
The dumbest ad ever. - gr366
http://www.scripting.com/stories/2010/06/01/theDumbestAdEver.html
======
sbierwagen
It's always nice to see Dave speaking knowledgeably on a topic which he knows
nothing about.

You'll never see an interchangeable lens camera with a cell phone in it,
simply because high quality lenses have big elements, which gather lots of
light. As I am sure you will be surprised to hear, big pieces of glass result
in big lenses.

Optics is, more or less, a solved problem. We hit hard physical limits long
ago. You'll never see a _compact_ full frame 35mm sensor digital camera. It
just can't happen.

Can you imagine talking into a pro DSLR? Using it as a every day carry phone?
The D700 masses 995 grams, and that's just the body! Add another 500 grams for
the lens; is that something you're just going to slip into a pocket? How are
you going to use it, by holding it to your head by the lens barrel, then
terminating a call by pressing the shutter release?

It's generally a good idea in consumer electronics design to not make your
users look like fools. Nokia forgot this when they made the N-Gage, to their
detriment.

(And, of course, he misspells Lumix as Lunix. That's pretty funny, though,
I'll give him that.)

~~~
abstractbill
Certainly I agree pro cameras won't have _actual_ cellphones in them, but I'm
pretty sure they _will_ soon all have data modems that connect to the existing
cellphone network. I think that was the point the article was trying to make.

~~~
potatolicious
But what would be the point?

Pro cameras - where you shoot in RAW mode, and do post-processing later at
home on your gorgeous widescreen IPS display, curate it, and then upload to
your favourite hobbyist sharing site (Flickr, SmugMug, etc). That doesn't
really lend itself to requiring a wireless modem.

I can see integration of GPSes into DSLRs - geocoding is a hotly requested
feature particularly by hobbyists, but modems?

The absolute top-end Canon cameras have WiFi dongles that can wireless upload
photos as they are shot to a storage unit. This is really to facilitate quick
review in a studio setting - you aren't tethered by a wire, but can review the
photo on a big screen very quickly after a picture without popping the memory
card.

But while you're out and about? It seems pointless. The uses of a pro camera
do not include "hey guys I'm at a pizza place. Look at the size of this
sucker!", which is really where a 3G modem seems useful.

~~~
neilc
A 3G modem for backup would be pretty useful: I'd feel more secure while
traveling to know that all my photos were wirelessly synced with my desktop PC
or the cloud, so that if I lost or damaged a memory card I wouldn't lose
anything. And as you say, avoiding the need for a cable to sync photos would
be very useful.

But I agree, this isn't a huge deal.

------
julius_geezer
I trust my friends to organize an intervention if they ever find me sending
them pictures of pizza joints (especially real time) or calling them "peeps".

------
handelaar
Dave seems to have kneejerked his way into misunderstanding the ad.

Their sale point is "phone cameras are shit and our camera is better". They're
not saying that cameras are bad if they're connected to the world. They're
saying that cameras are bad if they take shit pictures.

Having held an HTC Hero and an iPhone, I'm here to say that they're not wrong.
Those cameras _suck_ as cameras.

~~~
MrRage
> Having held an HTC Hero and an iPhone, I'm here to say that they're not
> wrong. Those cameras suck as cameras.

I disagree. There are two sayings about photography I've heard a few times. 1)
The best camera is the one that you have with you. 2) The novice photographer
wishes he/she had a better camera, but the experienced photograph wishes
he/she had better lighting.

Re #1, I have a high end point and shoot that's really nice. But I almost
never use it now because my iPhone 3GS is always with me. I find that some of
the best photograph opportunities come when you least expect it.

Re: #2, most of photography is lighting and and composition. If you have
crappy light (that includes using a flash) it doesn't matter if you have some
$10,000 camera and lens. If you take photos with good light and have an eye
for composition it won't matter to much which camera you use.

Now saying that, some phone cameras really do lack in resolution. My iPhone
3GS has decent resolution, but iPhones before that take washed out looking
photos. Of course there's other limitations like no zoom, you can't print out
a huge poster version of your photos, and it can't do more "advaced" things
like long exposures. But I and many others have taken decent looking photos on
iPhones. It's Good Enough.

Edit: One more thing. I like the challenge of taking photos on a simple
camera. You don't get distracted by messing with features and have to kinda
learn what makes a photo good.

~~~
natemartin
I think you made the same points as me, but put it much better.

The purchasing jump for consumers is going to be cameraphone -> dslr, not
cameraphone -> point and shoot

------
turnersauce
I'm not really sure if the author is correct about what's happening. That all
depends on exactly how much of Panasonic's revenue comes from selling
professional quality SLR cameras versus its cheaper point-and-shoot models.
Anyway, I don't think that sales of the former are in any kind of jeopardy
because of cell phone cameras.

~~~
potatolicious
Even point and shoots aren't really threatened by cell phone cameras - they
cover two completely separate contexts. In fact, there are few use cases where
the cell phone has really stolen the show from point and shoots.

Don't get me wrong, imaging capabilities on cell phones are important and
useful - but IMHO they've largely carved out _brand new_ use cases for
themselves rather than stealing from other camera products.

I think Panasonic's positioning isn't too bad. They're saying "we're not your
crappy, blurry cell phone camera. If you want memories that last, buy our
stuff" - which seems like a wise enough stance to differentiate themselves.
After all, the really cheap point and shoots do resemble cell phone cameras in
terms of quality - being above that certainly helps.

------
natemartin
I saw this ad in SF a few days ago, and had similar thoughts.

The ad is specifically showing a point-and-shoot camera, not an SLR.

Point-And-Shoot cameras might be better than most cell phone cameras now, but
I'm not convinced they are better enough to justify carrying around an extra
device. For most people a cameraphone is _good enough_ , and if you want
better quality, the step up to a point-and-shoot isn't really worth it. If you
want better quality, go for an SLR.

There's a saying among photographers that "The best camera is the one you have
with you." I have an iPhone, a point-and-shoot, and an SLR. I can't remember
the last time I took out the point-and-shoot. I use the SLR when I know I'm
going to be taking a lot of photos. And I use the iPhone camera constantly.

I think panasonic is mistaken if they think cameraphones are a fad, or that
this advertising will make people jump to using their point-and-shoots.

Instead, why don't they embrace the trend, and work with the phone
manufacturers? Why not talk to Nokia, or HTC, and say "You guys concentrate on
the phone part, leave the camera to us." Put in quality optics, and advertise
the phone with "Camera by Panasonic"

------
starkfist
He could have at least taken a picture of the ad...

~~~
gr366
This looks like an LA billboard version of the campaign...

[http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_GIchwvJ-
aNk/S_xoQsYK1kI/AAAAAAAAQ6...](http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_GIchwvJ-
aNk/S_xoQsYK1kI/AAAAAAAAQ64/P-VT_UoHpCs/s1600/Lumix+camera+billboard.jpg)

Note to another comment thread on this post that they are advertising a point-
and-shoot camera.

Edit: and I noticed the copy along the bottom advertises a touchscreen —
that's getting very close to smartphone territory, no?

------
ams6110
All in one gadgets are convenient but will never replace single-purpose
devices for serious use.

