obsolete

Obviously the phone cameras will never make traditional cameras obsolete on a technical level. Read in this context, Anssi Vanjoki's statements look pretty idiotic. It is wrong, insulting even, to characterize the camera phones as equivalent in quality.

However from the marketing viewpoint, the market for cheap & poor quality, yet convenient, photography is probably outgrowing professional photography gear by a large measure.

Another thing to note: my current cell phone (a nokia as it were) has a camera on it, but not because I wanted one. The store had zero models in stock without a camera. Anyone using cell phone sales numbers as evidence of customers demand for camera phones would need to consider non-availability of non-camera models.

Point taken but...

Compact DSLRs are not just marketed at the professional.

They are also about getting pictures in low-light conditions or where there is movement (like sporting events) and for some situations, a phone camera and a lot of compacts just can't cut it.

Just go to a school concert and look at the number of parents with "fancy" cameras. Many are there with their expensive-ish compact DSLRs since that is the only way to get anything that is viewable.

They couldn't give a sh*t about DOF or any other TLAs that you care to quote, they just want some good pics.

What gives them that is the good quality lens, the large, good quality sensor and perhaps image stabilisation. If you can get that from a camera phone then for most of these customers, that will be good enough.

But in the main, I agree, VanJoki is full of sh*t.

They couldn't give a sh*t about DOF...

... until they actually get to see what it does.

Lots of casual snaps, maybe even the majority, tend to be portraits of some sort. Show anyone a portrait shot with DOF to infinity, and the exact same shot well-focused with shallow DOF - even complete noobs in photographic matters will tend to prefer the latter.

Decent compact cameras have a "portrait" preset for exactly this reason, and can achieve half-decent results. Mobile phone cameras cannot, because they have no optics worth mentioning, and since the tendency for mobile phones is thin - thinner - thinnest, it's unlikely they ever will.

More than that

The season finale of a US tv series (House, maybe?) was shot entirely using a Canon 5D MKII which has absolutely incredible HD video quality (presumably because of the quality of the glass in front and the full frame sensor behind). It certainly beats the arse off of my consumer HD camcorder.

Maemo

> crazy linux-based ideas for phones

I guess you've never tried Maemo then? The N900 is by far the best phone I've ever owned. No it's not perfect, yes it has its own idiosyncrasies and glitches but as a smart phone it kicks arse.

On the other hand, I do agree that other recent Nokia offerings have been very disappointing. That's probably due to bad planning and Nokia finding that the current version of Symbian is now past its sell-by date and badly in need of a revamp, while Maemo is not quite ready for prime-time. Don't discount them quite yet though, at least when it comes to making phones. Now, when it comes to making cameras... I'll keep my DSLR thank you very much.

Nikon D3S

You should see the high ISO HD video shot by the D3S, I wish I still had the link, they did a side by side comparison with various video capable DSLRs. The D3S has the most amazing ability to see in the dark, and even when there is noise it's far more organic and acceptable than the Canon's.

A room full of professional video cameramen and production staff sat there going "WTF?!!!!"

@JB

To be honest, when you think about the earbuds that they listen to their tunage thru', and the itty-bitty screens that they watch their videos on, there is no real point in making the original recording worth listening to or watching on real equipment.

Ever try listening to a favorite old album on the original vinyl[1] back-to-back with the same thing as an MP3 over a high-end audio system? Now ask me why I don't own an MP3 player.

[1] All my vinyl was recorded to half-inch tape on the first or second playing. I make my "working" copies from the tape.

Masses

<i>Remember when recording quality was getting better and better: like domestic reel-to-reels with muffly sound developing over the years into chrome dioxide cassetes with lovely sound quality, now we have 128k lossy digital mp3s, but nobody seems to care.</i>

See, you remember reel-to-reel and I just remember seeing 8-track and LPs in the 70s. For people that do care, there are plenty of great audio formats now. As for video, how many awful VHS camcorders were sold in the 80s and 90s as opposed to 8mm film?

The masses never really cared about quality.

Not just

For people who use DSLRs for snaps.

I'd class myself as an advanced snapper (I'm aware of the technicalities and can, if pressed remember how they work together) but even I appreciate the quality of my DSLR over the crappy camera on the Nokia I just trialled and got rid of. Hells, I can produce better pics from my 9 year old Nikon E775 compact(ish) than from my mobile camera.

Whilst technical ability can give you a better picture with any camera, a better camera *can* give a better picture to most people.

After trialling the Nokia X6 a month back and being massively disappointed, I can honestly say I don't think I'll ever bother with Nokia again so it comes as no surprise that their staff make idiot comments like that.

No they are not!

My 5mp phone camera is absolute rubbish compared to my 4-year-old Canon 5Mpx camera. Oddly, it takes superb close-ups, but is useless for any scene bigger than a room.

Even the hardly-any-pixels stills that my old camcorder takes are better than phone pics.

One day, yes... and I look forward to it... but I don;t think that day is in site yet.

Like you say: the man's a fool. Maybe he never took any photographs!

Because...

Laws of physics - utter bastards. That teensy lens on the camera phone is like a diffraction grating. Let's not get into the cross photosite interference from the poxy little sensor.

Lies, damn lies and flickr statistics

The flickr camera finder function provides stats as a percentage of members, which is very misleading. How many members use several cameras and therefore contribute more than once to the stats? I for one use 3 on a regular basis: a camera phone, a decent compact and a DSLR. Even when this is taken into account, I would argue that popularity based on the number of pictures taken by a particular model of camera, rather than the number of members who own that camera is actually a more relevant statistic.

But even assuming that the flickr statistics are actually meaningful, you can't fail to notice that even though the iPhone 3G is the first camera model based on the number of members that own it, the following 4 models are all DSLR. This would tend to confirm the analysis of a number of people here: the camera phone is no real threat to the DSLR but rather to the point and shoot compact.