Apple Working on Standalone Point-and-Shoot Digital Camera?

[nickn]

Oh well. At least there are still alternatives. I just find it incredibly ironic and disappointing that Apple has done a complete 180 on how they used to position themselves.

What? Someone on here agrees with what I have been saying lately???? 🙂 Your whole post is exactly how I feel.

 

[G4DP]

SWC, I can see where you are coming from, but if you are happy with a point and shoot, you would not know how to get the best from a 18-200mm lens.

A decent 18-200mm lens is £300. Plus the normal point and shoot add another £100 for a reasonable amount of features/settings. Apple will find it hard to make it competitive without the backing of one of the major lens manufacturers.

 

[carlgo]

I would pay attention if they did something along the lines of the Sony NEX line.

I own a Nex-7. I love it, but this line is vastly too complex to be Apple's.

A camera with phone capabilities might just be the ticket for many people. Many people want a better camera than what a smart phone can offer. There are ways in incorporate a pretty serious lens assy and other aids within a small enclosure. It could be quite awesome.

Camera companies always have vast menus and modes and all that. Apple does not have that DNA and would automate the heck out of it. See a subject, aim and fire. A bright, colorful and sharp image will pop out and that can be sent to the cloud or an Apple device without effort. Same for videos of course.

I could see Apple having a huge impact on the P&S market, and of course sell some extra phones as well.

 

[bertman]

My first digital camera: the Apple QuickTake 640x480 crappy jpeg producing camera... and I never shot film again. Of course, now on my 9th digital camera or so.

Is Apple going to become a "camera maker"? - not gonna guess one way or another. The Lytro is a very cool device, and the methods it employes for capturing focus information will continue to evolve to a more professional product someday. Would an Apple product (standalone or built-in) use it? Maybe.

My issue is that Apple "revolutionize" the post-processing workflow. I've written on this before. Aperture needs absolute top-knotch image processing. Tools for workflow. Server-based hosting of images to edit. But things creep along, behind Lightroom, behind other RAW processors. It's all OK, but not revolutionary.

 

[filmantopia]

The only way this makes sense to me is if they are coming from a wearable "Google Glass"-esque approach. Light field tech coupled with a super high quality sensor and processor, incredible groundbreaking design, advanced software, augmented reality, multiple features (maps, apps), and iCloud integration...

Basically Google Glass, but packaged together really well.

It would be everything, just marketed as a camera (the way the iPhone is marketed as a phone).

Release around 2016

Just my best guess at a camera that people would actually buy.

 

[JHankwitz]

I hope this never happens. Leave the cameras to companies like Nikon and Cannon please.

Right, like please leave portable music players to Sony, and computers to Atari and HP, and portable phones to Nokia, and personal digital assistants to Palm. Building a better mousetrap has always been the fundamental driver of businesses in our society, especially Apple.

 

[baryon]

I can imagine Apple removing all the crappy features on these cameras, which are filled with stupid and utterly retarded functions like "child mode" and "walrus eating a cake in front of a sunset mode". These simple cameras can't do much, they shouldn't have so many features.

Even SLRs have much less features than the consumer cameras, which shows that you don't need 90% of the stuff they use to market these cheap machines.

If you're not going to allow the user to change the most basic exposure settings such as aperture and shutter speed, mostly because there is no shutter and the aperture can only take on 3 distinct values, and pretty much everything else is ISO and software, then you might as well have a single button on the camera to take the picture, and a touch screen for viewing them and zooming in and out.

The problem is mainly that you need experience in photography to produce good quality cameras, or you need to buy a company that has it…

PS: I'm not a fan of light field though, as it's always going to be much lower resolution than the current standards due to the way it works, and it needs special software to be fully enjoyed. Also, I have the impression that out-of-focus "bokeh" is emulated by software, which makes it ugly.

 

[padmasana]

wow

It will feature reality distortion that you will not be able to remove with Lightroom.

 

[ctdonath]

It seems that most people who are criticising this don't understand the concept of a light field camera.

As said: THIS.

Why would Apple take on the photography industry? because the photography industry is absolutely stuck in a set of specifications & paradigms, and there are emerging technologies that add whole new dimensions to the subject.

First, of course, is the light field camera's superior point-and-shoot ability. Point, shoot. No focusing (tricky manual or come-on-not-there-focus-on-what-I-want-already automatic), no catch-all sacrifice-something fixed-focus ... focus-later fits right in with Apple's commitment to thrilling users with attention to miniscule detail. Take picture, slide finger to focus, happy user.

