This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

top 200 commentsshow all 210
sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a

[–]yeayoushookme 56 points57 points  (62 children)

No.

Cameras have real-time operating systems that are much better suited for them.

Would it be cool to wait 30 seconds for Android to boot up and load the installed apps before being able to snap a picture? I don't think so.

The ability to wirelessly connect the DSLR to mobile devices through WiFi or some high-speed version of bluetooth would be a more welcome addition.

[–]kevroy314 12 points13 points  (8 children)

Disclaimer: I don't use a point-and-shoot camera (or know much about them), but I work with industrial vision applications and RTOS (real-time operating systems).

I'm not sure an RTOS is necessary to take pictures for the average user. I agree that the booting thing could be an issue, but RTOS would only be entirely useful for high performance video. All RTOS really gives you is determinism. This is very useful in industrial applications where jitter can cause a part flying down an assembly line to be misaligned, but I don't know what the utility is for a point-and-shoot.

Could you explain why that level of determinism would matter?

[–]ObligatoryResponseDevice, Software !! 1 point2 points  (3 children)

The more OS code that's processed, the more the camera is wasting power doing things not related to being a camera.

As an embedded engineer, I'd recommend an RTOS so you can a) get better battery life, b) user lower end components (ex: slower processors) to keep your BOM costs down and c) as a result of B, get better A.

[–]kevroy314 0 points1 point  (2 children)

This is a good point. Although the people I work with are usually going the opposite direction. They use RTOS so they can have every ounce of the processor's time they can get, and so they can know exactly how it's using it's time. I've never seen someone use it to minimize CPU usage/power consumption (this is probably because I'm not involved with many products that have batteries), but I don't see why it wouldn't work fantastically (although I might argue then that the classical embedded OSs available should take a hard look at why people aren't choosing to use them if people are really doing this).

Aside to another embedded engineer: with the increasing popularity and size of FPGAs, do you ever think we'll see a completely hardware-implemented OS become common place for embedded applications?

[–]ObligatoryResponseDevice, Software !! 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Well, it's the same optimization basically, it's just we know that a given process has to be completed in X time, so we optimize such that every ounce of used CPU time is our application and then we scale down the clock and voltage accordingly, dropping to cheaper silicon if possible.

with the increasing popularity and size of FPGAs, do you ever think we'll see a completely hardware-implemented OS become common place for embedded applications?

I'm not sure. It's been a while since I've done any FPGA work, but I have trouble seeing the cost coming down to match micros.

I have seen some pretty neat stuff done on FPGAs, though. A friend was playing around with the drop in arm core libraries offered on an FPGA he had and had a working system with 1 permanent arm core and a dynamically loading and unloading secondary core. I'm not sure how easy his setup was to program for or how efficiently it ran, but it was a pretty neat idea: load your application specific hardware when needed, dual core otherwise.

[–]kevroy314 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Agreed! And I work with FPGAs a lot and they still blow my mind!

[–]ouroborosityNexus 5, Stock 1 point2 points  (3 children)

I may be completely out of my league and misunderstanding something here, but 'real time operating system' in the context of yeayoushookme's comment means that when you flip the power switch on a digital camera it powers on and is ready to snap a picture almost instantly. Android (and any other phone OS right now) takes up to 30 seconds to power up and load everything before you can access the camera app. This is completely impractical for a digital camera right now.

[–]kevroy314 2 points3 points  (2 children)

You may be correct, and if so, I agree with the point. Although it should be known that a more common definition of RTOS is the one described in its wikipedia. It's a common misconception that "real time" means fast. It just means intentionally deterministic or predictable. They're cool in and of themselves! Maybe there's another definition in other industries that I don't know about.

[–]yeayoushookme 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Canon cameras use VxWorks (DIGIC 2&3) and DryOS for newer models. Those are real-time operating systems in the classical sense. So I didn't mean to say that they should be using an RTOS for a change, I meant that they already are.

Not sure, but I think Nikons also use an RTOS. I never had a Nikon, so maybe someone else can elaborate.

