Canon’s recently released financial results don’t bode well for the Japanese manufacturer, nor the market more broadly. As much as the executives want to blame camera phones, the truth is that the industry is finally adjusting to a huge marketing con and a total inability to react to social technology. If you want to know why, it's time to examine my Mom's fridge.
The greatest trick that camera manufacturers ever pulled was perpetuating the idea that if you wanted to take nice photographs, you needed a DSLR. Going on holiday? Get a Rebel. Got a new baby? Get a Nikon 3x00. The aura built up around the DSLR was infused with aspirations of being the next Cartier-Bresson and the misguided but appealing idea that this big, bulky, complicated device was going to offer the best quality. Of course, myriad enthusiasts will have then upgraded to better cameras and benefited greatly from the ease with which you could learn the basics of photography. However, countless others will have never wandered outside of Auto, and never switched out their kit lens for another piece of glass.
The vast majority of those who bought those thousands of Rebels that now sit collecting dust would have been better off with digital compacts. As a friend just told me, “Most of the photos I take are equally crap on my phone as they were on my Canon, which probably doesn’t turn on any more as the batteries are dead.”
The Canon EOS Rebel SL2. Launched in 2017, how many of these are already tucked away in the back of a wardrobe after one trip to the Grand Canyon and a brief outing at Alan's wedding?
Undoubtedly, smartphones have had an impact on camera sales. Those with a new child gurning up at them don’t immediately Google “which camera should I buy.” Instead, they reach for their phones and begin snapping away. Market saturation of entry-level DSLRs coincided with the arrival of technology that made the DSLR redundant for those who just wanted a few snaps of a graduation.
Factor in Instagram and wannabe image-makers suddenly came to realize that pleasing results were not dependent on some plasticky lump of a camera that has weird dials featuring random capital letters and labyrinthine menu systems. Instead, with one click, you wash out the colors, mix in a ton of orange and teal, and throw on a heavy vignette. And most importantly, you share it immediately via social media. No cables, no card readers, no raw conversion, no unnecessarily complicated and expensive software. Instant publication.
My Mom's Fridge Is Better Connected than my Camera
The camera giants are a victim of two things: firstly the marketing success that sold the entry-level DSLR to so many unwitting non-photographers for so many years has had the rug pulled out from underneath it. Secondly, manufacturers have failed to respond to the rise of the smartphone with functionality that offered any sort of comparison. It’s 2019 and I can’t post a photograph from my camera straight to Instagram. Canon's photocopiers have better connectivity than its cameras, and if even my Mom’s fridge is connected to the internet, why isn’t my shiny new Sony mirrorless? And it may be that very few hardened professionals want that functionality, but that's not the market that Canon is saying goodbye to and seeing its profits hammered accordingly.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6jcclMDjb_8
So a four-year-old can send people images from her fridge but I can't send people photos from my camera. I'm not sure which aspect of this is more ridiculous. (This isn't actually my Mom's fridge, by the way.)
When you look at the software that does exist, it is almost universally awful. Japan is a nation that prides itself on cutting-edge gadgets and yet most camera menu systems feel like they were designed by interns. That might be fine for seasoned photographers who know their gear inside out, but a customer having just bought a brand new entry-level ILC will be used to the clean, logical design of Android and iOS and, unless they drop six grand on a Hasselblad X1D II, they’re probably in for a bit of a shock. Menu system aside, do you want to post that photo of your gurning baby that just blew its first spit bubble to Facebook? Have fun with that.
Scandinavians appreciate the small details that make good design. Creative tools should inspire you, not make you feel like you're trying to send a fax. (Warning: loud music.)
The Budget Bodies Were Too Busy Boasting
Camera manufacturers have had their heads in the sand for too long and it’s difficult to sympathize. Those budget bodies were a huge part of their revenue and while Canon and Nikon were busy boasting megapixels, autofocus points, and viewfinder coverage, low-end customers wanted ease of use and the ability to share. Smartphones offer inferior results, but at least those results can be seen. What’s more, given the amount of compression that occurs when uploading to social media, those 20 megapixels packed inside Canon's latest and greatest consumer DSLR are completely pointless.
The Canon Camera Connect app for the iPhone. “I’m shocked at how poorly designed and clunky their iOS app is!” says one review. Have fun connecting UPC246039278.
