The one thing Apple understands is photography

[psolberg]

many companies have done the photo play. HTC, nokia, now apple. At this point that ship has sailed. There is no longer a bad camera and all it matters is software, which is not apple dependent as android has basically taken over as the world's most widely use computing platform on earth. larger than windows, OSX, and iOS combined.

so in many ways, apple is simply reacting to what already took place.

 

[RustyTheGeek]

so in many ways, apple is simply reacting to what already took place.

For the most part, that is what Apple has always done. They just market things (already done before) in their elegant cases as their own cool innovations. Then they sue everyone else if they can. It has been a constant spectacle to me as to how Apple achieves this. Release a phone over and over with less features and advantages as the competition and still become a huge product that everyone pays double price for and waits for days in line to buy. Then beat up customers and developers with autocratic restrictions and bullying. And they come back over and over. Astounding.

 

[Click]

The one thing Apple understands is marketing.

+1

 

[Brand B]

It has been a constant spectacle to me as to how Apple achieves this.

It's almost as if you're missing some relevant detail.

 

[Tugela]

Read an interesting article at petapixel with the title above.

http://petapixel.com/2015/08/31/the-one-thing-apple-understands-is-photography/

As a long time Mac user I have also been a long time Aperture user - yes the photography App Apple downgraded with Photo's. So was interested in the sentiment of the article, which is actually very good and gives an interesting strategic view of the frustrating (to me) decision they made.

I probably like many forum members, produce photobooks, as a means of sharing images with friends an family. The image attached is the from and back cover of my last tour book from China. One cover image was shot on a ESO 5D mark 3 the other on an iPhone 5S. The workflow to produce the images is similar except of course I had to increase the size to print 10 by 13 landscape at 300 dpi from the 8MP iPhone image. (On One - perfect resize)

To me this is rapidly becoming the challenge to the traditional DSLR market, if I can shoot like this on a camera phone, share them, with friends and family across the world, and then publish surprisingly good A4 prints, why do I need the bulk of my kit. The back page shows how I travel, not that frequently with the camera slung on the tripod, but you get a sense of size and weight I travel with.

Yes I have GAS, yes I bought a 50mP beast, which is fantastic for a niche I really enjoy, but for more candid captures on the journey maybe a camera phone is becoming credible and could become my go to choice. So the RX100 probably bites the dust, today I wont stop taking a dslr but I do wish I could easily share sunrise photo's with friends in China via We chat (social Media) whilst using the niche features I am invested in - the filters, tripod and manual shutter releases for longer exposures working hard to get the best image I can in Camera. My UK friends will still be in bed.

How much longer will dlsr's remain above embracing integration with mobile phones, the social media world and the apps that make so many things easier to find, do or calculate. I think I need qualify that I don't shoot selfies. period.

The Manfrotto Digital Director seems, at a premium, to do most of this, but why can't Canon produce something which bridges the gap before Apple, et al, finish of killing the photography market to the point of extinction. I don't believe I am the only person hoping that this gets resolved before the dlsr camera market becomes an even more expensive niche.

Fortunately, most us don't need to share pictures with friends in China the moment we take them, so this is not an issue for us (or 99.999% of other real photographers).

Your phone takes pictures. Good for you. You were the market Instamatics catered for. However, it will never ever be able to compete with a proper camera when it comes to IQ and control of the image. It just physically can't.

 

[ChristopherMarkPerez]

Precisely!

I don't care what technical hurdles Canon faces (ie: running the non-network-able, and even harder to build meaningful apps for, VxWorks OS in their DLSRs). They could quickly overcome them if they understood that the image making world has changed. Past tense.

Alas, I'm left feeling that Canon is milking a dying cow.

Sure, the "pro" photographer is getting paid and some of their images in absolute IQ terms beats the pants of mobile phones/tablets... but... after you reach Facebook/Tumblr/Instagram/500PX/Flickr/etc... who cares? Serious question: Who cares?

No one makes prints these days, do they?

