Hacker News Reader

Comment by callmeed | Hacker News Reader

> with increasingly capable smartphones chewing through the dedicated photography segment. Still, it seems Nikon has suffered it worse than most.

The damage from smartphones was done a while back. The truth now is that Nikon (and Canon to some extent) failed to be at the forefront of: (a) action/drone cameras, (b) 4K video recording, and (c) mirrorless interchangeable-lens cameras. Sony and Fujifilm have seen a real renaissance in their mirrorless camera lines (I switched from Canon to Fuji and haven't looked back). Sony has small mirrorless cameras that shoot 4K on par or better than Nikon. GoPro created a billion dollar public company yet Nikon only just recently announced their own action cameras.

I worked in the photo industry for several years and Nikon was once the gold standard. IMO they have no one to blame for their current state than themselves.

View on HN

I mean, I suppose on the consumer or prosumer level, but if you go to any sporting event, you will see a sea of Canon L series glass and not much else...

Not sure the quality of the source but this suggests that 75% of the pro cameras at last weeks Super Bowl were Canon, and all of the television broadcast lenses were HD Canon lenses.

I just don't see GoPro or Fuji competing at that level, so perhaps their issue was expanding past the point that their core business could support once those periphery product lines fell out of trend.

[1] http://www.canonrumors.com/canon-eos-dslr-cameras-and-ef-len...

How many professional sports photographers are there? I guess all those wedding photographers need to look the part with Canon's and Nikon's too. Is that enough to keep Canon and Nikon afloat?

My wife's a professional wedding photographer, so she's got the glass as you say in the game... I'm a dunce photographer, but I've been taking photos using my phone (like everyone) and I enjoyed it, so one day I picked up one of the DSLR's with a "decent" 85mm lens on it and took a photo.

The difference is astonishing - it's night and day. The world is filled with light and depth, colours are like bonfires shadows are like the pits of the deepest mine.

But then again I guess that's one data point! It may be that in fact phone cameras are great and I'm just deluded.

You're completely correct about the difference. You can't take a photo like that with a phone, and you never will be able to. Because physics and economics.

But... that kind of quality costs many thousands of dollars, and it's heavy enough to be a problem. You have to decide the weight is worth it before you head out the door for a day of lens aerobics.

The market for people who need/want to do that is tiny.

This makes me sad, because I love that look, and I hope it never disappears.

>This makes me sad, because I love that look, and I hope it never disappears.

I don't think it will for a long time. There's still a market for film photography, if that's any indication.

And there are assorted "retro" cameras on the market. If the Olympus PEN-F were weather-sealed, I'd own one already (instead of my much less expensive PL-6).

No, it's not a delusion, it comes down to a few simple things like sensor size.

I have an entry level Canon DSLR from 2007, 7MP, which takes far better photos than any smartphone I've ever used.

The reason is pretty simple, it has a 1 inch square area for its sensor, while the smartphone sensor is about the size of a small pinky nail (1cm squared or less?)

For any given period of time, the larger sensor can capture more light at once, either taking better exposed or faster shots, and having far more data in which to encode a digital images pixels.

It's certainly insanely impressive what modern hardware and software get out tiny sensors, but bigger sensors are still incomparably better -- AND can benefit from many of the same advances small sensors use.

It's kind of like car engines. It's always impressive when someone gets insane performance out of a tiny engine, but no one disputes that a big engine is going to be more powerful than a small one, especially when displacement is the only difference.

Same story here: used Nikon D40 bought in 2008 is still producing amazing photos.

Now put that camera in your trouser pocket. I bet the difference is like night and day, too.

"The best camera is the one you have on you" has made those larger cameras lose out on smartphones more and more.

As noted elsewhere, that's the beauty of mirrorless system cameras (Fuji X, Olympus and Panasonic μ4/3, etc).

I had a Canon Rebel XT for years, but rarely used it because it was bulky. Great photos, but like you said, if you don't have it with you that doesn't do much good.

I picked up an Olympus PEN E-PL6 two years ago and with a standard prime, it fits in a jacket pocket or small bag. Doesn't fit in trouser pockets, but it's small enough to carry around on vacation without being a nuisance. And can still take an assortment of lenses (I regularly use a 9-18mm wide angle and a 17mm prime).

