Saracen
Been tried? Fair enough. Pased me by, but that's no grest shock.
One thing …. roughly when was it tried?
Sometimes, an idea is tried, and fails, before the tech, or the market, or both, are ready for it.
Was a while back. 2013 Samsung Galaxy
3dcandy
Oh Cat…. they won't make a “proper” zoom as you can't fit it into a phone body without making it huge, and then they just don't sell. Look at the Galaxy Camera for example
CAT-THE-FIFTH
OFC they can - optics have moved on since 20 years ago,with high refractive index lenses,folded optics,etc. The tech exists,but it costs money so they CBA. Most of these modules are mass produced,which is produced at the cheapest cost. This is why you find certain newer models having worse image quality than older ones,since they have just raided the parts bin.
Do people actually think integrated a billion lenses won't make the camera bigger or bulkier?? No,this is all done to save as much money as possible,using POS tiny sensors and primitive cheap to make lenses. I mean apparently using glass in some of these lenses is a big deal. When you look at the breakdown in actual costs of the smartphones,the camera modules are not even the most expensive part by far,in fact far from it.
These companies are making billions of dollars with these phones,they are getting more and more expensive,ie,now hitting the £800 to £1000 mark,and yet the hardware innovation is dropping more and more. They spend very little on actual R and D and its coming to bite them in the arse.This is what happens when bean counters run companies,they only look at maximising short term profits,and then spend the rest on PR bumpf.
But more and more people are getting wise to it,and it is why people are now keeping smartphones longer and longer,as the innovation is now just plateauing:
http://www.zdnet.com/article/smartphone-sales-are-slowing-because-you-dont-see-the-point-in-upgrading-your-iphone/
https://www.theguardian.com/money/2017/sep/01/upgrade-downturn-why-are-people-holding-on-to-their-old-phones
How many times over the last few years I have argued the lack of true innovation and rising costs would have an effect,and its starting to happen,and that cheaper models would start catching up and get more sales. How many people argued that I was wrong. I was correct.
HEXUS articleWell, I think I'd think that the vast bulk of users fall into one of two categories :-
What would you think of a built-in five-lens (rear) camera in your phone, wouldn’t that offer something ‘moar’ in the imaging department?
Saracen
Rather than trying to build decent optical zooms into phones, where size seems to be the absolute priority, I'm a bit surprised none of the major camera manufacturers making high-end compact cameras …. where size isn't overwhelmingly critical, haven't built a phone into cameras, for type 2's.
SaracenNokias Pureview 808 phone was the closest thing I've seen to that. It was their last effort of keeping symbian relevant before they went all in on Windows Phone.
Been tried? Fair enough. Pased me by, but that's no grest shock.
One thing …. roughly when was it tried?
Sometimes, an idea is tried, and fails, before the tech, or the market, or both, are ready for it.
3dcandy
Not saying your wrong.. but I think it's far simpler currently. If zoom lenses etc. can be made to fit and cost isn't an issue why do manufacturers go down the twin sensor/lens arrangement? That must mean that a zoom lens is more than twice the cost of a sensor and lens assembly currently. I bet it's more to do with the fact that a zoom lens isn't reliable enough to be made that small and last the abuse a phone gets. Also remember that a zoom lens assembly would have to be tiny and IP68 rated to be in most models as well
Saracen
Well, J think I'd think that the vast bulk of users fall into one of two categories :-
1) Phone users that use a phone camera for “snaps” but aren't demanding users, photographically.
2) Serious photography fans, for whom a phone's camera is just for snaps.
This Nokia idea, assuming it's true, is going to be too fiddly for type 1. As for type 2, it's entirely superfluous for snaps, and never likely to be enough for serious use.
Rather than trying to build decent optical zooms into phones, where size seems to be the absolute priority, I'm a bit surprised none of the major camera manufacturers making high-end compact cameras …. where size isn't overwhelmingly critical, haven't built a phone into cameras, for type 2's.
spacein_vaderNot what I'm on about. It's a phone with a csmera, however high the pixel count is, in it.
Nokias Pureview 808 phone was the closest thing I've seen to that. It was their last effort of keeping symbian relevant before they went all in on Windows Phone.
41mp sensor iirc.
