Is your phone a camera..or is your camera a phone?

For quite some time, there has been debate in the photographic community, or more correctly the “camera community”, about the need for the modern digital camera to be re-invented and made more modular and programmable.  My intention is to not get very technical in this post, so I’ll do my best to stay basic.

Professional and serious amateur photographers, of course, use their images for numerous purposes, and tend to have a higher caliber of gear to produce their work.  However, even in the days of film, I suspect that the vast majority of pictures were made by casual shooters for inclusion in family albums, with less expensive equipment.  It doesn’t seem much has changed in this respect, except nowadays the images are posted online at various photo-sharing sites, or exchanged between parties on some communication device, often almost instantaneously.  Previously, the cost of film and related processing most likely had a certain mitigating effect on how many pictures an average person would take, but digital images are perceived to be “free”, and as such, probably results in anyone with a camera creating many more pictures than they might have with film.  Given that most of the online photo sharing sites supply a generous amount of free storage space, makes this all the more plausible.  And many people upload to several online locations or social media sites.

What’s interesting though, is how the pictures get online in the first place.  Notwithstanding the fact that most people want to make “good” pictures, images from DSLR (Digital Single Lens Reflex),  “point and shoot” compact, and also the newer EVIL (Electronic Viewfinder Interchangeable Lens) cameras need to be downloaded into, or through, some device (usually a computer), may require some post-processing, then in turn, need to be uploaded or posted to an online destination.   In any case, the process with digital cameras involves a certain amount of work on the part of the user, sometimes a substantial amount.   On the other hand, with advances in digital sensor technology, almost every cellular telephone is now also a fairly capable camera.  And they’re getting better all the time.   Wireless equipped “smartphones” can send the images directly to a users’ online portal.   And this is part of what is fueling the debate on re-invention of the camera.  Some cameras have wireless control accessories, and many now have built-in GPS capabilities, but why can’t they have a wireless function allowing an easy upload to an online destination?  A few camera makers have dabbled with the converse – putting a cell phone in a compact camera – without much success.  It’s easy to see why.  Which cellular technology do they build in, Bluetooth, GSM, 3G, 4G, or what’s next?  If your wireless provider changes technology or you change locations, you’d probably need a new camera, so this speaks in part to the modularity requirement – use a replaceable module that can be upgraded or switched between the different services.  Taken a step further, we could have various sorts of interchangeable modules in cameras …for instance, different sensors (infrared, dedicated monochrome, astrophotography, macro, video, etc.), electronic viewfinders, and more.  And then just these components could be upgraded or changed to fit the users’ needs as technology progresses.  Purchase a body as the basic chassis and build your system with whatever modules you need.  Plus, the camera can then be re-purposed for different tasks just by switching out various modules.  Not to say that the bodies won’t change over time, but that would still be a manageable situation.  Ricoh is now doing something like this, in a fashion, with their GXR model.  However, they have lens/sensor combination modules that plug into the body, so if you want to change the lens you’re changing the sensor, too.  And they’re rather pricey, albeit well-built.  So, there is some progress being made into this foray, but it seems most of the camera makers either just don’t get it, or we have to attribute the lack of progress in this area to the way consumers have been trained to purchase by manufacturers and marketing strategies, which are mainly driven by incentives for profit.   When something new and supposedly better comes out, buy the whole article to replace your previous one, which applies to almost everything these days.  Surely more profit there than would be in just replacing some of the parts, right?  After all, that’s the way with cell phones, too, isn’t it?  They’re basically disposable items, and certainly not modular (you can swap the simm cards, I know).  But usually you just throw your old one away.  All you need do is look at the pile of defunct cell phones and chargers in a box at my office to see that…and they were all free with our service contract (and many have cameras in them :-) ).

So, to sum things up it appears that cell phones are taking over picture-taking tasks for many people.  This may not bode well for camera makers unless they get disruptive with their engineering and technology.  The Nikon D90, a mid-range and very capable DSLR, has been the most used camera for posting images to the Flickr photo site for a while, probably because this site has appealed to many serious amateur photographers (and even professionals).  However, new statistics now poise the iPhone 4 to take over as the most used device there.  As the demographics of a site like Flickr grow and evolve, perhaps so does the content and methodology behind that content.   The camera makers need to wake up.

Have a look at this article posted on the TechCrunch website:

http://techcrunch.com/2011/04/17/iphone-4-camera/

That’s my muse for now.

Call me on your camera sometime…maybe.

KB