The changing fortunes of Japanese camera manufacturers

https://petapixel.com/2022/10/24/the-changing-fortunes-of-japanese-camera-manufacturers/

by bookofjoe • 4 years ago

100 154 4 years ago

jseliger• 4 years ago

cmd-f "software." Nada.

Any story that doesn't note that camera makers should've begun adopting Android at least a decade ago, and that doesn't note how poorly cameras integrate with smartphones, is missing a big part of the story. I have a Fuji mirrorless camera, and only people who are very interested in final image quality will tolerate the poor software.

There are other forms of malinvestment too: the article says "While Olympus has doggedly pursued the Four Thirds format since the 2003 release of the E-1, small sensors have largely been ill-fated with APS-C both more popular and a better-understood quantity by the consumer." It's not just about image size: Olympus has had sub-par autofocus relative to relevant competitors since at least 2016 or 2017, if not longer, and Panasonic has similar problems. But these are sideshows relative to software quality.

hcarvalhoalves• 4 years ago

Any story that doesn't note that camera makers should've begun adopting Android at least a decade ago

Cameras have a very tight energy budget. It’s not uncommon for current mirrorless camera to not get even 300 shots per batt charge. I’m not sure running a full-fledged multipurpose OS like Android would help that? And why is the software a problem exactly? I don’t care running apps on my camera.

squokko2• 4 years ago

Software is a problem because software is what lets the dinky smartphone camera get a near-mirrorless-level result. If the mirrorless body had the smartphone's software, the image quality would be mindblowing.

nl2• 4 years ago

Moving parts (autofocus!) will dominate the energy budget, and cameras can fit much bigger batteries than phones. Running 24 hours+ isn't a problem for phones, and most cameras won't need network to be on most of that time.

I don’t care running apps on my camera.

I'm sure that's true, but people love their image editing apps on their phones, and love being able to post clips directly to TikTok.

sudosysgen4• 4 years ago

Sony cameras actually used to run Android. You could even sideload apks.

hef198986• 4 years ago

The battery life difference seems to be mostly on paper so (never tried it, but based on the meassurement method). Testing requires the cameras to be on for a certain time between shots, mirrorless obviously consumes more power with screens and EVFs powerd, DSLRs don't use any power at all when not shooting. Propably wouldn't make difference for me, my cameras are always off when not on my eye. The time it takes from getting them up there is enough for them to boot (Nikon bodies), so the difference between an EVF and a DSLR should be marginal in that case.

Infinitesimus• 4 years ago

It's amazing so watch so many organizations ship poor software and fail to understand that there is a lot of value in starting a product from a simple user experience.

I don't think adopting Android would have helped them (they'd still be on 4.0 right now and a security nightmare, let's be real).

Same with many device manufacturers as well (something something most car infotainment systems and companion apps). Apple isn't for everyone (I'm an Android user) but they're one of the few organizations that is trying to think of software and hardware as components that should work well together even though they also make some hilarious missteps.

At this rate, mirrorless and DSLR cameras will keep getting a smaller slice of users and phone photography will keep improving for the 99% of people out there. Maybe that's okay.

I do wish my Sony AIII had great Google Photos integration.

radicaldreamer2• 4 years ago

Android would only slow these cameras down, they need to integrate ML models into their existing realtime OSes (utron etc.)

aikinai2• 4 years ago

Agree. And this is what they’re doing. Sony’s just announced camera leans heavily on ML for autofocus.

dboreham4• 4 years ago

Cameras have used "ML" since the Nikon FA in 1983.

Zak5• 4 years ago

I'm not sure that's fair to Olympus. For one point of comparison, the Mirrorless Comparison birds in flight test[0] rates the OM-1 better than everything in its price range. The Canon R6 and Sony A7 IV appear only a little more expensive at a glance, but comparable lenses for them cost more - considerably more in the case of long telephotos.

Of course, the OM-1 came out after the sale. Going back to 2016, the E-M1 II is, unsurprisingly not as good as newer cameras. It's notable, however that everything above it on the list is newer with the Sony A6500 (2017) and Fuji X-T3 (2018) being the oldest competitors to perform better.

Panasonic, on the other hand does have a problem with autofocus because it insists on using only contrast detection, while other manufacturers use contrast and phase detection in combination.

[0] https://mirrorlesscomparison.com/best/mirrorless-cameras-for...

