New Interchangeable Lenses for smartphones... are they going to kill anything?

[Emanuel]

Huawei’s new Ruiying Z10 module for the Mate 90 Pro Max... Inspiring, to say the least : ) That is, an interesting development in the long-running convergence between smartphones and dedicated cameras.

The module reportedly includes:

• its own sensor and optical system (detachable connection to the smartphone)
• 1-inch 50MP RYYB sensor
• 24–240mm equivalent range in 35mm terms (10x continuous optical zoom)
• f/2.0–4.5 aperture

So this is not simply an accessory lens placed in front of the phone’s built-in camera.

It is effectively a separate camera module using the smartphone as its display, processor and interface.

Strictly speaking, this is not yet an interchangeable-lens camera system in the conventional sense, since the entire camera module is replaced rather than just the lens. But it does raise an obvious question about where smartphone camera design may be heading.

Smartphones already provide processing, computational photography, large displays, storage, editing and connectivity. If large sensors and modular or interchangeable optics become more common, part of the traditional role of the dedicated camera body could become less distinct.

Mirrorless cameras still retain substantial advantages: larger sensors, mature lens systems, ergonomics, cooling, battery life, physical controls, professional I/O and more sophisticated video recording options.

The question is how much of that distinction will remain relevant if smartphone camera systems continue moving in this direction.

Are interchangeable lenses for camera phones going to kill the mirrorless camera industry or will they remain a separate category?

- EAG :- )

 

 

[stephen]

Nothing new under the sun. Sony tried this concept 13 years ago with Sony DSC-QX100 and Sony DSC-QX10. It didn't work / sell well. 
Maybe their implementation was not good, maybe smartphones were not fast enough or price was too high. I somehow doubt it will work now.  
99.9 percent of the people are quite happy with the cameras on their smartphones. Those who want something more are a tiny minority and they have plenty of other toys to play with. So again I doubt this will sell. Same as those telephoto 300mm,400mm  and more add on lenses. Who the heck needs those ? Bird shooters, sports shooters ? They are a tiny minority of a tiny minority and they will buy a mirrorless camera for those tasks. Smartphone manufacturers will soon realize they waist time and money. 

I am quite happy that we now have :
    1. RAW video and basically great video IQ from smartphones with 3rd party applications
    2. Finally one company broke the mold and produced a flagship smartphone with 35mm focal lenght main camera

[Emanuel]

Take a better look at the video, Stephen, where the reviewer explains why this is actually an entirely new product concept... ; )

But let me answer you on this new one now:

Have you ever been to a music concert with a camera in hands without being accredited as often happens but just not all the time? : )

Maybe not or perhaps you've already been asked to leave your telephoto zoom at the cloakroom, assuming there even was one... ;- )

Or then, going to the middle of the crowd with your gear after the first three songs... : X

I bet you're able to pay for it in just a single gig! : P

- EAG

[maxJ4380]

Emanuel, drop anything from a suitable height and you'll get results... although i wont go into detail about how to maximise your results...

pink floyd once did a bootleg of the bootleggers taken from their concerts. Considering the price of tickets for these events these days aren't cheap. I feel it should probably come with a digital download after the event. 

I don't condone for want of a better phrase  err...  event video piracy however if its a 1 off event and its for personal use like nostalgia then i feel thats ok, however it you make a living from filming events and aren't accredited then thats just wrong.   

[Emanuel]

2 hours ago, maxJ4380 said:

Emanuel, drop anything from a suitable height and you'll get results... although i wont go into detail about how to maximise your results...

pink floyd once did a bootleg of the bootleggers taken from their concerts. Considering the price of tickets for these events these days aren't cheap. I feel it should probably come with a digital download after the event. 

I don't condone for want of a better phrase  err...  event video piracy however if its a 1 off event and its for personal use like nostalgia then i feel thats ok, however it you make a living from filming events and aren't accredited then thats just wrong.   

Piracy?! That is quite a leap from what I actually wrote.

Yes, you later qualify it by talking about personal use, but you were the one who introduced “event video piracy” and making money from unaccredited shooting into a discussion where I had said nothing of the sort.

For the record, I have never made a single cent from piracy in my life.

And “not accredited” does not automatically mean “unauthorised” either. There are plenty of public concerts and events, including free ones, where there is no meaningful accreditation process in the first place. Sometimes they are organised or supported by public bodies and the whole situation is simply very different from a ticketed arena show with a tightly controlled press pit.

And even at paid concerts, anyone who has actually spent years moving from one professional job to another with a camera in his hand will know exactly what I mean about the arrogance you can sometimes encounter from press offices.

Being treated like livestock while being moved in and out, told where to stand, allowed three songs, then pushed out of the pit or backstage as though the people actually doing the camera work were an inconvenience.

You really have to have worked with a camera in your hand to understand what I mean by that ; )

 

And that brings me to something the video world has a curious habit of forgetting: hey, still photography exists! : P 

Photographers, to be fair, can be equally guilty of forgetting motion : X 

A concert is not only something to be filmed. It is something to be photographed as well and photography, in motion or not, at its best, is art < 3

Then, of course, there is DSMC. Stands for Digital Still and Motion Camera. Perhaps you've heard of it : )

I don't know where you were when Jim Jannard and Jarred Land were already pushing that idea nearly twenty years ago, but I remember very well where I was and what I was already doing ; )

The distinction between “stills” and “video” has been breaking down for a very long time. Which is precisely why something like this Huawei or the other Honor (ARRI) : D posted in another thread, is still fairly interesting to me.

 

Not because of piracy, for sure! (how easily people can pull the trigger on conclusions coming entirely from their own minds is beyond me! : ) but because it potentially gives you a serious imaging tool without immediately putting you inside the usual professional-access cage.

 

And since you brought money into the discussion: if you ever feel like contributing to my income, you're more than welcome to put something from my actual work in the shopping basket ; )

With a bit of luck, it might even arrive signed not only by the alleged “pirate” himself LOL but also by the rock star the pirate photographed.

And who knows, since he's a rock star, perhaps his autograph might even become collectible enough for you to sell it on eBay for a profit someday : D

Now that would be such a commercial transaction! : P (E. :- )

 

The Waterboys / Mike Scott (posted on EOSHD), 2024

PS: I guess I don't need to post here every time I see him/them again as I did last June, the day before Robert Smith and his band aka The Cure, from whom I'm now ripping off one of their song titles for a book I'm prepping while dropping by here ;- )