Manufacturers will tell you that arguments against developing social functionality are manifold: the processors inside cameras are geared towards handling large image files, not fancy displays. Running a version of Android would bring its own plethora of problems with security and constant updates, potentially introducing bugs and usability issues. The existing batch of entry-level DSLRs would be significantly more expensive as a result.
However, if I were a shareholder at Canon right now, this would not hold up as much of an excuse. With the research and development budgets at their disposal, it’s not that these challenges were insurmountable; it’s that they weren’t on anyone’s radar thanks to an alarming lack of vision that is now being felt in sales, a downturn that has been compounded by other global events. Smartphones have dented camera sales, but that dent would be a lot smaller if camera manufacturers had embraced user experience rather than continuing to blithely ignore it.
If the likes of Canon and Nikon want to fight this trend, it's time to change their approach. As much as we love dynamic range, vast numbers of megapixels and incredible autofocus features, there's no appeal outside of the pro market if all of those bells and whistles are hobbled by usability from twenty years ago. Let me know your thoughts in the comments below.
Can't agree with you more. Even my 3 years old Huawei can edit RAW (NEF) files but not my 20 Megapixels ,Xpeed processor, 51200 ISO camera. I dont even use my laptot that often. I ended up downloading pictures onto my phone. Edited and published in a few minutes.
Tom Hogan is one analyst who for many years by now mentioned this inability of Japanese camera makers to adapt to the social media age. Nikon's SnapBridge was a typical case of this: slow, difficult to connect. Canon's connection was barely better, and mostly practicable with jpegs only. Even with the latest Canon RI find myself processing images in a conventional way: Card out of camera, into the computer, open Capture 1 and than export and publish. Whoever has a raw shooting phone, might be here at an advantage, of course only where the light and final quality is on pair (snapshots, reporting etc)
Yes.
It's Thom btw.
People can send ships to Mars, but I still have to use manual labor to paint a house.
k
Great points Andy! I saw a video by Tony Northrup two years ago that made similar points. Two of his suggestions were for manufacturers to open up the camera to third party apps, and to start acting like a software company (frequent updates, usability, etc). (Video was titled "Death of consumer cameras" or something like that.)
I think the manufacturers need to recognize the user interface paradigm that consumers are accustomed to. Your suggestion for incorporating an Android OS into consumer-level cameras seems spot on to me.
I read this a couple of times to process it and gather my thoughts on the matter.
So I'm a full time photographer who shoots a lot of images for corporate social media campaigns. Clients request all sorts of things based on pre-discussed mood boards.
The content I'm asked to supply has gone beyond random cool images, it's more about creating the story by use of the techniques that are available to the consumer. Sadly, this includes the dreaded bloody vertical video format as well as stop motion, hyper lapse, cinemagraph, 'boomerang' and any other funky effect you can think of.
Sometimes, it's just more practical and more cost effective to actually use my smart phone (iPhone 8+ in my case) The results that pop out and are very good, more than good enough for social media. Not everything is to my satisfaction, or possible with a phone and that's why they rely on a professional to make the results look as they were requested in the mood board. Sometimes a lot of editing is needed to achieve a result that strongly resembles the same shot made on a phone. It's worth it though and both interchangeable lens cameras and smart phone are needed in my daily work.
To get back to the 'smartness' of an interchangeable lens camera. Do I want that? I don't know. Right now I have SnapBridge on the D850 and Z7. Pretty powerful, direct download to phone/tablet/laptop or select and download.
The downloaded image (2mp or full res) can then be tweaked on the mobile device and uploaded. Job done. I use this technique a lot.
Narrowing it down further. Do I actually want my camera to do all that? No. I really don't. My camera is to make photos. I don't want to be fiddling around opening apps on the camera to edit and upload somewhere just to discover that an app needs updating because it's not compatible with the new firmware on the camera. No, I really don't want image processing going on in the camera. I've never even used the RAW converter that's in the Nikon.
I don't lay awake at night speculating on what camera manufacturers are doing next, or worry about what their sales figures look like. My only concern is that tomorrow, when I open my camera bag, the cameras and lenses work, that I'm not confronted by a popup to say my day is ruined because I forgot to update something, that I don't have software conflicts on my tools. I can pick up the camera. Load a card and battery, fit a lens and earn my crust. A simple analogy recognisable to anyone who grew up in the 80's.. You plugged a cartridge into an Atari 2600 and played. Now, you charge up, log in, log on, update, play.
