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.
Apple Working on Standalone Point-and-Shoot Digital Camera?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
iVoyeur
Do you really want to use a device with two cameras while sitting on the ThunderMug?
There are already whole websites full of that stuff.
Do you really want to use a device with two cameras while sitting on the ThunderMug?
There are already whole websites full of that stuff.
You're a little late. I have been told the EXACT same thing by at least two other people. I get it.
Just throwing 2 cents towards they COULD/SHOULD camp.
The iPhone is NOT a good choice at your daughter's ballet recital or your son's school play... Tourist-travel pics on the iPhone aren't all that, compared to even a cheap DSLR.
A DSLR that *I* could understand would be awesome. Plus get crazy with apps, WiFi, 4G (shared data plan with my iPad, iPhone, etc) ;-) and Apple's "product design beauty" could be awesome, as well.
As a family, we don't carry our DSLR with us everyday or everywhere, certainly our iPhone's are amazing for every day shots. But we certainly still drag along the Panasonic video camera and Nikon DSLR with us to events and functions.
It would take phone cams not just getting better, but a real quantum leap forward in "phone cameras" to extinct the DSLR or true video camera for that matter. Given that, I'd be plenty happy to buy those from Apple, especially if they could offer the same eco-system and interoperability as they do with everything else. *shrug*
The iPhone is NOT a good choice at your daughter's ballet recital or your son's school play... Tourist-travel pics on the iPhone aren't all that, compared to even a cheap DSLR.
A DSLR that *I* could understand would be awesome. Plus get crazy with apps, WiFi, 4G (shared data plan with my iPad, iPhone, etc) ;-) and Apple's "product design beauty" could be awesome, as well.
As a family, we don't carry our DSLR with us everyday or everywhere, certainly our iPhone's are amazing for every day shots. But we certainly still drag along the Panasonic video camera and Nikon DSLR with us to events and functions.
It would take phone cams not just getting better, but a real quantum leap forward in "phone cameras" to extinct the DSLR or true video camera for that matter. Given that, I'd be plenty happy to buy those from Apple, especially if they could offer the same eco-system and interoperability as they do with everything else. *shrug*
I think this makes sense.
Extend the light-field concept to have a temporal dimension as well, so that exposure can be finely adjusted after-the-fact as well as focus.
More generally: capture *all* light information -- over a period of time -- in a raw form. Process it after-the-fact, to achieve the desired result. Pre-built filters will give excellent automatic (no-input needed) results for the point-and-shoot crowd, while pros can work with the raw data at any level of sophistication they desire: for a "job" they will use sophisticated filters that will, e.g., let them wash out the blemishes on the bride's face, while artists will use very flexible, generalized (probably incremental) filters to carefully "chisel" away at the raw data to reach the vision. (Artistically, this is very, very beautiful: from raw reality, *subtract only*, *add NOTHING*, and find what you see to show to everyone.)
Currently, the very language -- the conceptual model -- of photography is based in the now *obsolete* photo-chemical processes of film. A new model is now in order.
Can Nikon or Cannon (or the other "usual suspects") really do it? Hm. Maybe. But they have so much invested in the status quo. No doubt, there are many at these companies that can see the difference between what is from what could be. But as companies, can they actually take the steps? It's so hard when they make all their $ from the current model.
Apple *could*. They have nothing invested in the status quo. They seem to have the visionaries at the executive level (please, it wasn't just Steve, was it?!? I know TC isn't a visionary, but I *think* he knows he has the visionaries working for him and will let them do their thing, right?).
This might be wishful thinking, but if not Apple, then who?!?
Extend the light-field concept to have a temporal dimension as well, so that exposure can be finely adjusted after-the-fact as well as focus.
More generally: capture *all* light information -- over a period of time -- in a raw form. Process it after-the-fact, to achieve the desired result. Pre-built filters will give excellent automatic (no-input needed) results for the point-and-shoot crowd, while pros can work with the raw data at any level of sophistication they desire: for a "job" they will use sophisticated filters that will, e.g., let them wash out the blemishes on the bride's face, while artists will use very flexible, generalized (probably incremental) filters to carefully "chisel" away at the raw data to reach the vision. (Artistically, this is very, very beautiful: from raw reality, *subtract only*, *add NOTHING*, and find what you see to show to everyone.)
Currently, the very language -- the conceptual model -- of photography is based in the now *obsolete* photo-chemical processes of film. A new model is now in order.
Can Nikon or Cannon (or the other "usual suspects") really do it? Hm. Maybe. But they have so much invested in the status quo. No doubt, there are many at these companies that can see the difference between what is from what could be. But as companies, can they actually take the steps? It's so hard when they make all their $ from the current model.
Apple *could*. They have nothing invested in the status quo. They seem to have the visionaries at the executive level (please, it wasn't just Steve, was it?!? I know TC isn't a visionary, but I *think* he knows he has the visionaries working for him and will let them do their thing, right?).
