We asked camera companies why their RAW formats are all different and confusing

This is on a long list of why camera companies are dying.

There is a long list of issues like this which have prevented ecosystems from forming around cameras, in the way they have around Android or iOS. It's like the proprietary phones predating the iPhone.

The irony is that phones are gradually passing dedicated cameras in increasing numbers of respects as cameras are now in a death spiral. Low volumes means less R&D. Less R&D and no ecosystem means low volumes. It also all translates into high prices.

The time to do this was about a decade ago. Apps, open formats, open USB protocols, open wifi / bluetooth protocols, and semi-open firmware (with a few proprietary blobs for color processing, likely) would have led things down a very different trajectory.

Sony is still selling cameras from 2018:

https://electronics.sony.com/imaging/interchangeable-lens-ca...

The price new fell by just 10% over the 7 years ($2000 -> $1800).

And in a lot of conditions, my Android phone takes better photos, by virtue of more advanced technology.

I have tens of thousands of dollars of camera equipment -- mostly more than a decade old -- and there just haven't been advancements warranting an upgrade. A modern camera will be maybe 30% better than a 2012-era one in terms of image quality, and otherwise, will have slightly more megapixels, somewhat better autofocus, and obviously be much smaller by the loss of a mirror. Video improved too.

The quote of the day is: "I wish it weren’t like this, but ultimately, it’s mostly fine. At least, for now. As long as the camera brands continue to work closely with companies like Adobe, we can likely trudge along just fine with this status quo."

No. We can't. The market has imploded. The roof is literally falling in and everyone says things are "fine."

Does any know how much volume there would be if cameras could be used in manufacturing processes for machine vision, on robots / drones, in self-driving cars, on building for security, as webcams for video conferencing, for remote education, and everywhere else imaging is exploding?

No. No one does, because they were never given the chance.

> And in a lot of conditions, my Android phone takes better photos, by virtue of more advanced technology.

> I have tens of thousands of dollars of camera equipment -- mostly more than a decade old -- and there just haven't been advancements warranting an upgrade. A modern camera will be maybe 30% better than a 2012-era one in terms of image quality, and otherwise, will have slightly more megapixels, somewhat better autofocus, and obviously be much smaller by the loss of a mirror. Video improved too.

I thought the same thing, and then I went and rented a Nikon Z8 to try out over a weekend and I was blown away by the "somewhat better autofocus". As someone who used to travel with a Pelican case full of camera gear, to just carrying an iPhone, I'm back to packing camera gear because I'm able to do things like capture tack-sharp birds in flight like I'm taking snapshots from the hip thanks to the massive increase in compute power and autofocus algorithms. "Subject Eye Detection AF" is a game-changer, and while phones do it, they don't have enough optical performance in their tiny sensors/lenses to do it at the necessary precision and speed to resolve things on fast-moving subjects.

In terms of IQ, weight, and all that, it's definitely not a huge difference. I would say it's better, but not so much that I particularly cared coming from a 12-year old DSLR. But the new AF absolutely shocked me with how good it is. It completely changed my outlook.

I say this, not to take away from your overall point, however, which is that a phone is good enough for almost everyone about 90% of the time. It's good enough that even though I upgraded my gear, I only bought one body when I traded in two, because my phone can handle short-focal length / landscape just fine, I don't need my Z8 for that. But a phone doesn't get anywhere close to what I can do with a 300mm or longer focal length lens on the Z8 with fast moving subjects.

I use my Canon EOS 90D fairly often, but there is one exception for me. For low-light conditions my phone often exceeds the performance of my camera. Especially for high movement & dynamic scenes, I would definitely recommend having a high end phone nearby :)

I started with a second-hand Canon 20D back in like 2004 or something, only upgraded when I got a deal on an old 7D and only recently bought a new R6II and the autofocus is NIGHT AND DAY

I started buying the EF mount superfast primes because they're affordable now, but the 7D (more likely it was me) couldn't get the focus just right with such a shallow DOF

The R6 just doesn't miss. Low light/high ISO image quality is also MILES better.

Cameras are not in a death spiral. Artistically speaking, phones can't do what even a low end slr/mirrorless can do, its just that phones are good enough for the low-effort content 95% of people are interested in producing. Standalone cameras are inconvenient, bulky and require some level of artistic intention.

>Does any know how much volume there would be if cameras could be used in manufacturing processes for machine vision, on robots / drones, in self-driving cars, on building for security, as webcams for video conferencing, for remote education, and everywhere else imaging is exploding?

I don't know about the manufacturing or drone stuff, but for video conferencing and remote education, the point of the video really isn't image quality or "art" but just good enough picture to not get in the way of the real purpose of the interaction, so a whole camera kit is just added complexity/annoyance for no benefit.

IMO

The sensor in the 90D isn't capable of the high ISO performance of some newer sensors. For low-light conditions the things that matter more than anything is: 1. pixel pitch 2. sensor ISO performance 3. native denoising

For sure a new high end phone will do better than a mid-range camera that's older, but on the high-end it's the other way around. My Z8 has significantly better low-light performance than my iPhone 16 Pro, however the upside from the iPhone is that I don't need to do additional denoising in post-processing (I usually use DXO) where it's required on anything taken above around ISO 12800 on a digital body.

