Mobile phone v Nikon Camera

[Cordy]

Is my much loved Nikon D90 outdated ?
On the left Nikon with Prime 35mm 1.8 lens
On the right my new Samsung Galaxy A04s - an entry level camera phone
Both shots gently touched with Paintshop Pro X7

 

[Pound Coin]

The D90 was released in 2008. Yes, it is outdated.

The phone therefore has 14 years on the camera.

 

[ancient_mariner]

Is my much loved Nikon D90 outdated ?

Yes, and was 10 years ago.

But the camera gives control over depth of field and should be more able in low-light situations, plus you can fit different focal length lenses for hugely greater versatility than any camera-phone. So in a very limited range of scenarios the phone might be able to match the D90.

FWIW I have an IR converted D70. It's a piece of plastic junk, except that it can still take IR images that most other cameras can't.

 

[Brazo]

Phone cameras are very good as long as the conditions suit them I.e a shot in good light without moving subjects where maximum dof is required. Even the latest and greatest iPhone 14 pro can’t hold a candle to a very old ‘proper’ camera.

Real world test: iPhone 14 PRO image quality still not a match with a 13 year old MFT cameras | sonyalpharumors

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J81wNyy-7pw The gospel is being song that smartphone image quality will soon match or even surpass that of the classic system cameras. Such statements come from many companies like Qualcomm Sony and others (article here). Dimitris Katsafouros compared tried to see...

www.sonyalpharumors.com

Link above to a comparison on Sony Alpha Rumors.

It will happen though and soon enough!!!

 

[Kell]

I have the latest iPhone 14 Pro.

My previous phone was an iPhone XR, so it's not like I go for the latest phone every time.

All the hype was about how amazing the camera is. And it's good. But when you zoom in, it doesn't hold up to even shots I took with my old, original (and much missed) Canon 5D MKI.

 

[dolina]

View attachment 381710
Is my much loved Nikon D90 outdated ?
On the left Nikon with Prime 35mm 1.8 lens
On the right my new Samsung Galaxy A04s - an entry level camera phone
Both shots gently touched with Paintshop Pro X7

You can improve D90's image quality by using a Nikon E FX lenses.

For nearly a decade my eye is more towards utilization. How often do you have your smartphone with you vs your dSLR?

Unless it is a special occasion I just bring my iPhone 13 Pro Max with me everywhere. My country's telco offered me a 24 month contract that allows me to amortize to an equivalent of 37.52 quid per month with text/calls/50GB.

Once contract is done I get a iPhone 15 Pro Max and then hopefully pay 37.52 quid per month again for an additional 24 months. Odds are it will have a better camera. I've been getting a better camera every 2 years and i pay 37.52 quid per month.

If you are after the last 1% of performance then your D90 with a better lens is the way.

You're in luck... lots of F-mount owners are selling their FX lenses so they can buy into the Z system.

 

[welshwizard645]

Maybe compare A4 / A3 prints from D90 and phone?

 

[RichardC27]

I have a Google Pixel 6 which is widely held as having one of the best camera systems available on a phone. The camera is good, for a phone. It has a 48MP sensor which pixel bins down to 12MP images. Here is the original image and a close crop from a photo I took at the weekend using the 2x zoom option in the camera app. Despite what you'll read online, I don't think real cameras have anything to worry about in terms of image quality any time soon. This looks fine at normal viewing sizes on my phone but zoom in or view it on a monitor and it all falls apart.

 

[Kell]

I have the latest iPhone 14 Pro.

My previous phone was an iPhone XR, so it's not like I go for the latest phone every time.

All the hype was about how amazing the camera is. And it's good. But when you zoom in, it doesn't hold up to even shots I took with my old, original (and much missed) Canon 5D MKI.

Just to add to the above.

1. it depends on the photographer
2. it depends on the intended use
3. it depends on the situation

1). I follow or regularly see iPhone/cameraphone feeds on instagram. Some of the shots are amazing - though I'm guessing none will be SOOC. Sometimes the challenge of a fixed lens focuses your creativity on the way that having access to multiple lenses cannot. It's said to be a good discipline for big camera users too.

2). If you're only ever going to put them online or display on screen, then good is probably good enough.

3). Carrying a heavy DSLR and lenses around is a hassle. It's one that most of us on this site are prepared to put up with, but not everyone is. And it's not practical in every situation. Sometimes the ability to have something discreet and easy to operate outweighs the potential extra quality you might get from a 'proper' camera.

