Camera vs Smart Phone November 2015
 |
| Street scene, Thamel, Kathmandu, 2003. Shot on 35mm film with Canon SLR and 100mm lens. For many years I used SLRs from Pentax then Canon. I could probably go back to the 24x36mm format with a compact, sharp 24-70mm lens for general photography. A full frame camera with built in 24-90mm lens could be about the same size and shape as a Panasonic FZ1000. If such a camera appeared I would give it very serious consideration. |
Smart phones make pretty good pictures these days. The smart phone has replaced the compact camera as the universal device for opportunistic photo recording of people, places and events.
Why would anyone want a camera: that is, a stand alone device exclusively tasked to taking photos ?
I propose that cameras can have (but in practice often do not have) two feature sets which might make them more appealing than smartphones for some users and purposes.
These are
1. Capabilities unlikely to be found in smartphones, including a long zoom lens and ability to follow focus on moving subjects.
2. An engaging user experience, determined largely by ergonomic factors.
Notice that I do not include ‘image quality’ here as for many uses, even professional reproduction, some smartphones are already good enough. I also regard sensor size as being of relatively minor importance for all but a very few professional or otherwise highly discerning users.
If I am right, this analysis should indicate the direction in which camera design might most usefully go.
Design direction Put together the two feature sets above and what do you get ?
Answer: A fully featured long zoom (a.k.a. ‘bridge’, but I wish people would stop using that now- irrelevant term) camera with very high performance and all the features which I have identified as satisfying my requirements for a ‘proper camera’.
These are an anatomical handle and thumb support, Integrated EVF above the lens axis, fully articulated monitor, hotshoe, integral flash and an ergonomic set of controls suitable for the expert user.
That’s it really.
There will be a place for professional and ambitious expert/enthusiast amateur users who demand the highest possible picture quality. These people will use the so-called ‘full frame’ (approximately 24x36mm) sensor cameras, tolerating the extra bulk and mass of the lenses in anticipation of better pictures. Whether they will actually get better pictures or not is contestable.
My point is that there will always be a small market for gear which is perceived, promoted and marketed as being ‘the best’.
By the way in my view there is really only one thing which large sensor cameras can more easily provide than those with small sensors. That is blurred backgrounds. This could be an advantage if that is what you want, but a disadvantage if you want the ‘everything sharp’ look as with many landscape or documentary style photos.
Following the logic leads me to suggest that camera designs will trend towards two types, both fulfilling my requirements for the ‘Proper Camera’.
* The first type is a superzoom with integrated lens.
* The second is a ‘full frame’ (sensor 24x36mm) type ILC (Interchangeable Lens Camera).
There may be a niche in the market for the Micro Four Thirds ILC which can provide high performance long lenses for sport/action/wildlife/birds and so forth at a fraction the mass, size and cost of equivalent lenses for full frame. M43 doesn’t actually have such a lens at the moment but the Panasonic Lumix 100-400mm promised for sometime next year should fill the bill.
What have we got ? It appears to me that camera makers are casting about with a variety of design directions, presumably seeking the magic formula which they hope will lead to increased sales and commercial success.
My personal view is that most cameras on the market today are doomed to fail for a variety of reasons.
* Many are half baked. They lack something essential to the proper camera. Many lack a built in EVF, fully articulated monitor, anatomical handle or a well designed set of controls.
Some have a pathetic little battery which couldn’t drive Thomas the little blue tank engine.
Some have an equally pathetic image processor leading to tediously slow operation and frustratingly long shot to shot times. Some of these camera cost a thousand dollars. The makers of these cameras are taking their customers for fools which they most certainly are not.
* Many are actually less capable than a half decent smart phone. For instance many cannot do auto panoramas in camera. Most offer a level of connectivity far behind that of smartphones.
* Most current ILCs have either or both a flipping mirror and a mechanical focal plane shutter. Both these mechanical devices create vibration in the camera immediately prior to exposure, creating the risk and often the occurrence of image deterioration.
I think it is imperative that cameras divest themselves of both these mechanical items tout suite. At present the industry is using workarounds like Electronic Shutter (ES) and Electronic First Curtain Shutter (EFCS) each of which has its own problems.