LeoPanthera2• 4 years ago

Olympus (or "OM System" as it's now called) has a bigger problem, and that's the software that runs on your computer. Unlike almost any other manufacturer, in order to do a firmware update, you have to install a special application on your computer. If you have a Mac, that application requires a kernel extension. For what reason, I can't even imagine.

The software is just awful. Why they can't just go with "put the updated firmware on the SD card", I have no idea.

fomine33• 4 years ago

A problem of Android for embeddeds is mismatch of software/hardware lifecycle. Android can't be secure for a decade. Even if manufacturer want to maintain, SoC vendor don't support version up so long, and SoC become significantly underpowered for latest OS/apps. Security is important since it's useless to have Android without networking.

freetime24• 4 years ago

I agree that software on cameras is terrible, and I would love for it to improve. But I'm not necessarily sure that good software would give a huge competitive advantage. Camera sales seem to be largely driven by technical specs, and I'm not sure that most buyers would choose to put their money toward better software over better specs. Even things like ergonomics (button layout, whether it has a fold-out display) seem to get more attention in camera reviews than software. The emphasis seems to be on getting the shot with the best image quality possible rather than what you do with it afterwards.

I do think that computational photography features (e.g. snapping a lot of photos and merging them) have the potential to be a big driver of camera sales for whoever is able to integrate them first into a large sensor camera. But this isn't just a matter of software but also processing power.

I personally would love to see Apple put out an interchangeable lens camera, but I'm not holding my breath as I don't think the market is large enough for them to bother. Also I'm not sure I could afford to buy one even if they did...

JALTU2• 4 years ago

100% And um, may I include Adobe in this generalization?

hef198986• 4 years ago

Interchangeable lense cameras already have their "Apple", Leica. Maybe Apple could just buy them...

genmud• 4 years ago

I would hard disagree with that. I can’t think of a single way that Android would improve my experience on any of the DSLR or mirrorless cameras I own.

Lammy• 4 years ago

Yongnuo are on their second generation of Android+MFT camera with the YN455:

https://www.hkyongnuo.com/productinfo/660161.html

https://www.yongnuomall.com/product/detail/16254

Espressosaurus2• 4 years ago

Android (and iOS) has nothing I want on my camera.

I don't want or need an app store, I don't want or need messaging, and for god's sake please don't put an internet connection with a cell baseband chip in my camera. I need that battery life already.

Better integration? Sure. I'd like to see it. Snapbridge works acceptably but is slow.

But at the end of the day taking the picture is usually step one before culling, cropping, and editing so while it's a small irritation it's far less important than things like being able to get the shot in the first place (so autofocus, IBIS, etc.).

stonogo• 4 years ago

Android is the exact opposite of what I want in my camera. Sometimes when I'm out I need to swap batteries -- now I get to wait five minutes for my camera to boot? I know Android can boot faster, but do we really want octo-core cameras with 8GB of RAM?

A friend of mine has a pet complaint about the camera industry: in the 1980s if you bought a 110-film camera you could pull it out of your pocket aim at a subject, and take a picture, and the slowest part of that from 'cold boot' is pulling it out of your pocket. No digital camera can replicate that (unless you walk around with an 'on' camera in your pocket at all times). Your suggestion immediately made me think of him, and how not only have we lost something we had in the past, we're marching firmly away from it.

jimktrains2• 4 years ago

I have an old Canon t2i and can flick it on while pulling it up to my eye and it's on before it gets there. Honestly it's faster to shoot with it than to double tap the power button on my Pixel, even if the phone is already in my hand.

Edit: Even more so when autofocus speed is taken into account.

hef198986• 4 years ago

The Nikon DSLRs I used so far could be carried in your hand at the side of your body, turned off. By the time you had the view finder in front of your eye, they are ready to shoot, and focused, in case you don't mind composition for a quick snapshot. No idea how the mirrorless ones stack up to that, I don't see a reason why they should be any slower so... Maybe EVF and displays need more time to switch on, I don't know.

jjav2• 4 years ago

the slowest part of that from 'cold boot' is pulling it out of your pocket. No digital camera can replicate that

Except for the part about fitting in your pocket, any DSLR can easily replicate that. That's one of the many factors that keep me using them, they are instant-on and have zero lag when taking a photo.