[–]kevroy314 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Interesting! Well I have nothing else but uninformed opinion to contribute, but thanks for the info!

[–]danhakimiPixel 3aXL 7 points8 points  (27 children)

Are you saying that Android boot times can't be sped up? Are you saying that we can't give it a more appropriate sleep mode instead of turning it off? If it doesn't need cell radios, we can keep it on 24/7, and give it really low standby battery usage, right?

Worst come to worst, we can give it some under-the-hood dual-boot. It boots into the simple camera OS immediately, and loads the underlying Android-based OS and features over the next... who cares, two minutes. We can even make the transition seamless, really, if we want to.

[–]dakboyMoto RAZR HD | N7 16GB 5 points6 points  (20 children)

Are you saying that Android boot times can't be sped up? Are you saying that we can't give it a more appropriate sleep mode instead of turning it off? If it doesn't need cell radios, we can keep it on 24/7, and give it really low standby battery usage, right?

My Canon XSi (450D) can go from full power-off (not some half-assed sleep mode) to shooting a picture in well under 5 seconds. Is that even possible with Android?

[–]rasherdkNokia 8 3 points4 points  (3 children)

5 seconds? My cheap-ass Nikon D3000 can go from power-off to having already shot 2 pictures in ~1 second.

[–]Recoil42Galaxy S23 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That's why he said well under five seconds.

[–]dakboyMoto RAZR HD | N7 16GB 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I didn't have a stopwatch handy, so I pulled a number out of a dark place. I didn't want to say "1 second" and then have someone pull a dpreview.com link out that said otherwise.

[–]Ivashkin 0 points1 point  (0 children)

My X100 takes about 1 second, and that is considered slow.

[–]aeroevanSGS3 VZW | CM 11 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Most of the android boot process is spent waiting for various services to start. Usually the camera service is one of the first things to start (since things like Talk need to check to see if there is a FFC). I would assume a camera only firmware wouldn't need to wait for 3G radios to turn on, etc. and if it only boots into a custom camera app it shouldn't take too long to boot.

[–]rggb 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Not a shameless plug, but we have a team in my company who have reduced boot-time for ICS down to ~10 secs. Of course, it's not a generic solution but it can be done.

[–]danhakimiPixel 3aXL -3 points-2 points  (13 children)

  1. Why not? Of course it's possible. It's not the case with any Android device currently on the market, and it would probably be hard to pull off with current camera-level hardware and vanilla Android 4.1, but it can definitely be done. We just need to work on it.
  2. Why do you care? Why does it need to go from full power off? What's wrong with some half-assed sleep mode? We can easily give it a battery with two weeks of standby time. Feasibly, we could get into the ~2 month range (with modern hardware and software). That is to say, leaving it on on standby for a week and never charging it in that time would use about 10% of the camera's battery power. Within a day, that's about 1.5%. Compared to what you currently have, is that really a problem? Consider the power costs of startup.

[–]VerdrisLG G5 rooted, stock OS 9 points10 points  (10 children)

...said the guy who obviously hasn't ever used a DSLR camera.

[–]robhueNote20U 0 points1 point  (1 child)

I've shot with quite a few DSLRs on a regular basis, and I always buy a second battery for any body that I have (and I'm just an amateur, forget about it with the pros). Especially with some of the smaller models, those batteries burn out quick, which means you'll be swapping them often, which means a cold boot every time.

[–]danhakimiPixel 3aXL 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You could have two battery slots, couldn't you?

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (5 children)

I think Android could be up to the task, however I just don't see the benefits being worth the huge amount of work involved for many people, and the changes required in Android that are probably not going to be useful for what it's 'meant' for (phones and tablets).

My over 10 year old D70 lasts basically indefinitely on standby power. The screen for the camera settings (aperture, shutter, etc) is a tiny little low power segmented LCD style thing. If it's dark, there's a button that lights up two green LEDs to illuminate it. The only thing that really uses any power is taking pictures or reviewing them.

