Are Camera Phones Killing the Digital Camera?

Convergence of mobile technologies is often treated as a foregone conclusion; the assumption is that, at some point, all of today’s gadgetry will be consolidated in a single device.

Sony Ericsson (SNE) recently released the 905a mobile phone to AT&T (T) subscribers. The 905a mobile phone features an 8 megapixel camera bearing Sony’s Cyber-shot moniker usually reserved for its line of digital cameras. This is clearly a sign of convergence, but is it also a sign of impending obsolescence of the stand-alone digital camera?

At first glance, it looks likely. Buying even a basic mobile phone without a camera has become very difficult. The once premium feature is now available in virtually every phone offered by the Big-4 carriers, and in many cases on phones that are free with a contract.

Are mobile phones featuring high-powered cameras replacing the conventional digital camera in the minds of consumers? To explore this, I looked at Compete’s data to see what proportion of shoppers interested in digital cameras from major manufacturers* were also shopping for mobile phones with high resolution cameras (5 megapixels or moreˇ) between November 2008 and June 2009.

The high resolution camera phone is not a true substitute for the digital camera. The data above shows a low level of active online cross shopping between the two products; consumers aren’t actively comparing digital cameras to the phones that offer the most comparable photographic performance. Less than 2% of digital camera shoppers also shopped for a mobile phone with a high resolution camera during the same month. Compete’s Smartphone Intelligence data seems to support this; 79% of smartphone owners surveyed during Q1 2009 stated that they owned and regularly used a conventional digital camera despite having a built-in camera in their phone.

Resolution could be an obstacle to displacement of the digital camera. With the exception of the Samsung Memoir, all of the mobile phones included in the consideration set featured cameras with resolution just above 5 megapixels, inferior even to inexpensive digital cameras on the market. Mobile phone cameras are likely subject to a different set of expectations; decent picture quality suffices for spontaneous snapping and sharing.

It will be interesting to see how consumer habits develop once we start to see diminishing returns from increased picture resolution. Once picture quality offered by mobile phones is indistinguishable from that of a digital camera, true substitution could be in the cards.

For now, the digital camera seems safe.

Comments

[Timeline St...:]

Actual data on Flickr disagrees with your conclusion. I would be quite worried if my livelihood depended on the sales of non-specialized, point-and-shoot cameras. Even digital SLR's could be in peril, at least in terms of the sheer number of users posting on sites like Flickr. The volume of content may still be generated by certain camera models, but like beer sales, in which hard drinkers account for 5% of customers but 80% of sales, this is not welcome news for retailers.

Have a look here for the data showing that iPhone is now the single most popular camera by user on Flickr:

www.flickr.com/cameras/

(You may need to log in.)

What this tells me is the following:

1. iPhone, at 3 megapixels is capable of taking very good shots in the right conditions
2. Convenience is a leading factor
3. Cameras will never, ever beat mobile phones for sheer numbers, and thus will be snowed under in terms of users

I also take issue with your use of intention surveys relative to metrics that measure actual behavior. Why would you use a proxy when the real data sits in front of you?

Aug 02 06:33 PM

[SiliconVall...:]

The focus on more and more pixels is wrong. High pixel count with mediocre optics is useless. Overly low pixel count with excellent optics may be a poor match. The former produces a picture only as good as the optics. The latter always produces a high quality picture by making full use of each pixel.

The quality of a shot is dependent on the optics. The ability to enlarge a picture and still maintain your desired compositional effects is dependent on the pixel count.

If you make nothing more than a 4x6 photo, there is no point getting a 20 Mega pixel camera because the 8x11 size simply "hides" the extra pixels. I would focus my cash on getting better quality optics and capabilities that match my photographic skills.

If you are a professional and you make large posters, you won't bother reading here :).

Good optics with high pixel count makes it possible to enlarge a shot and not lose details. Good optics with lower pixel count makes beautiful 3x4 or 4x6 or even 8x11.

Mediocre optics with 10 mega pixel imager does not give you better picture, the higher pixel count just exemplifies the problems, if any, in the optics. Excellent optics with 3 mega pixel imager gives you consistently excellent photograph in 4x6 and some 8x11 sizes.

While these little cameras in phones are convenient, regardless of the number of pixels, they cannot possibly match or ever hope to outdo the quality of a low-end SLR with good optics.

Please keep that in mind when looking at who will spend how much on what.

Aug 02 07:16 PM

[Murphy Mac:]

My iPhone 3GS is terrible as a camera in anything but ideal lighting. I can't imagine how bad previous iPhones were before the upgrade. My LG 2MP phone-camera was much more reliable.

That said, the video camera almost makes up for the lame still-photo camera.

Apple should consider making the volume buttons a shutter release. It could help.

Aug 02 08:18 PM

[waterlily57:]

If consumers feel that mobile phones are apt to have a shorter product life cycle they would not be willing to pay extra for high quality camera features. If manufacturers sense this they would not want to increase the cost of the product. There are consumers who want a sexy phone and a sexy camera, two sexy little things versus just one in a camera-phone.

Aug 02 08:46 PM

[SgtSally:]

Verizon and other carriers I presume, cripple many of the features of these high end phones. I would be interested except by the time each provider overlays their own buggy limiting firmware, many of these features are gone or only available at extra cost.

Aug 02 10:23 PM

[brewer:]

If you go to a concert and want to get a photo of a performer, you are better off with the iPhone than with a $4000 Nikon, because they will let you in with the iPhone, not with the Nikon.

Aug 03 10:51 AM