With a toddler, that's priceless. The only delay in taking a photo is the time it takes me to lift the camera to my eyes. Or even less, as I have many photos where I realize I won't have time to look through the viewfinder so I just grab the camera and release the shutter, the DSRLs are so fast this always works. I can straighten and crop later.

With a phone, by the time I unlock the screen, bring up the camera app, let it slowly focus, let the slowly-responding touch screen button activate, the toddler is in the other room.

jjav2• 4 years ago

camera makers should've begun adopting Android at least a decade ago

That would be horrible. So now my camera would need a constant stream of security patch updates (which the manufacturer will stop supplying). And surely use a lot more battery.

What I love about Nikon DSLRs is the firmware is just for taking photos, hyper-optimized for that. There's no baggage. And it will keep working forever.

ISL• 4 years ago

The article misses that Sony is Minolta, something I, too, didn't appreciate for years, as I took a photography hiatus in the 2000s.

https://www.lightstalking.com/minolta-sony-relationship/

barkingcat5• 4 years ago

The article also misses the idea that Sony is playing the house in the ongoing camera gambling market.

Almost all digital cameras, mirrorless cameras, phone cameras, iPhones, etc - regardless of maker / manufacturer, uses Sony sensors.

The purchase of Minolta unified sensor tech + software development + lens development and formulation + body ergonomics in one house - something no other maker is able to do, probably aside from Canon (who also uses Sony sensors depending on model) and Leica, which borrows sensors from other makers but has their own imaging tech that they add.

No matter how much money any Nikon, Canon, Pentax, OM system makes, Sony will always be part of the supply chain of those cameras.

saryant• 4 years ago

Canon makes its own sensors. They’re the only major player not using Sony sensors.

alistairSH5• 4 years ago

Third paragraph mentions this, then again in the eighth.

nl2• 4 years ago

It's weird for a "changing fortunes" article to only just mention Sony whose rise with their mirrorless cameras has been a huge success.

Also it doesn't really explain why Canon is a "juggernauts" while Nikon has struggled. From a mildly interested observer, the Nikon and Canon DSLRs seems roughly comparable and Canon only has a slight lead in mirrorless (vs Nikon). What made Canon successful but not Nikon?

barkingcat5• 4 years ago

Canon makes a lot more products than just cameras + lenses. They have printers, medical equipment, etc. Their market cap is roughly 4.18 trillion JPY

Nikon makes cameras, lenses, medical and consumer lines, but their market cap is roughly 529.86 billion JPY

So the Canon company is a lot larger.

Sony itself is even more Juggernaut. They make a ton of things and market cap is about 12 trillion yen.

Market cap doesn't tell the whole story, but you can understand why Sony and Canon are referred to as "juggernauts" compared to Nikon.

On the imaging side of things, I think the current rise of casual videography is eating Nikon alive.

Even if you don't have youtuber / OF aspirations, almost all cameras that sell today need to have some kind of video mode. Cell phones excel in this segment, being able to take short videos of people just walking around doing their day-to-day stuff, having fun, working, etc. In my opinion, video has taken the place in society that taking still photos had back in the 1980's and 1990's.

Anything that goes viral these days is a video uploaded on worldstar or youtube or tiktok or instagram etc.

Canon and Sony both have pro-video recording line (used in TV/cinema industry), and I think what they did was cross pollinated the video knowledge very early on with their consumer digital cameras.

Nikon has always been a "stills first" camera company. They did put a lot of video features into their cameras, but it wasn't enough.

ethbr0• 4 years ago

The story I heard is that Nikon intentionally crippled their video recording modes (29:59 time limit?) for import/export tax reasons.

Whereas apparently Sony and Canon didn't.

Edit: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/E-8-2016-00127...

So seems the full story is about the EU. Digital still image cameras (which were made in the EU?) were not taxed. Digital camcorders (which were mostly made in Japan) were taxed at either 4.9% or 14%. One distinguishing as to whether a camera was still or camcorder was "Whether the device can record at least 30 minutes of video."

The law was repealed in 2019.

hef198986• 4 years ago

By all accounts, hear say of course as I never touched a mirrorless Nikon so far, the later gen Z cameras are great in taking videos. If anything Nikon was tad late to the mirrorless party.

dboreham4• 4 years ago

One difference is that Canon decided to design and manufacture their own sensors (modulo some point-n-shoot cameras where they use 3rd party sensors). This has been to their disadvantage sometimes, but right now it's a win because they can innovate quicker and invent proprietary features like dual-pixel autofocus. It was DPAF that put them squarely ahead of Nikon a few years ago. Nikon buys their sensors from Sony so they can never do this.

