# Put a phone in the 1dx3



## ScottyP (Jun 15, 2017)

All the talk of phone cameras eating into the camera market; lets strike back and put a phone into the 1dx3. Big body with tons of spare room for the minimal electronics required. Ergonomically somewhat larger than ideal but the image quality would destroy the competition. I offer this brainstorm for Canon's use, free of all royalty claims. 

Mic drop.


----------



## Ozarker (Jun 15, 2017)

ScottyP said:


> All the talk of phone cameras eating into the camera market; lets strike back and put a phone into the 1dx3. Big body with tons of spare room for the minimal electronics required. Ergonomically somewhat larger than ideal but the image quality would destroy the competition. I offer this brainstorm for Canon's use, free of all royalty claims.
> 
> Mic drop.



Crickets... chirp, chirp, chirp, chirp, chirp, chirp, chirp, chirp, chirp, chirp, chirp...


----------



## LonelyBoy (Jun 15, 2017)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Crickets... chirp, chirp, chirp, chirp, chirp, chirp, chirp, chirp, chirp, chirp, chirp...



In fairness, this was posted overnight.

But, no. No no no. There are some apps that would be useful, but it doesn't need a full phone, nor an arbitrary selection of apps; it should be running an embedded OS much like a smart TV, with a handful of dedicated apps that are signed by Canon and updated like firmware. Turning it into a free-for-all would be a disaster of bugs and malware.


----------



## yorgasor (Jun 15, 2017)

It's already been done:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uIRBxRlsYR0


----------



## Ozarker (Jun 15, 2017)

LonelyBoy said:


> CanonFanBoy said:
> 
> 
> > Crickets... chirp, chirp, chirp, chirp, chirp, chirp, chirp, chirp, chirp, chirp, chirp...
> ...




 Actually, the crickets are because there will be an almost universal SMH and silence on this idea. It has nothing to do with being posted overnight, which really doesn't matter. This is a world wide forum with followers from around the globe.


----------



## Don Haines (Jun 15, 2017)

That's all fine and dandy, but when I am at a job, shooting with multiple bodies, how do I set up camera forwarding?


----------



## lion rock (Jun 15, 2017)

Can you imaging at a photo shoot that the dSLR-phone rings? Or, at a safari/birding hide and the phone rings!
Put the ringer in vibrate mode and the shot is totally jelly!
Just say NO!
-r


----------



## LonelyBoy (Jun 16, 2017)

Don Haines said:


> That's all fine and dandy, but when I am at a job, shooting with multiple bodies, how do I set up camera forwarding?



I believe FedEx would be able to help you with that.


----------



## Jopa (Jun 22, 2017)

Actually a typical modern smartphone processing power and intelligence won't hurt to have in a regular camera body. If the phones manage to produce decent pictures with tiny sensors and lenses, I can't even imagine what's possible to achieve with a FF.


----------



## 9VIII (Jun 22, 2017)

Actually, having a SIM Card in the 1D makes perfect sense.

If they can do wireless shooting with Wi-Fi they can do it over 4G.

Apparently large sports publications at events like the Super Bowl already have a setup for tethering cameras so that they can deliver images back to the office in real time as they're being shot, but Canon could do one better and make that capability standard.
For people running around the Olympics I'm sure it would be very useful, with a venue that large and spread out it would be almost impossible for anyone to set up a private network to cover the whole area, but keeping all cameras connected to the company servers all the time would keep everyone up to date in real time.
You can imagine how useful that would be in places like war zones as well (though probably a security liability at the same time, cameras would have to use encryption and connect to a military channel exclusively. It's an interesting topic).

Amateurs would probably also enjoy having the occasional backups sent straight to cloud servers (on cheaper bodies it would finally be a reasonable way to offset the lack of a second card slot), you could watch a time-lapse project as it happens without actually being there.

AND the camera would have a globally trackable ID, they could probably give it the ability to lock down in the case of being stolen, making the camera worthless to anyone but the owner, and still trackable.
Large corporations could have batches of cameras configured at the factory to make it impossible to remove the SIM card and include a small internal battery to power the data connection.
(Ooh, and Canon could test their own prototype bodies and get real time telemetry during use, it would be like a Formula 1 team watching the race every time a Canon Rep goes out shooting.)


----------



## LDS (Jun 22, 2017)

9VIII said:


> For people running around the Olympics I'm sure it would be very useful, with a venue that large and spread out it would be almost impossible for anyone to set up a private network to cover the whole area,



With the money required to run Olympic games, I guess it's possible and probably already done. <G>



9VIII said:


> You can imagine how useful that would be in places like war zones as well (though probably a security liability at the same time, cameras would have to use encryption and connect to a military channel exclusively. It's an interesting topic).