 

[dolina]

I have a Google Pixel 6 which is widely held as having one of the best camera systems available on a phone. The camera is good, for a phone. It has a 48MP sensor which pixel bins down to 12MP images. Here is the original image and a close crop from a photo I took at the weekend using the 2x zoom option in the camera app. Despite what you'll read online, I don't think real cameras have anything to worry about in terms of image quality any time soon. This looks fine at normal viewing sizes on my phone but zoom in or view it on a monitor and it all falls apart.

View attachment 381893


View attachment 381892

JPEG settings was for smartphone full frame viewing and not cropped.

Try recording image in RAW if your smartphone supports it then try zooming in.

 

[RichardC27]

JPEG settings was for smartphone full frame viewing and not cropped.

Try recording image in RAW if your smartphone supports it then try zooming in.

It's because it's a 2x crop from the main senor, still output as a 12MP jpeg. There isn't a zoom lens on the P6, just the main and an ultrawide. Even shooting Raw on a Google phone you still only get a 12MP file not the full sensor resolution. I'll use my Fuji X-T4 if I'm going to shoot Raw, my phone is for snapshots and times where its not practical to take my main camera with me. It looks fine viewed on my phone, it's only when you pixel peep that the IQ falls apart

 

[dolina]

It's because it's a 2x crop from the main senor, still output as a 12MP jpeg. There isn't a zoom lens on the P6, just the main and an ultrawide. Even shooting Raw on a Google phone you still only get a 12MP file not the full sensor resolution. I'll use my Fuji X-T4 if I'm going to shoot Raw, my phone is for snapshots and times where its not practical to take my main camera with me. It looks fine viewed on my phone, it's only when you pixel peep that the IQ falls apart

When I mean by zooming in I mean after the photo is created as a RAW.

I believe Pixel have that ability to save photos in RAW

 

[horrocks]

I find that phones are so packed full of AI that the resulting photographs are often superficially impressive, but somewhat cold.

I carry a Huawei P20 with a couple of lenses not much bigger than pin heads. I've pulled some photographs out of it that are actually pretty reasonable after I've rowed them back in Photoshop. I treat the files in exactly the same way as I do my Nikon D7200, a direct successor of the D90. A few of my best© photographs were taken with the D90's immediate predecessor, the D80, which had a nice CCD sensor, potentially quite 'filmic'. All will print effectively to around A3.

 

[RichardC27]

When I mean by zooming in I mean after the photo is created as a RAW.

I believe Pixel have that ability to save photos in RAW

Ah I see what you mean. Yes that would probably give better IQ but it was only a snapshot while out for a walk without my real camera.

 

[dolina]

Ah I see what you mean. Yes that would probably give better IQ but it was only a snapshot while out for a walk without my real camera.

The compression is that aggressive to save on built-in storage space and not to slow down the phone that much.

If it was recorded in RAW or a less aggressive jEPG then odd sare it will line up to a real camera.

 

[Phil V]

The compression is that aggressive to save on built-in storage space and not to slow down the phone that much.

If it was recorded in RAW or a less aggressive jEPG then odd sare it will line up to a real camera.

It won’t / can’t. The lens is better than an early phone but it’s still piteously simple compared to a 50 year old lens designed for a 35mm slr.
The sensor is hideously tiny, ergo the signal to noise ratio is worse than even the earliest DSLR.
Phone ‘cameras’ have got ‘good’ since we started to accept AI images; most of them are not in any true sense a ‘photograph’.

A tiny phone cam, as others have said, is ok for taking static images with plenty of DoF in decent light levels.

 

[dolina]

It won’t / can’t. The lens is better than an early phone but it’s still piteously simple compared to a 50 year old lens designed for a 35mm slr.
The sensor is hideously tiny, ergo the signal to noise ratio is worse than even the earliest DSLR.
Phone ‘cameras’ have got ‘good’ since we started to accept AI images; most of them are not in any true sense a ‘photograph’.

A tiny phone cam, as others have said, is ok for taking static images with plenty of DoF in decent light levels.

That way of thinking was said between 2002-2012. And yet here we are... image quality improve to a point that canon retired the Rebel & Kiss brand consumer brand names.

 

[Phil V]

That way of thinking was said between 2002-2012. And yet here we are... image quality improve to a point that canon retired the Rebel & Kiss brand consumer brand names.

Canon told us years ago there’d be no new DSLR’s.
I’ve got an iPhone 14 pro. It takes great ‘pictures’ as long as I don’t hold them to the same standard as any actual camera I’ve ever owned in the last 40 years.