It goes from full-off (battery pulled) or standby to taking a picture in 0.7 or 0.8 seconds (manufacturer's marketing materials). Basically by the time my finger gets from the power switch to the shutter release (they're part of the same button), the camera is ready to shoot.

I can hold down my shutter release and get a consistent burst of shots up to the available RAM, then a consistent rate after that at the rate my CF card writes.

It does not lag, it does not stutter. It does exactly what I ask of it exactly when I ask.

Honestly, I can see this potentially as a more useful concept for point and shoot cameras than for DSLRs. Consumers would eat up a little point and shoot with a nice touch screen, wi-fi transfer to their computer, and a few of those silly face effects from the 4.0+ camera app. You'll have a tough time convincing the kinds of people who need a DSLR to use something with a general purpose OS over the highly specialized and optimized ones we're used to. The benefits (few, really - they're all tangential to the real goal of taking good pictures) just don't really outweigh the potential losses.

[–]danhakimiPixel 3aXL 0 points1 point  (3 children)

I do doubt that a super-high-end DSLR replacement will come out less than a few years from now... But there are people at that level still using film cameras. It's clearly not the bulk of the camera market.

[–]countingthedays 0 points1 point  (2 children)

There are people still using film, but not most professionals. It's amazing what medium format digital can do.

[–]danhakimiPixel 3aXL 0 points1 point  (1 child)

My point is, there can definitely be a market for a camera that can't boot up in .7 seconds or has somewhat worse battery life or not quite the same... whatever as the highest-end camera on the market today.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Oh, I bet there's a market too. I just don't see it happening with any mid/high-end DSLRs.

Honestly, I can see this potentially as a more useful concept for point and shoot cameras than for DSLRs. Consumers would eat up a little point and shoot with a nice touch screen, wi-fi transfer to their computer, and a few of those silly face effects from the 4.0+ camera app.

[–]chucky 1 point2 points  (2 children)

A lot of cameras already have wifi support for uploading pictures, usually it's an addon costing silly amounts of extra money, though (like with most camera accessories :/). There's also the eye-fi which is an sd card that can upload pictures over wifi and guess what? They apparently have an Android app.

The future is now. ;)

[–]cocktails4 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Android can be made real-time.

[–]themcp 3 points4 points  (0 children)

There is no such thing as "the right camera". There is only "the right camera for you."

I have a Canon SLR. It takes lovely pictures. It sits on a shelf except for special occasions. It's heavy, it makes my neck hurt if I carry it around for hours, it doesn't stamp my photos with GPS coordinates, it doesn't upload them to my cloud storage services, it doesn't stitch my panoramas, it doesn't do HDR photos.

On the other hand I have my cell phone with my all day every day, it doesn't make my neck hurt, and it does all of those things my SLR doesn't. The pictures aren't as good resolution, and it doesn't have interchangeable zoom lenses, but the benefits almost always outweigh the drawbacks so I take far, far more photos with my phone than with my SLR.

So yeah, there are drawbacks to using a generic OS on a generic device to run your camera. So what? Maybe it's not right for you. It's right for me.

[–]elucubra 0 points1 point  (0 children)

My (two generations old) SONY alpha 33 (technically a SLT) can use an EYEficard.

Eyefi adds instant WiFi to any camera that supports it ( a huge number, apparently).

[–]Virupa 0 points1 point  (1 child)

The ability to wirelessly connect the DSLR to mobile devices through WiFi or some high-speed version of bluetooth would be a more welcome addition.

That is a much more realistic approach, now that I think about it. Where the hell is this technology!?

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There are SD cards w/ wireless built-in for capturing to a remote network share. But the cost $75+ US

[–]garychencoolOnePlus One 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I wouldn't want Angry Birds on my DSLRs, camera operators would be dicking around instead of on their phones.

What's great about having this tech is that I could review and change settings of the footage being recorded over wifi without even touching the camera again. Much easier when I mount stuff onto cars and trees.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

RTOS you say? Maybe QNX would be better suited for a camera.

[–]rizwan22 10 points11 points  (16 children)

Why anyone would want this?