And if you happen to make books of your "pro" shot oh-so-damned sacred family/social/dance-club/beer-drinking events I can guarantee you that a 5mpixel tablet photo is hard/impossible to distinguish from images made using your much vaunted and dearly loved hugely expensive DSLR.

I strongly agree that camera manufacturers have hutterly failed their customers. It's sad to watch as I'm as much a gear-head as the next geek, but traditional camera companies will be a fraction of their current size in just a few years (for those who are left standing, that is).

People aren't getting the point.

Camera manufacturers have utterly failed their customers.

Why is it that the only person at a wedding who cannot take a picture of the bride feeding the groom the first slice of wedding cake and have the picture on the bride's Facebook page within a few minutes is the same person who is being paid to take pictures?...

 

[melbournite]

I have a rather simplistic view, and I'm sure it's been said before elsewhere, but Apple has become a different company over the last many years. Gone is the focus on superior products (especially in the area of "pro" software). As an Apple user for the last 5 years (I bought my first Mac solely for the purpose of using Aperture), and having converted completely at home to an Apple ecosystem, it's been a struggle to feel some of the pain of recent with the seeming lackluster zeal around the quality of software releases/bug fixes/features and the decision to shelve Aperture.

However, one has to remember that first and foremost Apple must remain profitable to the shareholders. Somewhere at Apple, they've determined that the best way to stay profitable in the photography segment is to appeal to the masses. The masses have iPhones and secondarily (if at all), P&S cameras. We as the "Pro" and "Enthusiast" DSLR crowd are the minority.

I still hold out a shred of hope that Photos will evolve into something close to or perhaps even better than what Aperture was. In the meantime, I've jumped to Lightroom and learned the curve as quickly as possible as to keep doing what I love, shooting and creating. It's not an awful tool, it's just different.

For what it's worth, those are my two cents.

Greg

Hi Greg, I've done the same as you but I'm still using Aperture along side Lightroom and will continue to as long as possible. I have been disappointed in Apple's decision to discontinue Aperture where 100's of thousand of professional and personal images reside with adjustments (sigh). I agree that Apple must remain profitable to the shareholders but alienating professionals who buy their expensive hardware is not going to be profitable forever, is it? After all, it was professionals who they built their target market on. If I can use Lightroom on a PC for half the price, I might be tempted to switch from Mac at some point.

I too hold a shred of hope that Photos will become powerful like Aperture one day - maybe with their new update allowing third party plugins. How long can we wait and what does Apple expect professionals to do in the meantime - I think they just gave me the middle finger!?

 

[martti]

People aren't getting the point.

Camera manufacturers have utterly failed their customers.

You pretty much summed it up. I do not know what kind of equipment you'd need to get professional quality live coverage from the event directly to the social media but I imagine it would involve a van with a satellite disk and friends in high places. Apple saw the niche and did what it could with the communication infra that is available.
They did see something that others didn't. The world of photography will never be the same again.

Apple does understand photography better than the snotty pixelpeepers of the cyberspace.
Who put a totally usable digital camera on your smartphone? How did they do it?
Could one (any one) of the pixelpeepers achieve a similar feat?

Apple understands photography and they changed it according to their views.
They changed the world on the side as well.

 

[RustyTheGeek]

People aren't getting the point.

Camera manufacturers have utterly failed their customers.

You pretty much summed it up. I do not know what kind of equipment you'd need to get professional quality live coverage from the event directly to the social media but I imagine it would involve a van with a satellite disk and friends in high places. Apple saw the niche and did what it could with the communication infra that is available.
They did see something that others didn't. The world of photography will never be the same again.

Apple does understand photography better than the snotty pixelpeepers of the cyberspace.
Who put a totally usable digital camera on your smartphone? How did they do it?
Could one (any one) of the pixelpeepers achieve a similar feat?

Apple understands photography and they changed it according to their views.
They changed the world on the side as well.