This might be wishful thinking, but if not Apple, then who?!?
I think people are missing the point. Apple's always been about bringing complexities of products to the hands of the general public. Pros can choose their Nikon cameras etc. But there are BILLIONS of people out there that don't even know or care about professional photography because it's too complicated for them.
Like it or not some people are too lazy to learn about new technology or bother to try (some are also mentally incapable of learning about it).
Like it or not some people are too lazy to learn about new technology or bother to try (some are also mentally incapable of learning about it).
+1
why are they wasting their time on this shyt.... what ever happened to apple computers....
Prior to the iPhone, people were probably saying "leave phones to Nokia!" or other companies, and look how that turned out.
In any case, as they mentioned once, the iPhone camera was becoming one of the most popular cameras. I remember them showing a graph in a keynote. So I don't think they'd necessarily NEED a stand alone camera...
But I don't know. When I got my own camera for the first time a few years ago, I always kept thinking how much nicer it'd be if it had a simple interface like that of iOS, instead I still find myself trying to figure out some stuff from time to time now a days
----------
This is just a rumor :/
And regardless, they stopped being a "just computer" company years ago, and look at how they're doing now.
Seems like they're making the right choices.
Heh, it's the price you pay for posting something, well (sorry), so stupid, early in the chain. I'm stupid in the same way, but I've learned over time to think things through before speaking (or posting).
And I don't disagree when considering professional cameras. "Real" photographers aren't using point and shoots, regular people who want to take nice looking pictures of memorable events are using them.
If this story is to be believed, Apple is not building a camera for "Real" photographers. They're building a camera for normal people. Lots of normal people have cameras that use AA batteries, mine included. So, I can either buy disposable batteries, or rechargeable batteries. Both options suck.
A built in iPhone/iPad type battery would be superior in every way. If Apple can put a battery in an iPad that lasts for 10+ hours on LTE, I think they can handle the same for a camera.
Apple Computers is dead. I'm going back to my Commodore Amiga, at least they have active development, unlike Apple.
why you even wasting your time not reading what others commented, there are some legit points in there
Viewing not taking???
Could the revolution come more in the way we view photos, not in how we take them (they've already done a pretty good job there)?
Could the revolution come more in the way we view photos, not in how we take them (they've already done a pretty good job there)?
Forget the regular Point and Shoot: Apple would be far better off making a photo or camera that is:
* Waterproof
* can tolerate drops
* an 'adventure' camera
I.e., an alternative to the panasonic TS4 et al.
Your basic point and shoot market is crowded..
Anyhow.. any Apple camera wouldn't support SD RAM and neither would it support a removal battery... it would be highly integrated into the iCloud... have a WIFI capability which would upload your pics to the Cloud for the user to download to their computers / iMobileDevice.
* Waterproof
* can tolerate drops
* an 'adventure' camera
I.e., an alternative to the panasonic TS4 et al.
Your basic point and shoot market is crowded..
Anyhow.. any Apple camera wouldn't support SD RAM and neither would it support a removal battery... it would be highly integrated into the iCloud... have a WIFI capability which would upload your pics to the Cloud for the user to download to their computers / iMobileDevice.
Apple Computers is dead. I'm going back to my Commodore Amiga, at least they have active development, unlike Apple.
Delusional fan boys will always be delusional fan boys
If I want a camera, I'd go to Nikon or Cannon ....okay okay I guess if we wanted something well designed and overpriced we would go to apple right, still no i'd go to Leica.
Apple and their toys, fml I have used apple computers since 2005 but I have been clean of fan boys delusions for a few years. Some people on here should get matching apple logo tattoos.
Delusional fan boys will always be delusional fan boys
If I want a camera, I'd go to Nikon or Cannon ....okay okay I guess if we wanted something well designed and overpriced we would go to apple right, still no i'd go to Leica.
Apple and their toys, fml I have used apple computers since 2005 but I have been clean of fan boys delusions for a few years. Some people on here should get matching apple logo tattoos.
fan boy? nope. im using the 2210 nokia, and camera? i'll stick with mamiya medium format, or maybe fuji xpro someday. if apple camera have the capabilities to print out photos on the go. then that one.
*what is Cannon?
A video you may find interesting. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=B2EB0PTAyME
Everyone welcome to the end of Apple if they actually try this. Camera+=dead
Well Apple has had failed products in the past, yet they managed to be the worlds most valuable brand.
While I don't think Apple would do this, if they did this and it failed, Apple ain't going nowhere!
Silly, the iFlush uses iCloud. The image is pushed to the iFlush via iCloud so you can view it on the gorgeous 3.99999 inch retina display.
Sorry, I got to disagree with you there. An Apple DSLR may not be the smartest route to go IMO. With SLRs, you have very established makers Nikon and Canon who not only make good cameras, but more importantly, make good lenses. I dont think Apple will (initially) have the capability of making high-quality lenses for DSLRs. I'm not talking kit lenses but the more heavy-duty, prosumer/professional lenses that cost minimum of $1k.
