer. Not even for a cheap camera.

Jamesl94
Jul 7, 2009, 11:37 AM
How has Apple "killed the music industry"? In my opinion, they have taken it to greater lengths, offering easy solutions for normal people, on the go who don't want to carry a big personal cd player with them and to have the same amount of songs you would listen to, you would need a rucksack!

People slate apple for doing things like that, and I don't think they should. Apple is a business, businesses will do anything to come on top of the opponent, and Apple triumph every time.



James

pdjudd
Jul 7, 2009, 12:00 PM
How has Apple "killed the music industry"?

As you point out, they haven't. The music industry is still very much alive and kicking. In fact, Apple's biggest weakness with the iTunes store is their dependency on the content holders which in most cases is the long established big 4 music companies.

Sure Apple changed things significantly compared to several years before, but the music institute is no more different in the way things are accomplished with the exception of a massively popular distribution system.

nuckinfutz
Jul 7, 2009, 12:21 PM
silly article.

The iPhone 3G S photo capabilities are an improvement over the previous generations but they are not competitive when compared to the many digicams out there in features and picture quality. Put down the crack pipe Forbes.

MikhailT
Jul 7, 2009, 12:44 PM
The article is very misleading. It compares the iPhone to an $8000 SLR camera. Well, how about comparing it to the point-and-shoot cameras it is supposedly going to kill?

Example 1: Kodak's Z1012IS (http://www.kodak.com/eknec/PageQuerier.jhtml?pq-path=12454&pq-locale=en_US), with an MSRP of $250 ($200-250, based on a Google shopping search). This camera takes pictures at 10MP resolution, has a 12x optical zoom lens and can shoot HD video. It also records to SD and SDHC cards, so you don't have to dock it to a computer as the memory fills up.

Example 2: Kodak's C813 (http://www.kodak.com/eknec/PageQuerier.jhtml?pq-path=11580), with an MSRP of $80 ($40-75, based on a Google shopping search). It has 8MP resolution and a 3x optical zoom. It also uses SD and SDHC cards for storage.

The iPhone with its 3MP, no-zoom lens, and no removable storage media (using the same storage your music and applications use) looks great compared to other phones, but it doesn't even come close to being a camera-killer. Not even for a cheap camera.

While I disagree that the iPhone 3GS is a camera "killer" or anything of that sort, comparing them to digicam with higher MP is just wrong and does nothing to prove or disprove which camera is better. A 3MP shot can be better than a 2000MP shot. It's all about how you take the shots, the lighting and so on and even with iPhone 3GS, it can take very good shots without all the fancy stuff that you see in digicams such as zoom lens, flash and so on.

For majority of people, they do not need any more than 2-3MP and most of them just want to take shots at any moment, it is in this market that Apple can success in a great way that even 80$ digicam can't hope to win. Why buy a 80$ digicam when your iphone can do just as good job and you don't ever have to worry about forgetting to bring your digicam with you.

This article could be better if they instead focus on Apple killing the cheap digicams market but then again that is probably a much larger share, maybe more than half of the camera industry.

Not to mention the video camera in there. How many people do you see bringing their camcoders with them? Now iPhone comes with both, it can change the scale of competition so that now the cheap camcoders has to offer more than what iPhone can.

gmcbay
Jul 7, 2009, 01:48 PM
A 3MP shot can be better than a 2000MP shot. It's all about how you take the shots, the lighting and so on and even with iPhone 3GS, it can take very good shots without all the fancy stuff that you see in digicams such as zoom lens, flash and so on.


Megapixels are certainly an overrated aspect of judging the end-result quality of photos from a camera, but physical size of the sensor is very important and the iPhone/iPod just don't have enough space in them for a decent sized sensor no matter how many megapixels they manage to squeeze on to the sensor. Same thing applies to the lens as well unless they redesign the phone to have a much more protruding lens element which would make the phone look very silly, so they won't do it.

At their current form factor iPhones are doomed to take significantly worse pictures than even lower end point and shoots, let alone higher end ones like the Sigma DP2 or low-end dSLRs... but that's ok because contrary to the baseless speculation in this article, Apple isn't trying to make a serious move in the digital camera space with iPhone/iPods.

xIGmanIx
Jul 7, 2009, 01:58 PM
I agree with all that picture quality trumps MP. However, i bought a HD camcorder to do just that, take HD video, i would never think to bring any version of a phone to replace that.

tayshon
Jul 7, 2009, 10:14 PM
I use my iphone for like everyday picture taking, kids running around say cheese for mommy phone. I use my digital camera for important things and big events, kids running around on stage say cheese for everyones camera.