I don't want to start a squabble here but I don't quite understand how Apple gets the credit you lavish on them in the last post. Over the years it has become tiring listening to Apple fans heap undeserving praise on Apple that Apple simply doesn't merit. The only instance where Apple cares about photography is in the few seconds of their advertisements and marketing where they mention the camera as a feature. Where are the photography events, accessories, enthusiast web pages or books? How exactly does Apple demonstrate how they "get" or understand photography or photographers with their smartphone camera? How does Apple use their understanding of photography to help the photographer protect their digital rights to their images?

All Apple does is make products that contain an average decent quality tiny camera.

- Apple didn't invent or revolutionize photography with the smartphone camera. Smartphone cameras were around for years before the iPhone.
- I don't think 'snotty pixelpeepers', whoever they may be, are in the business of smartphone development nor am I or are you. So I think the 'snotty pixelpeepers doing better' statement is unnecessary. How does it reinforce your point? 'Snotty pixelpeepers' tend to criticize/discuss a lot of things about photography, do they not?

Apple didn't change the world with a smartphone camera. Apple's iPhone camera lagged behind other smartphone cameras in the beginning. And the iPhone camera app was criticized for a long time as well. The Apple iPod however did lay waste to all other music players on the market and then the iPod Touch laid the groundwork for the iPhone. But the iPhone itself simply served to shake up the phone market by accelerating the adoption of the previously lackluster touch phone interface.

In fact, most of Apple's achievements are in making huge profits ($720B Net Worth) with impressive marketing (1984) and utilizing a stellar understanding of tapping into customers' desires for technology with unique devices and easy to grasp interfaces that they copied/acquired/etc. Their products are elegant, pretty, smooth to the touch and, amazingly, people line up to pay twice what they're actually worth over and over.

But none of that has anything to do with photography. If Apple was serious about photography, they would have likely partnered with a company like Canon/Nikon/Pentax long ago to build on that understanding and see it grow. They would have a division devoted to photography and various programs to foster photography and support photographers. That hasn't happened.

Apple has always been about selling fancy elegant overpriced devices running within a closed system that promotes buying a lot of expensive online content. That is the true achievement of Apple, becoming a huge company worth hundreds of billions of dollars by selling a ton of expensive items/content and using their wealth and power to acquire and sue for even more wealth and power. And they've been like that since almost the beginning.

Do some research and discover when/where the first smartphone emerged (Simon). And cameraphone (JPhone). In fact, the more you dig, the more you will discover that Apple typically has taken technology that already existed, successful or not, and refined it then marketed it in a more appealing and useful way. And that is to be applauded. But rarely has Apple done the actual invention of most of their "innovations".

Photography to Apple is just another feature used to sell iPhones. Period.

 

[Don Haines]

People aren't getting the point.

Camera manufacturers have utterly failed their customers.

You pretty much summed it up. I do not know what kind of equipment you'd need to get professional quality live coverage from the event directly to the social media but I imagine it would involve a van with a satellite disk and friends in high places. Apple saw the niche and did what it could with the communication infra that is available.
They did see something that others didn't. The world of photography will never be the same again.

Apple does understand photography better than the snotty pixelpeepers of the cyberspace.
Who put a totally usable digital camera on your smartphone? How did they do it?
Could one (any one) of the pixelpeepers achieve a similar feat?

Apple understands photography and they changed it according to their views.
They changed the world on the side as well.

I don't want to start a squabble here but I don't quite understand how Apple gets the credit you lavish on them in the last post. Over the years it has become tiring listening to Apple fans heap undeserving praise on Apple that Apple simply doesn't merit. The only instance where Apple cares about photography is in the few seconds of their advertisements and marketing where they mention the camera as a feature. Where are the photography events, accessories, enthusiast web pages or books? How exactly does Apple demonstrate how they "get" or understand photography or photographers with their smartphone camera? How does Apple use their understanding of photography to help the photographer protect their digital rights to their images?

All Apple does is make products that contain an average decent quality tiny camera.

- Apple didn't invent or revolutionize photography with the smartphone camera. Smartphone cameras were around for years before the iPhone.
- I don't think 'snotty pixelpeepers', whoever they may be, are in the business of smartphone development nor am I or are you. So I think the 'snotty pixelpeepers doing better' statement is unnecessary. How does it reinforce your point? 'Snotty pixelpeepers' tend to criticize/discuss a lot of things about photography, do they not?