My wife uses a Canon S100, which is truly pocketable. And still produces a way better photo than a smartphone (although that gap is getting narrower by the year, especially in good conditions).

But, all that said, 80% of our photos are with the smartphones, because they're always with us.

Care to share her portfolio? perhaps over pm, if you like. I'm looking for one atm =)

I think that Canon and Nikon have been resting on their laurels, in large part because they have the photojournalism market sewn up. They're the undisputed champions of a small and highly visible market, but they have been overtaken in almost every other respect. They don't make the best sensors, they don't make the best lenses, they don't make a compelling mirrorless camera.

Canon and Nikon don't have the aspirational appeal that they used to. Their prestige has been badly undermined by the Sony/Zeiss partnership - the best sensors paired with the finest glass. Sigma used to be the cheap option, but they're now producing some of the best primes in the world. It used to be that serious photographers were either Canon or Nikon people, but now they have a lot more choice.

Nikon just doesn't have the money to compete, I'm friends with one of the Nikon glass people, as in the people who make the glass, he's just depressed each time I come over with some great Canon lens (I showed up with the 400mm f4 DO which is identical in size to the 200mm f2, he was stunned they could make a 400mm that small with optics that good).

I whole heartedly disagree that Canon is coasting. Years ago they knew that they would make a 50Megapixel camera and they started redoing their lenses to resolve details at that pixel size. Go look at the mark II lenses, the 70-200, the 300/400/600. Go look at the bodies that do 50MP, the landscape people love them.

Canon is investing heavily into bodies and glass.

That said, I've got the Sigma 85mm ART and have looked at other Sigma glass. Couldn't be happier with the optics, they are still behind in the auto focus speed. If that's not an issue then Sigma is killing it and that's a good thing.

I think that there might be a new wave of camera companies that might substantially disrupt the high-end Nikon/Canon market. Light is a good example. [1]

[1] https://light.co/technology

GoPro is not in much better shape than Nikon. [1] Nikon shouldn't even bother with the action cam market.

Yi Technologies [2] and companies like Yi are going to DOMINATE the non-smartphone camera market in short order. Just wait for MWC this year...

[1]https://www.fool.com/investing/general/2016/02/03/gopro-incs...

[2] https://www.yitechnology.com/

Really? Their MFT camera is about the same price as a low-end MFT from olympus or panasonic. The go pro had a lot of obvious margin to eat up. I wonder how much a sony action cam would cost if they didn't have to provide a warranty like yi doesn't have to provide much of a warranty?

DJI is pretty expensive and chinese too. In the end it's about the tech to price ratio.

Yi's mirrorless MFT, according to reviews as I don't own one, are half the price of competing models. I have a panasonic G10, but I'am watching Yi...

Have you watched the people that use Action cams? Drones, Dirtbikes, Mountain Bikes, Kayaking and more... A warranty doesn't generally cover "Smashed into building buttress at high rate of speed whilst attached my 250mm racing drone, will you please replace under warranty?"

It seems that most people have settled for smartphones for the bulk of their photographic needs. When you can get a similarly spec'd action cam or MFT cam for 1/2 or even 1/3 the price, a LOT of people will jump on that. Especially people that have broken a GoPro... Ask me how I know that :)

DJI has a lot of competition just getting started... The quadcopter world is absolutely on fire and moving amazingly fast.

The DPR review of the Yi MFT camera is not pretty: https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/yi-m1/7 The main complaint is that it has very poor autofocus ("unusable" in continuous and video modes). Good autofocus is important, especially for entry-level cameras, so I don't think Olympus and Panasonic are too concerned about Yi stealing market share from their entry-level models.

> in low-light or when it came to low contrast subjects, which made shooting in dim or challenging light difficult at times.

This probably affects less than 10% of action camera users (who uses action cameras in low light?!). I've only used a gopro either outside (hiking, skiing) or underwater snorkeling. If I can get a similar one for half the price I will on my next purchase.

From the article:

> For YI's first attempt at a Micro Four Thirds mirrorless camera they got a lot of things right, but there's still room for improvement.

Let me draw your attention to... "First attempt." It will get better and most likely less expensive.

I think you're right on with B. As a photo professional I'd say 4K 60fps video is the number one feature a camera can have these days. Enabling every photographer to also be a cinematographer. Canon and Nikon just aren't keeping up, mostly due to their crushingly expensive pro lines.