MikhailT
Jul 7, 2009, 10:44 PM
Megapixels are certainly an overrated aspect of judging the end-result quality of photos from a camera, but physical size of the sensor is very important and the iPhone/iPod just don't have enough space in them for a decent sized sensor no matter how many megapixels they manage to squeeze on to the sensor. Same thing applies to the lens as well unless they redesign the phone to have a much more protruding lens element which would make the phone look very silly, so they won't do it.

At their current form factor iPhones are doomed to take significantly worse pictures than even lower end point and shoots, let alone higher end ones like the Sigma DP2 or low-end dSLRs... but that's ok because contrary to the baseless speculation in this article, Apple isn't trying to make a serious move in the digital camera space with iPhone/iPods.

To those people that I described in my previous post, they don't care about the "worse quality than SLR" pictures as long as it takes the pictures they want and show it clearly enough. That's the whole point and there's no point of talking about comparing it to any good digital camera because that's not the whole purpose of having a camera in a smartphone. Those people don't care about the size of sensors not because they are ignorant but because it really is not that important.

The fact is if those people do care in the first place, they would never consider the iPhone for that, well most of them.

One example is snapping a picture of dogs doing stupid crap in the street with your iPhone and the other is taking photos of the people at a wedding with an SLR or good point and shoot cameras. In first situation, the iPhone is good enough and does not require a dedicated camera and thanks to the new camera in iPhone 3GS, it is even better.

shamino
Jul 8, 2009, 08:40 AM
While I disagree that the iPhone 3GS is a camera "killer" or anything of that sort, comparing them to digicam with higher MP is just wrong and does nothing to prove or disprove which camera is better.
I wasn't arguing which is "better". I was arguing that the iPhone camera doesn't come close to being a substitute for cheap point-and-shoot cameras - which is what the original article was trying to claim.

The fact that they are so far superior makes my point - if even a dirt-cheap camera has high MP and a zoom lens, then nobody is going to see a phone-camera as a substitute.
For majority of people, they do not need any more than 2-3MP and most of them just want to take shots at any moment, it is in this market that Apple can success in a great way that even 80$ digicam can't hope to win. Why buy a 80$ digicam when your iphone can do just as good job and you don't ever have to worry about forgetting to bring your digicam with you.
These are the same people who are happy with their existing phone-cameras (many from even older phones). Lousy quality, but convenient. I know a lot of these people, but even they know that they need to use a real camera if they want the picture to look good away from a web page.

You (and the original article) seem to be implying that there are people who are looking to buy a camera and will change their mind based on the iPhone's camera. I don't think there are many people in this category. Anybody who is actually looking to buy a camera will not be satisfied by the iPhone, because even the cheapest cameras sold today have higher resolution and a zoom lens.
Not to mention the video camera in there. How many people do you see bringing their camcoders with them?
This argument cuts both ways. Nearly all still cameras sold today (including the two I cited) shoot video. Some even shoot HD video.

MikhailT
Jul 8, 2009, 11:43 AM
I wasn't arguing which is "better". I was arguing that the iPhone camera doesn't come close to being a substitute for cheap point-and-shoot cameras - which is what the original article was trying to claim.

The fact that they are so far superior makes my point - if even a dirt-cheap camera has high MP and a zoom lens, then nobody is going to see a phone-camera as a substitute.

These are the same people who are happy with their existing phone-cameras (many from even older phones). Lousy quality, but convenient. I know a lot of these people, but even they know that they need to use a real camera if they want the picture to look good away from a web page.

You (and the original article) seem to be implying that there are people who are looking to buy a camera and will change their mind based on the iPhone's camera. I don't think there are many people in this category. Anybody who is actually looking to buy a camera will not be satisfied by the iPhone, because even the cheapest cameras sold today have higher resolution and a zoom lens.
This argument cuts both ways. Nearly all still cameras sold today (including the two I cited) shoot video. Some even shoot HD video.

You're right, but you didn't catch my point of view. Imagine you already have an iPhone 3GS and it takes good shots for you and you're happy with it. You don't take photography seriously, you often don't take it but you still want some shots once in a while to remember something but you don't have a camera. Why would you buy a dedicated cheap PnS camera when you're just happy with your iPhone 3gS?

