backtop

Print 37 comment(s) - last by Azethoth.. on Apr 20 at 4:24 AM

The days of the point-and-shoot camera may be numbered, if usage metrics are an indication.  (Source: Geekologie)

The iPhone 4 is leading the smart phone push to ditch the dedicated camera. It will soon be the most used camera device on Flickr.  (Source: Flickr)
Flickr use of point and shoot designs is plunging while iPhone images are soaring

Cisco Systems Inc.'s (CSCO) sudden decision to kill its "Flip" line of cameras and digital camcorders surprised many.

But a report from TechCrunch's MC Siegler puts the news in an interesting context.  He points to data from image-sharing site, Flickr, offering the surprising conclusion that point-and-shoot cameras appear to be dying breed, while smartphones -- particularly the iPhone -- are taking over.

Flickr, a property of Yahoo! Inc. (YHOO), is a good barometer for the imaging industry, thanks to its tremendous popularity (some sources call it the world's largest imaging sharing site).  According to Flickr, usage of the most popular point and shoot cameras -- the Canon PowerShot series -- has plunged.

Meanwhile the iPhone 4 has exploded onto the camera scene, surpassing the PowerShot family in number of photos uploaded.   According to Flickr, the most single most popular digital camera -- the Nikon D90 single-lens reflex camera -- will soon be passed by the surging iPhone 4.

Surprisingly, Android users don't seem to be as on board the trend to ditch the point-and-shoot for the smart phone.  The only Android cameraphone to crack the top five was the HTC EVO 4G from Taiwanese gadget maker HTC Corp. (2498).  It remains in a virtual tie with the iPod Touch, behind the iPhone 3G, iPhone 3GS, and iPhone 4.

While imaging on smartphones, including the iPhone has dramatically improved, it still lags a bit behind leading point and shoot models.  But the gap isn't as big as one might think.  

The Canon PowerShot SD1100 IS, the most popular point-and-shoot according to Flickr, packs an 8 megapixel image sensor.  Many Android smartphones include 8 MP cameras, and even the iPhone 4 -- a bit dated in hardware at this point -- offers a 5 MP camera.  Of course, the resolution only tells part of the story.  The physical size of the image sensor on point-and-shoot cameras tends to be larger than in cameraphone modules, meaning their images will be better at the same resolution.

Still, the superior imaging point-and-shoots appear to be dying due to their lack of connectivity.  Smartphones can take a shot and instantly upload it to the cloud from virtually any moderately populated location across the country.  That ability appears to be making the iPhone the new leader in the world of digital imaging.

Android is drastically outselling the iPhone, which makes the iPhone's lead in imaging all the more impressive.  Having extensively used both the iPhone 4 and the 8 MP HTC EVO 4G, it's not surprising that the iPhone 4 is a bit ahead.  

While the EVO clearly has the edge in resolution, we find the iPhone snaps photos a bit faster and has a bit better image processing software.  As a result, images from the two phones tend to be roughly comparable, in our experience.  However, the iPhone 4's associated software is a bit easier to use than the Android "Froyo" 2.2/HTC Sense combination on the EVO.

That said, despite Apple's early lead, expect Android smartphone imaging to pick up soon as well, given its massive sales.

All that bodes very poorly for traditional camera companies like Eastman Kodak Comp. (EK), Canon Electronics Inc. (CAOEF), and Nikon Corp. (NINOF).  Having survived the painful transition from film to digital, they now face yet another round of minimization, this time at the hands of cameraphones.  When the dust settles it would be unsurprising if many of these companies only survive as SLR makers, as cameraphones grow to match the capabilities of today's point-and-shoots.

                                                             

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Title is VERY misleading
By repatch on 4/18/2011 12:24:31 PM , Rating: 5
The title of this article "iPhone Dominating Point-and-Shoot Cameras in Usage Statistics" is complete junk. The title SHOULD have been something like "For the online uploading of images, the iPhone is set to lead".

This report simply shows that the majority of images uploaded to Flickr are going to be from an iPhone very shortly. This says NOTHING of what people are using for REAL pictures.

What do I mean by this? When I'm walking along the street and I see something interesting I grab my smartphone (which I always have with me), take a picture and upload it.

If, OTOH I'm in NYC and I'm visiting central park I'll be sure to have my real camera. I'll take a ton of pictures, but very few will ever be uploaded.

The "statistics" will show that I almost only upload pictures my phone took, when in reality the majority of photos I have are NOT from my phone.

