Are Digital Cameras Obsolete? - Comments Page 1

Category: Photography




(Read the article: Are Digital Cameras Obsolete?)

All Comments on: "Are Digital Cameras Obsolete?"

Comment Page: 1 |  2 

Posted by:

RandiO
22 Aug 2013

I really liked your selection of Technics SL1200Mk2 turntable as representative of the bygone years!

I am the target of your "serious amateur" remark and prefer the Panasonic Lumix G-series 'four-third’ format DSLRs.

The only other comment that I can add (to your fine article) is that the common-user should hesitate before using the "portrait" mode when taking pictures with a smartphone. As the portrait mode becomes cumbersome to view when sharing with others and do not 'auto-rotate' with some photo viewing programs. Due to more than enough pixel resolution in the "Landscape" mode, any shot will readily allow user to crop the photo to a portrait version downstream and will prevent kinked necks of those whom you share your photos with.

Posted by:

Bill
22 Aug 2013

The way I see it there have always been small point & shoot cameras for the "Snapshot Shooter" and Bridge Cams and DSLR's for the "Photographer".
Phones are taking the place of the "Small Point & Shoots for the "Snapshooters". Will always be "Real Cams" for the Photographers. IMHO

Posted by:

Donna
22 Aug 2013

And don't forget those of us who, for whatever reason, do not have cell phones with cameras. I agree with Bill's "Snapshooters" and "Photographers," being a Snapper myself without even hints of delusions of being a Photographer. However, I love my digital camera and don't own a cell phone/camera. (Cellamera?) I can't be the last dinosaur on earth. Can I??
Thanks for another great article, Bob!

Posted by:

SG
22 Aug 2013

DSLR's have a major advantage - the use of a professional flash! With a flash, there is no comparison to the quality of the photos. I will never part with my DSLR and its good buddy the Flash.

Posted by:

ManoaHi
22 Aug 2013

I've always felt like the smartphone and other phone cameras were for the "I wish I had a camera" moments. Most times something that is multifunctional are not as good as the single purpose devices.

Posted by:

Carole
22 Aug 2013

I don't know what the average number of pixels in a smart phone being mfg today, but my guess they don't come close to that of a camera. It makes all the difference in the clarity of the photo being taken. For the average person taking a picture with a smart phone would be just fine. I have 3 - 35mm cameras collecting dust. Does anyone have any suggestions what I can do with them?

Posted by:

hvsteve1
22 Aug 2013

Showing the Technics turntable as an illustration is the perfect comparison. While almost everyone uses digital audio, and CDs are becoming obsolete in favor of downloads, there are still serious audiophiles who use vinyl. And there are still musical artists who release their work, in addition to digital, on vinyl. As you suggested with cameras, turntables, which had previously been available in all prices and quality, now give you a choice of pretty much two extremes...very high-end or junk. What kept the film cameras going for so long was companies such as Kodak and Fuji having a vested interest in keeping them alive so they could sell the media. Digital camera media is not exclusive to cameras, so you may see a faster change as companies such as SanDisk won't go the way of Kodak if cameras disappear.

Posted by:

George H
22 Aug 2013

Yep! Digital Camera's on the way out except for those built into Smartphone, Tablet etc.
Why would you expect a person to carry two camera's really
Besides getting two expensive

Posted by:

Jim
22 Aug 2013

The lens(es) alone should be reason enough that current phone cameras do not measure up. I think of phone cameras as a modern version of Polaroid (although of much higher quality).

However - I expect to see integration to go the other way. Expect bigger and better displays on the back of the camera with more tablet and phone features appearing on the camera form factor. Some of those features are reaching a commodity point that makes them cheaper than the dedicated photography elements.

Posted by:

Bob Pratt
22 Aug 2013

Most people I know with smart phones take all their photos with it and not a camera - and never get around to backing them up - and when they lose their phone or it gets stolen or dropped from a height and smashed etc etc their photos are gone for good. They are upset about it for a few hours until they get a new phone then it's all forgotten and hey,life goes on. Will families still be able to sit around the fire and go through the photo album and bring back all those happy memories on a Winter's evening? I think not - those memories are now just a transient thing to be looked at and discarded, a fleeting demonstration of how great 'my' phone is and what it can do with the content often of secondary importance. Henry Cartier-Bresson would not be impressed.