Pictures that ‘people are happy with’ might make a change in the market, but it doesn’t make them good cameras.

 

[dolina]

Canon told us years ago there’d be no new DSLR’s.

Those brands can carry over to mirrorless. It is an indicator that the consumer market for ILCs have dropped to ~20%. All consoldiated under Rxx, Rxxx & Rxxxx naming convention used elsewhere in the world.

I’ve got an iPhone 14 pro. It takes great ‘pictures’ as long as I don’t hold them to the same standard as any actual camera I’ve ever owned in the last 40 years.

Pictures that ‘people are happy with’ might make a change in the market, but it doesn’t make them good cameras.

But cameras that is always with you are the best.

If my dSLR is always in the electronic dry cabinet because it's too bulky/heavy to pocket with me anywhere and everywhere then you are getting a utilization approaching zero.

That is why I point out all the possible data points of any given workflow.

For enthusiasts and photography as a paid service will always buy into digital cameras for that last 1% of performance.

Some even think that is insufficient and must go to the last 1% of the last 1% by going medium format.

But give it another decade I would not be surprised if smartphones can slowly encroach on that too.

 

[Phil V]

Those brands can carry over to mirrorless. It is an indicator that the consumer market for ILCs have dropped to ~20%.

But cameras that is always with you is the best.

For enthusiasts and photography as a paid service they will always buy into digital cameras.

The discussion is whether or not a good phone camera is actually any good.

Not whether they’re market leaders or ‘good enough’ for people who aren’t picky. Or whether ‘the camera in my pocket’ is better than the one I left at home to photograph my lunch.

Millions of people watch eastenders every night, that doesn’t mean it’s better than watching the RSC live in a theatre.

McDonalds sells 75 hamburgers a second, so plenty of people like them. Personally they don’t even qualify as food IMO.

 

[dolina]

The discussion is whether or not a good phone camera is actually any good.

The discussion is about which was outdated.

D90 + 35/1.8 vs Samsung Galaxy A04s.

I pointed to the gent their options for improvement and the pros & cons of each based on typical use case.

Not whether they’re market leaders or ‘good enough’ for people who aren’t picky. Or whether ‘the camera in my pocket’ is better than the one I left at home to photograph my lunch.

Millions of people watch eastenders every night, that doesn’t mean it’s better than watching the RSC live in a theatre.

If the camera is left idle for years and you take >80% via smartphone then I'd spend more money on what is actually used.

If Cordy wants to watch Eastenders then that's his business. I look at what is well worn and merits a replacement. When it is left untouched why spend any further? Does one need another doorstop or paperweight?

As I pointed out consumers avoid digital cameras. Paid photo services and enthusiasts are left buying them. Working photogs have high utility while enthusiasts vary in utilization.

Best not to get into the trap of buying digital camera then not use em for months on end as they're a burden to lug around.

Bulk & weight are the key selling point of transitioning from dSLR to mirrorless.

 

[Phil V]

The discussion is about which was outdated.

D90 + 35/1.8 vs Samsung Galaxy A04s.

I pointed to the gent their options for improvement and the pros & cons of each based on typical use case.

If the camera is left idle for years and you take >80% via smartphone then I'd spend more money on what is actually used.

If Cordy wants to watch Eastenders then that's his business. I look at what is well worn and merits a replacement. When it is left untouched why spend any further? Does one need another doorstop or paperweight?

Horses for courses.
But the once a year Michelin star meal is more important than the pub tea once a month.

And it’s the monthly photoshoot of the grandchild that I show my mates, not the phone snaps.

Value is a personal thing.

 

[dolina]

Horses for courses.
But the once a year Michelin star meal is more important than the pub tea once a month.

And it’s the monthly photoshoot of the grandchild that I show my mates, not the phone snaps.

Value is a personal thing.

There you have it. You actually have a use case that necessitates a regularly occurring photo shoot with the best image quality possible.

If I was also like you with kids, grand kids and maybe even great grand kids I'd take efforts to buy myself by now a 0.79x medium format FujiFILM GFX 100s with corresponding wide, standard and tele 2.8 zooms to maximize image quality.

Replace every decade as I've well worn out the camera recording important times with loved ones.

Let the plebs be happy with their smartphone.