Saracen
Not what I'm on about. It's a phone with a csmera, however high the pixel count is, in it.
I'm talking about a camera, bd it SLR or high-end compact (Canon G-series, and up, to Leicas, etc) with a phone added. That is, a camera that a photo enthusiast would carry, both in terms of caoabiluty, form factor, UI, etc …. plus a phone.
SaracenAh closest I've seen is a few cameras with a data sim in for upload anywhere capability.
Not what I'm on about. It's a phone with a csmera, however high the pixel count is, in it.
I'm talking about a camera, bd it SLR or high-end compact (Canon G-series, and up, to Leicas, etc) with a phone added. That is, a camera that a photo enthusiast would carry, both in terms of caoabiluty, form factor, UI, etc …. plus a phone.
Saracen
Been tried? Fair enough. Pased me by, but that's no grest shock.
One thing …. roughly when was it tried?
Sometimes, an idea is tried, and fails, before the tech, or the market, or both, are ready for it.
kalniel
Was a while back. 2013 Samsung Galaxy
SaracenI'm not sure even those photographers would be a market. I'm sure there are a myriad of reasons why people choose one camera over another, but why add a lot of cost to the product that does not help its camera performance? The current solution (buy the camera with the features you want & then buy a phone with the features you want,) works too well.
-
Still looks rather like a phone with a compact's lens module bolted on. If it's a high-ish end camera, aimed at us lot, I'd expect camera features (manual exposure, aperture/shutter priority, bracketing, maybe flash, etc. And, where the interface is aimed at photographers. Hard to tell from that picture but it doesn't look like any of that.
Put it this way …. what I'm suggesting is that there are users, the photography enthusiasts, that ypu will rarely catch more thsn an arn's length from a “proper” camera. So, take a “proper” camera, and build a phone in. Not, I might add, for uploading photos, but for doing what you do with a smartphone.
Unless such a hybrid can replace a “proper” camera, it won't appeal to that type of user, because a phone that csptures snaps doesn't cut it, and never will.
Oh, and this is not as mass-market device trying to lure snartphone users. It's an enhaanced camera trying to lure users of other cameras.
Saracen
Unless such a hybrid can replace a “proper” camera, it won't appeal to that type of user, because a phone that csptures snaps doesn't cut it, and never will.
CAT-THE-FIFTH
The Galaxy camera used a a smartphone sized sensor,ie, a 1/2.3“ jobby so realistically wasn't any better than a smartphone when it came to image quality.
The CM1 used the same sensor as the RX100 series of prosumer compacts which was 1” and had far better image quality especially when it came to DR,etc and you could adjust everything like aperture and exposure,etc. You could actually vary the aperture(F2.8~F11). Its the only smartphone which I would consider has a good replacement for a proper compact or even mirrorless camera with a pancake lens,but a 1“ sensor is pretty big and it was quite amazing they managed to shoehorn it into a hybrid device. It also had mechanical and electronic shutters too.However,Panasonic is not really a well known brand of smartphone outside Japan(no E-PEEN) and moreover,it would never get the same level of subsidies for network providers, that Samsung and Apple phones get(so people could get them ”cheaper“ on contract) let alone the billions of dollars of advertising.
You don't even need to go that far - something like a 1/1.7” or 2/3“ sensor would do the trick too,especially if you were looking at a limited focal length zoom,ie,something between 28~75MM or even a fixed focal length lens.
Remember these are £600 to £1000 phones,not a ”cheaper“ sub £400 one,so not really any excuse for them to share similar sized sensors to a £125 one is there??
In fact do people know that almost of all smartphones cannot vary their aperture?? They are fixed aperture and only recently Samsung had a smartphone(it was a flip one) which could actually vary the aperture(marginally) but it costs a silly amount of money. They also don't even have normal shutters - they have ”electronic“ ones which mean they are even cheaper to make. Basically the same level as webcams.
Samsung and Apple are the reason cameras are so subpar in higher end phones,as they set the bar very low and at a rubbish level for the rest of the competition. If they CBA and sell loads of phones,why should any other company really push any more than it needs to be. Its exactly the same thing which happened with Intel regurgitating slightly faster desktop CPUs for years and years,since AMD was out of the picture,but at least Intel has to fund process node R and D which is very expensive.