JALTU2• 4 years ago

The answer goes back even further than my time in photography, which was over ten years ago at the transition from film to digital and DSLR video. Before digital, part of the answer was sports photographers all switching to Canon for autofocus. Before that, it was more of an even playing field with cameras (read: marketing). Back then however, Nikon had a semiconductor manufacturing machine business that supplemented their camera division.

Incidentally, Canon stumbled, in a fashion, onto DSLR video. They apparently only added video after years of suggestions from media photographers. And then at first they got the frame rate wrong. A year or so later, the deigned to fix the bug and of course the rest is history: jillions of their lenses, and DSLR bodies, sold to established and aspiring video/film shooters alike.

Meanwhile, Nikon clung to their roots trying to sell cameras to photographers and never overcame the Canon sports hegemony and video windfall. They had awful software and were even less responsive to the changing market than Canon was.

Most of this is dredged up from memory. For details, and data, go back ten or 20 years on https://bythom.com/

Mikeb853• 4 years ago

This article completely omits Fuji which is making some of the best cameras in the industry right now.

freetime24• 4 years ago

Fuji is not completely omitted. They are mentioned five times in the article, including their success with their recent medium format cameras:

Purchased for a reportedly svelte $125 million, Ricoh has de-invested from medium format at a time when Fuji, Phase, and Hasselblad have successfully expanded the market.

Interestingly, their most profitable products in recent years don't appear to be from their professional or pro-sumer camera lines, but rather their relatively low-tech Instax cameras [1].

[1] https://www.fujirumors.com/latest-fujifilm-financial-results...

Mikeb853• 4 years ago

Most references to Fuji in the article are them being lumped together with failed film makers and that's the only positive mention of them, again, lumped in with otbers.

Nevermind that they have a successful line of digital APS-C cameras plus the aforementioned medium format cameras and are a pioneer of professional-quality mirrorless cameras. They're also still growing.

colechristensen• 4 years ago

Really, what are some of those bests?

I’ve been thinking about one of the sony alphas for a while now

Mikeb853• 4 years ago

Just take a look at their lines. Their APS-C cameras range from pro-sumer to professional. For the price of a full-frame professional quality camera you can get one of their medium format cameras as well (the GFX50 for example is in the same price range as much of the Alpha line).

All of their cameras take great photos regardless and their glass is great. Just read some reviews.

gdwatson• 4 years ago

While most camera companies have come to focus on full-frame (i.e., 35mm) sensors in the last few years, Fuji has stuck to APS-C (one size down from full frame) and digital medium format (one size up).

Fuji’s medium-format line is called GFX; I don’t know too much about it except that it’s well regarded and inexpensive by medium-format standards. I would look into it if you are interested in landscape photography or high-resolution studio work and you are willing to spend serious money to make that happen.

Fuji’s APS-C line is focused on producing something which is pleasant to physically handle and use. It’s historically been smaller and handier than full-frame competitors and focused on physical controls for a lot of core settings. The different models within the APS-C range are distinguished as much by their form factors and controls as by their technical capabilities. Some of these advantages have been eroded over the years as they have competed with bigger cameras, particularly in video. But they have just released the X-H2 and X-H2S, targeted at action and event photographers, which should free the classic X-T and X-Pro series to return to their roots.

Concrete APS-C models to check out: X-T4 if you want an SLR-style mirrorless with more physical controls; X-Pro3 if you love old rangefinders; X-H2 and X-H2S if you want a PASM dial or heavy video. Fuji is expected to announce the X-T5 on November 2, and the rumors have it looking good, so I’d keep an eye out for reviews.

lm284693• 4 years ago

The biggest issue with sony is that they're all about specs and that's it. The menu system and user experience are really lacking. Fuji is kind of the opposite (for their aps-c lineup), smaller sensor but much better software/UX

If I had to buy a digital camera today I'd go for an x100v or an xe-4 with a film era lens

phkahler• 4 years ago

Love my Fuji X-T1. All I've got is the 18-125 zoom but I'd like a shorter one too.

mradek• 4 years ago

Is photography dead? Back like 20 years ago everyone was so into it. Nowadays our smartphones take fine photos.