 

[Deleted member 68495]

There is one single thing that puts me off phone cameras, no matter if they took the best images ever made by anything, and that is that I have never dropped my 'real' camera. It is firmly held in my hand at whatever angle at which I want to use it. I can even operate it one-handed if necessary without fear of it falling to the concrete floor. With my phone camera I have to grasp it tightly in both hands even though it's surface is designed to make it more slippery than an eel in a bucket of engine oil. I see the object of my photographic desire on the screen then, before it moves, I have to find that on-screen button and press it with my free thumb while trying to avoid accidentally arming the flash or have it change modes unbidden. This is always assuming that my sudden desire to take a picture isn't stymied by the image of my own face appearing on the screen because I find I'm using the selfie camera. I suddenly decide to take a picture in portrait mode and in rapidly rotating the slidy thing, it slips from my hands and flies across the room taking burst pictures of it's journey to it's own demise before dropping in front of a moving car.

No, I'll stick with my trusty SLR and reserve the phone for taking pictures of the dog at close range.

PS That zoomed-in picture of the horse a few posts ago is truly horrible.

 

[swanseamale47]

I've got a Samsung A52s and to be honest the camera is very good, better than a lot of compacts and better than some bridge cameras I've tested, and I've not tried raw on it yet. Ok it's lacking compared to a 5d4 or a D6, but it cost a few hundred quid, and the advantage is you always have it on you.

 

[dolina]

Thank you @swanseamale47


No doubt if anyone wants the last 1% of performance one should use an dSLR or mirrorless. But for everyday photography what I see in the indoors or outdoors 99% of the time is a smartphone in other people's hands.

This was unlike between 2000-2010 where in it was >90% point & shoots and <10% dSLRs.

When any product is designed there are use case targets that it has to satisfy.

For example for typical smartphone usage

- Will the user be taking RAW photos >80% of the time? No, but for RAW settings here it is for iPhone or Android

- Will the user crop down to ~100% magnification >80% of the time? No.

- Will limited storage/memory card be largely unchanged or not be swapped out? Yes, that's why photos from smartphones looks like that horsefield image because that image had the default setting meant to save storage space.

- Would a highly compressed JPEG file be satisfactory >80% of the time? Yes!

- Can we use software to improve image quality beyond RAW or a small image sensor? Yes, that's why computational photography was invented. Not perfect but give it until 2030 and you will be impressed.

- Can the phone's built-in hardware volume buttons be used as a shutter? Yes!

- Can I use the built-in volume button of the wired earphones as hardware shutter? Yes!

- Is their a large ecosystem of rugged cases that increases traction/grip and protect smartphones from unintended falls? Yes! A Xiaomi smartphone is first to use the same grippy material used on dSLR

- When an unscheduled decisive moment in time occurs what is likely to be on hand to a non-prof photographer... an ILC or a smartphone? A smartphone... hence all those Chinese weather balloons having very compressed and digital zoomed images. Better to have a cruddy smartphone photo than no photo at all.

- Do smartphone users need a super telephoto camera >80% of the time? No, but these are being built into most recent flagships to go after that last 1% of performance.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tLYAXLNfk0A

 

[LCPete]

It depends on the individual and what you want to photograph but for me I agree with Phil, I’d rather take fewer shots with a camera than with a phone
I still look at shots that I took in 2006 with my Canon 350D quality is decent especially if you reprocess the Raws with up to date software
I’ve taken some nice shots with my iPhone in good light but when I go out specifically to take photos I take the camera

 

[dolina]

It depends on the individual and what you want to photograph but for me I agree with Phil, I’d rather take fewer shots with a camera than with a phone
I still look at shots that I took in 2006 with my Canon 350D quality is decent especially if you reprocess the Raws with up to date software
I’ve taken some nice shots with my iPhone in good light but when I go out specifically to take photos I take the camera

This is why I present my posts from a neutral stand point with data points that anyone reading can use for their specific workflow or lifestyle.

This was how I read @Cordy 's post thus provide upgrade paths for his 2008 Nikon.

I noticed in your signature that you have a

- 2005 350D
- 2010 550D
- 2014 7D2
- 2017 6D2

Do you have a compelling reason to upgrade to mirrorless from any of the 4 in year 2023?

What you have I'd opt for EF L lenses to improve IQ better. There are a lot of great deals on them right now. Good time to get a new toy.

 

[LCPete]

This is why I present my posts from a neutral stand point with data points that anyone reading can use for their specific workflow or lifestyle.

This was how I read @Cordy 's post thus provide upgrade paths for his 2008 Nikon.

I noticed in your signature that you have a

- 2005 350D
- 2010 550D
- 2014 7D2
- 2017 6D2

Do you have a compelling reason to upgrade to mirrorless from any of the 4 in year 2023?