Call me old fashioned but I'll use a full toolbox of tools rather than have one tool that does all because a tool that does all is a jack of all trades and a master of none.
Old fart Rob x
I wonder if that new Carl Zeiss ZX1 rangefinder, with photoshop in it, is in response to this? Or at least an experiment, to slam the two worlds together. But I do agree with you.
My digital cameras do already feel like consumer white goods rather than cameras, which is honestly very annoying, on some of them I hate the fact it goes off "to think" when I press the shutter button, rather than just doing what it's told.
Having said that, I was reading somewhere else about the lack of encryption for digital files taking on a camera, and there being a very specific need for that from journalists in hostile fields; if the camera was more like an android device, with a more open software development platform, this could be fixed easily. Having an open source platform for software changes, could extend the life of your camera by a few extra years.
I'm fine with the camera being a camera though :)
To comment on your last line. I've never bought a new camera for the software. Always for the hardware. I also buy a new camera when the current one is written off the accounts and I need to buy a new one as 'investment' to offset taxation.
I see your point there though. If Tesla were making cameras, we'd have etch-a-sketch and space invaders on there, maybe even a ludicrous burst mode.
I guess my stand point as full time photographer is far from the core thinking of the article though. Us Professionals aren't the bread and butter audience of the manufacturers, they are making their money form consumers who want to upgrade, side grade and have the new bells and whistles. Are they going to win over smart phone camera users though? Convenience rules.
Yes the ZX1 seems an attempt to answer that challenge. Alas if you read the forums there are plenty of photographers that can not wrap their minds around the ZX1. "No removable media - OMG what will happen to my pictures" - yet no one asks this about a smartphone. Not withstanding that - you still can back up to removable media with the ZX1 (AKA a much more ubiquitous USB thumb drive). "I don't want to edit and share images from that small camera screen" - yet again people do exactly that with a smartphone - and the ZX1 goes a step further, you can still edit images in your desktop too - just like you always have.
The point of the article is about the vanishing market for *entry-level* cameras. I doubt anyone in the market for prosumer cameras is going to lay awake at night speculating on what camera manufacturers are doing next, or is longing for an Android-based camera. But if the manufacturers hope to appeal toward the average cell phone user with zero experience with a "real" camera, they need to offer familiar features, such as immediate upload to social media, filters, etc.
The main reason I'd like to see Canon or Nikon find a path to keeping entry-level cameras alive is for their own long-term survival. I'd personally hate to see Sony acquire Canon's imaging division or Nikon because I believe we consumers are better served with more competition. And in a declining market segment, mergers tend to happen. It's hard to see how they can continue to invest in research and development based solely on the high-end segment.
@ Rob Mitchell...I have to agree with you, Rob. My two main cameras...D850 and D500...would benefit with better firmware updates to enhance the feature set of the cameras. Especially, the D500. Nikon could add 9 point to the already 25, 72, 153 points, focus stacking, etc. These features are what photographers want, not some stupid app. I neither want nor need any iOS or Android apps on my cameras. If I'm going to upload something to social media (which, by the way, I've never used), I'll do it from my computer. Let the youngsters use their cell phones for social media.
As long as my iPhone is connected I don't care if my camera is.
Yep, this is spot on. It will probably be solved when the Chinese develop a solid alternative to Android.
Ummm I can send photos to my phone with Imaging Edge, there's a dedicated button for sending photos to a phone on Sony cameras. So it doesn't post directly to Facebook, how fuckin lazy are ya? 😆
I've used Imaging Edge it to download pics to my tablet, and from there to post to Instagram, but the resolution is barely adequate even for IG. It might be because I shoot in RAW and they only have the preview JPEG to send to the camera. Also, the options for which images to send are crap, so once again it's let down by the software.
Ah yeah the preview may be crap, I shoot in JPEG + RAW and have it set to transfer the full 24 mp files.
I am not sure how you balance the desire to add a smartphone to a camera with the desire to increase "ease of use".
I am one of those oddballs that doesn't use Instagram. A camera designed to post to Instagram would be less appealing to me (though I appreciate that I am in a minority).
The same for an Android-powered camera - one of the things I love most about my camera is that it doesn't feel like one of the many screens I spend my whole working life around.
I am tired of the trend for one device to do everything (and none of these "do all" devices actually do anything very well, they just do "good enough"). I like reading on a Kindle. I miss my old iPod, my phone is nowhere near as good at being an MP3 player. I prefer a laptop screen to a smartphone. And so on...
