Why not a smartphone camera.

[Grandpa Ron]

After looking at the multitude of features on my Canon T6 Rebel. Many of which are post process repeats. I am wondering why Nikon, Canon Samsung etc. simply do not add a smartphone to their cameras; rather than lose market share to the phone camera market?

I know there are already down load and remote functions between the two.

 

[Scott Whaley]

It's coming. I heard that Canon is getting out of the lower end camera market like the Rebel, 60D, etc. and will concentrate on the more professional ones and possibly phone cameras.

 

[Dacaur]

So many reasons.....
#1, and really the most important reason is physics. A proper even half decently sized sensor would require the phone to be too fat. The larger your sensor, the further the lens needs to be from the sensor. The flange to sensor distance of even the smallest mirrorless camera is more than the thickness of even the chunkiest cell phone today.
Unless you are thinking people will be ok with holding a DSLR up to their face to make a call.
Even a micro 4/3 camera would just be too fat.
Ok, how about a 1/2.3? Many phones already have larger sensors than that, which work because they use extremely wide angle lenses...

# 4 or 5 on the list would be cost. Take a $1k cell phone, combine it with a $1k camera, and you will end up with a $2k+ device that's either a great camera that sucks to use as a cell phone and has 3 hours of battery life, or a slightly oversized cell phone attached to a kinda ok camera , and in a few years, you can bet it will be half useless as cell phone technology changes and requires faster processors etc....

 

[Braineack]

Because people aren't buying camera cameras because they can't browse Insta from them...




read heavily into the sarcasm that you simple do not understand the market whatsoever.

 

[Solarflare]

Samsung ? They dont make cameras [anymore] and also their cameras HAVE been smartphones, back in the day.

 

[Grandpa Ron]

I am not trying to replace the cell phones. But my $100.00 cheap-o company flip phone is just barely wider than my Canon and not quite as long when folded.(2 in x 5 in), but when open, the screen portion is only 1 3/4" by 2 1/4 ". It has 15 functions but it would be nice to view the messages, calculator, email, browser and oh yes the camera photos; on the 2" x 2 1/2" camera screen.

I doubt anyone is going to hold their camera to their ear for any length of time, but it sure would be handy when hiking trails or setting up a tripod shot or just plain picture taking; to press a "speaker phone" button rather than dig out a cell phone.

Maybe they need something simpler like my Bluetooth coupled cell phone/car radio device. I am sure some young electronic guru is working on it already.

 

[Dacaur]

That's what smart watches are for.

As a general rule, the more things you merge together, the less well they do each thing... That's why smart watches work well, a watch is a simple thing, so adding to it doesn't really reduce how well it works...

Im definitely not going to pay an extra $300 to get smart watch functionality on my camera....

 

[Braineack]

I doubt anyone is going to hold their camera to their ear for any length of time, but it sure would be handy when hiking trails or setting up a tripod shot or just plain picture taking; to press a "speaker phone" button rather than dig out a cell phone.

Cell phones are amazingly powerful computers that can fit in your pocket for an affordable price. Most of them also happen to have amazing cameras on them.

Why would someone buy a large bulky heavy camera that requires a backpack and strap to carry around, then download the images off the memory card, to then finally be able to purchase software to edit them, resize them, and then FINALLY their sexy yacht-girl selfie to instagram?


You simply do not understand the market.

 

[stk]

Camera companies couldn't make a decent phone even if they tried. Not even Sony, who actually makes phones, seems to be able to get input from their smartphone department.

I'm a Nikon user and love most of what they do, but when it comes to Snap Bride and their touch functionality it's just ****. It's just so far behind even the cheapest phones and apps made by 13 year olds in their bedroom.

I just had to spend 110 USD for a third party timer/remote for my camera because Nikon can't manage to make a decent mobile app.

 

[Dao]

Samsung had one similar to phone before called Galaxy Camera. Not exactly a phone, but a camera run on Android with a large Smartphone like screen. I do not think people were interested
Samsung's Android-powered Galaxy Camera: the most connected camera?

Panasonic in fact made one before called DMC-CM1
LUMIX CM1 Communication Camera

But I do not think it really had any impact even if the size of the camera is not that big when compare with DSLR. Here is what I think. Most of the people use the phone for non-camera related activities. When they need to use the phone camera, the results are *Good Enough*. There are limitation, but it is like "oh well, I can live with that" type limitation. It is because it is a phone and most of the other smart phone activities are not too bad with the weight and size. In other words, I do not need nor wants to browse the internet, talk to or text friends, play games, scan docs, pay cashier ... with a bulky camera.



I am sure they can do it, but for sure not something I will buy. For me, I'd rather take a small RX-100 camera together with my phone with me if I want a better daily photos.

 

[Braineack]

Nikon still using the same damn horribly shitty interface in all its cameras since the D1.

Meanwhile: Sony is doing live long-exposure captures where you can see the image develop as the shutter is held open.


Technology is going to win the market, but adding cellular to a camera is not it the key.

 

[waday]

I doubt anyone is going to hold their camera to their ear for any length of time, but it sure would be handy when hiking trails or setting up a tripod shot or just plain picture taking; to press a "speaker phone" button rather than dig out a cell phone.

Maybe they need something simpler like my Bluetooth coupled cell phone/car radio device.

Why don't you use the Bluetooth function on your phone coupled with a wireless headset? That way, you can keep the phone in your pocket, talk all you want, and move about freely.

 

[waday]

Samsung had one similar to phone before called Galaxy Camera. Not exactly a phone, but a camera run on Android with a large Smartphone like screen. I do not think people were interested

Ah... my sister has that camera. It works well for sharing family photos immediately, but the quality is probably similar to a current cell phone with the same immediate sharing capabilities.

My sisters have stopped asking me for camera advice, since they just want "pictures like you take" in a camera for less than $300.

 

[Grandpa Ron]

I chuckle when someone says he or she does not know the market.

That is what the Auto industry said when Henry Ford said he want to build a car everyone could afford. That is what IBM told the Microsoft folks when they want to sell personal computers. That is even what I said, when I was told companies were going to sell bottled water. Ahh, foolish me.

I am simply looking at one more feature to add to the diminishing niche market for entry level and serious amateur photographers.

Lets face it, adding features and endless options to the chip of even the most basic DSLR costs virtually nothing. Even my super cheap flip phone has an FM radio built into it, electronic circuitry is dirt cheap. The camera phone is here to stay and gets better everyday. It has even replaced the PC in some quarters.

However, I think there will always be a niche market for entry level DSLRs, just as there is for film.

 

[Dao]

Basically, the Smartphone replaced the POCKET point and shoot camera. Their market are overlap each other. If I already have a pocket size Smartphone which can take decent photos within its limit, why do I need to get another point and shoot camera that do the same.

Technically adding feature is one thing, adding a feature that nobody want is another thing. Another of the DSLR or even Mirrorless cameras are not pocket-able. Yes, the mirrorless camera body can be small, but the lens is not. And certainly not able to put it in the jeans pockets.

I am sure if you setup a poll and ask most of the photographers here whether they are willing to pay a little more to buy a DSLR or Mirrorless camera which is also a smartphone. i.e. Sony Mirrorless Camera $600, Sony Mirrorless Camera with Smartphone $900. (which is going to be a lower to mid range smartphone)

For me, I will pay a little more to get a Camera and a Smartphone separately. When I go pay at the cash register, I'd rather pay with a phone or watch. When I relax at a sofa browsing Reddit, I'd rather browse with a phone. For sure when someone call me, I'd rather pick up the call with my phone. Imaging holding my DSLR with a 70-200 f/2.8 next to my ear and talk. Well, at least I can tell the person at the other end, "Hey listen, I need to go and talk to you next time. My arm is very sore!"