Case in point: My phone can go from "off" (sleep) to taking pictures in less than a second with basically no effort. Why not do the same on a dedicated camera? You'll get better battery from sleep if it has zero wakeups or radios on in sleep, which is fine for this use.

Dedicated cameras that can do this are widely available.

My (cheap, 15 year old) DSLR goes from “off” to capturing a photo in under 300ms. The battery essentially lasts indefinitely if you’re not actively fiddling with it. It will take about a thousand photos per charge, and changing the battery takes about 5 seconds.

> My phone can go from "off" (sleep) to taking pictures in less than a second with basically no effort

My Fujifilm X-E4 does the same? Flip the power switch, click the shutter. It's honestly identical in time to my smartphone - power on for these devices is crazy fast today IME

Right, no, obviously a dedicated device can power up faster than a general purpose computer. My point was that a general purpose computer can come out of sleep fast enough to be used in a camera, while maintaining acceptable tradeoffs in the process.

Ah right apologies, I misunderstood what you were saying. Yeah absolutely, though it does require the SoC for the "phone camera" to not be under-powered, which unfortunately for the attempts so far, they usually have been

Digital camera SoCs are actually multi-core ARM with a DSP on bus and tons of RAM, and actually do what GP proposes(boots up and goes to sleep when battery is inserted). Some runs Linux, some really obscure RTOS. Lots of SoCs are OEM'd, but no one talks who supplies who. All those cheap plastic looking body shells are paper thin cast magnesium in black paint, not even aluminum. Some has Peltier based active cooling for years.

The bunches of hackers behind those... they don't like talking to anyone on anything unless you're asking about marketed features on finished products, or you show a badge or a business card they recognize. So the Internet never knows.

That I'm actually aware of; I was talking about the Samsung Galaxy NX and the Yongnou YN455, both of which have kind of underpowered SoCs driving the android side of it, sadly. The YN455 less so, but still.

> Well, that's a reason why camera makers are struggling. You don't want these features, but a lot of people do. So they vote with their smartphones instead.

You’re not capturing any of the traditional photography market by throwing all of _their_ priorities straight out the window.

So the market for the device under discussion here would be the people who want to spend a substantial amount of money on a dedicated device that is essentially equivalent to their cell phone except bulkier and without the ability to send and receive texts and phone calls.

Camera makers are struggling because a substantial portion of the market doesn’t really care about photography, they care about capturing memories. You’re proposing to make a device that’s mediocre at all the things traditionally important in photography and mediocre at capturing memories (a separate dedicated device will never be as close at hand as the phone in your pocket that you take everywhere).

I really don’t see a big market for this.

> You’re not capturing any of the traditional photography market by throwing all of _their_ priorities straight out the window.

You mean, the market that is crumbling fast because most people are not professional photographers?

> Camera makers are struggling because a substantial portion of the market doesn’t really care about photography, they care about capturing memories.

Exactly. And this market has a really unfulfilled niche: cameras with a decent optical system and changeable lenses. I have a Sony Alpha camera and it's plenty enough for me in image quality, but I now leave it home most of the time because I just don't want to fiddle with it.

>You mean, the market that is crumbling fast because most people are not professional photographers?

That's the whole point though. The market is crumbling because it no longer exists. Professional photographer are few and far between and they are the only ones that need the features provided by a professional camera.

Compare pictures take on an iPhone to those take on a top of the line F4 from thirty years ago, the iPhone pictures are _much_ better.

The only reason to have a professional camera is to be in full control of all settings, which would make your proposed DSLR without those controls purely a vanity device/big heavy smartphone minus the phone for people who want to show off how much money they have.

While they's always a market for people to show off their wealth, it won't be a useful camera.

That's an incredible over-generalization. My wife and I use professional photographers to capture lots of moments with my family. I've never seen so many professional photographers available to hire than now. I probably know of at least 15-20 off the top of my head that I have used in the past or know of personally.

They are definitely willing to purchase dedicated high-end equipment. iPhone cameras are absolutely not on par or better than a professional dedicated camera. They are actually known to be the worst camera in terms of clarity and accuracy than any other smart phone camera. Just check out any camera review comparing it to other smartphone cameras. There are a lot of AI enhancement models that alter the image in ways that are unrealistic and strange.

I personally purchased a nice Canon mirrorless because I want more control over my picture. I want to be able to set the mood of an image and capture the features I want to be visible on my own. It's also nice to have a separate camera that doesn't bother me with unimportant notifications and baggage that a connected device offers.

As for no business, I don't think that having a business that caters to a smaller demographic means that there is no money in it. There are few reasons why companies like Nikon, Canon, and Sony don't diversify into other markets with other products... which they absolutely do.

> The only reason to have a professional camera is to be in full control of all settings

I don't _want_ a "professional" camera. I'm not getting paid for pictures (and btw, the "professional photographer" market is saturated now).

I want a camera with good changeable lenses that can provide reasonable optical zoom, so I can take a picture of that curious bird on a tree branch. Or to take a macro picture of a really nice flower. And maybe a beautiful picture of the moon hanging just near that waterfall.

Ok, then you can get a good DSLR/mirrorless camera with exchangeable lenses, set it to auto and ignore all the buttons?

Anyway we're beating a dead horse, you're longing for something I don't fully understand, I hope some company steps in to fill your niche!

> Exactly. And this market has a really unfulfilled niche: cameras with a decent optical system and changeable lenses. I have a Sony Alpha camera and it's plenty enough for me in image quality, but I now leave it home most of the time because I just don't want to fiddle with it.

When I leave my MILC at home, it's because the optics are large and heavy, not because the body is. When I do take my camera, I usually opt for the Sony Zeiss 35 mm Sonnar T*, because it's so small. From an optical point of view, it's a good lens, but it's not the best 35 mm lens I have.

For capturing memories, the best camera really is the one you have with you at all times. For creating photographs, the bulk of the camera body really doesn't matter that much.