Posted by:

Geoff Edwards
22 Aug 2013

Another great article! I don't know how you do it. Your article does present a worrying future for photography. If camera manufacturers can't sell their semi-pro cameras in sufficient quantities then those cameras will go up in price or may not even be made. Keen amateur photographers benefit from manufactures making better gear available to them and that also benefits the pros. To some I suppose provided they can see their pictures on a screen, albeit a small one they are happy. what we could do with is a venue for showing large photos, eg. six foot or some wide! Still the province of film.

Posted by:

J Hess
22 Aug 2013

Two words, that phones don't have: Optical Zoom. I can't do without my 12X zoom, and plan to get a 30X OPTICAL zoom soon.

Posted by:

Jeff
22 Aug 2013

Bob,

Timely article as usual. I know you can't cram everything into one article, but there are lenses available for the iPhone. Apparently some newspapers are discarding some of their digital cameras and replacing them with iPhones with lenses. I don't have an iPhone, but did a search and found this site which provides an example: http://photojojo.com/store/

Posted by:

John Nagle
22 Aug 2013

The one thing overlooked by the digital set is the fact that digital photographs aren't allowed in court. As you pointed out, they are too easy to modify with basic tools.

So analog cameras are here to stay, if only in niche markets.

Posted by:

bitzygm
22 Aug 2013

Give me a REAL camera Any Day, i.e., a SLR or a DSLR. I've gotten rid of nearly every P/S camera I've owned due to lack of Image Quality and frequent failures due to cheap builds that are filling up the Hazardous Waste Landfills.

P/S cams, phones, tablets, etc. have a LONG WAY TO GO before technology catches up with either of those technologies with regard to IQ.

If there's no power on the grid I can always go back to my 1950's SLRs using my stash of film in the freezer and my (now vintage)selenium powered light meters..... that Still Work after 50+ years. Of Course, there is always the Sunny 16 Rule.

How long do you think those digital images will Last and be Readily Accessible? Nowhere near as long as most people realize. Analog SLRs and Digital DSLRs have a lot of life left in them. Only thing that will eventually get in the way will be finding replacement parts or individuals who are knowledgeable enough to work on them.

Posted by:

Stan
22 Aug 2013

I just saw a video of a bobcat in Falmouth, MA, that was taken with an I-phone. Not ready for prime time. My problem with smartphone cameras is that it's difficult to take steady pictures or films! And I have lots of pictures of the palm of my hand (talk about butt-dialing). A purpose-built camera is ergonomically designed (except maybe my Kodak 116!), as well has having all of the other features described above.

Posted by:

Buffet
22 Aug 2013

A camera is a camera and a phone is a phone - and never the twain shall meet!

Posted by:

rocketride
22 Aug 2013

The laws of physics say that a camera module that can fit into a typical smartphone or a pocket-sized point-and-shoot will never really be able to compete with a larger P&S, let alone a DSLR. The reason being the respective sizes of the lenses and sensors.

Posted by:

John Musolino
22 Aug 2013

If it has a ring-tone, it's not a camera...

That said, for the person who uses an inexpensive point & shoot camera, who doesn't care that much about quality because all they will do is post photos to their Facebook page or e-mail them to family, then yes, a smartphone is probably good enough. For those (myself included) who want higher quality, and more flexibility, a smartphone won't cut it.

Posted by:

Sandy Papavasiliou
23 Aug 2013

My mobile phone is a small basic cheap model. Suits me. Fits in my handbag and I wouldn't cry if I lost it. The canon camera takes a nice photo. I can upload, tweak it with Picasa, print only what I really like and leave the rest for posterity.

Comment Page: 1 |  2 

Read the article that everyone's commenting on.

To post a comment on "Are Digital Cameras Obsolete?"
please return to that article.

Send this article to a friend. Jump to the Comments section. Buy Bob a Snickers. Or check out other articles in this category:





Need More Help? Try the AskBobRankin Updates Newsletter. It's Free!

Prev Article:
Geekly Update - 21 August 2013
Send this article to a friend
The Top Twenty
Next Article:
Online College or Campus Learning?

Link to this article from your site or blog. Just copy and paste from this box:


Free Tech Support -- Ask Bob Rankin
RSS    
Subscribe to AskBobRankin Updates: Free Newsletter

Privacy Policy