Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by monksy | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

monksy

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)

View on HN

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.

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.

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 -

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.

"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.)

> 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.

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