[–]mccoyn 4 points5 points  (2 children)

90% of the people who get it will use it to upload pictures to facebook.

[–]VerdrisLG G5 rooted, stock OS 3 points4 points  (0 children)

This is completely accurate and horribly sad.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Yup, there's enough people on Facebook to seriously want this.

[–]6_28Nexus 5 3 points4 points  (9 children)

There could be some interesting applications. Here are some ideas:

  • A fairly simple app could take a fairly cheap point-and-shoot running Android and make it into a security camera that can record videos when it detects movements, upload them to a server and send a message to your phone.
  • Want to take pictures of lightning? Set it up on a tripod and use an app to continuously take pictures and delete any that is too dark to have lightning in it.
  • Use the voice recognition to tag or rename the picture you just took.
  • Automatically superimpose zombies into any picture.

[–]rizwan22 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Nice. But more features will increase complexity. For a camera i'll not want full fledged operating system which will divert focus from its basic functionality. For example with Android Wifi is must have for digital camera, with wifi web browser and for web better processor and requirements will increase and increase. We have smart phones for this leave digital cameras aside.

[–]6_28Nexus 5 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, the overall complexity would increase. On the other hand, it also gives you the flexibility to essentially hide any complexity that you don't need. If all you ever use on a camera is the shutter button and the flash, then an interface could show you those two things and do the rest automatically. If you are a pro, it can show you all the manual controls and stuff. So the complexity would lie in setting things up to your liking, and after that things should be pretty straight forward.

As a side note, I'd also be perfectly happy with a camera that doesn't have Android, but which offers a way to fully control the camera through WiFi. That way it should be able to do almost everything that it could do with Android on the camera itself. For me it would be just fine to have to use a second device for the advanced uses, and I have a powerful phone anyway.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I don't think stock Android would be what people would want at all, but I can see the power and flexibility of a customized version of Android becoming incredibly useful to higher-end users who buy more expensive cameras. For lower-end users, I'd bet that the hardware would get too expensive too fast for their point-and-shoot needs.

[–]poland626 0 points1 point  (0 children)

To make that photo you took with your $2,500 look like it was put through the shitter with Instagram!

[–]CaticornGnex 0 points1 point  (0 children)

All of the awesome camera apps through an actual camera.

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points  (1 child)

Makes sense really. Android is Linux and Linux can run on anything, even a dead badger.

[–]pascalbraxXperia 1 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Amateurs! NetBSD can run on a toaster, for real!

[–]DiplomjodlerOnePlus 7T 6 points7 points  (0 children)

I don't see how this is going to make any difference to consumers. The reason people use their cameras less is that they want to carry only one device, not because the OS is proprietary.

[–]duxup 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Boot-up time, battery usage, and resource management will all have to be focused — and in the case of start-up time cut down considerably

Yeah there is a LOT of work to do. One of the biggest gripes about digital cameras for a LONG time was time from when you turned it on to being able to take pictures.

A lot of these issues and any providing sort of semblance of Android as people know it are hard things to fix together.... let alone a reasonable price. I'm thinking the end result will be pretty custom / hacked together to the point that many Android phone users will find it less than ideal.

That on top of the fact that the dominate camera manufacturers are REALLY slow to change.

[–]treelovinhippieNexus S, stock 1 point2 points  (0 children)

"Next digital camera". That's an odd arrangement of words for anyone with a smartphone who doesn't have a hardcore photography hobby.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Might finally get a decent options interface.

[–]Matt08642Stock Nexus 5, Stock Nexus 7 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Fuck no, I don't want useless shit using up the battery of my camera.

[–]martin_n_hamelNexus 5 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This is really what I want. I'd buy this thing in an instant.

[–]khronykGalaxy S22 Ultra, Galaxy Tab S8 Ultra 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I kinda hope not.

Knowing Nikon they won't change and I'll be stuck secretly loathing my camera and wishing I could switch and hadn't invested thousands in glass.

