Low-end Cameras to be Replaced with Camera Phones

[Mike Temporale]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://www.mobilepipeline.com/168600390?cid=RSSfeed' target='_blank'>http://www.mobilepipeline.com/168600390?cid=RSSfeed</a><br /><br /></div><i>"Cameraphones will steal most of the market for low-end photography from low-end standalone digital cameras, according to a study released Wednesday by ABI Research. "We believe that within the next two years, the quality of a mobile phone camera will be such that people won't need low-end standalone digital cameras," ABI researcher Henneth Hyers said in a statement. "This will dramatically impact camera sales." Hyers noted that 1.3 megapixel cameraphones are about to become common and five megapixel cameraphones will be available."</i><br /><br />I think this is a fairly accurate assessment of where the market is heading. I don't see camera phones replacing a standalone camera anytime soon, but I will certainly curb the need for a low-end digital camera. What do you think? Are low-end standalone digital cameras on the verge of extinction?

[canux]

That would be nice if they could to that "minimum" quality that I would expect. Problem is (at least with my SMT5600), that the pictures I take are so bad that they are almost useless. They always seem a bit blurry no matter how steady I hold the phone; how long I wait before moving the phone after pressing the shutter button; even if it's perfect outdoor lighting conditions; and I always clean the lenz protective plastic from thumb prints :wink:

Do others have these problems? Resoltion is one thing, but I would be happy at this point simply with "clear" shots.

[Stinger]

A phone like the Sony Ericsson K750i takes photos as good (or better) as any ultra-budget (&lt; $100 US) digital camera I've seen.

There's no optical zoom and indoor photos can be hit and miss, but for most non-geeks image quality perfectly acceptable. Taking photos at a resolution of 1600x1200, menas that they're of high enough resolution to print out and big enough to fill your entire computer screen.

The best parts about it the K750i is that the phone is small, you've always got your phone on you and it's completely free on a contract in the UK. That's better than any digital camera can say.

I think it's only a matter of time before camera phones replace digital cameras for all but the enthusiasts and those with specialist needs. It's one of the first examples of where convergence really works well.

[surur]

Vodafone is getting ready to reveal their new series of phones, the 903SH. they come with a 3.2MP camera with autofocus, a 2x optical zoom, a 2.4" screen (240x320 ASV liquid crystal), an SD audio function and, very rare here in Japan, Bluetooth. Dimensions are 50x109x29mm and the device weighs 148gr.

http://www.akihabaranews.com/en/

Surur

[mpaquette]

The picture quality from my SP3i pretty much stinks. I really saw the whole camera in your phone thing as a novelty that would soon wear off. I would much rather have a quality digital camera and a phone with wifi instead of a camera.

[Sven Johannsen]

I guess that everyone that could use a low end digital camera will have a cell phone? I picked up a little 800x600 camera for my 5 yr old Granddaughter for $14. I don't think I would have got her a phone, and her parents probably wouldn't have appreciated it. Seems to me that a lot of the cheapy digital cameras double as a web camera. I don't expect those to go away. Maybe when everyone has wideband access 5Mp web cams will be practical, but not now.

I tend to agree with mpaquette in that I'd rather WiFi than camera, but I don't think the cameras are going away as long as they can charge for MMS seperate from the data plan. The push for more pixels sure isn't to give the customer better shots, it's to generate revenue. They don't care id the quality is good, just that there are more bits.

I personnaly don't see the need for multi-megapixel phones. If you want to take snapshots, 1.3 - 2Mp is fine. They just need to work on the lens and sensitivity (low light) so the shots are reasonable clear. If you want to take photographs, get a camera.

[Mike Temporale]

I guess that everyone that could use a low end digital camera will have a cell phone? I picked up a little 800x600 camera for my 5 yr old Granddaughter for $14. I don't think I would have got her a phone, and her parents probably wouldn't have appreciated it. Seems to me that a lot of the cheapy digital cameras double as a web camera. I don't expect those to go away. Maybe when everyone has wideband access 5Mp web cams will be practical, but not now.

I think that's a fair assumption. We won't see the end of low-end camera's, but they certianly won't be as popular as they are now. Most high-school kid will get a camera phone instead.

I tend to agree with mpaquette in that I'd rather WiFi than camera,

No question. I would love to have WiFi, and would consider loosing a fair amount of other flashy extras to get it. I hope we see a change on this front real soon. WM5 makes it possible, just need the carriers to act on it. :)