Next is...not sure. Just because we don't see it now doesn't mean something awesome isn't there. Methinks there is a lot more capability within the light field design than anyone realizes. How do you "photoshop" a light field image? the answer will lead to "woah, that means you can do THIS? Wow!" That the light field refocus algorithm operates in real time raises the question of what else can be done that (for now) takes far more processing time/power.

What of "photosynth" technologies? Just leave the camera running, and stitch together a 3D model of everything it sees from every angle it passes thru. Selling a widget on eBay? just walk around it with your camera, and it generates a "virtual cinema" (see The Matrix: Reloaded opening scene) dynamic view.

And rattling in the back of my head is the possibilities of an ultra-resolution "phased array" camera, resolution so high it takes light field imaging to a new level. Think full (not stereoscopic) 3D akin to holography.

But no. According to most, would be stupid for Apple to take on photography. We've done everything we can with imaging, nothing more to do. Just like TV. And cell phones.

 

[rmwebs]

A P&S will never, and I mean never get the same level of quality and accuracy that can be obtained with a DLSR, or even an SLR, I'll stick with the DSLR as my main camera and an iPhone as my P&S camera...no point having a third option in there at all.

 

[Rocketman]

Light Field is a volume problem

As I posted in the iPad 3 threads, they could go this direction with a camera out the edge of a phone or pad. LF needs a bit of cross-section, but more importantly needs depth of the physical volume and a beyond retina CMOS sensor(s). A pyramid shaped glass splitter reflector to hit 4 horizontal CMOS censors and software to concatenate them would solve this problem with considerable physical and software engineering. BUT the physical space would be possible within the full depth of a phone or pad, with perhaps even a rectangular opening to increase volume, and a depth as needed for engineering up to 1/2 the width of the device which is an aspect ratio well over 12:1.

So a Light Field aspect of even an iPhone is quite possible as other components shrink in volume. Perhaps starting here:

http://hardware.slashdot.org/story/...ty-lithium-air-battery?sdsrc=popbyskidbtmprev

When Tim says great things are coming, he is vastly understating the fact.

Rocketman

 

[donstenk]

Plug-in or clip on camera for iPhone and iPod

How about an accessory that plugs into the range of iDevices, but with high quality optics and more advanced features?

I use my iPhone a lot for photography, but use a separate DSLR for work photos. I would definitely buy an add-on that allows me to take better pictures with all the benefits of being connected to a phone with GPS, data connection and photo management abilities.

Dennis Onstenk.

 

[APlotdevice]

As cool as that would be, I feel like that isn't enough to sell an Apple product.

If/when Apple releases a standalone camera, expect it to cost $400-$600.

There will be a killer app that will make the camera vastly better than anything you've ever seen before, and you won't see it coming.

My only guess for a feature that would make a camera must have that's never been seen before would be some kind of past-picture capability. What do I mean? Well... imagine you're trying to get the perfect picture of a subject that's noncooperative, like a baby or animal... while you're approaching them, they're going to get spooked and run away. But what if the camera knew when you had a perfect shot (or the best possible, anyways?) What if hitting the button that traditionally would take the picture would instead be a button that says "That was it. The perfect shot was just in frame, but on account of my slow human reflexes, I couldn't press the button fast enough." The camera has some kind of memory of amazing pictures you should have taken which it's constantly writing over with new ones, and it takes the most recent picture out of memory.

Kind of weird idea, and probably requires an incredible AI... face recognition is a start... but it would have to couple in the ideas of composition and stuff so that it could judge whether a picture is as good as it's going to get.

Casio already has a series of cameras which buffer the last five seconds before you hit the shutter release, then lets you pick the best shot.

 

[JHankwitz]

A light field camera allows you to take the picture and worry about focussing etc after it's taken.

Unfortunately, light field cameras have a very limited depth of field. You can't have everything in your shot in focus at the same time. It's like shooting with a camera with its aperture set at f:1. You get to select the exact spot you want in focus after you shoot the picture. Everything else is out of focus.

Personally, I perfer to have a lot more in focus.

 

[Prodo123]

I think iPhoto and Aperture will be Apple's only foray into the professional imaging industry.
I think experience trumps resources and innovation in such a market. Nikon, Canon, Pentax and Sony all know what they're doing. Nikon and Canon, for almost a century!
Given that they do not design their own cameras and slick P&S cameras already existed for a long time, it will be very difficult for Apple to succeed in this market and is stupid for Apple to even attempt it.
This rumor has no credibility in my opinion.

 

[ArtOfWarfare]

Casio already has a series of cameras which buffer the last five seconds before you hit the shutter release, then lets you pick the best shot.

