1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. REMINDER

    Any content, information, or advice found on social media platforms and the wider Internet, including forums such as AP, should NOT be acted upon unless checked against a reliable, authoritative source, and re-checked, particularly where personal health is at stake. Seek professional advice/confirmation before acting on such at all times.

I would like help with my camera project.

Discussion in 'The Lounge' started by Beeblebob, Sep 23, 2020.

  1. PeteRob

    PeteRob Well-Known Member

    There are two sides to this. Reduce the cost of production so as to increase margin. Reduce the specification, cutting costs to reduce sales price and increase volume.

    Traditionally the market has been tiered with low price/low specification cameras aimed at growing the customer base who then move on to higher specification and higher price "enthusiast" cameras. The market is topped with "professional" cameras which are built as working tools rather than delicate objects to be cosseted.

    This has been disrupted by smartphones. Arguably people "need" a smartphone more than they "need" a camera. If the phone provides an adequate camera facility, ideally tuned to what people today want to do, which is immediately send the results elsewhere, then that destroys a large part of the stand alone camera customer base. We have seen that has decimated the compact camera market.

    It is also making large inroads into the market for the next tier of "beginner" cameras. Given multi-lenses, digital zoom, in-phone cropping and processing the photographic ambitions of most of those who in previous generations would have bought an SLR with a couple of lenses and had the film developed and printed on the high street, are met by what they "have to have in their pocket" to make phone calls, surf the internet, participate in social media etc. Why buy twice?

    As a result the market is moving focus more toward the enthusiast and professional market than the beginner. The entry is not neglected but the type of customer is different. It is no longer those who want a camera because that is the only way to have pictures of quality that meet the expectation/needs of the majority.

    We also see a technology change.

    Mirrorless cameras are (we assume) less costly to make than DSLRs because the mechanical bits are fewer. In the last 2/3 years with the advent of on-sensor phase detection autofocus they are very capable. As electronic viewfinders get better they are arguably more flexible than DSLRs as they give accurate exposure preview.

    Because the manufacturers are now largely chasing a smaller, more enthusiast market, pricing is upward. Manufacturers have to increase margin to maintain profit on smaller turnover. There has been such a development push in the last years that the costs of this have to be recovered.

    It is early days and it remains to be seen how the market might react.

    It might seem outrageous to launch the Canon R5 at £4,200 (body only). For comparison I paid £3,700 (body only) back in 2012 for a Canon camera specifically because it had good AF.
     
    Beeblebob likes this.
  2. Beeblebob

    Beeblebob Member

    Thank you very much. This is REALLY useful! I suspect cameras will survive though. Think how much people take pictures for social media. Also, the “camera” on phones is one of the biggest selling point, and producers emphasise the updates to the camera each year. But, I think in the future, cameras will be malformed, and will have changed to be unrecognisable. Perhaps everyone will just have discs in their eyes that can record what they want straight to their brain, like a hard drive. Who knows?
     
  3. Beeblebob

    Beeblebob Member

    Thanks a lot. I was looking for similar statistics to this, this is helpful. However, apparently the most popular phone is the iPhone 7. Is that true? Do you know what the most popular camera phone is if not?
     
  4. Beeblebob

    Beeblebob Member

    From what I’ve found out, a large drawing point to camera phones is the fact that you can save thousands of pictures instantly, and don’t need to connect to computers or anything else, you technically just need a phone. Also, it seems to be that the phone manufacturers are trying to keep consumers away from higher tier cameras, by making the phone cameras more and more “capable”.
     
  5. RovingMike

    RovingMike Crucifixion's a doddle...

    Well if you look back at the digi compacts of the turn of the century, they tried a lot of more ergonomic, innovative and arty designs. It looked like the way things would go, when released from the need to have a spool on one side and a crank on the other and viewfinder in between. But then it all veered back to conventional and retro designs.

    [​IMG]
     
    Beeblebob likes this.
  6. PeteRob

    PeteRob Well-Known Member

    Very true. That's what most people want.

    I'm a minority that likes using a camera. People like me buy cameras and lenses and photographic stuff.

    I've have on my computer 22,496 digital images taken since 2007 - so less than 2,000 a year (this year being a bit odd) but that is a lot more than when I used film.

    Although I have a smartphone it is an old one, runs no Apps anymore (too old), serves me to get texts mostly and occasionally functions as a phone (although reception is rubbish as is the battery life).
     
    Beeblebob likes this.
  7. Chester AP

    Chester AP Well-Known Member

    Since this is a 'technology' project, it would be helpful to clarify exactly what this means to those of us no longer at school and probably with a very vague idea of what it entails. When I fist used black and white film, for example, I was doing Physics and Chemistry GCSE, and with further reading could understand what was going on when light hit the chemical emulsion on the film, and how the developer chemicals reacted with the silver salts in the exposed film emulsion. Also, since the old camera I used was entirely mechanical, I could appreciate how its controls changed various setting on the camera body and lens to allow the correct amount if light to reach the film emulsion (the 'exposure' required). However, it was also possible to use a very basic 'point and shoot' camera that typically had only two settings ('sunny' and 'cloudy') that usually gave reasonable results if used carefully, without any knowledge of what was going on.