I wasn't really talking about substituting a digital camera with an iPhone 3GS. I never once implied that people are looking to buy cameras will consider an iPhone instead. I said that if they are happy with the iPhone 3GS' capabilities, they don't have to buy an additional camera if they don't really need all the quality and features and they just want the convenience. (I can see how people can misunderstood what I said as implying that people will buy iPhone instead of a camera, that wasn't my intention. Have to look into the whole context of what I was trying to say).

You and I are not on the same page here. I hope you can understand what I am trying to say here.

The camera in iPhone 3GS is just a bonus feature for a smartphone, that's all I am saying. If people buy an iPhone 3GS and like the way the camera take pictures, than they have a crappy camera that's always with them for 24/7 convenience.

Look at this thread (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=725914) for the pictures that has been taken with iPhone 3GS. Some people wouldn't be able to tell that it was taken with a phone camera.

luminosity
Jul 8, 2009, 08:54 PM
When I see a phone that can take a picture that's of the same quality as a Nikon D3x or Canon 5D Mark II, I'll be interested. Of course, by that time, who knows how good a pro-level DSLR will be.

Megapixels are cited by people who don't understand photography. Megapixels are most useful for the level of detail in a photo and for the size of the print you make. I saw some brilliant shots taken by a D1x last month, easily the equal of those taken by a D3. You just wouldn't want to blow them up much.

dmmcintyre3
Jul 8, 2009, 10:11 PM
When I see a phone that can take a picture that's of the same quality as a Nikon D3x or Canon 5D Mark II, I'll be interested. Of course, by that time, who knows how good a pro-level DSLR will be.

Megapixels are cited by people who don't understand photography. Megapixels are most useful for the level of detail in a photo and for the size of the print you make. I saw some brilliant shots taken by a D1x last month, easily the equal of those taken by a D3. You just wouldn't want to blow them up much.

I blew a picture up from a 4 year old DSLR that was 8 megapixels and compared to a new 10 megapixel point and shoot. The detail was the better at 10 MP from the DSLR!. i think that even 12 megapixel phone could capture as much detail as the 8 MP DSLR. The 10 mp image is just blurrier, noisier and darker in the point and shoot than the DSLR.

GoCubsGo
Jul 8, 2009, 10:14 PM
When I see a phone that can take a picture that's of the same quality as a Nikon D3x or Canon 5D Mark II, I'll be interested. Of course, by that time, who knows how good a pro-level DSLR will be.

Megapixels are cited by people who don't understand photography. Megapixels are most useful for the level of detail in a photo and for the size of the print you make. I saw some brilliant shots taken by a D1x last month, easily the equal of those taken by a D3. You just wouldn't want to blow them up much.

Being fairly correct I couldn't agree with you more.

That many MP on such a small sensor will result in real crappy images.

luminosity
Jul 8, 2009, 10:56 PM
Being fairly correct I couldn't agree with you more.

That many MP on such a small sensor will result in real crappy images.

I suspect it would be good at the base ISO, but not much more than that. The 50D and D3x show markers of that on the DSLR level. They're great far beyond base ISO, but they lose some of their potency after a couple stops.

The detail was the better at 10 MP from the DSLR!.

I can't think of any response other than "of course." Two megapixels difference is a small one by the 8-10 MP level, and the DSLR has a far bigger sensor than any point and shoot. Even a 6 MP Nikon D40 is going to do better than a 15 MP G10. The 40D would blow away just about any point and shoot, and it's also 10 megapixels.

Look at one of the best DSLRs ever, the Canon 5D. It was released in 2005 and in 2009, it's still in wide use, having entered the used market in earnest. Its supporting technology has aged a lot (and which the 5D II updated), but the core of it is still great. It has twelve megapixels on a full frame sensor, resulting in the relatively huge pixel sizes that can also be found on the Nikon D700. Remember, back in mid-2005, Apple was still using PowerPCs, so think how much things have changed since then. Yet the 5D sails on, four years after its introduction.

It'll take a long time yet before any point and shoot equals it, if ever.

Blacklabel34
Jul 9, 2009, 01:23 PM
A 3MP shot can be better than a 2000MP shot. It's all about how you take the shots, the lighting and so on and even with iPhone 3GS, it can take very good shots without all the fancy stuff that you see in digicams such as zoom lens, flash and so on.


no comment:confused:


For people who don't care how their image is going to come out yes by all means your newer/future apple cam will replace your digi cam but for people like me and other photographers out there....HAH;)