I love using my DSLR, but I hate dealing with the workflow. If I take a picture with my DSLR I have to put the SD card in my computer, load up Lightroom, edit, export, and finally upload/share the picture.
Edit: Also, you definitely don't need to fire up Lightroom to share photos from your DSLR; I think practically any DSLR can shoot JPG. Many DSLRs can also share photos to phones via wifi or Bluetooth these days. Mine didn't come with such a feature, but Nikon sells a $20-30 adapter that adds that capability.
It actually works surprisingly well, but I've not traded in my SLR. Being able to do something similar with a second lens -- or even using Project Tango sensors -- to avoid the post-exposure motion would make it more useful, but I suspect still not as versatile (and even with my SLR, the difference between my relatively cheap lenses and borrowing someone's more expensive lenses, on the same body, is quite obvious).
This means objects and figures that aren't faces might not be tuned too well.
https://www.amazon.com/Nikon-Wireless-Mobile-Adapter-Digital...
Many of the reviews say it is not very good, but I have not tried it personally.
Then there is Geo tagging.
https://www.amazon.com/Nikon-GP-1A-Unit-Cameras-27034/dp/B00...
Again, reviews are pretty poor.
Like I said, I love my DSLR, but the phone workflow is just so much easier/nicer.
With a phone, you just tap the share button on the picture you just took, tap the icon for whatever you want to share it to and you're done.
I surely don't and do exactly the same workflow with my phones as I do with my cameras.
Other priorities might be ok to have their pictures known to the world.
I am moving all my photos from the last few decades into Photos/iCloud which will then appear on my phone.
It's a competitor for high end P&S e.g. Sony RX100 and mirrorless e.g. Fuji X100.
And I think that's true even if you're a professional - as a professional, your shots should use your phone's cellular connection to upload the shots to Adobe Creative Cloud (or competing cloud) as you take them, so that when you open your machine to do post-processing work, your shots are all already there. Why should anybody be bothering with CF or SD cards anymore? Just store everything on your smartphone (did you hear the iPhone 7 will now have a 256 GB option?), which in and of itself is a buffer for your work before it gets transferred to the cloud.
Modular backs a la Moto Z are interesting because there's a lot of potential now for making "big glass" relevant again for prosumers. Make a modular back with a large sensor and a Micro Four-Thirds or F mount. The only real problem is getting OEMs to agree on a common standard that they would stick to for years, because nobody wants to spend hundreds or even thousands of dollars on a camera back they won't be able to use next year when they upgrade their phone, and yes that's actually a really big problem, but leadership from Google (in the Nexus/Pixel lines) can really help here.
I hear very good things about Sony's A6000 series and some Micro 4/3 cameras.
Transfer it to your phone and do whatever you would have done otherwise.
Or at least just move those files to my desktop only. But what I see is that Canon doesn't allow that (copy all files in the background to e.g. an ftp server), it has to have a phone or some strange proprietary Canon app.
For me it beats the purpose of having a wifi in a DSLR, I might as well just use SD card it the photos are not moved automatically where I would like.
Random Google Search: of Techradar's top 10 list of full-frame DSLRs, 7 have Wi-Fi.
http://www.techradar.com/news/photography-video-capture/came...
"Very large sensors" also seems to means something different to you than it does to me. I would not want a full frame sensor (which I would only consider large, not even "very large") on my phone even if it were cost effective and didn't require a large lens.
Eventually we will be reconstructing high quality photos from raw sensor data, applying all manner of algorithms to stabilize and accumulate brightness, stylized blur that isn't even optically possible, no shutter or lense or any moving parts really, and the whole thing will happen on your smartphone.
Based on the use of Foveon sensors and light field tech from Lytro I wouldn't count on lens less cameras showing up in a phone in the next five years. A decade wouldn't surprise me but it's hard to predict tech trends that far out.
I'm not particularly bullish on lensless cameras either. I hope I'm wrong, but I don't expect those to meet modern quality standards in a small form factor for a long time.
Of course, taking pictures of something in motion will be harder.
(He later added a lens, to simplify the process, but even without you get fairly good images with a pinhole.)
That's misleading. DNG is patented by Adobe, but it's also an open, specified format, i.e. it's not "proprietary" in the sense of "can only be opened/used if you pay Adobe money or use/buy their products" which is what people are generally implying when they use the term "proprietary".[0]
DNG is a lot like Adobe's PDF format: owned and managed by Adobe, but with an open specification than anyone can implement/use. They even offer a free license to the DNG "patent", should that deter anyone. That said, unlike PDF, it has not (yet) become an ISO standard, although Adobe has indicated that they would like to see that happen.
I could be wrong though. Can I write and sell software that reads and writes DNG format without having to sign an agreement or pay Adobe money?
I believe the answer is: yes, you can. The DNG patent license is here: https://helpx.adobe.com/photoshop/digital-negative.html
You do not need to "sign anything" or "pay Adobe money" to make use of it. It's no different (in terms of usage) than someone open sourcing API documentation with an Apache license (or whatever).
Not sure if there is much reason to fork the DNG spec in practice, but still the situation is fairly different from "open sourcing API documentation with an Apache license".