Eventually I'm certain there will a proper convergence of phones and P&S cameras, some phones already take pictures that rival low end P&Ss. Once that happens yes, people will ditch the P&S.

DSLRs OTOH take pictures that far so much better then todays P&Ss, unless there is some discovery in image sensing I don't see DSLR type cameras going anywhere, in fact, as cameras in phones improve I see DSLRs getting more popular since people won't be carrying P&Ss as much anymore.




RE: Title is VERY misleading
By MrTeal on 4/18/2011 12:36:37 PM , Rating: 1
I see DSLRs moving more towards the EVIL cameras. Really, the entire mirror system really isn't needed anymore. If you remove the mirror, you can put the sensor much closer to the flange. Smaller flange focal distances mean smaller lenses for the same focal length/aperture, on top of the fact that the camera body is so much thinner. It's a win/win, and the only thing you give up is the optical viewfinder that can either be replaced with an electronic version, or ditched altogether for live preview.


RE: Title is VERY misleading
By repatch on 4/18/2011 12:51:22 PM , Rating: 3
I have to disagree. The fact that SLRs have remained can't be chance. I've used cameras with EVF, they are HORRIBLE. Focusing with them is very difficult, never mind how much they blind you when it's dark. They are COMPLETELY useless when it's really dark, and on top of all that, they are power hogs in the worst way.

Choosing between EVF and live preview I'd choose live preview every time. The choice between SLR and live preview I'd choose SLR every time. Don't get me wrong, I love having the live preview option on my SLR, it has been very useful for those rare times, but by far using the SLR viewfinder is the most powerful tool for me.

TTYL


RE: Title is VERY misleading
By omnicronx on 4/18/2011 1:00:20 PM , Rating: 2
I would tend to disagree too.. Point and shoot cameras also generally have a sensor area that covers ~3% of a full frame sensor found in high end DSLR's.. Even the best point and shoots are only around 5-6%. For comparison, low end DSLR's are around 40% at the lowest. (and by full frame, I mean compared to 35MM film)

There is a reason why SLR's are still in use, especially by professionals. There is absolutely NO comparison between the two.

Point and shoots may be light, fast and can zoom in and out far distances with a single lens, but they are not even on the same playing field as most low end SLR's let alone high end..


RE: Title is VERY misleading
By MrTeal on 4/18/2011 1:24:07 PM , Rating: 2
You're confusing an EVIL camera with a P&S. There's no reason why an APS-C or full-frame sensor can't be put into a camera without a mirror. Instead of the mirror diverting the light up to an optical viewfinder and then flipping out of the way when you want to expose an image, you remove the mirror and have the sensor act as both the capture device and viewfinder. Cameras like the NX10 have APS-C sensors, interchangeable lenses and no mirror.

To repatch, there's going to be some cases where standard DSLRs would be superior to mirrorless ones. I didn't mean that DSLRs would disappear, especially in the pro space. For most people though, a small APS-C EVIL camera with a pancake lens gives you most of the performance of a DSLR in a package that's much more portable. I can see many of the people who buy the D5100 or T3i moving towards these kinds of cameras.


RE: Title is VERY misleading
By SPOOFE on 4/19/2011 7:26:19 PM , Rating: 2
You're right about putting a big sensor in a mirrorless body (look at the Sony Nex series, as well).

The problem with big sensors, however, is that using them continuously (for Live View or recording video or what-have-you) causes a lot of heat to build up in the sensor, which in turn can result in higher noise levels. And if you're using it on a hot day, it will just plain shut off.

Further, removing the mirror box and prism means you need to find some other method of phase-detect autofocus, versus contrast-detect. Phase-detect has an advantage in speed, because it can tell if it needs to focus closer or further away to lock on the subject; contrast-detection just kinda guesses, which means focus will tend to "wander" more.

I'm sure there are ways around this - Nikon, for instance, is looking to imbed "phase-detection" pixels within the actual imaging sensor - but for the foreseeable future, the mirror box is absolutely essential for the blazing fast focus and shutter responses that DSLR's provide.

Everything after that is just a matter of developing a solid ecosystem for an EVIL camera; getting enough lenses, flash units, and the like to really give a user options.


RE: Title is VERY misleading
By Solandri on 4/18/2011 1:36:53 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Really, the entire mirror system really isn't needed anymore. If you remove the mirror, you can put the sensor much closer to the flange. Smaller flange focal distances mean smaller lenses for the same focal length/aperture, on top of the fact that the camera body is so much thinner.