Useful for who? Those attempting to track journalists? Once you have a phone, you have unique IDs like the phone IMEI and IMSI numbers. I guess many governments and agencies would be happy to be able to track photographers as they move - if they didn't fully turn off the mobile radio (but probably in some war zones the mobile cells won't be available or operative anyway - you'd need a camera with a satellite phone).



9VIII said:


> AND the camera would have a globally trackable ID, they could probably give it the ability to lock down in the case of being stolen, making the camera worthless to anyone but the owner, and still trackable.



Sure, phone theft have been totally hindered that way...


----------



## hbr (Jun 22, 2017)

9VIII said:


> Actually, having a SIM Card in the 1D makes perfect sense.
> 
> If they can do wireless shooting with Wi-Fi they can do it over 4G.
> 
> ...



Very interesting post, 9VIII



> AND the camera would have a globally trackable ID, they could probably give it the ability to lock down in the case of being stolen, making the camera worthless to anyone but the owner, and still trackable.



I would love to have this feature as I had all my camera equipment stolen a couple of years ago in a home burglary.

Brian


----------



## Don Haines (Jun 22, 2017)

9VIII said:


> Actually, having a SIM Card in the 1D makes perfect sense.
> 
> If they can do wireless shooting with Wi-Fi they can do it over 4G.
> 
> ...


At the last olympics they ran many thousands of kilometers of fiber and Cat-6. With that many people and that many phones, the RF spectrum becomes saturated and reliable communications is extremely unlikely.... So sayeth the guy who built and tested the blue van that the Canadian government uses to monitor spectrum


----------



## LDS (Jun 22, 2017)

hbr said:


> I would love to have this feature as I had all my camera equipment stolen a couple of years ago in a home burglary.



Tell the journalists in Mexico who are being spied through their phones (remember your camera has also a mic) - police won't track your stolen items, they will just track targets valuable to them. It is already difficult enough to force telcos to block stolen devices, they have little reason for it, people buying stolen phones still have to pay for the calls and data traffic...

Anyway, devices to change the IMEI exist - their use may be restricted in many countries and requires a technician to perform that, but people stealing and reselling valuable devices have that capabilities. In the worst case, move the items abroad in countries were no questions are asked.


----------



## hbr (Jun 22, 2017)

LDS said:


> hbr said:
> 
> 
> > I would love to have this feature as I had all my camera equipment stolen a couple of years ago in a home burglary.
> ...



You are right, but it would be nice to have a "Find MY Camera" capability like the iphone has.


----------



## LonelyBoy (Jun 22, 2017)

Don Haines said:


> 9VIII said:
> 
> 
> > Actually, having a SIM Card in the 1D makes perfect sense.
> ...



It even gets dicey in high-density residential areas, with the ever-increasing number of wifi and other wireless devices everyone has. Especially the younger people who tend to be living in dense high-rises.


----------



## jolyonralph (Jun 22, 2017)

This is necessary.

Current pairing systems from cellphones to cameras are diabolical. Complex to set up, unreliable (using the camera as a wifi hotspot doesn't work if your phone is paired already to a hotel wifi network, for example). Even more of a pain on the iPhone than android because no NFC pairing. 

Problems are though:

a) screen isn't big enough to run apps. And I really can't see many of us excited by the idea of removing physical controls and relying on touch controls on a larger back screen.

b) Power drain.

c) It'd need to run android (no other practical way) to be able to access all the necessary apps (instragram, facebook, etc). Which is fine, except the startup time from powerup on Android is diabolical. 

So you'd need to have the current bare-bones Canon OS running normal camera things, and to load in Android on top of that when you want to use connectivity and apps. Which would be slow to do.

d) Power drain.

e) And, did I mention, the power drain?


----------



## LonelyBoy (Jun 22, 2017)

jolyonralph said:


> This is necessary.
> 
> Current pairing systems from cellphones to cameras are diabolical. Complex to set up, unreliable (using the camera as a wifi hotspot doesn't work if your phone is paired already to a hotel wifi network, for example). Even more of a pain on the iPhone than android because no NFC pairing.
> 
> ...



Much of this would be addressed by running a locked-down embedded OS, in the manner of a smart TV, instead of the horribad idea of cramming a whole Android phone into the camera, which would be terrible. It doesn't need to play Angry Birds, it doesn't need to show Netflix, and it doesn't need to have your banking app.

An embedded OS, with embedded apps (like the Netflix and YouTube apps on a smart TV) that would mostly be about sharing the pics and connecting to sister apps on iOS and Android, would be much better. They'd be updated via firmware, not an app store, it wouldn't have to run arbitrary software, and it would be much less vulnerable to malware. It would also suffer less power drain, since it doesn't need the horsepower to run all the modern smartphone apps.

Now maybe it still doesn't need to happen at all, but there are better ways than cramming a whole phone in there.


