I hope they values of my lenses and camera don't drop too much.
Camera manufacturers had better get caught up with the digital algorithms used in smartphones or both professional photographers and camera makers will be endangered species.
How long before the public decides that 25 wedding guests with phone cams will, combined, instantly produce perfectly adequate memories at only the cost of printing.
It is possible that any one camera company can't afford the expertise that a Google or an Apple can bring to bear on developing chips and algorithms. They might have to either license technology or band together.
Cameras start with an advantage in physics (larger sensors, better lenses, more battery, and (very important) internal space for processing chips. However, they are way behind in using these advantages. (p.s. prototypes for detachable, large lenses for smartphones have been shown.)
Here is just one of many scary articles about the Pixel 3;
Cell phones camera sensors are great a capturing snapshots. There is more to photography than a simple snapshot.
High Resolution Action shots
Check out the big kid’s eyes in this crop.
And, more. ... Cell phones are no match for a DSLR in a photographer’s hands.
I think that was to point that Wadizzle was trying to convey to you.
If you just want to take a quick shot and have everything done for you then use a smartphone.
If you want to take shots under more difficult conditions or need to adjust the post processing to your own personal requirements then you need a more versatile camera.
Camera manufacturers realise that there are two different markets and would not gain any sales by having all the automatic processing.
I want a dslr or mirrorless that does both. RAW and advanced processing jpegs (ala Pixel 3 and beyond).
I was not impressed by your link. This old man could not find a gallery of images. If there was good stuff to see, I missed it.
Canon DSLRs can process RAW to JPEGs in the camera. You do not have to use Canon’s Digital Photo Professional software. You can even apply lens correction, and apply settings to multiple image files in the camera, if you want. Using the application software is faster and easier, but you have most of the same editing functionality in the camera.
Personally, I think cell phones are not that great for photography. People are paying over $1000 for a cell phone that has the image capture performance of a $200 point and shoot. For all I know about P&S cameras, you might get similar performance to a cell phone with a $100 P&S camera. Camera manufacturers should exploit this fact.
You get much better results using a less expensive phone with a P&S and a DSLR as the image capture device. My son does this all the time with an iPhone and an 80D. Most of his friends have no idea that he is “cheating” when he takes the high quality photos.
But, the biggest problem with using a cell phone as a camera is file size. Most of my RAW image files are 30-40MB in size. These typically produce JPEG files in the 8-16MB range. Most “cloud” services balk at larger image files. Facebook will either reject, or downsize image files larger than 1 MB.
I do not think the future for dedicated cameras is as bleak as some might believe. There is no denying that there is a shakeout on the horizon. I think camera manufacturers need to advertise the integration functionality with cell phones a lot more.
The Pixel 3 is way beyond any $200 P&S. I have owned many P&S, so I know whereof I speak.
I have no dog in this race, because I refuse to buy a high-end phone.
However, when I saw the Pixel 3 reviewed on The New Screensavers podcast, I decided to look into this fantastic thingy even though I would never own one. I do know that the experts on The New Screensavers tend to be Apple fanboys, so I thought the P3 must be really special to garner al their praise.
I am convinced that, even though the P3 is great, a good dslr or mirrorless can do better if the shot is well executed and the post processing is good. However, in many cases, what I see straight out of the P3 is often better than what you get straight out of a good digicam.
That's all I am saying.
"Camera manufacturers had better get caught up ..."
I agree with you on consumer cameras. I have long advocated that Canon adopt more of the features and operating systems that iphones have. Some boo-hooed that suggestion but now they see the results from not doing it. Listening Canon,... now?They have incorporated some of it with touch screens and such. Kids today grow up with a smart phone. They want things that work, well, like a smart phone.
However, in the professional field, pro cameras have nothing to worry about. No cell phone comes close to what a 1Dx or 5D Mk IV can do. Not close.
As far as weddings go, I know of no bride that would prefer smartphone pictures over a professional photographer's job. And I am in my fifth decade doing this stuff.
Canon, and I presume Nikon although I don't follow them closely, provide many models of cameras in their line and I suspect soon that is going to change as demand for lower end models is cannibalized by phones. But as Ernie correctly points out even with all of the magic these newer phones can accomplish much of it is simply masking the shortcomings of sensor and lens limitations in these devices. This can work fairly well in less trying situations but Ernie isn't going to be shooting weddings and I won't be shooting football or soccer with a smartphone because they cannot approach the performance of a professional body and lens under trying conditions.
There will be people satisfied with the quality of a wedding shot with friends using phones just as there are people who are perfectly satisfied listening to a highly compressed MP3 audio file reproduced through crappy earbuds. But those are the type of people who wouldn't have hired Ernie and his fellow travelers to shoot a wedding anyway and were satisfied with the free work that great uncle Fred did with their wedding.
Several years ago I thought about buying a little "point and shoot" for short hikes where I didn't want to carry a 1 series body and a couple of lenses along but for that I would now use my phone (and several times had wished I had brought along a real camera).
The biggest impact for the old line camera makers will be adjusting with the sort of human interface that Ernie described along with adjusting to life without their traditional sales volume leaders. I suspect that Canon could be pretty successful in marketing a Canon branded phone to capitalize upon its name in imaging but they would have to do it right. It wouldn't be vying at the top of the smartphone market but it could be an interesting product to target to smartphone users who are more oriented to imaging rather than just the image of using the latest and greatest iPhone/Galaxy/etc.