I think there will be a time in the not too-distant future when the smart thing for camera manufacturers to do will be to raise the drawbridge and abandon poorly-selling entry-level lines completely. Smartphones are better than DSLRs if all you ever intend to do is post to Instagram anyway. They're more portable. They have other useful devices incorporated. They include a ton of apps for bad filters and fake bokeh. You don't need to understand "exposure". Their low light performance (without fiddling with dials - just pick "night mode") while computer-enhanced is better too.
There has been a brief period in time when everyone wanted a "real camera". But we all know that the average Rebel ends up in a box in the wardrobe after being used twice. People don't have the patience to learn to use them or want to carry the weight (which compared to a smartphone is still too much) - their experience is never, no matter how much software is included, going to be better than using a smartphone.
In Western markets, the entry-level DSLR just doesn't matter anymore, in developing nations it's more of a big deal and a lot of pros shoot with cheap cameras because expensive ones are too far out of reach financially.
Totally agree with you and i don't think i will ever play with idea of using a smartphone to capture my precious moments or use it for more than simple productivity tools for my work/personal life. Each device has its own strong use and smartphones simply can't be for me as camera tool for my life moments.
Precious pictures deserves better tools and better image quality to print/archive it.
The problem is that you can't control precious moments. So, it's the camera you have at the time... Now when you plan "precious moments......."
Your mom's fridge is also a static piece of technology likely hardwired or connected to her home wi-fi. A camera is a portable piece of technology that would require an active internet connection to have any utility in the manner that you argue it ought to have. So do camera companies sell 5G data plans with their cameras? Are you going to rely on a mobile hotspot? Tether it to you phone? You would need to solve the connectivity issue in a user-friendly manner to take advantage of any social functionality. You would also have to implement some sort of system to easily type captions.
On another note, Japan is actually not that great when it comes to just about anything computer, internet, and smartphone related. This is one of those common misconceptions that people have because they are really great with other type of electronics, but you would do much better to turn to China and South Korea for those categories. If any company is going to pioneer "smart cameras", a Japanese company would be close to dead last among my guesses.
Is a market correction, we now have a device that has a camera with quality acceptable for most consumers, but also serves other purposes, why would you buy an extra device? As far as connectivity and interface, at least in new cameras is not as bad as the article makes it in my opinion.
To think someone actually spent time writing this garbage...wow
Bringing any device online requires a decent amount if IT and IT thinking (read: security). Most embedded systems (Wifi cams or other species of the IoT zoo) have serious security issues, something that i certainly don't need on my camera.
Not everything needs to be online. The right tool for the right job. For the quick snaps and shares the mobile phone is good enough.
You are so right. In the age of open SDKs we stuck forever closed in proprietary systems of a few industry behemoths. Why the latest Canon camera still does not have 802.11 ac -compatible wifi?
Some quotes from market research of camera market:
"The modern photography camera market landscape is a mind boggling sprawling ecosystem of proprietary mounts, communication protocols and raw file formats. Standardization, interoperability, seamless integration, unified communication protocols are alien concepts for photography industry forever locked in a medieval fiefdom mentality. "
https://www.marketanalysis.com/?p=8981
"There are many reasons for Software Defined Digital Camera Concept to re-shape drastically the current market landscape."
https://www.marketanalysis.com/?p=152
Ah, these look good. Thanks for sharing. Saved for later. :)
"Those with a new child gurning up at them..." Gurning: making a grotesque face. That's a new word for me.
It's an interesting take, and definitely agree current camera connectivity is lacking. However, there have been past products that directly addressed this, such as Olympus' Air 01 and Nikon's Coolpix S800c. These were both, essentially, Android-powered cameras with instant sharing ability, and they were both flops in the market. Were they just too far ahead of their time?
Great point.
I felt compelled to register at this site just to shout “I AGREE!”. I love my DSLRs, my glass, and my iPhone XS just can’t compete on quality. But then it boasts ‘Live’ photos which is a small miracle, brilliant editing tools, and such immediacy to it all! What’s frustrating is that Nikon and Canon seem oblivious to what, in my opinion, is an already implemented solution: just copy GoPro! Brilliant app, shoot with the camera, copy to phone, edit and share at will. And that’s without the ‘plus’ subscription. More of this please!