> ...Nikon (and Canon to some extent) failed to be at the forefront of...(b) 4K video recording...

I'm in the market for a "casual" 4K video recorder. It would only be used to create archival footage of interviews; no need for ultra-fast action-capture, color can be family-photo-good-enough. From what you asserted above, I get the impression that Nikon and Canon have ceded the consumer-grade 4K camcorder market to other competitors, is that the case?

Yeah, definitely. You can find tons of reviews on various sites (DP Review is great) and plenty of sample footage on YouTube.

I'd definitely suggest getting something with an external mic jack–getting good audio makes a big difference.

The Panasonic G80/G85 is a nice 4k cam. I use the predecessor (G7) for webinars.

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonic-lumix-dmc-g85-g80...

Nikon has never been a contender in video. Canon has but it's ceding a lot of ground to Panasonic (GH4/GH5) and Sony (A7S) in 4K video as it doesn't want to cannibalize sales of its much more expensive video cameras.

I agree with most of what you've said. However,

To claim that smartphones are a replacement for P&S cameras is I think misguided.

P&Ss perform a lot better on vacation. They don't perform as good on brief everyday interactions.

A. Action cameras- Not sure why this is a category, but people do consume GoPros like crazy [despite quality issues]

B. 4k video recording, you do have a good point there.. that's mostly for the vloging community.

C. I think this is the category that isn't well published. I just recently bought an Lumix LX10. It was expensive but the results are great.

I loved my Nikon CoolPix S6800, but Nikon decided to drop the ball and that's why I moved over. (Cannon's had a nasty red bias I couldn't tolerate)

The problem with point and shoot cameras is their lack of interaction with phones.

This may not be an issue today, but for the last few years people ask me what cool camera to get that's under £250. I ask them what they want to do -- mostly portrait shots and kids action shots indoors (play areas for toddlers), and most importantly just click a button to transfer the photos onto the phone for facebook. There isn't a camera that will do all that any better than an iPhone camera. Sure a DSLR will take a nicer photo, but dragging that massive £2K weight around for a 10% better photo. Or for most people they can't even see the difference. I love me a bit of bokeh, but for 99% of people, they simply don't care.

"There isn't a camera that will do all that any better than an iPhone camera."

Kodak had EasyShare which did exactly as you described if you had the Wi-Fi SD adapter.

I'm actually about to return a Coolpix A900 that handled the phone integration issue very well via the SnapBridge app - that's not what I would call the best UI in the world, and it's annoying to have to switch Wi-Fi networks to the phone's AP in order to use the transfer and remote control features, but I also don't see how it could be done any better; leaving aside that minor annoyance, it's a very nice way of interacting with the camera, and one-touch picture transfer is a lot nicer than having to pop the SD card out of the camera and into an adapter for the phone.

(In case of interest: I'm returning the camera because it isn't enough of a value add over my smartphone's built-in one to justify the price, and for another $100-$150 I can get a DSLR body that'll take the same F-mount lenses my grandfather used and give me the capabilities I actually want out of a discrete camera because my smartphone can't provide them. The Coolpix A900 is a fine camera for what it is - but what it is isn't what I require.)

ETA: Not complaining about downvotes, but I am curious why they're happening. The negative judgment of the community is more useful when combined with information on why it's merited, so as to make it less likely I'll screw up the same way again. Obliged in advance -

"Action cameras- Not sure why this is a category"

Plenty of us have need for cameras mounted to ourselves so our hands can remain free for work, such as sitting inside of a highly dangerous mine while trying to extract 20+ pound chunks of fluorite and capture the awesomeness of pulling the mineral right out of the ground after millions of years of formation.

  sitting inside of a highly dangerous mine while trying to extract 20+ pound chunks of fluorite

Tangential aside - is this a thing? A hobby? Research? Paid employment?

I'm aware of things like caving, exploring mines, and amateur gold-prospecting as a pass-time, but I've not heard about digging up minerals for fun.

"Tangential aside - is this a thing? A hobby? Research? Paid employment?"

All of the above and more. I'm invested in it enough that I'm going to become Vice President for California's oldest mineralogical society next year, most likely.

