Dave seems to have kneejerked his way into misunderstanding the ad.
Their sale point is "phone cameras are shit and our camera is better". They're not saying that cameras are bad if they're connected to the world. They're saying that cameras are bad if they take shit pictures.
Having held an HTC Hero and an iPhone, I'm here to say that they're not wrong. Those cameras suck as cameras.
> Having held an HTC Hero and an iPhone, I'm here to say that they're not wrong. Those cameras suck as cameras.
I disagree. There are two sayings about photography I've heard a few times. 1) The best camera is the one that you have with you. 2) The novice photographer wishes he/she had a better camera, but the experienced photograph wishes he/she had better lighting.
Re #1, I have a high end point and shoot that's really nice. But I almost never use it now because my iPhone 3GS is always with me. I find that some of the best photograph opportunities come when you least expect it.
Re: #2, most of photography is lighting and and composition. If you have crappy light (that includes using a flash) it doesn't matter if you have some $10,000 camera and lens. If you take photos with good light and have an eye for composition it won't matter to much which camera you use.
Now saying that, some phone cameras really do lack in resolution. My iPhone 3GS has decent resolution, but iPhones before that take washed out looking photos. Of course there's other limitations like no zoom, you can't print out a huge poster version of your photos, and it can't do more "advaced" things like long exposures. But I and many others have taken decent looking photos on iPhones. It's Good Enough.
Edit: One more thing. I like the challenge of taking photos on a simple camera. You don't get distracted by messing with features and have to kinda learn what makes a photo good.
Problem is: soon the phone cameras will be good enough for most people. They don't need to get as good as real cameras to replace them.
The ad campaign targets average consumers and not the professionals.
Digital cameras replaced a lot of film cameras before the digital cameras were just as good. Geeks overestimate the required quality level: mp3 became popular at 128 kbs (didn't wait for 256 kbs). YouTube became popular while having worse quality than normal TV.
(and this is even without considering the quality of the "photographer")
So yeah, today it means it. But Dave talks about the future.
Comments
Dave seems to have kneejerked his way into misunderstanding the ad.
Their sale point is "phone cameras are shit and our camera is better". They're not saying that cameras are bad if they're connected to the world. They're saying that cameras are bad if they take shit pictures.
Having held an HTC Hero and an iPhone, I'm here to say that they're not wrong. Those cameras suck as cameras.
> Having held an HTC Hero and an iPhone, I'm here to say that they're not wrong. Those cameras suck as cameras.
I disagree. There are two sayings about photography I've heard a few times. 1) The best camera is the one that you have with you. 2) The novice photographer wishes he/she had a better camera, but the experienced photograph wishes he/she had better lighting.
Re #1, I have a high end point and shoot that's really nice. But I almost never use it now because my iPhone 3GS is always with me. I find that some of the best photograph opportunities come when you least expect it.
Re: #2, most of photography is lighting and and composition. If you have crappy light (that includes using a flash) it doesn't matter if you have some $10,000 camera and lens. If you take photos with good light and have an eye for composition it won't matter to much which camera you use.
Now saying that, some phone cameras really do lack in resolution. My iPhone 3GS has decent resolution, but iPhones before that take washed out looking photos. Of course there's other limitations like no zoom, you can't print out a huge poster version of your photos, and it can't do more "advaced" things like long exposures. But I and many others have taken decent looking photos on iPhones. It's Good Enough.
Edit: One more thing. I like the challenge of taking photos on a simple camera. You don't get distracted by messing with features and have to kinda learn what makes a photo good.
I think you made the same points as me, but put it much better.
The purchasing jump for consumers is going to be cameraphone -> dslr, not cameraphone -> point and shoot
Problem is: soon the phone cameras will be good enough for most people. They don't need to get as good as real cameras to replace them.
The ad campaign targets average consumers and not the professionals.
Digital cameras replaced a lot of film cameras before the digital cameras were just as good. Geeks overestimate the required quality level: mp3 became popular at 128 kbs (didn't wait for 256 kbs). YouTube became popular while having worse quality than normal TV. (and this is even without considering the quality of the "photographer")
So yeah, today it means it. But Dave talks about the future.