Apple didn't change the world with a smartphone camera. Apple's iPhone camera lagged behind other smartphone cameras in the beginning. And the iPhone camera app was criticized for a long time as well. The Apple iPod however did lay waste to all other music players on the market and then the iPod Touch laid the groundwork for the iPhone. But the iPhone itself simply served to shake up the phone market by accelerating the adoption of the previously lackluster touch phone interface.

In fact, most of Apple's achievements are in making huge profits ($720B Net Worth) with impressive marketing (1984) and utilizing a stellar understanding of tapping into customers' desires for technology with unique devices and easy to grasp interfaces that they copied/acquired/etc. Their products are elegant, pretty, smooth to the touch and, amazingly, people line up to pay twice what they're actually worth over and over.

But none of that has anything to do with photography. If Apple was serious about photography, they would have likely partnered with a company like Canon/Nikon/Pentax long ago to build on that understanding and see it grow. They would have a division devoted to photography and various programs to foster photography and support photographers. That hasn't happened.

Apple has always been about selling fancy elegant overpriced devices running within a closed system that promotes buying a lot of expensive online content. That is the true achievement of Apple, becoming a huge company worth hundreds of billions of dollars by selling a ton of expensive items/content and using their wealth and power to acquire and sue for even more wealth and power. And they've been like that since almost the beginning.

Do some research and discover when/where the first smartphone emerged (Simon). And cameraphone (JPhone). In fact, the more you dig, the more you will discover that Apple typically has taken technology that already existed, successful or not, and refined it then marketed it in a more appealing and useful way. And that is to be applauded. But rarely has Apple done the actual invention of most of their "innovations".

Photography to Apple is just another feature used to sell iPhones. Period.

+1!

 

[Chuck Alaimo]

hire a second (or third) shooter just for that task.

That's an interesting strategy. Do any wedding photographers do this:

-Have one shooter doing the more traditional types of shots for the album, prints and such
-Have one shooter doing the JPEG-upload in real time to facebook/Social media?

I am not sure a bride will pay extra for the second, but you never know what a bride will want to pay for... or for someone else to pay for.

Let's try this again.

The point is very simple: In a world where connectivity is ubiquitous, ALL camera manufacturers have failed miserably in integrating connectivity to their devices. And, in doing so, they have placed professional photographers as a competitive disadvantage.

Yeah, there are workarounds. You can hire someone to take your filled cards and process a few images on a laptop while you shoot. But, the point is, you shouldn't have to rely on work arounds.

There is no legitimate reason why cameras should not connect as easily to the internet as phones do. There is no reason at all that cameras should not have better tools for editing and adjusting images in-camera with an interface that is not just as good as a smart phone, but better.

No reason at all, except that the manufacturers have been lazy, cheap and clueless about the marketplace.

I presume that every photographer wants to build their business. Acutance, can you honestly tell me that at a wedding with 300 guests, you see absolutely no marketing value in being able to quickly find just five pictures you've shot, do sufficient editing to make them look good on the web, add your logo and upload those pictures to the bride's Facebook/Instagram/Twitter Feed before the end of the reception, so that there is a wave of people at the reception "liking" and sharing the photos and commenting on how great the bride looks? Guests sharing the pictures with their friends and relatives who are planning to get married? -- all before they leave for the night?

I presume that most wedding work comes from referrals from happy customers. Those five pictures are going to be seen by hundreds more people than will ever see the bride's wedding album. Is there no value to you to be able to have access to the potential customers that night, while they are all excited and their sales resistance has been lowered by the free bar? Those potential customers will have no trouble remembering who you are or finding you that night, because you are that guy with the good camera who has been shooting pictures all day.

I'm not just talking about wedding photography. As I said, photojournalists are handicapped by this lack of connectivity. Sports photographers (unless they shoot for the professional teams and can both afford expensive, complicated work arounds and also lock out amateur competition through restricted access) would also benefit from being able to send or post a few pictures during halftime without needing anything but their camera and maybe a personal hotspot from their phone. There are many others as well.