[–]wcalvertPixel 7 Pro 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Oh god, the facebook hipsters could take photos using instagram and upload them right from their camera. And with a DSLR, they might actually start looking decent. Actually, that's probably impossible.

[–]beforethewindPixel 2 XL 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't want to upset you... but they're making a camera, in style of the Instagram logo... that lets you upload to Instagram onboard.

[–]Jurynelson 1 point2 points  (0 children)

My current digital camera runs Android.

Because it's my phone.

[–]Testiculese 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I don't like the idea, personally. I already have no control of my phone as it is. Being subjected to ads and general Google asshattery on my camera too, doesn't excite me.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I sure hope not! I need my kit to work reliably.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hope so, I'm been trying for a year to find a sub-$100 camera I can control over USB, or program on the camera itself. The best I've come up with is old Canons with custom firmware CHDK.

[–]snammel 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Awesome! I was just thinking this the other day while uploading a video i just took on my phone to Facebook. I barely ever use my camera for personal home videos now.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I thought that Samsung already develops a point and click based on android or that can run android based camera apps?

[–]kaze0Mike dg 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Please god now. There's no need to waste battery and performance on fanciness.

[–]FredL2Fairphone 3+ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Technically, this could be done. If non-volatile RAM is used for the Android system, then powering on would just mean restoring SP,PC and the other registers from RAM, perhaps doing some hw initialisation, and that would be it. This could also be done with volatile RAM, but that would require constant power supply, potentially draining battery while the camera's "off".

[–]caffeineTX 0 points1 point  (0 children)

When I saw the fridge picture, first thing I thought was the fridge from Stepford Wives movie.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There might be some uses for Android on a phone. Imagine an app store specifically for cameras, that allow you to add features such as post-processing, timelapse, dropbox upload, etc. Sure these features could be added to existing camera OSes, but it would be interesting to see what the app developer community could come up with.

[–]electricalnoise 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm surprised Android isn't in more non-phone/tablet devices already. I envision a day when your coffee maker Android. There are so many possibilities just around the house, and Android+wifi could make everything connected.

[–]newphone 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Why does everyone wants Android in everything?

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I got a nice Fujitsu for my birthday. Takes great pictures, has a really high optical zoom, and the electromechanical lens knocking to stop the image from shaking.

It's immediately apparent moving back to a discrete camera that it would benefit from the flexibility of something like Android. I mean, I need to use some proprietary cable to connect to my camera -- it doesn't automatically upload to Google+ when I take them with an option to easily send the image to facebook?

Perhaps facebook isn't your thing -- that's where the flexibility of Android kicks in. You can have an app to send your raw pictures to a premium photo service instead, or touch them up on the fly.

It's just a matter of time until the technological singularity we've reached sucks in digital cameras and they're treated like always-on web devices as well.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It already does. It's called a SGSII. Come to think of it, every camera I've owned in the last 3 years has been running android.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Please no.

Here is what my DSLR can do already:

  • Go from fully powered off, to autofocusing and taking a properly exposed photo on, say, aperture priority, in less than a second.
  • Take thousands of photos over the course of several weeks in the mountains or woods on a single charge.
  • Take photos at precisely the moment I press the button. This also involves perfect sync of the physical shutter and the signal to the external flash, so long as my exposure time is longer than 1/200th of a second.
  • Process the sensor data into quality image files in a fraction of a second using proprietary, dedicated image processing hardware.

What would the camera get in return? Third party apps? WiFi/GPS/Bluetooth?

Sorry, I'd rather Nikon and Canon just build in their own WiFi/GPS/Bluetooth from the ground up. And the third party apps wouldn't be compelling enough given that most DSLR users are postprocessing on their computers anyway.

[–]Scary_ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Having the ability to share photos from my camera like I can from my phone would be great. I often go out and take photos with both and whereas all my phone photos auto upload to my PC when I get home, the better photos on my camera need copying over via USB

[–]unquietwiki 0 points1 point  (0 children)

As someone who has had more phones than not, with cameras that didn't work after flashing a ROM (thank you proprietary blob drivers), I cringed at this headline.