    I suspect that, for the people filling in your survey, a modern smartphone is the current version of the 'point and shoot' camera of many years ago, but it costs much more and is far more complex. Also, it is entirely software dependant and its only 'mechanical' parts may be the lens and shutter behind it. What is lacks is a simple way to adjust the things that can change how the recorded image looks, unlike the mechanical controls of an old-fashioned mechanical camera.
     
    Beeblebob likes this.
  8. Terrywoodenpic

    Terrywoodenpic Well-Known Member

    Over time more Iphone7's have been sold not so much that they are the best, because they are not. but because they were on the market for so long. The latest cameras are several generations ahead
    My Huawei P20 pro has 3 leica cameras on board, and the option of raw and full manual control.
     
    Beeblebob likes this.
  9. John Farrell

    John Farrell Well-Known Member

    I wouldn't use a phone for photography - I would need to be wearing reading glasses to see the screen clearly. I prefer a camera with a viewfinder, especially since my Canon digitals both have diopter adjustment in the viewfinder.
     
    Beeblebob likes this.
  10. RogerMac

    RogerMac Well-Known Member

    Perhaps we should define.which DSLR s we are using for the comparison, there is the world of difference between a cramped pentamirror and a good pentaprism viewfinder.
     
    Beeblebob likes this.
  11. Beeblebob

    Beeblebob Member

    You may already have heard this, but The person who invented the fist proper digital camera could have let it record thousands of photos, but people weren’t ready for numbers like that. Instead, I think he chose a number around 36? But he knew that the general public didn’t like to move too quickly. People like to think they are radical, and advanced, but they really aren’t. Technology could probably much further on than it is currently, but it would freak everyone out.
     
  12. Beeblebob

    Beeblebob Member

    If you look back through the posts I made earlier, I have always stated my research question. I didn’t mention THIS, but I have also taught myself quite a bit about the history of cameras, and how the first cameras worked, so I know a small amount about Niepce, and how he developed cameras.
     
  13. Beeblebob

    Beeblebob Member

    If I’m honest, I’m not entirely sure, but the camera I want to dissect is a Canon 300D. My iPhone is a 7.
     
  14. Andrew Flannigan

    Andrew Flannigan Well-Known Member

    Where did you get that from? I can't find any discussion of limits on images for early models. There would have been physical limits imposed by the storage technologies available but I can't imagine that anyone would deliberately impose such a limit.
     
  15. Beeblebob

    Beeblebob Member

    You probably represent the difference between normal “photographers (phone)” and actual photographers. Since you have high end cameras already, the major draw tactic of smartphones, the camera, doesn’t attract you at all, since you have lots better. So you have a “bad” phone (maybe just out of date.)
     
  16. Beeblebob

    Beeblebob Member

    ....no, he definitely did. In 1975, Steven Sasson put together the first digital camera, using parts from Kodak, where he worked. He needed a more permanent form of storage to put the photos, and the only thing available to him was a cassette. He deliberately chose the number 30 for the amount it could store, even though the tape could store more. Here’s the link. https://www.diyphotography.net/worlds-first-digital-camera-introduced-man-invented/
     
  17. PeteRob

    PeteRob Well-Known Member

    That is a very interesting distinction. Think on it. You set yourself a “technology project” on cameras. Is it? Really?

    You can’t invoke the distinctions “normal”:and “actual” photographers ex post.
     
    Beeblebob likes this.
  18. Beeblebob

    Beeblebob Member

    True. Is there a specific word you would use to describe the difference? Is there a difference? Also, what I just said isn’t something I would put in the project, it’s just something I thought was interesting. I also enjoy psychology. Oh yes, and I did get the question approved by the teacher, so at very least, they also think it’sa technology project.
     
  19. John Farrell

    John Farrell Well-Known Member

    Niepce is celebrated more for taking the first permanent picture - a view of rooftops, on a pewter plate coated with bitumen, with an exposure of 8 hours, or so. Niepce collaborated with Daguerre, who developed the first usable photographic process - an image on a silver coated copper plate, but this was a dead end. The Daguerrotype process produced a positive image, which could not be copied. The positive/negative process was originated by Henry Fox Talbot, an English scientist and inventor
     
    Beeblebob likes this.
  20. Beeblebob

    Beeblebob Member

    If I hadn’t already looked at this, this would be really helpful information. As it is, it’s still just about the historical side of cameras, so most of it I can’t put in my project. I’m looking more at reviewing the effects of cameras.
     

Share This Page