It still does change the fact that people might want to put their head in the sand,but the £800 to £1000 Samsung and Apple phones use el-cheapo camera modules which cost between £20 to £30 in total with low grade lenses made mostly of plastic(yes plastic is used in normal lenses too,but there are reasons why it is used) due to cost.
If it weren't for their ”revolutionary“ cameras,a £300 phone would do exactly the same job.
Saying ”camera quality“ does not sell is not really true,since the major innovations that the high end camera phones seem to keep ”selling“ is image quality ALL THE TIME. Yet,as £500 to £1000 imaging devices they are subpar.
They are utterly destroyed by a dSLR/mirrorless camera and any small prosumer compact like even the ancient RX100 MK1 which could be had for under £300 for years is better and these devices are made for a profit.
So if a £300 camera can do a better job,you are still paying £300 to £700 extra for the phone bit,so by extension there is zero excuses for them to not spend more on the camera bit.
Plus you are paying £500 to £1000 every two years or so. Over say 10 years,that is a couple of £1000,for £150 worth of cheap camera modules??
Its this weird interplay of people who apparently want ”image quality“ but are willing to use a subpar,overpriced device which is absolutely trashed by an old 1” sensor compact which could be bought for under £300 for the last couple of years.
Except this imaging device cannot do anything different from a £300 phone yet costs two to three times more than a decentish compact.
Plus how many of these people who need the “ultimate” mobile image quality are printing any of these pictures all the time?? Whats the likelihood that a sub £400 camera phone would do as good a job for social media or even the standard 7x5“ prints from the instant photo machines at a supermarket??
Remember £300 to £400 is still a lot for a short term disposable device - apply that to a CPU or a pair of speakers and how many of you would feel about one that barely was adequate for the job and was pretty much EOL in just over two years.
Now make that £800 to £1000. I think when it comes to smartphones,and especially Apple and Samsung ones people loose rationality at what they are selling you.
To put it in context if Nikon or Canon took the same camera module from an iPhone X or the latest Samsung Galaxy and sold it for ”only“ £150 as a camera not a single person would buy such a camera and they would be laughed out of the room by everyone.
Companies are not your friends - they are here to profit as much as they can off you,so if people have no expectations,don't expect the companies to have any too,in what they deliver to their ”loyal" customers.
I honestly wish and hope the downturn in sales and people keeping their smartphones longer continues,since it forces the bean counters and their fans at Apple and Samsung to actually spend their billions of dollars on actual innovation,instead of hoodwinking their customers.
If these companies want to charge £500 to £1000 for phones,actually innovate for their customers not just innovate to line their pockets! Not only have better cameras which are worthy of expensive £500 to £1000 devices,have longer battery life,better build,better QC and treat your customers well,instead of trying to fob off subpar batteries on them which explode and have lifespan issues in under two years.
Saracen
-
Still looks rather like a phone with a compact's lens module bolted on. If it's a high-ish end camera, aimed at us lot, I'd expect camera features (manual exposure, aperture/shutter priority, bracketing, maybe flash, etc. And, where the interface is aimed at photographers. Hard to tell from that picture but it doesn't look like any of that.
Put it this way …. what I'm suggesting is that there are users, the photography enthusiasts, that ypu will rarely catch more thsn an arn's length from a “proper” camera. So, take a “proper” camera, and build a phone in. Not, I might add, for uploading photos, but for doing what you do with a smartphone.
Unless such a hybrid can replace a “proper” camera, it won't appeal to that type of user, because a phone that csptures snaps doesn't cut it, and never will.
Oh, and this is not as mass-market device trying to lure snartphone users. It's an enhaanced camera trying to lure users of other cameras.
3dcandy
Problem is that for the vast majority of people they are good enough… end of. Most people still want a thin light phone not all day battery life. They want IP-68, great screen, GOOD ENOUGH camera. That's what they get. The market for a really decent camera in a phone just isn't there. If people want a great camera they'll buy one… and then tether it to their phone, crush the resolution down and post it on facebook which ruins it even more…
The reason for the lack of growth, says Roberta Cozza, research director at Gartner, is that people are using their smartphones for a longer period before replacing them, with a lifecycle of two and a half years now not uncommon.
