digital camera to be more than just a camera

I agree with part of what is in the article. The question is how much more computing power does a camera need and for what price?
petapixel.com/2023/04/05/what-canon-nikon-and-sony-need-to-learn-from-apple-and-google-before-its-too-late/

A couple of things he's asking for, Sony already does, I think? But fair points overall. Camera manufacturers are still stuck in the past and seem slow to adapt.

Dedicated camera's are all about controll and personally I wouldnt want it any other way. The form factor by itself is a limiting factor as smartphones are flat and thin and therefor are very easy to use in the way that the author of the article describes it to be ideally. Basically and objectively smartphones are one and all screens, like very flat handfitted monitors, which makes it all the more easier to use like one would use a tablet ('mini tablet alike' springs to mind). A camera on the other hand is a much more bulky device, having to provide a (minimalistic) handgrip in order to hold on to all that bulk. The bulk of a camera consists of the camerabody and the cameralens. Now try to imagine having to use a camera as one would use a smartphone. Having to use all those (phone) features on a camera just would be awkward to say the least and would certainly divert too much attention from the process of photographing, having to fiddle around using such an interface, getting all busy handling all those options and possibilities (on such a bulky form factor).

Besides photographing an sich is about personally interpreting the moment, about the interpretation of light and the circumstances of the moment. If a camera(device) would take care of all that all of the time, choosing every possible setting for you, the photographer, even going as far as manipulating your composition(s)...where would that leave you as a photographer? How would it diminish your own preferences and tastes, your own ideas of aesthetics and artistic presence?

Looking at the practical side of things I'd say the author might be on to something but anything having to do with the creative process should be left to the person behind the camera instead of getting (dead)automated.

Yes, the person taking pictures should be able to process as he/she wants, there is RAW file for that. But, the dedicated digital cameras should be easier to use, more user friendly if camera manufacturers want an increase in sales. Isn't 83% sales drop since 2010, big enough drop to ask why? "Oh, it's because the phone cameras." That's a narrow view of the cause for such a significant sales drop. Another voice about that: willjmurphy.medium.com/heres-what-canon-nikon-and-sony-need-to-learn-from-apple-and-google-before-it-s-too-late-4401158683a

I think, that camera creators have have dilemma: to be as smart as smartphone hybrid camera must be running on mobile os, such as Android. But also camera must startup less than 1sec, but android can't do it. So choice between functionality and startup time and overall energy consumption.
For example hybrid android camera Yongnuo YN455 can't became success device...

Yes, a complicated OS will delay the start up, I agree, but how about easier online upload through a phone? I went through three weekends of robotics contest for high school students, and it felt outdated to post pictures later at night, or next day when I got to a computer, vs pictures taken with phones and posted right away. A better transfer to a phone should not be hard to do.

Idea about integration with external smartphone may be not correct at all, just no go way. For example, smartphone connected to internet via wifi. To connect to camera, you must disconect smart from internet wifi and connect it to camera wifi. After downloading images, you need to connect to internet wifi again. You cant stay connected to internet wifi and be connected to camera simultaneously. Even if process changing wifi networks will me smooth (but it hard to imagine), so this experience not convenient for users.
So, one correct solutions, that all waiting for - camera must have android within, have sim-card and wifi adapter for internet connection.

I think about this problem, and if I am was an engineer of camera company I choose hybrid solution:
-camera has the same real time OS, that start less then 1sec.
-also camera has independent builtin mobile android device, that start and work asynchronous with camera OS, share the same camera screen with camera OS and most important share media folder. Switching power on\off android module can be implemented separately from camera power switch.

So user can use only camera OS(switching it on and off), and switch on once per day android module if it will need it let it be waiting at sleep mode.
User can switch screen between camera and android by special button. So most time camera and android will be active, and then user switch screen to android, it will be ready to share any media from camera store.

Get a SD / CFExpress card reader with USB-C and use it to transfer the files to your phone. Faster and more reliable than any wireless transmission could hope to be.

On the go, with cell phone connected to cellular network, while transferring pictures with hot spot, not all of them just select ones

Whilst I agree, that cameras could make better use of AI in auto mode, I find it fairly simple transferring occasional pictures wirelessly using the Imaging Edge app.
Imo smartphones are taking market shares from the cameras, not only because of the better connectivity and AI but because people are actually happy with the output.
Smartphone manufacturers have looked to improve the output using software and 3, 4, 5, 6 sensors to get the best possible output, whereas our cameras are what they've always been, a lens, a sensor and all control to the photographer.
And basically, I understand and agree that most people are just fine with their smartphones. Going back 20 years, everyone had a camera. All tourists, families, everyone had at least a P&S. Nowadays you either have to be a photographer or be semi-serious about photography to be using a camera, for casual snapshots, the phone works just fine.