Yeah, as I said before, it's more of a benefit to professionals than amateurs who aren't under any time constraint to deliver a product. But, Canon, Nikon and Sony all claim to cater to the professional market, when they clearly have failed in this regard.

That's the point that the article and linked video are making.

And frankly, it's a heck of a lot more important that 1/4 stop of dynamic range that gets obsessed over constantly.

Ok, feeling the need to chime in here. I shoot weddings and have had 2 bride's request unplugged ceremonies. This isn't the norm, but, it is a trend that is growing in popularity. Afterall, the guest at a wedding is there to have fun, not document the day. Many bride's do want their guests involved in the moment, not documenting it behind a camera.


As to instant uploads, and the deluge of blurry cell phone shots - this doesn't bother me one bit. I actually giggle when I see them because I know my shots are so much better that it isn't a contest.

More times than not the bride doesn't even have her phone with her for the day, she leaves it at the hotel. The groom does, but, many grooms of mine either aren't on facebook, or, use it so rarely that it they don't see it. Many bride's and grooms have their privacy settings set so tagged shots don't even appear on their page, they have to manually allow it to appear, something they aren't doing on their wedding day.

I do own a 6 as a backup, and how many times have I rushed to do the WiFi connect to upload a shot? 0 times.

As others have pointed out, not many bride's out there ask for instant uploads. They spent a ton of money on good photography and understand that it takes time. The only big rush I get from bride's is if they want a few images for thank you cards, and those are usually specific shots that are easy to find, or, even set up for that (ex: bride and groom holding a thank you sign).

S, for wedding shooters, im pretty sure i speak for most of us in saying connectivety on camera doesn't even make the wish list of features we want. AF, good glass, sturdy and dependable, decent ISO range, off camera flash capabilities, IQ, and yes DR -- these are the things that make or break a camera system for us.

As to one of the specific references - the cake cutting/feeding, at that stage of the day you've been shooting for what, 4-7 hours already. The cake gets cut then your rushing to cover the speaches, after that it's dinner time. At that point are you thinking, quick gotta find something to upload, or, are you more likely thinking my hand needs a break, my legs need a break and my body needs fuel aka food.

 

[Don Haines]

If Apple understood photography:

The standard camera ap would have a manual mode.....

A decent editor would be included as standard......

The files would not be stored under such heavy compression....

 

[unfocused]

People aren't getting the point.

Camera manufacturers have utterly failed their customers.

You pretty much summed it up. I do not know what kind of equipment you'd need to get professional quality live coverage from the event directly to the social media but I imagine it would involve a van with a satellite disk and friends in high places. Apple saw the niche and did what it could with the communication infra that is available.

They did see something that others didn't. The world of photography will never be the same again.

I don't care what technical hurdles Canon faces (ie: running the non-network-able, and even harder to build meaningful apps for, VxWorks OS in their DLSRs). They could quickly overcome them if they understood that the image making world has changed. Past tense.

Alas, I'm left feeling that Canon is milking a dying cow.

Sure, the "pro" photographer is getting paid and some of their images in absolute IQ terms beats the pants of mobile phones/tablets... but... after you reach Facebook/Tumblr/Instagram/500PX/Flickr/etc... who cares? Serious question: Who cares?...

I strongly agree that camera manufacturers have utterly failed their customers. It's sad to watch as I'm as much a gear-head as the next geek, but traditional camera companies will be a fraction of their current size in just a few years (for those who are left standing, that is).

I'm honestly surprised at the resistance to this simple and self-evident fact.

Imagine what the amateur point and shoot market would look like today if Canon, Nikon, etc., had awoken from their deep sleep when smartphones first surfaced and started immediately perfecting and producing small point and shoots that offered simple, easy connectivity, editing and sharing?