It’s kind of sad to see only one or two people with SLRs at any “vista point” I visit because it brings back memories of talking with other amateur photographers and sharing our profiles on sites like trek earth or whatever.

midoridensha• 4 years ago

1970: "It's kind of sad to see only one or two people with large-format cameras at any "vista point" I visit because it brings back memories of talking with other amateur photographers. Nowadays everyone has these stupid SLRs that you can just hang around your neck."

ffhhj• 4 years ago

Yeah, what we need now is x-ray photography, those smartphones won't catch up until the tech is miniaturized enough!

spoils19• 4 years ago

It's kind of sad to see only one or two people with their brushes and easels at any "vista point" I visit because it brings back memories of talking with other amateur painters. Nowadays everyone has these stupid machines that you can just fold up and have it do the work for you.

barkingcat5• 4 years ago

taking photos with cell phone cameras is still photography.

Photography never went away.

In fact, we share and post way way way more videos and images than before. No development time means you can get all 5000 photos that you snapped online with data everywhere!

JohnJamesRambo• 4 years ago

I sold my old beloved Fujifilm X100 digital rangefinder recently. It couldn’t hold a flame to my camera photos in direct tests. But that’s a good thing, because I’ve always got my phone.

acchow• 4 years ago

Many amateur photographers who used to carry SLRs around have switched to smartphones and written blog posts about it

https://www.diyphotography.net/why-i-dont-use-dslr-cameras-a...

https://www.dpreview.com/articles/4296660253/5-reasons-why-i...

https://photographylife.com/dslr-has-no-future

quorgs• 4 years ago

All those are about dropping DSLR in favor of mirrorless / compact cameras, not phones. Phones get mentioned but the authors are still using dedicated cameras.

freetime24• 4 years ago

Even when I carry my camera (Sony a7iii) around, I still take a lot of photos with my iPhone. The iPhone often gives better out-of-camera results than the Sony in high dynamic range situations. And other times it's just easier to grab my iPhone and take a quick snap than to swap the lens on the Sony for something wider.

Of course there are also a lot of situations where big-sensor, interchangeable lens cameras still excel, such as low light, telephoto, shallow depth of field, and resolution. So my Sony also gets a lot of use.

Photography isn't dead. Smartphones have just become serious photography tools.

koyote• 4 years ago

Am I missing something or do all the blogs above mention mirrorless as the replacement for DSLR, not smartphones?

alistairSH5• 4 years ago

Is photography dead?

Far from it, it’s just that phone cameras are good enough to replace DSLRs or full-featured P&S for most users.

DSLRs are pretty much dead. The handful of pros I know either have or plan to transition to mirrorless. Or, a few shoot medium format.

Most of my friends have at least one mirrorless. Sometimes several. Along with a stack of both current and vintage lenses. But, they’re a well-to-do crowd with hipster tendencies, so YMMV.

My parents had several film SLRs over the decades. But when their Pentax was stolen on a vacation in the late-90s or early-00s, they didn’t replace it. They got a compact P&S and now rely on their phones. The SLR was only ever used for snapshots, not photograhpy as a hobby.

Personally, I grew up using their SLR plus a pile of cheap or disposable P&S. Then a few compact digitals. Bought my first DSLR in my mid-20s to get better family shots. Transitioned to a mirrorless about 10 years ago, have two bodies and a pile of lenses, but 90% of the time just use my phone. The cameras only come out for events, vacation, or on the odd occasion the mood hits.

asdff• 4 years ago

I don't know why pros who already have gear would move to mirrorless. Its a step back for them. Battery life gets slashed by 2/3rds at least. AF is probably worse. Plus now you need to buy into a new lens ecosystem for the first time in 40 years.

qbasic_forever• 4 years ago

Consumer point and shoot is totally dead and replaced by smartphones.

But enthusiasts who wants to practice the craft of photography are thriving. Cameras have never been this good, especially for their price.

hef198986• 4 years ago

I'd add especially when buying used in good condition. A D700 for example goes for around 300 bucks. And that is a truely professional DSLR, the smaller sensor actually doesn't matter if you don't plan to prind barn door sized and then brake out a microscope. Back the day, it was Nikon's low light king (obviously not anymore) and basically the same camera as a D3. So still plenty good for ethusiasts and amateurs. For difference to a Z6 you get a lot of good glass (always a better investment than camera bodies) and there should still be some money left over to go to exotic and beautiful places to actually take pictures. If you want more resolution, a D750 goes for a little over double a D700 and a D800 can be had for around 500.