If Apple tries to appeal to regular consumers and tries to make an entry level SLR, I think we can probably anticipate there to be some sort of "Apple tax" on the product. However, unless there is a killer application on the camera, I feel like most consumers will still opt for the cheaper SLRs (which are still expensive to many buyers, esp with this economy). But if the customers had the extra cash to get an Apple DSLR, they may also see that a prosumer grade camera runs around the same mark as the Apple DSLR.
I think Point and Shoot or a Micro 4/3 style camera seem more likely. The light field camera also seems interesting. You already have apps like Instagram where you can (rather crudely) create bokeh and blurring of your picture. Light field camera technology would allow the user to create a more natural blurring (though still not as nice and natural as a good glass lens).
That being said they better get moving. Companies like Samsung already have cameras that work with smartphones. It seems like it'd be only a matter of time before a company makes a P&S with smartphone capabilities/OS.
Finally, someone who gets it. It seems quite a number of commenters here lack the foresight and imagination to see where the Lytro technology can go. Judging any new technology by its current limitations is the mistake people make time and time again. Being able to see past current limitations is what sets the visionaries apart from the skeptics.
Apple takes an interest when they think they can shake up a market by taking a somewhat new and innovative approach, and I can see them going after something like this. They may succeed or they may fail, but one thing is for surethey will not enter the camera market just to be another Canon or Nikon. If they do it, it will because they think they can do it differently.
Comparable is a strong word there, but they are quite good.
Even if it did displace the dslr as we know it today, it doesn't mean the market would collapse into everyone using phone cameras and nothing else. Designs are meant to solve problems. In maximum potential image quality is only one of them.
I always think blah blah when I read about making cameras easier. When it comes to professional photography, what you'll notice is that much of that comes down to control and reliability. They require certain shots that day. They must be able to meet a final spec while being interesting. They have to do that on demand. It's not so much that the cameras are too complicated. Even digital medium formats have become relatively simple to control. It's just that they have to be controllable.
Overall I think the iphone has cannibalized much of the low end. DSLRs are a slightly different market from $100-200 point and shoot designs. If you want to push a button and look at a pretty photo, that market is already served. More options for depth of field or other effects will eventually be derived from software. Looking at modern autofocus systems, they can identify a large number of points. I could see the use of such metadata to create a depth map for the image. Increased dynamics range (or possibly a trend toward recording images in floating point formats as hardware power increases) would allow for better recovery of extreme highlights/shadows. There really isn't any measure of complexity to taking a simple photo as it is today.
A cannon is any piece of artillery that uses gunpowder or other usually explosive-based propellents to launch a projectile. Cannon vary in caliber, range, mobility, rate of fire, angle of fire, and firepower; different forms of cannon combine and balance these attributes in varying degrees, depending on their intended use on the battlefield. The word cannon is derived from several languages, in which the original definition can usually be translated as tube, cane, or reed. The plural of cannon is also cannon, though more commonly in America, cannons. In the modern era, the term cannon has fallen out of common usage, replaced by "guns" or "artillery" if not a more specific term such as "mortar" or "howitzer". In aviation, cannon remains a common term for aircraft guns.
First used in China, cannon were among the earliest forms of gunpowder artillery, and over time replaced siege enginesamong other forms of aging weaponryon the battlefield. In the Middle East, the first use of the hand cannon is argued to be during the 1260 Battle of Ain Jalut between the Mamluks and Mongols. The first cannon in Europe were probably used in Iberia in the 11 and 12th centuries, and English cannon were first deployed in the Hundred Years' War, at the Battle of Crécy, in 1346. On the African continent, the cannon was first used by the Somali Imam Ahmad ibn Ibrihim al-Ghazi of the Adal Sultanate in his conquest of Ethiopia in 1529.[1] It was during this period, the Middle Ages, that cannon became standardized, and more effective in both the anti-infantry and siege roles. After the Middle Ages most large cannon were abandoned in favor of greater numbers of lighter, more maneuverable pieces. In addition, new technologies and tactics were developed, making most defences obsolete; this led to the construction of star forts, specifically designed to withstand artillery bombardment though these too (along with the Martello Tower) would find themselves rendered obsolete when explosive and armour piercing rounds made even these types of fortifications vulnerable.
Cannon also transformed naval warfare in the early modern period, as European navies took advantage of their firepower. As rifling became commonplace, the accuracy and destructive power of cannon was significantly increased, and they became deadlier than ever, both to infantry who belatedly had to adopt different tactics, and to ships, which had to be armoured. In World War I, the majority of combat fatalities were caused by artillery; they were also used widely in World War II. Most modern cannon are similar to those used in the Second World War, although the importance of the larger caliber weapons has declined with the development of missiles.
In addition to their widespread use in warfare, cannons have found peaceful applications, notably in avalanche control.