The conventional wisdom says that camera phones killed the point and shoot market because people always carry their phones with them. But, we will never know what might have happened if consumers had had access to a small point and shoot that had the same or better functionality and connectivity than their phones. People act as though consumers were satisfied with the poor picture quality of early smart phones, but clearly that wasn't the case, as the quality has improved dramatically in the last few years. Why? Because phone manufacturers found that improved picture quality sold phones.

Unfortunately, none of the major camera manufacturers figured out the corresponding corollary – that connectivity would sell cameras.

I respect the professionals who say their customers aren't asking for pictures to be immediately posted on social media. On the other hand, they may not be asking for it because they can't find a photographer who offers it. It's hard to request something that you can't have. I get why photographers are resistant to the idea. It's a pain in the rear. But, it's a pain in the rear largely because camera manufacturers have refused to make it simple.

The truth is, the world is changing and if the demand isn't there today, it will be there tomorrow. I strongly suspect that five years from now, the same people who say their customers don't want this will either be routinely offering this service or be out of business.

The rumor is that the next model of the 1Dx will have internet connectivity. I certainly hope it does. That will be a small sign that the lazy, backward industry is finally waking up to the realities of the 21st century.

 

[Chuck Alaimo]

People aren't getting the point.

Camera manufacturers have utterly failed their customers.

You pretty much summed it up. I do not know what kind of equipment you'd need to get professional quality live coverage from the event directly to the social media but I imagine it would involve a van with a satellite disk and friends in high places. Apple saw the niche and did what it could with the communication infra that is available.

They did see something that others didn't. The world of photography will never be the same again.

I don't care what technical hurdles Canon faces (ie: running the non-network-able, and even harder to build meaningful apps for, VxWorks OS in their DLSRs). They could quickly overcome them if they understood that the image making world has changed. Past tense.

Alas, I'm left feeling that Canon is milking a dying cow.

Sure, the "pro" photographer is getting paid and some of their images in absolute IQ terms beats the pants of mobile phones/tablets... but... after you reach Facebook/Tumblr/Instagram/500PX/Flickr/etc... who cares? Serious question: Who cares?...

I strongly agree that camera manufacturers have utterly failed their customers. It's sad to watch as I'm as much a gear-head as the next geek, but traditional camera companies will be a fraction of their current size in just a few years (for those who are left standing, that is).

I'm honestly surprised at the resistance to this simple and self-evident fact.

Imagine what the amateur point and shoot market would look like today if Canon, Nikon, etc., had awoken from their deep sleep when smartphones first surfaced and started immediately perfecting and producing small point and shoots that offered simple, easy connectivity, editing and sharing?

The conventional wisdom says that camera phones killed the point and shoot market because people always carry their phones with them. But, we will never know what might have happened if consumers had had access to a small point and shoot that had the same or better functionality and connectivity than their phones. People act as though consumers were satisfied with the poor picture quality of early smart phones, but clearly that wasn't the case, as the quality has improved dramatically in the last few years. Why? Because phone manufacturers found that improved picture quality sold phones.

Unfortunately, none of the major camera manufacturers figured out the corresponding corollary – that connectivity would sell cameras.

I respect the professionals who say their customers aren't asking for pictures to be immediately posted on social media. On the other hand, they may not be asking for it because they can't find a photographer who offers it. It's hard to request something that you can't have. I get why photographers are resistant to the idea. It's a pain in the rear. But, it's a pain in the rear largely because camera manufacturers have refused to make it simple.

The truth is, the world is changing and if the demand isn't there today, it will be there tomorrow. I strongly suspect that five years from now, the same people who say their customers don't want this will either be routinely offering this service or be out of business.

The rumor is that the next model of the 1Dx will have internet connectivity. I certainly hope it does. That will be a small sign that the lazy, backward industry is finally waking up to the realities of the 21st century.

I partially agree with you at the consumer level, for point and shoot basic connectivity to WiFi would help sales, somewhat. It's the. I convenience factor that cell phones provide though, unless you commit to having a full sized camera as your phone though I don't see the market demanding full cell phone capabilities simply because it's still redundant. Why carry 2 devices when 1 can cover most of the bases for most people. So while WiFi in point & shoots may help sales, it won't stop their demise.