What you have I'd opt for EF L lenses to improve IQ better. There are a lot of great deals on them right now. Good time to get a new toy.

to be honest not a compelling reason to go mirrorless its at least partly a new toy to be honest
but when I got the 6D2 for macro photography was so pleased with the image quality from full frame and wanted something with better autofocus for tracking moving wildlife subjects but with full frame image quality
I went mirrorless to get the eye tracking autofocus its amazing
I already have EF L lenses mainly use the 300 2.8 mk 2 and EF 100 L macro have had them quite a few years now

 

[Baloo]

Personally I think the biggest advantage off even an "outdated" D90 is it not a mobile phone!

 

[Phil V]

This is why I present my posts from a neutral stand point with data points that anyone reading can use for their specific workflow or lifestyle.

This was how I read @Cordy 's post thus provide upgrade paths for his 2008 Nikon.

I noticed in your signature that you have a

- 2005 350D
- 2010 550D
- 2014 7D2
- 2017 6D2

Do you have a compelling reason to upgrade to mirrorless from any of the 4 in year 2023?

What you have I'd opt for EF L lenses to improve IQ better. There are a lot of great deals on them right now. Good time to get a new toy.

There’s nothing ‘neutral’ about your posts on this subject. You ignore any real issues and deflect to what you think are ‘winning’ statements.

My phone has a fantastic camera, if I’m using it for only what it’s good for. It certainly isn’t worth £1k as a camera, but it is worth that as a pocket computer, that has a half decent phone and a free ‘camera’ thrown in.

It has a tiny sensor, and a limited set of focal lengths which means as a camera I would never consider purchasing it ‘as a camera’ because it’s next to useless for these objective reasons:

• Tiny sensor means I have no control over DoF without faking it with software.
• Tiny sensor means it’s noisy in all but the best lighting conditions.
• Ergonomically it doesn’t lend itself to being used as a camera, as using it at arms length isn’t steady.
• No control of shutter speed means it’s rubbish for moving subjects.
• The choice of focal lengths doesn’t meet my usual subject requirements.

And now you’ll return to say something irrelevant but that sounds like I’m wrong anyway. The fact though is this is a photography forum, we’re photographers whose needs are met by 100+ years of camera development.

 

[Fuji Dave]

I have a IPhone 14 Pro Max and the the Samsung S22 Ultra and both cameras are really good, against my cameras both phones are rubbish as can't get good dof or zoom right in or even do animal photography. Mobiles are great as they are always in the pocket for a cool quick shot, as has been said cameras have nothing to worry about.

 

[ancient_mariner]

There’s nothing ‘neutral’ about your posts on this subject. You ignore any real issues and deflect to what you think are ‘winning’ statements.

This really.

Putting a camera in a phone is great for handy snaps, but the current design is extremely poor as a tool for creative photographic use for the reasons Phil and others have given. The fact that 80% of people who do not have a specific interest in photography find them convenient is only a reflection of how little people care for the pictures they produce.

 

[Phil V]

This really.

Putting a camera in a phone is great for handy snaps, but the current design is extremely poor as a tool for creative photographic use for the reasons Phil and others have given. The fact that 80% of people who do not have a specific interest in photography find them convenient is only a reflection of how little people care for the pictures they produce.

But just to soften the message that ‘people don’t care’. A box brownie, 110 camera, 35mm and digital P&S were good enough for people who just wanted to press a button to record a moment. A phone camera replaces those brilliantly.

 

[dolina]

There’s nothing ‘neutral’ about your posts on this subject. You ignore any real issues and deflect to what you think are ‘winning’ statements.

My phone has a fantastic camera, if I’m using it for only what it’s good for. It certainly isn’t worth £1k as a camera, but it is worth that as a pocket computer, that has a half decent phone and a free ‘camera’ thrown in.

It has a tiny sensor, and a limited set of focal lengths which means as a camera I would never consider purchasing it ‘as a camera’ because it’s next to useless for these objective reasons:

• Tiny sensor means I have no control over DoF without faking it with software.
• Tiny sensor means it’s noisy in all but the best lighting conditions.
• Ergonomically it doesn’t lend itself to being used as a camera, as using it at arms length isn’t steady.
• No control of shutter speed means it’s rubbish for moving subjects.
• The choice of focal lengths doesn’t meet my usual subject requirements.

And now you’ll return to say something irrelevant but that sounds like I’m wrong anyway. The fact though is this is a photography forum, we’re photographers whose needs are met by 100+ years of camera development.

