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

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.

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

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.

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.

Most modern cameras can stream video to a computer through a proprietary protocol. These are implemented under Linux in gphoto2, and in other OSes, through some proprietary tool. During the great webcam shortage of covid, many companies made special, flaky Windows utilities to allow those to be used for web conferencing. Very few can natively as a USB Video Class (UVC) device. This is Canon's version:

https://www.dpreview.com/news/4796043082/canon-s-new-softwar...

Now, for Canon, it's a monthly subscription:

https://www.usa.canon.com/cameras/eos-webcam-utility

As a footnote: The general rule-of-thumb is about f/11 is where you start to notice diffraction limiting sharpness on full frame. That's a rule-of-thumb, and you're welcome to not step down below f/8, but calling f/9.5 "abysmal" is more than a little over-the-top. But no, a phone will not compare to a full frame with a $2000 f/1.2 lens. But it's quite competitive with a kit lens.