I still disagree on the pro/semi pro level, at least in the wedding world, maybe not in totality but for enough bride's quality is valued over speed of sharing. Think teachers, there are a lot of them and the morality clauses in there contract isn't going away. Teachers mostly are either not on social media at all, or are very private, so for that whole class of people alone instant sharing on the wedding day isn't wanted or desired. Either way, there are enough bride's out there with varied tastes and needs that I really don't see it as an issue.

 

[cayenne]

People aren't getting the point.

Camera manufacturers have utterly failed their customers.

You pretty much summed it up. I do not know what kind of equipment you'd need to get professional quality live coverage from the event directly to the social media but I imagine it would involve a van with a satellite disk and friends in high places. Apple saw the niche and did what it could with the communication infra that is available.

They did see something that others didn't. The world of photography will never be the same again.

I don't care what technical hurdles Canon faces (ie: running the non-network-able, and even harder to build meaningful apps for, VxWorks OS in their DLSRs). They could quickly overcome them if they understood that the image making world has changed. Past tense.

Alas, I'm left feeling that Canon is milking a dying cow.

Sure, the "pro" photographer is getting paid and some of their images in absolute IQ terms beats the pants of mobile phones/tablets... but... after you reach Facebook/Tumblr/Instagram/500PX/Flickr/etc... who cares? Serious question: Who cares?...

I strongly agree that camera manufacturers have utterly failed their customers. It's sad to watch as I'm as much a gear-head as the next geek, but traditional camera companies will be a fraction of their current size in just a few years (for those who are left standing, that is).

I'm honestly surprised at the resistance to this simple and self-evident fact.

Imagine what the amateur point and shoot market would look like today if Canon, Nikon, etc., had awoken from their deep sleep when smartphones first surfaced and started immediately perfecting and producing small point and shoots that offered simple, easy connectivity, editing and sharing?

The conventional wisdom says that camera phones killed the point and shoot market because people always carry their phones with them. But, we will never know what might have happened if consumers had had access to a small point and shoot that had the same or better functionality and connectivity than their phones. People act as though consumers were satisfied with the poor picture quality of early smart phones, but clearly that wasn't the case, as the quality has improved dramatically in the last few years. Why? Because phone manufacturers found that improved picture quality sold phones.

Unfortunately, none of the major camera manufacturers figured out the corresponding corollary – that connectivity would sell cameras.

I respect the professionals who say their customers aren't asking for pictures to be immediately posted on social media. On the other hand, they may not be asking for it because they can't find a photographer who offers it. It's hard to request something that you can't have. I get why photographers are resistant to the idea. It's a pain in the rear. But, it's a pain in the rear largely because camera manufacturers have refused to make it simple.

The truth is, the world is changing and if the demand isn't there today, it will be there tomorrow. I strongly suspect that five years from now, the same people who say their customers don't want this will either be routinely offering this service or be out of business.

The rumor is that the next model of the 1Dx will have internet connectivity. I certainly hope it does. That will be a small sign that the lazy, backward industry is finally waking up to the realities of the 21st century.

And...maybe social media, isn't the end all / be all of most people over the age of 14yrs?


cayenne

 

[unfocused]

And...maybe social media, isn't the end all / be all of most people over the age of 14yrs?


cayenne

Pretty funny coming from a guy who posts cooking videos on You Tube.

 

[unfocused]

I still disagree on the pro/semi pro level, at least in the wedding world, maybe not in totality but for enough bride's quality is valued over speed of sharing...Either way, there are enough bride's out there with varied tastes and needs that I really don't see it as an issue.

I get what you are saying and I respect that you know the business far better than I do. (I think I would sooner shoot myself than go into wedding photography.)

I've probably beat the dead horse sufficiently. I still feel that camera manufacturers (not just Canon) have really blown it as far as connectivity to the internet goes. Most of the arguments against this point of view seem driven by anti-social media bias and a lot of sticking heads in the sand. (not necessarily you.) "It's only for 14 year olds...the pictures are all crappy...camera phones are worthless...etc. etc."