My points are indeed neutral.

I have straight forwardly replied to yours & others statements. When shortcomings arise I provide possible remedies that does not require sizeable purchases.

I did not challenge some of your points.

Example I do not want to ask you to show the difference of year 2022 or newer flagship smartphone camera lenses as the R&D money generated from >1.2 billion smartphones would have provided innovations to it that we all may not be aware of.

You have enumerated very specific use cases where the digital cameras has the edge, but for the 99% of the rest of the applications, we were ending up with a digital camera in our pocket that has more utility as a camera or a phone than a digital camera that is 1-3kg without bag.

Many smartphones these days have separate cameras that cover

- wide
- standard
- telephoto
- super telephoto

I hold the smartphone this way and use the volume button as a shutter.

There are camera apps that allows the user to control the aperture, shutter, ISO, color temp, etc.

As you pointed out there are limitations. As such I said ILCs are there to address that last 1% of performance.

Anyone can ignore what I said if it does not fit their lifestyle. I am but providing a different point of view.

Would I use a smartphone attached to a spotting scope to take bird photos?

I would rather stay in bed until noon than to do such a silly thing.

I've seen how people do it. I've seen their output.

And people are very kind to them. It isn't photos worth stealing.

But if the use of the camera is take photos of a child's play set... then do you really need a £1k camera?

Should @Cordy be encouraged to buy a 200mm f/2.0 VR lens to mount his D90 to get DoF?

He was making a comparison between his Nikon vs his Samsung.

Indeed this a enthusiast photo forum but it does not preclude specific cameras because of their sensor size.

If I was married for 17 years and have a 16, 12, 8, 4 or 0yo. I'd probably have bought a Fuji medium format system as early as 2017. As they're worth the expense.

 

[dolina]

But just to soften the message that ‘people don’t care’. A box brownie, 110 camera, 35mm and digital P&S were good enough for people who just wanted to press a button to record a moment. A phone camera replaces those brilliantly.

It is so good that camera sales dropped from 121.5m to 8m. I expect it to drop another 1m to settle at ~7m, if they're lucky.

An indicator of this would be how this forum's post, user and other activities have changed over the years from year 2006 (year before iPhone) to today. It would likely peak around 2010 then drop year over year for the past dozen years.

 

[Deleted member 68495]

Nothing really disappears. Bands still put music out on cassette and, especially, vinyl, you can still buy a new Sony Walkman and Polaroid are still making and selling instant-print cameras. No one can seriously consider phone cameras driving the non-phone camera out of the market anytime, let alone soon.

 

[Baloo]

But if the use of the camera is take photos of a child's play set... then do you really need a £1k camera?

No and you do not need a 1k phone either, a £100 phone will do. Fact is that image quality wise the D90 will still take better quality images than a top of the range phone and offer much greater versatility in the images you can take. Plus of course he already owns the D90 and most modern houses are big enough to store a DSLR and a few lenses!

 

[dolina]

Nothing really disappears. Bands still put music out on cassette and, especially, vinyl, you can still buy a new Sony Walkman and Polaroid are still making and selling instant-print cameras. No one can seriously consider phone cameras driving the non-phone camera out of the market anytime, let alone soon.

What I have observed is that when disruption occurs current needs are fulfilled with cheaper/faster new tech.

Pony Express evaporated when the telegram was rolled out to all points.

Bands don't do cassettes in commercial quantities anymore. They put up their work on Spotify or YouTube until they get discovered or go viral.

Landlines are largely unwanted in new homes where no one's there to accept the call.

Walkmans are now iPods that I have difficulty looking for market research on as iPhone & Android make it obsolete.

dSLRs are

- abandoned by Sony years ago
- transitioned away by Canon & Nikon
- Pentax will be the only brand to push it

Photo agencies, working photographers and some enthusiasts are still buying ILCs.

Consumer cameras are pretty much approaching death.

 

[dolina]

No and you do not need a 1k phone either, a £100 phone will do. Fact is that image quality wise the D90 will still take better quality images than a top of the range phone and offer much greater versatility in the images you can take.

Assuming D90 was bought on year 1 tells me it hasn't been getting much use for over a decade.

This differs with last year's Samsung. So there is incentive to replace based on utility.

Plus of course he already owns the D90 and most modern houses are big enough to store a DSLR and a few lenses!

No argument there if the camera's left at home 99% of the time. ;-)

If he gets a great 24 month amortization plan he only pays 4.17/month for a fresh new £100 phone that he'd probably feel naked without it.