The Z8 is usable to print (e.g. noise is almost completely removable if you aren't cropping) up to ISO 25600 (which is the maximum ISO of a 90D), and is usable for moment capture (e.g. not trying to win any awards) nearly to its maximum ISO (102400). Many newer camera sensors, including the Z8's sensor, are "dual gain", meaning I can shoot basically noiseless at ISO 500 w/ almost 13 stops EV of dynamic range preserved, which is simply not possible on any phone camera or on most older bodies.

If you're shooting in low-light often enough, there are specific sensors and cameras which are far better than others, even if the other cameras would be better than in other situations. Generally speaking though, larger sensors are better than smaller sensors in low-light at the same pixel pitch.

In the Canon world, an R6 II is comparable to the Z8 in low-light performance, although I think the Z8 just barely edges it out. So don't take anything I'm saying here as being brand-specific. Modern full-frame mirrorless cameras are almost all better at low-light performance than any preceding full sized (DSLR style) camera, mirrorless or not, because the sensors have gotten better but maybe even more importantly the native denoising has gotten better.

For low light conditions my full frame mirrorless is way better than a phone.

> Cameras are not in a death spiral.

Sales numbers tell a different story.

> Artistically speaking, phones can't do what even a low end slr/mirrorless can do, its just that phones are good enough for the low-effort content 95% of people are interested in producing.

This is not correct.

A Pixel Pro has a 50 MP, f/1.7, 1/1.31" sensor. This is equivalent to f/4.6 in u43, f/6.6 in APS, and f/9.5 in FF.

This is slightly slower than a kit lens on paper, but this is more than made up for by more advanced sensor technology, and especially the ability to do things like fast sensor readout, which can read out many frames and combine exposures.

Side-by-side, shooting with a phone and a Panasonic u43 camera with a kit lens, I was getting perfectly good photos with the phone, and useless photos with the u43.

> I don't know about the manufacturing or drone stuff, but for video conferencing and remote education, the point of the video really isn't image quality or "art" but just good enough picture to not get in the way of the real purpose of the interaction, so a whole camera kit is just added complexity/annoyance for no benefit.

It depends on the context. People buy $100k Cisco remote conference rooms for a reason.

I've definitely spent >$10k on equipment in remote presentation / education contexts myself, and know many other people who have done likewise.

You should, at some point, figure out what popular education Youtubers, twitch streamers, etc. spend :) But there are similar contexts in scalable education, various kinds of sales, etc.

One of the core issues -- in context I've worked in -- is that reliability is king. I don't want interruptions. I'm happy to have three cameras feeding into OBS and a set of fixed setups, and I've even done custom plug-ins, but something like a mirrorless adds layers of complexity which can lead to bugs:

- Mirrorless

-> HDMI out

-> Elgato

-> USB

-> OBS

-> Virtual camera

A direct USB connection would remove a cable and an adapter.

<-- This

People are leaving off which lens. In my experience, for low-light:

Large sensor + kit (zoom) lens < Pixel Pro < Large sensor + f/1.4 prime

It's not apples-to-apples, since my phone has no optical zoom in the lens (although it somewhat makes up for it by having wide/normal/tele fixed lenses). But shooting with the main lens, it definitely beats a large sensor for low-light with a kit lens.

I think the key difference is intelligent multiframe denoising algorithms on the phone. It, in effect, shoots a video and combines.

That's very true, lenses on a camera work very similarly to a telescope. A larger objective (opening at the end of the lens) combined with a large aperture (lower f number) means that a lens is able to gather a lot more light at a given focal length. Certainly some of my commentary is related to the fact that my primary lenses are f/0.95, f/1.2, and f/1.8. I only shoot "fast" primes on a camera body.

That said, a /lot/ of low light performance is simply having a much larger sensor with a wider pixel pitch that is able to gather more light in the given time allotted. You cannot beat physical size in some ways for digital photography and light gathering is one of them, as it is primarily about surface area.

> A direct USB connection would remove a cable and an adapter.

Most modern mirrorless cameras can be connected to a computer via USB and used as a video source. Some are nerfed to only run for 30 minutes or some other arbitrary number consistently, but most are not.

f/9.5 in Full Frame is abysmal and generally past the point where scene sharpness suffers from stopping down. Even when doing street photography or landscapes, I rarely stop down past f/8. Running something like my Nikkor 50mm f/1.2 S Z-mount lens at f/4 is sharper edge-to-edge than most other lenses at f/8, and gathers enough light to operate a pleasingly fast shutter speed for handheld work even in low-light. A phone does not compare. My wife has the latest Samsung Galaxy S, I have an iPhone 16 Pro, we both also have cameras (her a Fuji APS-C body, me the Nikon Z8 FF body), and we walk around and take photos composed correctly within each camera. We can see it, even without cropping. A camera body is much better than a phone if you care about the quality of your work, and especially if you ever intend to print.