If you earn your living through photography, things are of course different.

SAI_Peregrinus• 4 years ago

Phone cameras got good enough that for quite a lot of pictures there's no need for an interchangeable lens camera. Particularly if it's around the same focal lengths that phone cameras can get (reasonably wide angles). I use my phone for landscapes quite often, it's quite decent.

I use my mirrorless camera and a supertelephoto lens for things my phone just can't capture: birds and many distant animals.

tuatoru3• 4 years ago

Photography is perhaps becoming niche.

My wife learned in the digital era, but has recently got into film with a couple of 35mm cameras and now a Rolleiflex 120-format twin-lens reflex from family friends.

She struggles with, but likes, the ideas that you have to think much harder about your shots with film (especially 120: 12 shots per roll!), and that you have to keep records of your shots in a notebook or similar, because you won't see them for a while. She loves the different effects of the different film types.

The result has been moving from a 1:15 keeper ratio to closer to a 1:6 or 1:4 ratio.

Film cameras are heavy, though. Something in carbon composite would be nice. And possibly a dual-media camera: take a preview on digital, then if you want, take the shot on film.

petre2• 4 years ago

Try the Goodman Zone camera, a 3d printed medium format plastic camera. Also the Rolleicord or Rolleiflex T and earlier 3.5 models and the Minolta Autocord are light enough (~1 kg). I have a 3.5 MX-EVS and a 'cord IV.

https://doragoodman.com/goodlab-project/goodman-zone-medium-...

shrx• 4 years ago

Heavier cameras help making sharper pictures as you can hold them still better.

skhr06805• 4 years ago

Shooting on film really helped with visualizing the exposure and depth of field of my shots, it was always a lot of fun waiting to see if my final photos looked as good as I imagined them, especially when shooting on picky film like Velvia (RIP).

And possibly a dual-media camera: take a preview on digital, then if you want, take the shot on film.

Here are some guys using an analog version of your idea to preview their product shots:

https://youtu.be/f021EEy9B08?t=173

_aavaa_3• 4 years ago

While I agree with everything here, I want to commend on the keeper ratio based on my own experience.

Whenever I shoot on film I definitely have a much higher keep ratio, but a much smaller overall keep volume.

It's simply not practical, either time/money/physically, to shoot on film the same amount and things that I do digital.

FpUser• 4 years ago

"It’s kind of sad to see only one or two people with SLRs at any “vista point” I visit"

For contrast Toronto is choke full of people with SLR and mirrorless cams. Not that there are not enough people taking pics with smartphones either. What is virtually gone (from my perspective) are those small point and shoot cameras,

grecy• 4 years ago

I make my living from photos , video and writing. I’ve got $5k of Sony mirrorless and gear, my gf has an iPhone 11.

For quick snaps of moving wildlife, or tricky light, or a quick snap, the iPhone is incredible, and often she has a very sharp shot before I have the lens cap off and start thinking about shutter speed, etc.

The iPhone photos are great for fb or insta or anything on small screen. The immense difference comes when I load photos into Lightroom and get to work, upping shadows, cropping or reducing highlights. They’re not even remotely the same. And all of that is just with one all purpose lens on the Sony. Throw a BIG zoom on the front and the comparison is a thousands times different... or a nice wide fast lens and again, whole different ball game .

Of the many hundreds of My photos That have run in print magazines, maybe two or three have been from a phone.

I don’t think a print worthy shot like this comes off phones (yet)

https://www.instagram.com/p/CersLuLBfCz/?igshid=YmMyMTA2M2Y=

sho• 4 years ago

Obviously photography as a whole has never been bigger and still growing. The vast majority of it on smartphones, which the industry, especially Apple, has pushed to incredible levels of quality.

But I'd say "serious photography" is about where it's always been, maybe a little reduced. It's always been expensive to have a proper setup. The huge difference is that the new consumer stuff (phones) are just much much better than it used to be (point and shoots).