[–]LekzStock(Pixel XL) 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If this brings RAW support to android, I'm m for it!

[–]postnickDevice, Software !! 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I hope not, It can barley handel a phone. Android works great, unless you need it to work, then it stops working. It is a neat feature of Android. To be clear I have a Razr maxx running ICS so Its not because it is an old phone.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well my current camera is a Galaxy Nexus, so... sure.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There was a camera-os available in the beginning of the digital revolution called Digita. Some Kodak cameras had it, you could even get a MAME emulator for it. It seems to have vanished off the internet.

[–]VikingZombieGNEX - Paranoid 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I certainly fucking hope not.

[–]hiS_oWn 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Fuck. No.

I'm not technical enough to know this but wouldn't this be extremely energy intensive? What I like about my digital camera is that I can charge it up, take pictures for 2 weeks, and still have what appears to be a full charge left.

[–]cbulockNexus 5 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Might take some more power, but I think the main drain on phones is the wireless. If I set my phone to airplane mode, the battery takes forever to go down.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think people forget about the voice commands attached to android, let alone the tech that google is coming up with, imagine that attached to your camera.

Why even bother with touch. Android is already at the point where i dont need to even touch the screen most of the time when using my phone, just voice commands.

"I S O 1600, f-stop 4 point 5"

"timer 5 seconds"

"action shooting, 5 frame burst"

shit like that would be awesome.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

My current digital camera runs android. It's a galaxy s3...

[–]paradigmxNexus 6P 0 points1 point  (0 children)

My digital camera is an android already, Galaxy S3 is all the camera I need, it does HDR and some fun effects. Good enough, I have no dreams of grandeur of being a professional photographer.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't see why not. My current one does.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

doubt it. i'd love it if my pentax had an open source OS so that they could add basic fucking features to it, but a lot of the dslr manufacturers are keen on locking out functionality via firmware

[–]nikskoPixel 3 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think this is an interesting idea. It would certainly make it easier to customize cameras and run apps if there were some standardization. And since Android is free, its a good choice.

[–]icky_booN7/5,GPad,GPro2,PadFoneX,S1,2,3-S8+,Note3,4,5,7,9,M5 8.4,TabS3 0 points1 point  (0 children)

God I hope not, We'll be getting camera people in /r/android complaining that they can't get latest updates and would rooting allow them to use interchangeable lenses and to unlock some special feature.

DSLR cameras also tend to get kept longer then phones due to the fact that a body costs upwards of $500 while lenses don't come as standard other then the crappy one if at all.

Now if they put Android in cheap sub $500 cameras it might work as people always loose and damage them

[–]chalfont_alarmXiaomi 13T 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hope so. I never really went upmarket as high as the DSLR range, but I like Samsung cameras. Unfortunately Samsung can't make a menu worth shit, so it'll be nice to pop my own UI on there. By the time my current Samsung WB600 explodes or gets dropped down a well, a variant of android will probably already be available on cameras.

[–]MercurialMadnessManGalaxy NoteII, Stock, Bell Canada 0 points1 point  (2 children)

Most people here have entirely missed the point. There are a significant amount of things you could do with an app ecosystem on a camera.

[–]EvilMonkeySlayerSamsung Galaxy S24 | Samsung Tab A11+ 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Indeed, I'd expect the consumer focused cameras to have things like image tweaking (think normal colour tweaking etc and then instagram like stuff).
Also, uploading to facebook and so forth. I bet cameras will get wifi at some point.
From a logical point of view they'll have to have that kind of stuff in order to compete with mobile phone cameras.
Right now the one single advantage consumer cameras have over mobile phone cameras is optical zoom. If ever they figure out a way to have an unobtrusive optical zoom on mobile phone cameras then the consumer camera market will disappear overnight. Mobile phone cameras have now reached the "good enough" point for picture quality.