This is only true for lenses whose focal length is shorter than the registration distance (the distance from sensor to roughly the optical center of the lens). i.e. Only wide-angle lenses.

A wide-angle on an SLR has to be a retrofocus design. Basically a wide-angle lens mounted in front of a tele-expander which makes the wide-angle look like it's further away (think of looking through binoculars backwards), then projects that image onto the sensor. Hence "retro" focus. With a rangefinder or point and shoot, the registration distance is short enough that you don't need the tele-expander, and so the wide-angle lens is smaller overall.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ang%C3%A9nieux_retrof...

The registration distance on most DSLRs is 30-45mm, so any lenses with a shorter focal length than that are bigger (and more expensive) than if you could shorten the registration distance. But any lenses with a longer focal length (i.e. all normal and telephoto lenses) are unaffected and are exactly the same size they'd be whether you got rid of the mirror box or not.

Most DSLR users bought the system for the telephoto lenses (there are no telephotos for camera phones, and the telephoto point and shoots are usually f/5.6 or higher, making for very dim, blurry, and noisy pictures). So DSLRs really have very little to gain by getting rid of the mirror box assembly. Faster shooting speed is about all I can think of, and you can accomplish that if one of the DSLR manufacturers were smart enough to just lock the mirror in the up position if you put it in high-speed shooting mode, just like they do for video. Having the mirror is the best of both worlds - you get an optical viewfinder when you want to shoot by eye, and if you want shoot using the LCD preview you just lock up the mirror and switch the camera to LCD preview mode. Why would you want to limit the camera to only LCD preview mode?


RE: Title is VERY misleading
By MrTeal on 4/18/2011 1:48:18 PM , Rating: 2
You're right on that, but most dSLRs have a flange focal distance around 45mm; Canon is 44, Sony 44.5 and Nikon is 46.5mm. Shorter than that is wide for a 35, but it's in the range of medium for APS-C or u4/3 cameras. A lot of shooting is done under 50mm on those systems, and would benefit from the shorter FFD.


RE: Title is VERY misleading
By Solandri on 4/18/2011 2:08:18 PM , Rating: 2
The actual distance to the flange itself isn't important. What matters is how far forward the bottom of the mirror will move when it flips up. Most SLR wide angles use a recessed rear element which sits closer to the sensor than the flange, but still far enough away that the mirror won't hit it. (Recessed relative to the camera body, not to the lens.) This distance is about 30-35 mm for most full-size sensor cameras (the mirror is slightly larger than the 36x24 mm sensor, and sits a few mm in front of the sensor).

That's what Canon's EF-S and Nikon's AF-S lenses are. They use a recessed design assuming the smaller APS-sized sensor's mirror, thus allowing the glass to sit even closer to the sensor than in a regular SLR lens. If you mount these lenses on a full-size sensor DSLR, the mirror will hit the recessed rear element and either shatter the mirror or the lens element.


RE: Title is VERY misleading
By MrTeal on 4/18/2011 2:17:42 PM , Rating: 2
That's really interesting, I wasn't aware of that. Thanks.
Most of my shooting is done with older manual full frame primes I get dirt cheap on eBay.


RE: Title is VERY misleading
By Gnarr on 4/19/2011 11:21:36 AM , Rating: 2
Or the mirror will just stop.. In fact, it will just stop most of the time. That is if you have modified your EFs lens to be able to fit it on a FF camera.


RE: Title is VERY misleading
By SPOOFE on 4/19/2011 7:32:40 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
That's what Canon's EF-S and Nikon's AF-S lenses are.

In the Nikon world they use the term "DX" to refer to lenses designed solely for the smaller sensor. "AF-S" refers to the presence of a motor in the lens itself, and could be either DX or FX (Nikon's designation for "full frame").

Nikon's cheaper, low-end cameras (exclusively DX, too) can only autofocus with AF-S lenses (they lack in-body focus motors), so that's probably where the connection came from.


RE: Title is VERY misleading
By Johnmcl7 on 4/18/2011 8:38:54 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I see DSLRs moving more towards the EVIL cameras. Really, the entire mirror system really isn't needed anymore. If you remove the mirror, you can put the sensor much closer to the flange. Smaller flange focal distances mean smaller lenses for the same focal length/aperture, on top of the fact that the camera body is so much thinner. It's a win/win, and the only thing you give up is the optical viewfinder that can either be replaced with an electronic version, or ditched altogether for live preview.