Smartphones are now starting to do by computational methods, and automatically, what digital cameras can't do or take expertise to do. Eg focus stacking, HDR. They're shaping up as better imaging devices for the needs of the average user.
People who wonder why they can't connect their camera to Facebook or Instagram have probably never had to implement an API to do so. They are constantly updating the API, breaking things, etc. Facebook even slows down the API for non-Facebook apps so other apps can never be as fast as Facebook. Would it be nice? Yes. But then people would be saying why not so-and-so app, why not web browsing, why not video chat, I mean it is a camera! Now you have to do all of this on a 3-inch screen and a small battery. How are you going to type a post on a screen the size of the one on your camera? We all have smart phones, the easier method would be to make pairing the phone and the camera much easier, like push a button and my phone is connected to the camera.
After reading this, I decided to bring my refrigerator on a photo shoot. It was very difficult and required my two children and two of my neighbor's teenagers to get it into my car. No matter how hard I tried, charging the non-existent batteries was futile. Once I drove away from my home, out of WiFi range, there was no possible way to connect it to the internet. Nowhere to set ISO, nowhere to set shutter speed or aperture, and nowhere to even mount a lens. I felt foolish and humiliated. Refrigerators make lousy cameras.
I agree with most of what this article states but some amount of blame need be placed in the stingy way in which carriers allocate SIM cards. If I'm buying internet usage from AT&T (or others), why not provide me a half dozen extra SIM cards to use in my portable devices? My car uses internet via my phone; my camera, awkwardly, from my phone too.
I don't know others but Olympus' O.I. Share is a Pain in the a$$. Rather than having the camera connect to WiFi or to my phone's tether, my camera runs its own little WiFi. Connecting it to my phone is spotty because my phone reconnects to the 4G once it realizes that the camera's WiFi does not have internet (and nor does my phone while connected to the camera's WiFi). This makes using my phone as a proxy to uploading movies and pictures to the cloud effectively impossible.
Appreciate your efforts with the fridge. Will keep this in mind.
I recently went on a vacation, and decided not to take my laptop. Only my smartphone and my DSLR with a superwide zoom and a 35mm f2 lens for low light images. After a couple days I wanted to share some images, luckily my camera has RAW processing, so I depending on the image I would create jpgs down to 2.5 mp or full size if I wanted to crop the image later, then I would transfer the images to my phone thru the remote app for the camera. The process wasn't difficult, but I did miss the ability to adjust many more settings as I usually do in capture one. I was surprised at how much detail I could see even in the downrezed images.
I don't need my camera to connect to the internet. But, I do wish there was an easier and faster way to move the images to my phone. I can do everything I want on it, and the screen is bigger too.
Been saying that for many years, publicly.
I havent bought new big gear for four years. I want my big Nikon do the same my phone does. Japans mfg effed themselves big time and the gravytrain has moved on.
In cam software is mostly horrible, horrible connectivity to horrible outcam software is standard.
My android phone does connectivity, 4k/30/12mb for 3 years and pretty seamless integration with Gopro. ITS a cameraback for the GP fgs.
My big Nikon feels like a doorstop in my photolife and wont get replaced.
BMP, Essential and GP and Ryzen7 work for me. Two old and good Nikonlenses made in japan is all thats left from the once greatest cam nation. Shutterlag.
I totally agree. Not only that, there are simple things that they can think of but seems they are not willing to. I have a Canon 750D every time I google something related, I have to remember it is called Rebel T6 in other part of the world. Some models have three names! World is global now. I don't now why Canon does not stop with local naming. Another strange thing is numbering 750D, 800D then 250D! Why on earth someone makes such a strange numbering.
Super analysis...! Ancient UI & lack of connectivity is the reason for all the troubles.
I thought you were going to say because you can store film in your mom's fridge. Because that's a very smart and useful thing indeed.
The new IQ4 DB from Phase has even CaptureOne built in.
I agree. I share my pictures on Instagram and with my phone this is really easy.
I can shoot, edit and post a video on my smartphone in a couple of minutes. Try to do this with your camera.
The average user is not interested in all the AF features or frames per second. Joe Public wants ease of use and the ability to post and share pictures easily.
Social media is the rate limiting step. IG and FB compress the heck out of photos. After you upload to them, the resulting file is like 500KB. I've uploaded gorgeous 15 MB JPEGs to those sites only to have them end up looking like smartphone pics.
