Canon will release an RF mount ‘vlogging’ camera in 2022 [CR3]

[Del Paso]

As you said, the buying behavior for cameras changed in the last 15 years.

15 years ago a lot of people (me included) weren't spending that much money in their (smart)phones. Therefore impulse purchases for "real" cameras were far more likely.

Nowadays smartphone cameras are so good that only an decreasing(!) number of people are willing to spend their money in additional "traditional" cameras. These people are more aware of what they need and what they buy regarding photography. If you already have spent 800€ (or even more) in your iPhone13 you are well aware that spending only 500€ in a camera (with kit lens) won't give you much (or even no) advantage to your smartphone!

M isn't dying because of the R system. It is dying because it cannot evolve with time.
It is limited to small, cheap, light which was good enough while (smart)phone cameras were also limited. But this is not enough to compete with increasingly powerful smartphone cameras nowadays and in the future.

For nearly every photographing subject you will also find very good smartphone examples nowadays. The big advantages of traditional cameras are better tracking capabilities of fast moving subjects with higher burst speed and more reach (tele lenses). Especially everything combined as in sports and wildlife photography.

M never offered this nor probably(!) will.
R does and will also do in the future.

This is my OPINION (based on facts).

Based on YOUR "facts".

 

[Skyscraperfan]

Each smartphone camera I saw so far has horrible image quality, if you reall pixel peep. Of course on a 1920x1080 screen on a notebook those images will always look great and on Instagram even more, but if you look at those photos at pixel level, you will see a huge difference to even the cheapest DSLR with an APS-C sensor.

I can't understand why smartphones are considered as serious cameras by some people. Smartphones are more a lifestyle product with a lot of compromises. While computational photography sometimes might improve a photo a lot, imagine how good it would look if you applied those same algorithms to a full frame photo.

Why uuse a smartphone, if a real camera would allow you to get so much more light onto your sensor? Diffraction is a huge problem from a certain f-stop and it gets worse the smaller the sensor is. Those smartphone also cheat a lot when it comes to specs. No smartphone has an f/2 lens. A full frame f/2 lens already is an f/2.8 or so at APS-C and it gets worse and worse the smaller it gets. So a tiny smartphone might have an f/10 or f/14 lens with all its downsides. Those smartphones need to apply very aggressive noise reduction algorithms and that become very visible if you look at the 100% version of a smartphone photo.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

I can't understand why smartphones are considered as serious cameras by some people.

Most people do not need serious cameras.
The point and shoot market has been what the camera companies are claiming sales declines can be attributed to.

 

[koenkooi]

[..]I can't understand why smartphones are considered as serious cameras by some people. [..]

I'm in the "the best camera is the one that you have with you" camp. For a lot of situations bringing a 'proper' camera isn't practical and having *a* picture is better than having no picture.

As an anecdote: when my eldest was born, I put an EOS-M10 in the hospital bag and took some pictures. When my youngest was born I only brought my phone. There is a huge gap in image quality, but I have more and more interesting pictures from the phone, as well as had less stress when taking them. The phone can be dropped on a hard floor and still work, the M10 would just explode into tiny bits.

And there's a niche where recent phones do astronomically better than dedicated cameras: night mode. Handheld 3-second exposures that have a lot less motion blur that you'd expect and great colours.

And like you say a bit later in your post, it would be nice if we'd be able to use the same computational magic on our dedicated cameras, if only to watch the reactions here to having both distortion and artistic correction available

 

[Skyscraperfan]

What I do not like about smartphones is that they are optimized for being very flat and light. I wish there was at least something like the "Galaxy Camera" still available. Something that is still small enough to carry it with you at all times, but much thicker than a phone ans with a much larger sensor. I hate sacrificing image quality just because the smartphone manufacturer is proud of building a very slim phone. I am glad that there at least is a trend towards camera bumps getting bigger again. That is a step into the right direction.

Also many people pay a lot of additional money for a high end smartphone with a better camera. I wish they invested that additional money into a real camera. That could last for much longer than a phone that many people replace after two years. I still use my DSLR from 2013 today. So next year it gets ten years old and still has a superb image quality.

 

[lote82]

Based on YOUR "facts".

At least better than based on YOUR farts.

 

[SnowMiku]

I can't understand why smartphones are considered as serious cameras by some people. Smartphones are more a lifestyle product with a lot of compromises. While computational photography sometimes might improve a photo a lot, imagine how good it would look if you applied those same algorithms to a full frame photo.

The reason why people use smartphones for photography is because they are light weight, easy to use, decent image quality, always in your pocket ready to go and you can upload to social media very quickly. It doesn't matter to them if the APS-C or Full Frame looks better at 100%. For lots of people the compromises and the loss of IQ of the smart phone is well worth it for the convenience.