While there are advantages to mirrorless cameras, it's most definitely not the case that the mirror isn't needed anymore. I say that as someone who's heavily invested in both micro 4/3 and a Nikon FX setup. The micro 4/3 cameras and lenses give me a very compact walk around setup as I can pack a pair of bodies, a couple of primes, an ultrawide and either a superzoom or telephoto into a small shoulder bag. However there are some limitations the lack of mirror imposes. The first is the slower autofocus, the GH2's autofocus is impressively quick even over the GH1 which was no slouch but because CDAF doesn't show whether the camera is front or back focussed it can't touch a decent SLR particularly in tracking.

On top of the slower AF, there's also the problem with the added shutter lag. An SLR using its OVF simply needs to open then close the shutter which on a decent SLR means an exceptionally quick response to pressing the shutter. Mirrorless cameras however have to hold the shutter open to drive their viewfinder/screen which means when they take the picture they have to close their shutter, reopen it for the actual exposure, close it and then reopen to resume liveview which adds noticeable shutter lag.

Holding the shutter open and keeping the sensor powered up to produce the liveview image drains the battery whereas on an SLR using an OVF is barely using any power as the shutter is closed and the sensor powered down.

I can certainly see the benefits of the mirrorless systems which is why I get a lot of use from them but even the GH2 which is the flagship mirrorless camera is a long way from being able to match the better SLRs.


RE: Title is VERY misleading
By KentState on 4/18/2011 3:57:21 PM , Rating: 2
Should also point out that iPhone users may upload many photos and then prune later, while a camera owner will only upload after selecting the best of the batch.


RE: Title is VERY misleading
By nafhan on 4/18/2011 5:16:39 PM , Rating: 2
Another alternate title could be: "Quality of pictures on Flickr steadily declining." :)


RE: Title is VERY misleading
By marvdmartian on 4/19/2011 8:57:23 AM , Rating: 1
Exactly. All this shows is that:
1. the higher percentage of people uploading images to Flickr are uploading from iphones (versus point & shoot pictures via their pc's or laptops),
2. people tend to carry their camera-equipped phones all the time, versus their point and shoot cameras only part of the time, and,
3. it's much easier to upload pictures taken on a camera equipped phone than it is to upload pictures taken on a P&S camera.

This doesn't address at all the fact that camera phones are still dismally low quality, compared to point and shoot cameras (max 8 megapixel for any phone I've heard of, versus 14+ megapixel for point and shoot cameras).

This is really no different than using "statistics" from a "study" to prove your view point on any subject.....and like the saying goes, 99% of all statistics are bullcrap.


RE: Title is VERY misleading
By SPOOFE on 4/19/2011 7:35:38 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
2. people tend to carry their camera-equipped phones all the time, versus their point and shoot cameras only part of the time, and,

The best camera is the one you have with you.


Flickr
By omnicronx on 4/18/2011 11:44:45 AM , Rating: 4
Sorry, but I hardly see Flickr has an accurate way of looking at this kind of metric.

These are web enabled devices statistics on a site fully integrated with said devices, its hardly a good indication of real world usages of the entire market.

While the iPhone 4's camera is great for a device of its size, it can't do the impossible. Tiny sensor = less light = average at best pictures.

Until scientists can figure a way around this, its not going to replace any camera completely. Most people are not storing their images online, as much as Flickr would like you too. The average family has a simple point and shoot camera with most of their photos sitting on their computer.

Now I'm not saying that point and shoot camera's won't become less popular, as there is clearly a downward trend here, but I don't think its nearly as bad as the article and the study is making it out to be.

(it seems to me that more people are just taking crap pictures everywhere they go, i.e more people are taking pictures then ever before)




RE: Flickr
By DanNeely on 4/18/2011 1:54:03 PM , Rating: 2
To win in the mass market a replacement doesn't have to be as good as what it replaces, just good enough. Many of the flaws of a crappy sensor are partially hidden if you're only looking at the 5-8 mega pixel image scaled to a .3 mega pixel phone screen or 1-2 mega pixel laptop screen.

When most people have a camera phone with them all the time a second camera has to be much better to justify carrying it as well. DSLRs and high end point an shoot cameras are probably relatively safe, but the cheap mass market ones are in serious trouble.