I simply find it ridiculous that in this day and age we can spend $1,000, $2,000 or even $6,000 on a camera and it can't readily connect to the internet or at least wirelessly connect to an internet enabled device. I think that closes off options for photographers and has a much more significant impact on the ability of photographers who do this for a living, than a half-stop of dynamic range ever will.

 

[Don Haines]

At the top of the pro level, things like WiFi streaming of pictures is great.... When you are shooting at the Olympics, the pictures can be streamed as you take them back to the control room where the team of photo editors can manipulate them and send them off to the appropriate media....

The thing is, very very very few people have that team behind them. Yes, a wedding shooter can stream the pictures off into the cloud as they shoot, but there they sit until the wedding is over, they drive home, collapse Saturday night into bed, wake up the next morning, go shoot the Sunday wedding, get back home and collapse again, wake up Monday morning, have breakfast, and then go tackle the editing....

Off I go on my canoe trip into Algonquin Park.... I shoot a couple thousand pictures.... IF! (and it is very unlikely) I have connectivity to the internet and if I can stream my pictures out as I shoot them, Who is going to edit them or post them? Fluffy?

Yes, you can take a phone, shoot pictures, and post them onto the internet is a matter of seconds..... but WITHOUT EDITING!!!! The editing is an integral part of real photography and no 5 inch display is going to take the place of a couple of quality monitors and good software. We are talking apples and oranges here..... Phones and DSLRs are both cameras, but they are used for different purposes with different requirements. When you need to dump something out fast without editing, use your phone.... When you need to process it, do it right on a decent computer... A real pro will use the right tool for the task at hand.

 

[RustyTheGeek]

For everyone saying that the camera industry is way behind and should offer connectivity from DSLRs to the cloud...

Eye-Fi
http://www.eyefi.com/

Eye-Fi has been around for years (among other similar implementations). It works in just about any camera. And many cameras have supported Eye-Fi cards directly right in their camera menus for years. It's right there, ready to connect to the Internet, Cloud, Social Media or just a nearby phone, tablet or computer. So how many photographers ever use it??

And why would Canon (et al.) re-invent the wheel? The problem is solved with less expense that a dedicated OEM Canon solution that is still waiting to be updated. So they added Eye-Fi support to the camera and thought everyone was happy. Am I missing something?

I've owned an Eye-Fi myself for years and while I use it here in the office from time to time to go directly to my network and server, I have never posted directly to social media for a multitude of reasons but mostly because of what Don says... I want to sort, cull and edit the images before the whole world sees what a terrible photographer I am until I fix all my screw ups!

 

[unfocused]

For everyone saying that the camera industry is way behind and should offer connectivity from DSLRs to the cloud...

Eye-Fi
http://www.eyefi.com/

Yes. How foolish of me. I shouldn't expect camera manufacturers to actually make connectivity easy. I should just buy an overpriced, clunky third-party product.

Better yet, why do we even need these stupid digital cameras? Instead we should just shoot film and send the film in to have it developed and scanned. And, autofocus. That's for amateurs. You can't be a real photographer if you don't focus your lenses manually.

I see the light now. I shouldn't expect camera manufacturers to actually make their products easier to use.

I'm just an ingrate who doesn't appreciate that Canon and Nikon have better things to do than bring their cameras into the 21st century.

The thing is, very very very few people have that team behind them...

...The editing is an integral part of real photography and no 5 inch display is going to take the place of a couple of quality monitors and good software...A real pro will use the right tool for the task at hand.

You are actually making my point for me Don. The problem is that you do have to have a full team behind you today...because manufacturers refuse to make it easy, even though the technology is readily available.

As far as editing goes...

http://www.adobe.com/products/lightroom-mobile.html

So, the solution might not be in-camera editing. Maybe its near-field communication to transfer selected files to a tablet where you can access Lightroom or Photoshop to edit images on the go.

Sorry, I just don't get the resistance to technology that people are expressing on this geek forum.