"Instead, with one click, you wash out the colors, mix in a ton of orange and teal, and throw on a heavy vignette" HAHA that made me smile. So true.
It seems to me that the camera industry is going through what the audio industry went through 20/30 years ago. Back then a ‘proper’ audio system was a four foot high stack of chrome or black boxes with more dials and displays than an aircraft cockpit with speakers to match. The marketing was all jargon and technical minutiae. That audiophile market still exists but it's a fraction of what it was. Today, if you own a separate audio system at all, it's probably a $60 box from Walmart. Most likely, your audio system has evaporated into an MP3 collection on you phone to laptop or the cloud.
The professional and prosumer market for cameras will persist but probably shrink. For most people, their ‘camera’ is already just an adjunct to their phone and, thanks to computational photography, they can instantly take better photos with it than they every could with a consumer DSLR (and why shouldn’t they? Even a mid-range phone is technically superior to anything that Lange or Capa or Bresson carried around).
A successful consumer camera has to be objectively better than, and at lease as useable as, a phone camera. Imagine the Pixel or Huawei image software in something like a Sony RX 100 VI that can post directly to Facebook or Instagram. That’s a consumer camera you can sell.
Camera manufacturers might take a lesson from the audio industry, or the video industry or the any-industry-you-can-name: convenience outsells quality every time.
I'm a hobbyist and I like using a camera because... well because I *like* using a camera! I know that sounds weird, but what I mean is, it's not just about the results for me. It's about the process. Selecting a lens, adjusting the settings, the tactile experience of pressing real buttons and turning real dials to affect the outcome. Sure, many (but not all) of my photos could be duplicated using my Pixel 2, but it's a much less satisfying experience for me.
That said, there are times when I want the convenience of being able to quickly post pix to social media. For that, I use SnapBridge. I know, I know, that used to be the most worthless garbage ever created. But if you shoot Nikon and haven't tried the app for a while, I suggest giving it another shot. Any photos I shoot while bluetooth is turned on on my phone are automatically downloaded into a specific folder. These are lower res versions, but they are plenty good enough for instagram.
I could not agree more with your points. The Rebbel ruined my interest in photography. Oddly enough it was a small Canon pocketable travel zoom that rekindled my interest and then Sony's mirrorless. Still I pine for the days of simple connectivity you mention in a reasonably small camera.
The ZX1 is trying to address exactly this, but it seems few can wrap their minds around the camera.
I don't think there is a single answer. Read the comments. There are several types of complaints and several solutions. None of them are going to please everybody. No matter what they come up with, the camera companies need products, photography related or not, that the average consumer wants in big numbers. That will be what the point and shoots were to the entry level, hobbyist and full frame dslr. Money that can be invested in products that don't sell in great numbers. Heck. Olympus can sell cameras, because they make money medical equipment. You can thank Oly for your next colonoscopy.
Would not be easy, but one solution is to do what Sony has done and get into the phone market. Churn out models that compete directly with other phones as far as similar features. Or go a route similar to the Coolpix S800c and Galaxy K Zoom. Make a smartphone with a decent camera attached. Real zoom, with maybe 28-50mm (35mm equivalent FOV). Only buttons would be power, volume +-, and shutter button with half press to focus. Devote the entire backside to a screen with the obligatory tiny camera for selfies. All the photo and video features in simple, easy access menus just like other phones. You may ask why I stopped at 50mm in the zoom. Keep the thickness of the phone reasonably thin. And there is at least one phone out there with a 52mm equivalent, second camera that is considered a "telephoto." SMH. That's a normal, and the phone people don't know and don't care.
DSLRs or mirrorless cameras are not made for quick snaps that you upload to social media. They are meant for quality photography. If you want to post snapshots, use your phone. I would never want to post a picture to social media before I viewed it full screen and made adjustments to the RAW file. Can't imagine anyone posting quality photography that would. My friend sends his Sony sporting event photos to his editor using his cameras wifi. Any other functionality would be a waste. I dont want to pay more for my camera to have the ability to post directly to social media. It's a feature I'd never use.
Interesting article. I have a semi-expensive Nikon (D7200) and I love it. But sometimes in difficult lighting situations or for quick grab shots, even when I have my Nikon with me, I pull out my iPhone and get great pictures with perfect exposures every time. I also grab my iPhone when I want a little wider angle shot and don't feel like changing lenses on the Nikon.
#RIPCanon