Are Digital Cameras Obsolete? - Comments Page 2

Count me in with those who don't have a SmartPhone or any phone with a camera in it. I'm also fearful that all screens larger than a deck of cards will disappear. I can't do my digital graphics on a screen so small. Not that my stuff has any importance....it's just I'm going to miss my hobby when they make it impossible for me to indulge in it.

Donna, you are not the last dinosaur! My cell phone can take pictures, but I have only taken a couple--I would rather use my digital camera.

I have not been terribly impressed with most pictures taken on cell phones, although they seem to meet the needs of the people who take them. I have a small digital camera and used it quite a bit, but I wanted to do more so I just bought a better camera with super zoom capacity. I am remembering how much fun I had with my old 35mm SLR, on which I took some fantastic shots (it died several years ago). In addition to a long zoom range this new camera can do some amazing things that phones just can't do.

I agree with Bill that there will always be "real cameras" for serious photographers.

Both will have their own places in our life, pro camera for professional, those who make a living, point & shoot for those, who have cameraless smartphone but smartphone camera will be everywhere and it will get better and better.

Jeff is correct, there are lenses for iPhone, there are also lenses for other phones as well. The search is popular enough that "phone camera lens" came up in the suggestions by the time I had typed "phone cam" in the search field on Google.
I take a lot more pictures since I have a camera in my phone that I carry with me practically everywhere and I am of those one who said, "Why would anyone want a camera on their phone?" when I first heard about them. Of course in my defense those were very low resolution cameras.
My first phone with a camera (a Windows Phone model) had a 4M pixel camera with an up to 2X digital zoom, which was just a way of cropping the photo before it was taken, but I liked it even though it was cumbersome to use. My current Android phone does not have zoom on the native phone app, but the resolution is higher (5 MP) and I can crop after the fact so it probably works out better in the long run.
The one thing that I have trouble remembering to do is shoot video in landscape mode, shooting video in portrait mode on a camera phone is even more problematic than shooting photos in that mode as mentioned by RandiO, as with a photo when it is uploaded to a computer it is rotated 90 degrees when played on the computer. It is relatively easy with any of several available tools to rotate a photo. Although I have a video player that lets me rotate a video as I view it, I have yet to find a free video editor that will let me rotate one and save it in the rotated mode.

Bob: I sure hope that digital cameras don't go away. We oldsters (my bride and I) are not hip on multifunction devices. The camera on my present cell phone is nothing to write home about and I AM TOO CHEAP to spring for a smartphone. I prefer dumb phones that do minimal things. So, I have what's best for me; a phone that only calls and texts (thus saving me a good deal in monthly fees) and a digital camera that takes very nice pictures that cost me less that $100, even after adding an SD card. What more do I need?! I will say that having the camera on the phone is a blessing, especially when there is an accident with a motor vehicle. Thanks, as always, for your wonderful newsletters and insights!

Actually, digital cameras are just now maturing beyond point and shoot cameras. Modestly priced cameras now can be bought with features equal to a SLR film camera. Not that one couldn't buy one ten years ago with similar features, you could, but it would cost close to 10K. Now they can be bought for 3 or 4 hundred.

Being able to set the aperture and hence the focal range is a must for anyone halfway serious about photography. You can't get that with most point & shoot cameras.

I have never seen anyone mention it but today's cameras have exposure speeds much faster than the old film cameras and also faster than older digitals. That eliminates a need for a flash in more low light conditions.

There is no comparison between digital cameras and smartphones. For anyone who is the least bit serious about REAL photography, as opposed to those who like to snap pics of their friends doing dumb things, a camera is a must. I am happy to see there are others who would never consider replacing their cameras with the latest techo marvel.

And yes, I love vinyl records as well!

I hope the digital camera stays, the downloadability and the quality are two of the things that are hard to beat, besides the fact that you can buy a high capacity storage card only one time, and that is really great. And, lest we forget you can talk and take pictures at the same time!!

Then there are those of us who can't afford or don't want a smartphone. I still have a point and shoot with zoom that I can use. I may need a newer one sometime since it can only use a SD card (not the newer thing). But I don't have much I want to take pictures of very often so it holds enough as long as I download every now and then.

To SharonH ... I can not agree with you more. It seems to me people are walking away from quality and opting for fast and or convenient instead. Being a retired photographer, I can not begin to detail the quality of the shots I took with my Hasselblad 500CM. Now it seems everyone is happy with smart phone snapshots.

When they released direct to disc vinyl recordings a few decades ago, I just about had heart failure. DD was so incredible. My IPod is not even in the same league.

Back to photos; my Canon EOS DSLR (18mp) is a pretty darn good professional camera, but nothing like my 500CM shooting film is. BTW Hasselblad does make a digital model that shoots 80mp.

As good as camera phones are now, even the lowest-end DSLR's are significantly better. Control, quality, accessibility to change settings literally at your fingertips, etc. put DSLR's above and beyond phone cameras. It's fitting that the author would write about camera phones in this way as he said: "And for those who know what the heck all those buttons and dials on a camera are for, they offer fine control over shutter speed, F-stop and other stuff that point-and-shoot guys like me don't use." I would think the same way if I didn't know what those things are and what they do.

DSLR manufacturers can feel pretty secure that their audience (however small) will continue to need their products. Regardless of pixel counts, it is their large sensors that allow them to do what smaller format cameras cannot - take high-quality pictures at distance in dark circumstances. The physical size of their sensors and wide light paths of their lenses allows more light to be captured, and that makes all the difference when lighting is sub-optimal. Even the large (2/3 inch) sensor of the Nokia 1020 is limited by the relatively small lens and the light path it produces.
HOWEVER - point and shoots had better watch their backs. High pixel counts like the Nokia's make optical zooms unnecessary, and will only get better with time. Certainly they will never be able to create a 16MB image at 4X zoom, but for a point and shoot user, anything over 3MB is a waste anyway.
Personally, I never carry any of the 3 point and shoots I've accumulated over the years - the camera in my S4 is sufficient for all but the most important, low-light shots. That's when I still drag out my big, ol' Canon DSLR.