"I've not heard about digging up minerals for fun."

You've never gone rockhounding or had some sort of rock collection when you were a child?

I vaguely remember having a rock with some sort of purple crystal formation, probably bought from the gift shop of a show cave, but I've never come across that as a hobby before. I guess I never really thought it through - they have to come from somewhere, after all!

I've already got a lot of outdoor hobbies - underwater archaeology, caving, and recently took up cave-diving - so it's interesting to hear about something related. Thanks!

Right, but there are literally ZERO reasons that camera needs to say GoPro, Nikon, Garmin, or Sony when the Chinese version will do the same for a fraction of the cost.

All of the manufacturers are in big trouble.

  there is literally ZERO reasons that camera needs to say GoPro, Nikon, Garmin,
  or Sony when the Chinese version will do the same for a fraction of the cost.

Brand and trust still have a big factor in consumer sales. Price is also often used as a cue to quality, so in some cases, being more expensive can induce sales.

I think of someplace like REI with inventory for a wide range of outdoor-ruggedized premium products - many of which are just slightly better fabric/plastic/metal devices, I think there's a good argument that you do want to own various niche needs and have your brand name and reputation prominent.

But relying on a mass market outlook when the product is becoming a niche (or maybe a set of niches), that is going to lead to trouble.

> but there are literally ZERO reasons that camera needs to say GoPro, Nikon, Garmin, or Sony when the Chinese version will do the same for a fraction of the cost

That doesn't make it less of a reason for it to be a popular category.

The Chinese version NEVER does the same things.

The Chinese don't even have an actual clue about what constitutes HD. To them, it's any wide-screen format (as evidenced by my "HD Camera Glasses" which only records at 720x480.)

Smartphones are, in fact, a replacement for point & shoot. It's true that they have a smaller sensor ( ~2 times smaller than that you would find in your average P&S ). However * You already have one... * In fact it's probably either in your pocket or your hand right now. * Your smartphone has a far superior UX and the photo can be uploaded anywhere in seconds. * Smartphone sensors - being mass produced at a very large scale in a market which is quite under pressure to constantly improve with short release cycles - actually perform very well for their size.

So, cameras market mostly make * Very high quality P&S such as the sony RX100 * DSLR & Reflex for enthusiasts * Professional cameras

However, why they don't try to improve the workflow & the UX of these cameras is a mystery to me. Proper software ( android based maybe ? - sony already run some kind of android ), touch-enabled UI, gps, accelerator wifi & articulated screen should be standard.

I love my sony a6300 but the UI drives me crazy. You have to go through a crappy UI, pay several dollars, to download an intervalometer - aka an app that will take photos at a specified interval of time.

And sending a photo to another device seems such a pita I didn't even bother to try.

Awesome as smartphone cameras are, they're also slooooow compared with a P&S, and doing everything through a touchscreen is never as good as dedicated buttons. More features don't automatically make something better.

> [slow] compared with a P&S

Really? I've found it to be the opposite - my iPhone SE beats a Coolpix A900 every time. I don't have wide experience with P&Ses, though, so maybe that's just a slow camera? But it'd have to be a very fast camera for the overhead of a case vs. a pocket to cease to make a difference.

(And I carried the case slung on the outside of my satchel, partially under the flap but otherwise exposed. All it took was a tug, a flip, and a yank - but my phone was still faster, every time.)

It's faster than turning your P+S on. Not for taking pictures once it's already on (assuming a reasonably up-to-date camera). For casual/consumer use, a phone is better. but if you're serious about photography, the convenience issues aren't the same.

It's like how there are all kinds of amazing music apps available on smartphone or tablet - it's beyond question that they are valuable creative tools. But if you can play guitar, you'll probably always prefer doing so to using your phone despite the inconveniences of owning and carrying a primitive wood and metal wire contraption.

If you are serious about photography, you will want something better than a P&S ( or, a very expensive model such as sony RX line)

Why not both? I like a DSLR best but a good P&S is a lot more usable than a phone. For one thing you can operate it without having to look at it because it's got physical controls.

Sticking with my parallel guitar argument, that's like saying that you should use an app to make guitar tines unless you're willing to invest in a Martin or Les Paul guitar. In reality someone's favorite guitar might be a $10 thrift store purchase that delivers far more satisfaction than (insert your favorite guitar app here).