There's still a big difference though between what you can get out of a phone and what you can do with a "real" camera. I have never seen anything out of a phone that can match what you can do with a full frame and a fast 55 or whatever. Sure you can add fake depth of field in software but I'm not sure it will ever be possible to really duplicate in a phone. Especially the interface - phones just don't have the physical controls you need to play some of the tricks "real" cameras can do, like grabbing focus or white balance from somewhere else then holding it as you compose your real shot. At some point just the lack of dedicated buttons is holding you back. I know there's apps that can give you more control than the default apps but with a physical body I can set up that shot in 1 second.

I actually felt this acutely just last night. One of my friends went all out with halloween makeup and wanted me to take some pictures, but I only had my phone on me. They came out OK, pretty good even, but I know for a fact I would have been able to do much better with my half-broken old a7sii and a decent lens. Much, much better. But it's the camera you have with you...

LightG• 4 years ago

100% this

I have a very basic Sony mirrorless camera gathering dust somewhere.

I used to much better photos even on just that.

ilrwbwrkhv• 4 years ago

Skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been.

This statement has made me more money than everything else combined.

contingencies• 4 years ago

A Canadian chengyu![0] Added to https://github.com/globalcitizen/taoup [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chengyu

pedrow• 4 years ago

I don't know if he invented it, but I always associate that phrase with John Gruber, e.g. https://daringfireball.net/linked/2011/01/04/battelle-apple

RayVR• 4 years ago

I forget which photographer/camera blogger/reviewer wrote this many years ago, but it has stuck with me: "the best camera is the one you have with you"

His point being that carrying around a bunch of heavy gear is not pleasant.

A lot of camera and lens sales were driven by progress at the margins without any serious benefit to the average user. Until the smartphone. Now, the number of people with surprisingly good cameras which they have with them almost constantly is absolutely astounding.

Yes, I can still roughly tell the processed shots from portrait mode on my phone from a much better camera but the differences aren't as drastic as you'd imagine. Most importantly, I have the camera with me.

anotherboffin• 4 years ago

That was Chase Jarvis if memory serves. Even published a book about it.

MezzoDelCammin• 4 years ago

This is true for exactly one kind of photography - the one where we use pictures to capture memories and moments in time. And while I agree that that's a majority for most of us ("99% of us 99% of time", to quote somewhat exaggerating Hugh Brownstone), that's by no means all of it.

The smartphone camera can never "fully" replace an actual camera gear simply because of the choice of lenses and therefore the fields of view that the camera gives us. Optics is somewhat heartless in this respect.

AI and image processing can to a point simulate the feeling that the fixed focal length lenses of these cameras give us, but currently (and for the foreseeable future of at least a decade) they have a tough time going beyond that.

What we see now is the camera market shifting from mass use to a niche. "Prosumers", videographers, YouTubers and such.

ericmay• 4 years ago

We bought a dSLR and a specific lens geared toward “point and click” of landscape and travel photos because after traveling to a few places pictures that looked great on a phone did not scale to any large prints or screens. That camera along has produced fantastic photos and I consider it money well spent.

t0bia_s3• 4 years ago

If quality matter for you, smartphone is not answer. It won't replace camera designed for taking photographs with much higher dynamic range.

Sure, heavy DSLR's are annoying to care on trip but again... If you are casual snapshot taker, then smartphone is enough.

Or there are compact professional cameras like Fujifilm x100 series.

astrange4• 4 years ago

Smartphones have better dynamic range than dedicated cameras because they have better software and exposure stacking. If your subject stands still, that is. That’s why iPhones can save HDR photos you can actually view in HDR.

People editing camera raws in Lightroom still export them to sRGB JPEG at the end of the day. The main thing they’re doing with the dynamic range in those sensors is getting rid of it because there’s no ecosystem to view it. (Oddly, there is an ecosystem for HDR video, just not stills.)

dizhn• 4 years ago

"the best camera is the one you have with you"

Or for beginner film makers. "Start with the camera you already have" (i.e. your phone)

dbspin• 4 years ago

Or don't. This is common advice layman / cloud level famous director advice that is in practice utterly misplaced. There are tonnes of fun little phone film festivals. No influential independent film festivals accept phone films. There are 2 - 3 films shot on phones that have ever been give a major (independent) release / distribution. Only one of those was not from an established director, Sean Baker's 'Tangerine'. They used dozens of phones, a full crew and specialised lenses custom made for the production.

Shooting narrative with a phone is a gimmick - with very few and specific hidden camera doc exceptions. Phones don't teach you anything about the mechanics of camera work or post, from how different lenses change the feeling of a shot to pulling focus ISO, t-stop, color spaces, data rangling etc. They teach bad habits like relying on autofocus and IBIS.