“Really, this is about the slowdown and a shift in the balance of in the market in the sense that you see it's reached a certain maturity and saturation,” she told ZDNet.
“If you look at why people are extending lifecycles – it's about the innovation of today and the benefits of upgrading,” Cozza said, arguing that many don't see a benefit in upgrading their iPhone or Samsung Galaxy on a yearly basis because vendors are losing the ability to “show value” in their yearly product updates.
However, while Apple and Samsung are struggling to convince us to buy their latest phones – especially as high prices can put consumers off – Chinese manufacturers Huawei, Oppo, and Xiamoi have experienced a significant growth in sales
Huawei in particular has seen its share of the market grow rapidly, with almost 29 million units sold during Q1 2016 compared to 18 million during Q1 2015. The 10 million extra units have boosted Huawei's share of the market from 5.4 percent to 8.3 percent.
One reason the likes of Huawei are experiencing such a fast growth rate is that people using iPhones and Samsungs look at the latest models and are put off by the price, so instead upgrade to a Chinese smartphone which offers similar features, but is quite a bit cheaper to buy.
“Some of these new players are the upgrade cycle for a smartphone user who has a smartphone and is looking to upgrade – but can't afford an iPhone a Galaxy S7. They can find those desirable features, but at a cost they can afford,” said Cozza.
The reasons for buying a smartphone can be split into two camps. In the first instance, consumers are persuaded to buy new handsets through adverts that extol the handset’s camera, waterproofing, screen size, software or promised battery life. Otherwise, phones are bought for more prosaic reasons: the old one kept crashing; the battery kept dying; or that crack in the screen finally became too annoying.
The problem for the world’s smartphone makers is that the second set of reasons has become far more compelling than the first. People are waiting longer before upgrading – and phone makers are getting anxious.
Even the much-anticipated launch of Apple’s next iPhone is not expected to set the mobile world alight, though it may encourage many Apple users to upgrade at higher prices than ever before.
3dcandyI still think you're compketely missing my point.
Why - what is the point of making a device that wouldn't handle as well as a smartphone, certainly would be stupid to hold next to your ear and talk into and would cost an arm and a leg. Yes the Samsung Galaxy camera range had small sensors… you just can't get the optics into the size people would buy. Again, people are not interested in a camera phone that's bulky or has a large sensor because something else would have to give. For example, the battery life on the Galaxy camera was abysmal because there was no room for a large capacity battery. You got something like 2 hours talktime and about 30 hours standby. So in real world useage - you'd get about 4 hours tops between recharges. So it's a rubbish camera, a rubbish phone with rubbish battery life….
From talking to people who sold phones at the time people were not interested at all. Demand was very weak especially in the UK. Samsung admitted that to do it justice a decent camera with smartphone functionality would be about £2k and still not be as good as a decent phone plus decent camera combo. Just too many compromises all round to sell
3dcandyAt risk of going off-topic from what was already a bit off-topic, as a Canon user I don't give a flying fig wgat sensor is ib a camera. I do care wgat results it produces.
Nope not missed the point at all whatsoever. Manufacturers have mooted it the consumers are against it totally. They just don't want it at all. Japan tried it, failed massively. Like I said the projects get started, come up against almost total apathy and get shelved. Nobody at all is interested. Been to several camera shows where it has popped up in conversation and every single time it's the same answer… we thought about it, asked about and the idea is universally panned. It is just something that is hated…however you try it. When Samsung tried it and actually got it to market it was panned. It is just one thing that nobody wants to do. If I go to airshows it's quite often that I will see people with their camera out and snapping whilst on their phone… It is the same old problem, a camera is only taken seriously when made by a “proper” camera company. I can also remember when Canon users worldwide were up in arms when Canon said they were going to use a Sony sensor. They had to backtrack pretty quickly otherwise the company would have near enough been finished with it losing it's fan base to Nikon who do now use Sony sensors. Snobby elitist lot the togs
3dcandyWell, one person has. Me. ;)
But I feel you're misunderstanding me too. The fact is nobody has tried a camera with phone functionality because the market is zero, zilch nada. Not one person has expressed a wish for a camera that has this built in. If you said data transfer then it's not a phone… if we're being picky of course.