RE: Flickr
By SPOOFE on 4/19/2011 7:38:32 PM , Rating: 2
DSLR's and point-and-shoots are going to be affected by the rise in camera phone popularity. There's no reason you can't develop a phone with, say, built-in Wi-Fi functionality. It's nice to have the option via Eye-Fi cards, but at this stage in the game it's amazing how little interconnectivity there is in the camera world.

I think the Flickr data just shows how most people want to have "fun" with their photos, as opposed to "working" them.


RE: Flickr
By Solandri on 4/18/2011 1:56:12 PM , Rating: 2
I would hypothesize that if you plotted similar stats for all camera phones on a log scale, the slope of their lines would match the iPhone 4's. That is, percentage-wise, their use is growing as quickly as the iPhone's (e.g. quadrupling in x years).

Likewise, the comment about Android not being as popular as the iPhone for photos is bunk. To properly assess that statement, you'd need to sum up the number of photos taken by all Android phones and compare to the iPhone, not look at single models. Same as with Android phone sales - no single one approaches the iPhone, but as a whole they crush the iPhone.

The one thing the article got right is that camera phones are supplanting point and shoot cameras. The top graph is misleading however - even back in the film days all photographers knew that the SLR market was peanuts compared to the point and shoot market. It's why Canon and Nikon's traditional lineup only had 3 SLRs, while they had about a dozen point and shoots.

The most revealing thing to me is that DSLRs are unaffected by the rise of camera phones. They are essentially independent markets. In fact, aside from the Canon Rebel, DSLR usage actually seems to be going up. My guess is that's due to people being frustrated by their camera phone's quality. They want a better camera, but can't really justify buying a point and shoot since it's only slightly better than their camera phone. So they splurge for a DSLR.


RE: Flickr
By SPOOFE on 4/19/2011 7:47:47 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
My guess is that's due to people being frustrated by their camera phone's quality.

Or it could be due to their investment; you buy any appreciable amount of SLR lenses, and you're going to want to use them. The human mind tends to assign greater value to something that's had time and effort (or money) dedicated to it.

Heck, go search for Chase Jarvis, a very experienced photographer who's lately been doing a lot of photography exclusively with his iPhone.


Not Convinced
By XSpeedracerX on 4/18/2011 11:50:34 AM , Rating: 2
The SD110 Is almost 6 years old, an eternity here in electronic gadget land. It's not shocking that smartphones have not only matched its technical abilities but have replaced it as the go-to camera of choice.

Flickr popularity is just one metric. Even though flickr is a big photo site, it's not the only one and it's hardly the biggest photo-dump on the net. I'd be interested to see a camera usage chart that includes more that just a few cameras from two manufacturers, as well as actual performance from well known point and shoot companies in terms of growth and revenue before we start ringing up the undertaker.




RE: Not Convinced
By kraeper on 4/18/2011 2:26:36 PM , Rating: 2
Flickr will show stats from all camera makers. The biggest photo dump is likely Facebook, but they don't track that kind of info, so Flickr has the largest data pool that you can actually access. No statistics are perfect, but for current camera use, Flickr is the best source of info out there. It has nothing to do with P&S sales, just use, so any questions of the death of P&S sales can't even be addressed by Flickr's stats, nor does anyone claim that it can.


RE: Not Convinced
By XSpeedracerX on 4/18/2011 8:40:21 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It has nothing to do with P&S sales, just use, so any questions of the death of P&S sales can't even be addressed by Flickr's stats, nor does anyone claim that it can.


quote:
All that bodes very poorly for traditional camera companies like Eastman Kodak Comp. (EK), Canon Electronics Inc. (CAOEF), and Nikon Corp. (NINOF). Having survived the painful transition from film to digital, they now face yet another round of minimization, this time at the hands of cameraphones. When the dust settles it would be unsurprising if many of these companies only survive as SLR makers, as cameraphones grow to match the capabilities of today's point-and-shoots.


So... I take it you missed this here paragraph at the end declaring the death of the point and shoot market at the hands of the humble iPhone 4 due purely to flickr popularity, hmm?


Why hello there, Ms. Vulcan!
By CrazyBernie on 4/18/2011 12:01:19 PM , Rating: 3
I'd hit on you, but I couldn't help notice that you are using an archaic form of photography that went extinct in the 21st century of Man.




By GTaudiophile on 4/18/2011 12:30:51 PM , Rating: 2
Moar pics of hawt vulcan pls!


RE: Why hello there, Ms. Vulcan!
By amanojaku on 4/18/11, Rating: 0
By quiksilvr on 4/18/2011 11:41:05 AM , Rating: 2
You can't customize a damn thing when taking pictures on the iPhone. Just because you get more functionality on Froyo or HTC Sense doesn't mean its "easier".