They may be the best camera that isn't a camera, but in terms of starting as a beginner filmmaker - you'd be much better off learning with even very outdated DSLR.

ipython• 4 years ago

Yes, I can still roughly tell the processed shots from portrait mode on my phone from a much better camera but the differences aren't as drastic as you'd imagine.

This. I have my Apple TV set up to cycle through my favorite shots in my photo stream and I can tell immediately the quality difference between my slr shots and ones taken on my iPhone. The colors are more accurate, the bokeh more subtle, and excellent sharpness. Even when comparing shots from 7 years ago to todays iPhone 14.

Unfortunately my slr sits collecting dust because, well, the phone is “good enough”.

lm284693• 4 years ago

the differences aren't as drastic as you'd imagine

And a honda accord driver won't be able to drive a formula one faster than a formula four around the track, give it to someone who knows how to drive and the difference will be drastic

t0bia_s3• 4 years ago

It would be brilliant move from manufacturers to bring to life again older cameras by unlocking code. We know that cameras from 2012 are able to take RAW video (3DmII with Magic Lantern). But because of marketing, software limits abilities of hardware that we have at home collecting dust.

Paul_S2• 4 years ago

I find it interesting how vendor lock in of camera brands can keep a brand going. If you have a set of lenses for a system you're unlikely to switch, even if it was rational to do so. Even though lenses keep their resale value and you wouldn't lose much money in the process.

I never really fully understood the reasons behind it but it's clear to see that it creates stickyness that any company outside of photography would envy.

Paul_S2• 4 years ago

When I retired from photography a decade ago I dumped Nikon in favour Olympus (for its smaller size, 4/3 system). I wasn't fully happy and wanted to switch and buy Pentax but I only did that when I was robbed and lost my Olympus gear.

skhr06805• 4 years ago

Selling all your lenses for a loss just to buy mostly the same thing sounds like a pain to me. Adapters are hit and miss too, even when on paper they should be 100% compatible

sudosysgen4• 4 years ago

The biggest issue with adapters is that autofocus systems expect fairly detailed information on the optical formula of a lens nowadays, so it's not easy to adapt lenses even when you do fully reverse engineer the protocol

KingOfCoders• 4 years ago

"Yes, some manufacturers struggled to move from film to digital (Fuji, Olympus, and Pentax being notable)"

The Olympus Camedia C800 around 1995 was my first digital camera and webcam (new shot every 5 seconds so people could see if I'm at my desk or not)

Theodores• 4 years ago

I am okay with progress but it is sad to see so many finely engineered mechanical things go the way of the dodo.

Not just film cameras but VCRs, consumer grade time pieces and much else that the Japanese are experts at mass manufacturing has been replaced by a circuit board.

With digital things, either it works or it doesn't (once you have taken it apart and put it together again). With mechanical gadgets the same applies but there is usually more to it than 'drat, I forgot to plug that bit in'.

strogonoff2• 4 years ago

Sigma is almost never mentioned for its cameras, despite doing some interesting and trend-defying stuff with their own Foveon-based pocket cameras and the Bayer-based full-frame compact.

ValentineC2• 4 years ago

I have a first-generation Sigma 50mm f1.4 with Nikon F mount, and I'm still in love with its bokeh after many years. It's probably not the sharpest compared to the other 50mm heavyweights, but that's not an absolute need for portraits anyway.

Sigma makes great lenses compared to some of the other 3rd party manufacturers like Tamron and Tokina.

strogonoff2• 4 years ago

Your comment more or less supports my point!

stevev• 4 years ago

Great article concerning the state of JP Camera makers.

As an amateur photographer I feel this is just the natural order of things where companies succumb to the competition. Eventually leading to two or just three competing makers. Similar to Playstation, Xbox, and Switch.

My personal vision for a better camera is interoperability and an open source community.

Imagine if the major parts, pieces and software of the camera can be interchangeable rather than just the lenses.

Focus system of brand x, sensor of x, screen interface of x and view finder of x etc…

In this way, the components and technologies can be prioritized individually.

Open specifications can allow others the chance to invent.

Edit: another serious issue are the prices. This can be improved on greatly.

The changing fortunes of Japanese camera manufacturers

Related Stories