I don't think I've pixel peeped with my current smartphone photos on my PC but it will be interesting to see the difference.

 

[SnowMiku]

Why uuse a smartphone, if a real camera would allow you to get so much more light onto your sensor? Diffraction is a huge problem from a certain f-stop and it gets worse the smaller the sensor is. Those smartphone also cheat a lot when it comes to specs. No smartphone has an f/2 lens. A full frame f/2 lens already is an f/2.8 or so at APS-C and it gets worse and worse the smaller it gets. So a tiny smartphone might have an f/10 or f/14 lens with all its downsides. Those smartphones need to apply very aggressive noise reduction algorithms and that become very visible if you look at the 100% version of a smartphone photo.

The depth of field issue is addressed with AI. My phone has a lens that simulates a shallow depth of field, you can also change the focus after you take the shot which is pretty cool.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Why uuse a smartphone, if a real camera would allow you to get so much more light onto your sensor?

How do you define 'real camera'? Why use a FF camera, when a large format digital back allows you to get so much more light onto your sensor? The LargeSense LS45 camera has ~25x larger area than a FF sensor, that's double the ~12x difference between the new iPhone 14 Pro's sensor and a FF sensor.

The reason is compromise.

 

[Del Paso]

At least better than based on YOUR farts.

You just won the prize for most stupid post of the year...

 

[Skyscraperfan]

How do you define 'real camera'? Why use a FF camera, when a large format digital back allows you to get so much more light onto your sensor? The LargeSense LS45 camera has ~25x larger area than a FF sensor, that's double the ~12x difference between the new iPhone 14 Pro's sensor and a FF sensor.

The reason is compromise.

Of course cameras are always compromises, but a compromise usually is something in the middle of the spectrum and not at the extrem low end with the smallest possible sensor. A full frame is pretty much a compromise between very heavy and for most of us unffordable cameras and a smartphone.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Of course cameras are always compromises, but a compromise usually is something in the middle of the spectrum and not at the extrem low end with the smallest possible sensor. A full frame is pretty much a compromise between very heavy and for most of us unffordable cameras and a smartphone.

Similarly, a smartphone is a compromise between a dedicated camera kit one must make an effort to carry at one extreme and no camera at all at the other extreme. For most people, a cell phone is always with them… and cameras are one of the main areas in which smartphones have been improving year over year.

 

[stevelee]

After adding an M6II to my cart, it occurred to me that I’ve also got an EOS R that I am planning to sell, and an RF 24-240 on that would also be a possibility for my oldest. So I put the M18-150 on the M6 and the RF 24-105/4 (not too different from the 24-240) on the R and asked her preference.

Turned out her preference was just to swap with her sister and use a P&S for simplicity and pocketability. Best laid plans and all that…

About 3 years ago I decided to replace my G7X II. The G7X III had come out, but it made advances in areas not so relevant to me. I went to Best Buy and looked at the M50. It seemed like a nice camera in a convenient size and price. But I decided that for travel I still preferred a camera that would fit in my jacket or pants pocket, and bought a G5X II. That worked out great for me for the trip to Italy and a Mediterranean cruise I did that fall. I took 3000 pictures with it. My only disappointment with it was some basketball video I shot this summer. The autofocus fished around too much at the beginning of shots. I should have just focused manually on a rim and depended upon the depth of field in the small lens to keep everything sharp enough. Also, extended 4K time cause overheating. I thought, great, I could have the 5R experience for thousands of dollars less. So I shot some of the video with my iPhone while the camera cooled off. But for stills, I have no complaints. So I can see where the daughter was coming from.

I am still favorably disposed toward the M system, but can’t come up with a usage case to buy one. If I’m going to be closer to home and traveling by car, then my DSLR is handy enough.

 

[Johnw]

on a 1920x1080 screen on a notebook those images will always look great and on Instagram even more

Right.

I can't understand why smartphones are considered as serious cameras by some people.

Didn't you just answer why that is? If they only care about viewing the pictures on Instagram or a notebook display, maybe that's all they need.

 

[stevelee]

Some folks spend a lot of money upgrading their phone to get a better camera. If I want a better camera, I buy a new camera and keep my 2020 generation iPhone SE. At least in Apple’s line, to get the best camera, you get a humongous phone. I want a phone that fits in my shirt pocket. I don’t use the charging cradle in my car that much, but I doubt the Super Pro Max phone would fit anyway.

 

[koenkooi]

[..]I want a phone that fits in my shirt pocket. [..]

Since I started selecting shirts to be able to fit a Kindle, I noticed that it isn't so much the size that makes keeping a phone in your shirt pocket annoying, it's the weight and grip. Bend over slightly and that glass and metal brick will come sliding out at warp speed!