Is any maker getting it right ? Yes, I think some of them are heading in the direction which I predict to be the ‘right’ one.
Without attempting to cover all models I will just mention some which I have used, tested or which have caught my attention over the last year or so. In alphabetical order:
* Canonappears to have lost the plot almost completely.
Their DSLRs are just re-iterating the established theme with both flipping mirror and mechanical shutter. The EOS M series has yet to acquire a built in EVF and in any event uses the APS-C sensor size which lacks both the imaging capability of full frame and the compactness of M43.
Canon’s Powershots are also locked in a cycle of re-iteration of old themes. The G5X has at last acquired a built in EVF but we are told uses the sensor, lens and (very slow) processor from the G7X.
* Fujifilmis doing very well with it’s Instax line of instant print film cameras which might prove that film ain’t dead yet but I suspect more likely represents some consumers’ desire for an instant result in print.
But the digital division appears to be holding firm to the X- line of ILCs which has three characteristics which I think are burdens: The APS-C sensor size which I doubt has much of a future, the ‘traditional’ user interface which is clumsy and inefficient and the X-Trans filter array over the sensor, which may offer some benefits but at a cost to integration with image editing programmes which I doubt is worthwhile.
* Leicaappears not to have the slightest clue about what camera they should design or how to go about it, as evidenced by several recent products including the brave but ill conceived T (Typ701) and the just released SL (Typ 601), with a huge standard zoom lens and (I think) a mechanical shutter but no mention of an E-Shutter or EFCS and a dreadful control layout.
* Nikon is at least making cameras which people can use but like Canon is stuck in a rut with the DSLR line. I think they made a basic mistake with the “1” series which uses the 15.9mm sensor which is proving itself much better suited to fixed zoom lens cameras than ILCs.
Nikon had a huge response to the P900, tending to confirm my thesis about cameras with a fixed long zoom lens. I believe Nikon would do well to build on the success of this camera with a model offering RAW capture, better controls, a much faster processor and a shorter lens with wider aperture. I found when testing the P900 that hand holding anything over 1000mm (equivalent) was really very difficult even with Nikon’s very good VR.
* Olympus If I am right then Olympus is in trouble, with very little in the way of long zoom cameras and no full frame model. They will need to make some very capable M43 cameras building on the theme set by the E-M1.
* Panasonic has been making long zoom cameras for years and is well placed to gain from this section of the market with many capable models on offer. My main camera is an FZ1000 which is an excellent all rounder.
They need to get a global shutter or failing that a very fast E-Shutter or failing that EFCS on their M43 cameras and do it by yesterday. Shutter shock is a big problem for this maker’s M43 cameras and a serious drag on Panasonic’s reputation right now.
Panasonic may (I have nothing to go on but rumor), have a piece of the full frame Mirrorless ILC action through it’s relationship with Leica. So maybe if they feel the need to move up to a full frame MILC the pathway might not be totally untrodden.
Pentax/Ricoh Somehow this little duo is still in business despite a series of disastrous product releases including the Pentax K-01, Pentax Q and Ricoh GXR. Now I hear they are coming out with a full frame DSLR. OOPS ! Full frame yes. DSLR no.
Samsung This giant mega corporation is, or is not, depending on your rumor source, about to exit the camera business. None of their current model cameras is likely to succeed if my thesis is right.
Sony This corporation has a long standing reputation for innovation in all sectors which it enters including the camera division. Unfortunately it also has a reputation for releasing products to the market before they have been properly road tested.
The big buzz at the moment is around Sony’s A7 full frame mirrorless interchangeable lens cameras. (MILC)
If my thesis is correct they are moving in the right direction. I have not yet bought or tried one of the A7 cameras. All my reading suggests that none of the bodies and only a few of the FE lenses is actually fit and ready for the market just yet. The bodies have had a multitude of problems and issues including inadequately designed lens mounts and poor battery life. Many reviewers have commented on poor quality control affecting many of the lenses with unacceptable sample variation and frequent decentering.
Presumably Sony is in a rush to grab the full frame MILC market ahead of Canon and Nikon’s (inevitable ??) move in that direction.
We shall see.
