Hacker News Reader

Comment by Aurornis | Hacker News Reader

Handheld cameras aren’t meant to be interacted with a lot. The interface is supposed to get out of the way and get photos to the SD card as fast and predictably as possible.

Sony camera firmware is Android based, but without the Android UI.

Some of the camera makers have added apps and app stores and they haven’t been popular.

Most users don’t want their dedicated camera to be a full Android phone. The specs of the CPU don’t matter as long as it shoots fast enough and does what you need when you press the button.

The touchscreens are a common point of complaint as they are. Many photographers want physical controls and a viewfinder. The screen is only there to review photos quickly.

View on HN

> Handheld cameras aren’t meant to be interacted with a lot. The interface is supposed to get out of the way and get photos to the SD card as fast and predictably as possible.

Yeah, sure. If you want a great shot in low-light conditions, you often need to tweak the color balance and exposure.

My usual test is taking a picture of the full moon. Most cameras on automatic settings result in a white blob.

I also frequently want to review a couple of previous photos to see if I messed up anything.

> Some of the camera makers have added apps and app stores and they haven’t been popular.

Camera app stores were never popular because the SDKs for cameras were obscure and buggy.

> Yeah, sure. If you want a great shot in low-light conditions, you often need to tweak the color balance and exposure.

Exactly. That's the type of interaction they need to support, not all of the Facebook Messenger and other app interactions the parent commenter is looking for.

Those functions are also the ones most frequently requested to appear on physical controls.

I also want to upload to Google Photos automatically. And have the ability to share to Facebook Messenger, post to Facebook Wall, live stream to Instagram or Youtube or whatever... It adds up, pretty quickly.

It sounds like you want the photos to be accessible from your actual phone, which is something that most of these already support. Some of the apps will even automatically upload to cloud services for you.

Most of the use cases you describe like sending FB messages or live streaming on Instagram do not warrant a $3000 camera body attached to a $3000 lens. They’re perfectly served already by actual phones and their built-in cameras.

The people buying these professional units don’t buy them to send straight to FB messenger.

I'm not looking for a $3000 camera that I can install Roblox on.

I'm looking for a $300-$500 camera that has a better-than-cellphone sensors, and better-than-cellphone optics, and as an actual Android device can trivially talk to the apps I share photos and videos on.

I’ve been trying to tell you: The common handheld cameras already have integrations to get the photos from the camera into your phone so you can do these things.

Your dream of a $300 camera that is also an Android phone that handles your apps and has large image sensors and optics is not going to happen, sorry. You’re describing a cell phone. Adding all of the things that make larger cameras valuable upgrades over a cell phone camera would not bring you back to the price of the cell phone itself.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com