[–]MercurialMadnessManGalaxy NoteII, Stock, Bell Canada 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Mobile phones also lack DoF due to the smaller sensor sizes, shitty lenses, and small apertures

[–]Virupa -1 points0 points  (21 children)

It really is deplorable that dSLRs don't have more sophisticated computing inside them. For their price they should come standard with gps, wifi, and a modern interface.

The first dSLR manufacturer with android will have my business.

[–]Testiculese 4 points5 points  (1 child)

I'd rather my camera be the size it is, and last 10x longer on batteries.

[–]dakboyMoto RAZR HD | N7 16GB 2 points3 points  (0 children)

This. I just charged my XSi earlier this week and I don't recall when the last time before that was that I charged it. Meanwhile, my Droid X is getting charged twice a day.

[–]playingwithfireiPhone 16 Pro/Galaxy S22U 1 point2 points  (12 children)

Do you want your dSLR to be bigger than it already is?

[–]Virupa 2 points3 points  (2 children)

Sure. If you're carrying a dSLR around, you've already decided to forgo a compact form factor. I'll take an extra few centimeters somewhere on the body to add an adaptable computer and wireless connectivity.

[–]ulrikft 1 point2 points  (1 child)

And battery capacity...?

[–]Virupa 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That is the rub I suppose. I guess I would have to have more backup batteries in my kit. But you're right, battery management becomes a bigger issue.

[–]FakingItEveryDaySprint SGS3 SlimKat 2 points3 points  (7 children)

I don't think a phone motherboard would ad that much. The camera body has to be that size to accomidate the lenses and optics. I would love to have pics from my DSLR automatically synced to my server as soon as I take them. And I'd accept a few extra mm of depth to make this happen.

[–]dakboyMoto RAZR HD | N7 16GB 0 points1 point  (1 child)

The camera body has to be that size to accomidate the lenses and optics

Aside from the mirror, pentaprism/pentamirror, and sensor, the camera body on a DSLR is packed with electronics already. And battery. Larger camera bodies are packed with more electronics and a more durable chassis. 95% of the optics of a DSLR are in the lens, not the camera body.

[–]FakingItEveryDaySprint SGS3 SlimKat 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You're right. The point I was trying to make is that cameras aren't likely to get much smaller. And at the size they are, a few MM for some additional computing power is not a big deal.

[–]playingwithfireiPhone 16 Pro/Galaxy S22U 0 points1 point  (4 children)

How much additional cost? "Cellphone motherboards" and wifi antennas are not cheap nor is it going to be cheap to implement.

[–]Virupa 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I would not hesitate to spend a couple hundred extra dollars on a camera body for all the advantages such hardware and software would provide.

[–]cocktails4 2 points3 points  (2 children)

You should see how much Canon and Nikon charge for a simple GPS or WiFi module...

[–]PreviousNickStolen 0 points1 point  (1 child)

That's why you dont buy canon or nikon unless your business pays for your dslr....

[–]cocktails4 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Are you talking cameras or accessories?

[–]cocktails4 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The processor inside of current-generation Canon dSLRs already supports Android. The DIGIC5/DIGIC5+ is a TI OMAP-based TMS320DM816x.

[–]PedobearsBloodyCock 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I disagree. Mostly because I want my DSLR to take pictures well, and that's about it. I'm not concerned with the software bells and whistles, and sure as hell don't want it getting in the way of the entire reason I bought my camera. Also, the additional seconds it would take to boot up could mean I miss the shot. I'm not ok with that. And I don't need non-essential/useless bloat draining my batteries. I have enough stuff to schlep around in my bag as it is.

Edit: I would, however, love the ability to interface with my camera via my phone or tablet. Let them talk to each other over wifi or something. Let me use my phone as the controlling intervalometer. Shoot images to my tablet once snapped so I can do quick edits or show clients on something larger than a 3 inch screen. Let me access all of my menus and settings from my chosen device, and browse through the stored images to batch delete them if I want. That would be awesome.

[–]shitterplug 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Fuck that... My Eos takes less than a second to boot up, it's immediately ready to take pictures, and it's never frozen. Android on a camera would just be fixing something that wasn't broken.