Maybe, but touch screens and voice commands had been tried before. They never caught on with everyone until Apple did it.

Maybe that feature is too difficult to figure out? Apple will find a simpler way for it to work.

 

[lgtw]

While an Apple P+S would be nice, they really should focus on improving the camera in the iPhone 4S. It already looks stunning, but a wider angle lens would be REALLY nice, especially for the video function of the phone!

Plus, I haven't really gotten my hands on a P/S that can focus WHILE taking video, on whatever you want, or focus on a certain area of your photo ALL from one tap on the screen, like the iPhone does SO greatly.

 

[olowott]

so many gadgets to carry, so little space we have as a person 🙁

thas why i love my iPhone😎, not too big to make my pocket look like i got a hard on when its just my galaxy SIII😛

 

[faroZ06]

What? How is that going to work? You would attach one of these,
http://www.juzaphoto.com/shared_files/articles/test_canon_sigma_100-400/full_comparison-large.jpg
by cable to the iPad? What are you going to do, hold the iPad in 1 hand, and the large lens in the other and point it like a handheld telescope? I don't understand this idea at all.

No, think of an iSight camera on an iPod. I'm talking about that sort of idea. It would work with the lens described but not those huge ones you sent a picture of (which are for SLRs, not point-and-shoots).

 

[Ryth]

As said: THIS.

Why would Apple take on the photography industry? because the photography industry is absolutely stuck in a set of specifications & paradigms, and there are emerging technologies that add whole new dimensions to the subject.

Totally agree.

We actually just had a big tech company that makes cameras representative come in and go over their upcoming cameras in a 2 hour meeting.

The majority of us came out of it just talking about how bloated and how much crap there is on these things and how all they talk about is specs specs specs.

 

[MRU]

So after years of Samsung copying Apple, it's now going full tilt....

TV, Digital Camera? Can't wait for iToaster 🙂


In my personal opinion I have no objection to Apples consumer orientated vision these days, as long as they don't forget what makes them Apple, that being the Macintosh and it's software.

But with the abandonment of applications such as iWeb, no updates on the iWork since 09 (and it's poor performance with Lion), the general degradation of its professional application lines and seeming abandonment of the Mac Pro, and furthermore the dilution of the Mac operating system with very pretty but ultimately superficial iOS/crossover, further abandonment of MobileMe/iDisk for an arguably vastly limited replacement in iCloud - it often feels like Mac is no longer where it's at with Apple.

 

[NAG]

I own a Nex-7. I love it, but this line is vastly too complex to be Apple's.

A camera with phone capabilities might just be the ticket for many people. Many people want a better camera than what a smart phone can offer. There are ways in incorporate a pretty serious lens assy and other aids within a small enclosure. It could be quite awesome.

Camera companies always have vast menus and modes and all that. Apple does not have that DNA and would automate the heck out of it. See a subject, aim and fire. A bright, colorful and sharp image will pop out and that can be sent to the cloud or an Apple device without effort. Same for videos of course.

I could see Apple having a huge impact on the P&S market, and of course sell some extra phones as well.

Yeah, they would not be successful if they essentially cloned what is already out there. I was mostly referring to the sensor and glass and form factor (they can't wimp out and do yet another point and shoot like Nikon). Sort of, this is the right direction kind of thing (use it as a measurement of where the puck is going rather than where it is now). If Apple did do a camera they'd definitely go after the UI since it isn't intuitive. iCloud integration is a no brainer.

 

[basesloaded190]

Right, like please leave portable music players to Sony, and computers to Atari and HP, and portable phones to Nokia, and personal digital assistants to Palm. Building a better mousetrap has always been the fundamental driver of businesses in our society, especially Apple.

Fairly original of you don't you think?

bdavis89: "Yes, and leave the computer industry to IBM, the music player industry to Sony, the phone industry to Nokia, and the tablet industry to Microsoft" 🙄

 

[shinobi-81]

I wonder why they will call it. iCam? Anyway, I hope it will have seamless integration with iCloud and/or iOS-devices.

 

[b166er]

As long as they continue to enhance the cameras in the iPhone I don't really care. I would hate to see all the good camera tech going to a stand alone device while the iPhone camera levels off.

My iPhone take hands down better pictures than my recently purchased cannon point and shoot, so odds are I won't be looking to buy a new camera like- ever. I am not a pro of course. The past few times I've used my camera I have tried to take similar shots with it as well as with my phone. The phone does better every time.

More power to them though, I'm sure a lot of people would enjoy an Apple camera, just not for me. That TV on the other hand.... I wanna see that baby some day soon.