By omnicronx on 4/18/2011 11:49:01 AM , Rating: 2
Why do you need too? How much more do you really think you can get out of camera with a tiny lens / sensor with an average pixel count.

I find most of the extra features in the camera on Android completely useless. Not only are the images not that great in the first place being a cell phone camera, most of the things you can do would be better suited for editing after the fact anyways.


Very True
By BSMonitor on 4/18/2011 2:34:15 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
While the EVO clearly has the edge in resolution, we find the iPhone snaps photos a bit faster and has a bit better image processing software. As a result, images from the two phones tend to be roughly comparable, in our experience. However, the iPhone 4's associated software is a bit easier to use than the Android "Froyo" 2.2/HTC Sense combination on the EVO.


iPhone 4's image processing is shockingly fast.




By nafhan on 4/18/2011 2:53:39 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Surprisingly, Android users don't seem to be as on board the trend to ditch the point-and-shoot for the smart phone.
You can talk about Android as a platform, in which case, you'd want to aggregate the data from all the Android phones, or you can talk about specific models, which is what you're doing when you mention that:
quote:
the only Android cameraphone to crack the top five was the HTC EVO 4G
Depending on how many people own the EVO 4G vs. iPhone 4, EVO 4G users might be more likely to upload their photos than iPhone 4 users...




have to wonder...
By kleinma on 4/18/2011 4:36:08 PM , Rating: 2
I didn't look really hard, but I didn't see anywhere that said how they determine the camera that was used for the picture? I would guess they are using exif data from the image files, but couldn't find confirmation on that. Just wondering if the metrics are skewed based on factors they don't consider (like processing the image using an app that may remove some or all exif data) or even the fact that each android model phone likely would tag the image differently and not just say "android" or something along those lines. Since android phones do have different camera hardware, that does make sense, but if you would total the iPhone numbers against all the android numbers, the result may look different...




Cameras and phones
By radium69 on 4/19/2011 7:56:30 PM , Rating: 2
I've owned some cameraphones and some digital camera's.
I have always liked the idea of having a nice camera on my phone and use it often for something interesting.

I used to have a SE W810i 2mp autofocus camera. It made a lot of great pictures with nice colours for that time. But because it's small resolution wasn't too accurate.

After that I owned a SE C905, great camera great value. Makes really nice pictures and almost becomes a replacement for digital p&s cameras. (Made better pictures then my gf's sony cybershot 8mp)

Now I've gone back to Nokia and bought an N8. Picture quality is really good. Colours are accurate, and sharpness is very nice. No signs of any grayness so far. With it's reasonably large cmos??? sensor it does very well. Actually suprised, since it still is a phone camera. Not to mention sound quality, cause it really is awesome. It also records 720p fluently, and does so with great detail, colours and smoothness. So deffinetly a replacement for a digital camera aswell (under 150 USD)

The galaxy S i've owned aswell, but it's picture camera really pisses me off. The phone is alright but the pictures, etc piss me off. Not to mention you need a 2 year contract to get it for "free". No led flash etc and 5mp crappy autofocus and ugly colours... No thanks.

And the Iphones camera? Pf, don't get me started.
DSLR's will never be replaced, especially in the professional business.

Maybe for the person who uploads everything to a crap site and put's it on facebook etc, since detail isn't important there aslong as its a nice 800x450 pic.

Also since the Iphone is popular it's understandable that there are more Iphone "uploads"




captains log
By voodoochile123 on 4/19/2011 8:35:28 PM , Rating: 2
For a geeky tech site, I'm surprised nobody has mentioned the cute Star Trek girl!




Hot Vulcan
By Azethoth on 4/20/2011 4:24:13 AM , Rating: 2
Is it just me or is that Vulcan really really hot? Note to self, look into going to a trek convention.




Why?
By Ushio01 on 4/18/2011 12:22:08 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Android is drastically outselling the iPhone, which makes the iPhone's lead in imaging all the more impressive.


Why is this impressive? there is one iphone but dozens of android phones from each of multiple companies. If they were monitoring operating system or manufacture your comment would make sense as it is they check model so it doesn't.




"I'm an Internet expert too. It's all right to wire the industrial zone only, but there are many problems if other regions of the North are wired." -- North Korean Supreme Commander Kim Jong-il











botimage
Copyright 2013 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki