According to the latest market research from The NPD Group, smartphones are stealing market share from point-and-shoot cameras and traditional camcorders.
The group's Imaging Confluence Study shows that more and more consumers are taking pictures and videos on their smartphone and less and less are using traditional cameras or camcorders, including the once-popular Flip and Vado pocket ... [ read the full article ]
Please read the original article before posting your comments.
That's a no brainer. If you look at what you carry on a normal basis, your smart phone with a camera is generally the one that travels with you no matter where you go and is available when you need it. Who carries their point and shoot camera with them on a daily basis? I certainly don't.
It's kind of like the market for books. Barnes and Nobles was doing great business until the digital versions of the books became available for devices like the Kindle. That's when they started noticing their profit shares go down. With new/better technology coming around daily, you have to keep up or you lose.
I tend to agree. But with expenditure comes quality as well. Point & click is P&C; meaning, it is nice to have a camera with you to grab a spontaneous moment when in most situations you seriously just didn't have a camera before.
The article can be a bit misleading in that a kids camera (something under say 5MP) is probably taking a hit nowadays. But frankly, I don't think there is anything being built with those kind of specs any more anyway. Even point & shots are coming with high quality lenses, faster CCDs, higher frame rates & the mega pixels are beyond anything science fiction writers ability to zoom in on (think Blade Runner)...
Basically put, other than physical functions needed for image manipulation that I need/want from a camera body, my phone has a higher MP rating & descent shooting capabilities than my point & grin and it moves into video functionality easier as well (if my grinner even does video at all).
the sony/erricson phone i have has a 3mp cybershot incorporated into it,even with the plastic cling film which is still across the lens the photo's it takes are unbelievable,the pixles are fine even when setting it as a wallpaper on the desktop,tho there is a very,very slight haze i spose you could call it where the cling film does whatever it does,mind you if i didn't point it out you wouldn't notice it,as tech progresses the phones will take better & better photo's,then again it depends on what your taking photo's of,in reality there's no substitute for a real camera it's just they're more bulky,apart from those really small pocket size type
Originally posted by scorpNZ: the sony/erricson phone i have has a 3mp cybershot incorporated into it,even with the plastic cling film which is still across the lens the photo's it takes are unbelievable,the pixles are fine even when setting it as a wallpaper on the desktop,tho there is a very,very slight haze i spose you could call it where the cling film does whatever it does,mind you if i didn't point it out you wouldn't notice it,as tech progresses the phones will take better & better photo's,then again it depends on what your taking photo's of,in reality there's no substitute for a real camera it's just they're more bulky,apart from those really small pocket size type
Indeed, nothing can replace a decent DLSR. Point and shoot and smartphones are for convenience only.
I wonder how much the adapter and lens costs for an iPhone?.? Most likely not worth the price.
I still use my Nikon D70 purchased in 2004 w/18-135DX lens and a 400mm telephoto when needed.
It was the first DLSR kit to sport 3 CCD's for under $1000.00.
Megapixels is marketing BS. If 3008x2000 RAW not good enough you need your eyes checked.
Originally posted by Jeffrey_P: Megapixels is marketing BS. If 3008x2000 RAW not good enough you need your eyes checked.
Coming strictly from an avenue where 'action' photography was heavily used, the larger megapixel range is a big help when post producing photos. Cropping, zooming & still maintaining good photo quality; that kind of jazz. Coming from a combat photographer when shutting the iris all the way down for full focal length, aiming the camera behind me & running like hell out of the zone while still obtaining some kind of recon... you get the idea.
Wasn't arguing, just offering a creative excuse for why I & a few other folks (sports photographers) would sure like larger megapixel advantage on our professional cameras. :)