In 2023, I wonder how many dedicated camera bodies have built in gps that will tag lat/long of each captured image? Last time a checked a few years back, very few bodies did. But all smartphones did. Do most MILC bodies finally have this now?

While it is true that there was a 87.4% decline in digital camera shipments from 2010 to 2019, this decline was represented mostly by fixed-lens cameras, from 108,576,000 units in 2010 to 6,755,000 units in 2019, a 93.8% decline. In comparison, shipments of interchangeable lens cameras went from 12,887,000 units in 2010 to 8,461,000 in 2019, a decline of 34.3%.

This opinion piece is based on the false premise that the Sony a7 IV is competing with the Apple iPhone 14, which it tries to support by presenting statistics in a sensationalized and misleading way. Whether this is the result of dishonest intentions or lack of research, it is just bad journalism.

www.cipa.jp/stats/documents/common/cr300.pdf

My ILC is getting a bit long in the tooth, but it needs the GPS in my phone (and, I think, for Imaging Edge Mobile to be running and connected) in order to record the location where I took the shot. The last camera body I had with its own inbuilt GPS was the Sony a55. Actually, despite my keeping the satellite schedules up to date, it generally recorded some location that might be in the same country as whatever I was shooting; in my mind, its preferable to take the correct information from my phone than to have to make endless corrections to the EXIF afterwards!

I agree with you in spirit: an iPhone is currently not really competing with a Sony A7 and long glass. But there is a problem with that statement. And the problem comes directly from the statistics that you properly quoted. Think of it this way:

In 9 years, ILC sales declined 34%. Ok….. where did those buyers go? There could be several reasons:

1) longer replacement cycles. Photographers are keeping their gear longer, so they are buying fewer new cameras as the rate of MILC innovation slows down.
2) own fewer bodies. It’s possible that given the high cost of many systems like the Sony you mention photographers who might have owned, say, 4 bodies now only own 2.
3) or….. some potential ILC buyers actually have begun to substitute a smartphone for an ILC.

I get visual confirmation of #3 daily. Go to any touristy part of any city globally. 15 or 20 years ago - heck, even 10-years ago in the crowd of tourists climbing off the bus there would have been a large number of those tourists (most often males) with ILCs. Some of those ILCs would be of the budget/kit lens variety but many would be expensive rigs too - like the Sony A7.

Look at those same tourists now and there are vanishingly few ILC’s (of any price) in the group but everyone has a smartphone.

I have yet to see a data-driven study that attempts to quantify the substitution effect of smartphones fro the average ILC buyer over the last decade or so. But shear visual experience tells me that it’s pretty high. And, if that’s the case, smartphones are indeed competing with ILCs.

Smartphone cameras are on the steep part of the innovation curve now. Until a couple of years ago, smartphone cameras were, frankly, just not that good. And yet, I believe that many people substituted anyway. If the innovation in smartphones continues, will it drive more and more ILC users to substitute? I think so but only time will tell.

I have owned FF and APS-C bodies in the past and I still own a Fuji x-T4 with long glass that I intend to keep for birding only. That is now my only “real” camera body. All others have been sold. The X-T4 won’t be replaced until it dies a decade from now. The iPhone 14 for everything else. I am heading to Europe soon. I will be one of those tourists who used to carry an ILC (for travel either: x-T100, x-pro2 or Leica M9) but who now totes just a smartphone.

I agree that most people are happy with phone camera output. They compromise because it's convenient. But, there is a time when some realize that better resolution, better focus are desired, when they want to keep memories, at weddings, the new born, or yong kids running around, other special moments in life. And sometimes a better zoom, optical is needed, not just for wildlife, or birding. Procentage of digital camera sales drop is huge, definitely more on point and shoot, but also ILC sales are affected by phones. Quality of imagines taken with a phone is limited due to hardware limitation, no matter how good AI is. But, dedicated didgital cameras can improve from what are today. Make it easier to get better pictures, easier to upload.

The reason you don't see GPS in many cameras, GPS is a battery hog.

Also GPS without internet starting too long. So while camera can't do direct internet connection, GPS services doesn't start quickly and function properly.