You can love a hobby and have limited money.

> For casual/consumer use, a phone is better. but if you're serious about photography, the convenience issues aren't the same.

That seems reasonable. I'm kind of in the middle, I suppose; in daily use I want minimal friction and inconvenience, which makes the phone camera a win, and on the other end I want to mount a telescope and fill the frame with a sharp-shinned hawk at rest or the moon in full phase, and that seems to pretty much require a DSLR.

(I also learned the basics on my grandfather's Nikkormat FTn, which I now have and regularly wish I could go back to film and use. That's a tough standard for any P&S to live up to, and silly as it is, I can't help but make the comparison.)

> they're also slooooow compared with a P&S,

You're using the wrong smartphone then - I can be taking a picture with my iPhone before most P&S cameras finish powering on, let alone are ready to take photos.

Also most P&S cameras have horrible battery life combined with proprietary batteries and chargers to ensure that your camera is never charged when you need it.

> You already have one...In fact it's probably either in your pocket or your hand right now.

"f/8 and be there." That's the other reason I'm returning the A900 - it's a solid camera, but so is the one in my pocket, and by the time I've dug the A900 out of its case, powered it on, and framed the shot, there's most likely no longer a shot to get. My phone's a lot faster, and if I'm going to be digging in a case and screwing around setting up a shot, I may as well be doing it with a DSLR that does more than any point-and-shoot ever made.

> To claim that smartphones are a replacement for P&S cameras is I think misguided

The problem is that the majority of consumers have already decided the opposite. P&S sales are in decline, which means our options will diminish and those options will get more expensive.

It's a bummer, since my P&S from 2013 still blows away my iPhone 7 when indoors or other low-light situations.

But I like to think whatever iPhone model is out in the next 4 or 5 years will finally match my $200 P&S.

If quality were an issue they would use real cameras. But in an age where photos are viewed on screens or in dimensions smaller than even a 4*6 print nobody notices the difference . Nevermind the resolution is worse too.

People have shown they are more than willing to accept inferior quality in exchange for convenience.

Even before smartphone cameras, people who cared about quality weren't using P&S cameras. P&S was always for cheap and convenient, not quality.

When everyone already has a smartphone they take everywhere, there's not a lot of market for cheap and convenient standalone cameras; no matter how cheap they are, they aren't cheaper than "I already have it", and matter how convenient they aren't more convenient than not having to carry another device.

The P&S market has been squeezed from both sides. Smartphones have taken away a lot of market share, but so have mirrorless cameras. The entry-level enthusiasts who might have once bought a $400 P&S are now overwhelmingly opting for a mirrorless ILC instead. For a slight increase in size, you get better handling, a vastly better sensor and the flexibility of interchangeable lenses.

> To claim that smartphones are a replacement for P&S cameras is I think misguided.

There's a joke that asks, "what is the best camera?" The punchline is, "whichever camera you have with you when you need to take a picture." To me, this captures why smartphones beat P&S, even for vacation photos. The difference in quality just isn't that large. I just spent six months traveling and almost never used my P&S. Even when I had both on me, my phone was just more accessible. And P&S can't match the sharing functionality of a smartphone. Even on vacation, when I take a photo I liked, I want to put it on Instagram without having to use a computer.

I see a market that has no middle. You're either a professional who needs the absolute best quality or you're not and want something that takes acceptable photos as quickly as possible. Other than that, there's only the specialty market (action, drone, underwater, etc), which is small by comparison. But smartphones are now good enough that the market for P&S is vanishingly small.

Smartphones have replaced the postcards sent to family and friends during vacations. Something that the point and shoot alone hasn't been able to do as there are too many steps involved (Take picture, take out SD card, out in laptop, copy pictures, go to Facebook etc, upload). On a smartphone it's tap, take picture, tap, upload. Boom. Shared. Done. Most people don't care if it's a 1/3" (many smartphones) or 1/2.3" (most point and shoots) or even a 1/1.7"(higher end) sensor. Lacking of zoom is a bit of an issue, but that alone isn't enough for people to "carry yet another" device in their purses.

1" sensor enthusiasts cams are selling quite well (Sony RX series) Mirrorless and DSLR are selling well with tourists.

The point and shoot segment is done.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com