“There was a point in time where Nokia overtook Kodak as the biggest ‘camera company’ in the world,” Ewan Spence reports for Forbes. “In broad strokes Kodak didn’t manage to make the jump to digital and online, while Nokia worked on creating ‘good enough’ imaging in its first smartphones, before pushing forward and becoming the undisputed king of smartphone imagery (with the Nokia 808 PureView representing ‘peak camera’ for Nokia, Symbian, and the first generation of smartphones).”
“Flickr’s release of data on the most popular cameras used on the Yahoo-owned social photography sites shows the clear winner from the ‘second generation’ of smartphones,” Spence reports. “Apple. And it’s unlikely to stop there for Cupertino. The mobile market belongs to it today, next up is surely the prosumer market and the dominant position of Canon.”
“Canon and Olympus top the lists for DSLRs and mirrorless cameras, while Apple takes the number one spot for most popular mobile camera and top individual camera (of any type),” Spence reports. “Given the volume of smartphones out there, I would have expected to see more variation in the smartphone-focused top lists. Instead it’s an almost clean sweep for Apple.”
Read more in the full article here.
[Thanks to MacDailyNews Readers “Bill” and “Dan K.” for the heads up.]
Related articles:
Apple iPhone now most-used camera on Flickr – August 18, 2009
Apple’s iPhone 3G dominates camera phones in use on Flickr – December 23, 2008
That’s because although there might be a few Android phones with better cameras, the vast majority of Androids sold have terrible cameras or capture software. 5 second lag between shots, even without flash? Come on, by the time the phone’s ready to snap, the moment is long gone. And that’s assuming it even focused properly.
Hell even the “premium” level HTC One M8 has a surprisingly bad camera, and some of the much cheaper rivals ($300-400 unlocked) that are billed as “just as good” as the premium Androids might have more megapixels but crappy lenses and capture software, making people just plain not want to use it.
More pixels does not make a better Android camera, no mater how much you love the numbers.
I will assume the “you” is generic and not directed at me, since you’re basically repeating what I wrote: “… but crappy lenses and capture software”.
Seriously, Android geeks actually think larger or more pixels are the most important parts of a cell-phone camera.
Demonstrating once again “The best camera is the one you have with you”. Same goes for calculators, handheld GPS, note pads, sketchpads, compasses, levels, book readers, maps, music players. One more thing – a telephone. When it’s all wrapped up in one device, with there’re many more capabilities not listed, that is always with me, the iPhone will lead a lot of lists.
I would like to see Apple make a camera that is also a phone. A camera with a large zoom lens, 20 megapixel, and full-featured software. I would certainly buy it.
You must admit, talking to your camera with a zoom lens in your ear will be cool as hell, NOT.
My poor Canon camera is a loser! 😥 😨😩😪
The other issue is how quick from pic to online can people post and obviously dedicated cameras take longer to do that. I have a couple Canon DSLR’s (recently bought a Canon 65X Model just for the amazing 21-1385mm zoom) and a Nikon DSLR. They all get love at some point but the iPhone 6 Plus is used way more. The iPhone 6’s camera is really quite good but alas still no optical zoom, which is where other non-smart phone cameras come in.
Optical image stabilization isn’t where it needs to be yet, either. It’s only on the 6 Plus, and even then apparently doesn’t work when taking video (I know this article’s about photos, but it’s worth mentioning).
My iPhone 6+ camera is great, but the fact that the camera has no zoom (digital zoom doesn’t count) limits its use quite a bit.
There are many social occasions where someone has a really good camera (whether professional photographer, or an enthusiast with a DSLR), who will diligently take pictures of everyone taking good care about exposure, focus, framing, etc. Inevitably, everyone will hand this person their phone and ask him/her to also take a picture with that phone. Reasons are obvious: the image on the DSLR camera will likely never find its way to everyone who is in that shot, unless the shooter carefully collects everyone’s e-mails and makes a tedious effort of e-mailing every picture (s)he took to everyone in pictures, keeping good track of who is who. With one phone taking a picture of half a dozen people, the owner immediately sends the image to everyone, or posts it online (FB, flicker, Instagram, whatever), and others have it right away.
Last weekend, I was at a gala at the hotel New Yorker (the event was celebrating Nikola Tesla, who lived and died in that hotel), there were some high-profile people, and the professional photographer. Quite a few people jockeyed for pictures with the high-profile guests, and while they let the pro take the shots, they asked him to use their phones as well (which he grudgingly did). Those shots were online before the event was over, and some of them even made the mainstream media. I have yet to see the shots made by the pro.
That’s because shots by the pro usually cost money and people are too cheap to pay for them…
Not necessarily, and in my example, definitely not. The guy was paid to take pictures and give them to anyone who asked. Also, what I’m referring to are the situations where one person has a proper camera, with a strong flash and a good lens, and is the one who likes taking good pictures, scoffing at the ‘crappy’ phone images. In other words, person who is motivated to shoot and usually willing to share (thereby justifying his own investment of money and time into the DSLR or similar). I am not talking about those drive-by wedding shooters who crash an event, snap pictures, run out to make prints, then run back to sell them at $20 a pop.
The only cameras that the iPhone killed are the junk point-and shoots that had no decent optical zoom. Anyone who cares about quality photography is willing to invest in real equipment. Until Apple offers professional quality optical zoom, Canon’s real competition is Nikon.
It is asinine to compare quality cameras — you know, devices that are designed first and foremost for taking pictures — with a smartphone, which by definition is a highly compromised device that just so happens to have a camera in it. Slapping an Apple wrapper around a Sony digital image sensor doesn’t change that fact.
The iPhone is not just a camera, it is a complete studio. After you take the photo you can edit it, include it in other work, then publish the results. This is something DSLRs cannot do and most Androids have a problem doing. From the beginning of the iPhone Apple has pushed photo editing. First by easily working with iPhoto on the Mac; then by creating the iOS iPhoto app and selling several hundred third-party photo apps. Now with photos able to have plug-ins Apple is going to change the game again. Yes there are better cameras, displays, editing apps, and distribution methods; but nobody haseverything in one device as well as Apple.