----------



## Ozarker (Jun 22, 2017)

1. Insure your gear in case it gets burgled. Stop with this tracking crap. Do we really want our gear back after the thief has tossed it to the ground or into a dumpster when it is discovered to be locked down? Nope. Give me a new one, insurance company.
2. Why must the camera sync with a phone? Isn't there enough clutter on social media? Or should I say, "Vanity Media?" "Self-absorbed media?"
3. Pulling my hair out.
4. Some of you are nuts. Especially the one who thinks putting a phone in a FF camera will somehow make it take better photos because phones do such a great job with tiny lenses and sensors. Good Lord.


----------



## LonelyBoy (Jun 22, 2017)

CanonFanBoy said:


> 1. Insure your gear in case it gets burgled. Stop with this tracking crap. Do we really want our gear back after the thief has tossed it to the ground or into a dumpster when it is discovered to be locked down? Nope. Give me a new one, insurance company.
> 2. Why must the camera sync with a phone? Isn't there enough clutter on social media? Or should I say, "Vanity Media?" "Self-absorbed media?"
> 3. Pulling my hair out.
> 4. Some of you are nuts. Especially the one who thinks putting a phone in a FF camera will somehow make it take better photos because phones do such a great job with tiny lenses and sensors. Good Lord.



1. I'm with you.
2. There's much to do with a synced phone and camera besides upload photos to social media. Though also yes, it's my business if I want to upload a picture to social media, not yours. If I take a picture of my wife's triathlon team at a race, why should I not upload it on the spot instead of that night? Please do tell me more about how I should live my life.
3. Don't pull your hair out.
4. No one has claimed it will take better photos. We have claimed that it could help streamline workflows for using those photos, however. For some of us, it would. Those InstaTweeters you hate so much wouldn't use a 1DX3 anyway, so you don't have to worry about that.


----------



## SkynetTX (Jun 22, 2017)

This is one of the stupidest ideas I've ever heard. It makes absolutely no sense. Even the best phone pictures has much lower Image Quality than an APS-C camera not to mention FullFrame bodies. Phones should be phones and cameras cameras. In MY opinion even video recording capabilities are needless in a camera. To put a phone in a camera? Why not to put a TV in a Microwave owen? Or a freezer in a BluRay player? Let's quit joking, right?


----------



## Ozarker (Jun 22, 2017)

LonelyBoy said:


> CanonFanBoy said:
> 
> 
> > 1. Insure your gear in case it gets burgled. Stop with this tracking crap. Do we really want our gear back after the thief has tossed it to the ground or into a dumpster when it is discovered to be locked down? Nope. Give me a new one, insurance company.
> ...



1. Never said I hated anyone. Stop conflating.
2. You didn't read the thread if you don't think anybody hasn't claimed putting a phone in a camera with a FF sensor would make photos better.
3. I meant syncing with a built in phone. Send your wife's triathlon pics all you want. Post photos of lunch too. :
4. A 1DX3 is exactly what this thread is about... for the instatweeters.


----------



## Don Haines (Jun 22, 2017)

A phone in a 1DX3? Absurd!

Why would anyone ever need it? It's not like some sports photographer at "the big game" or a news photographer at some event would ever want to have the images uploaded to the editors desk as they are shot.... I am sure that the news desk would rather wait until the reporter can get to some other location where they can download the pictures to a laptop and then email them in to the news desk....

Seriously though.... don't think of a hone as an iPad like screen running Facebook and weird games apps on it, thin of it as a way for a professional to transfer time critical images.


----------



## LonelyBoy (Jun 22, 2017)

SkynetTX said:


> This is one of the stupidest ideas I've ever heard. It makes absolutely no sense. Even the best phone pictures has much lower Image Quality than an APS-C camera not to mention FullFrame bodies. Phones should be phones and cameras cameras. In MY opinion even video recording capabilities are needless in a camera. To put a phone in a camera? Why not to put a TV in a Microwave owen? Or a freezer in a BluRay player? Let's quit joking, right?



I don't do _photography_ with my phone. You know what's handy? Being able to take a picture of a food box to check if it's the one my wife wants. Or having the pic of what I want to replace in my phone when I get to the store. Or to quickly show someone a damaged item, or recently-done work, or whatever, and be able to take the pic and send it along in a handful of seconds. It's a lot more handy than trying to kludge together that same functionality while carrying around a camera and a card reader and a laptop with a 4G card to do the same thing.

But, it's really fun to mock people who do things differently from you, isn't it?


----------



## LonelyBoy (Jun 22, 2017)

CanonFanBoy said:


> LonelyBoy said:
> 
> 
> > CanonFanBoy said:
> ...



You don't get to combine 1 and 4. You don't have to say "I hate X" when it's clear from your dismissive, insulting words. Trying to deny it is fun, though. And nevermind the excellent examples of other good uses for this (like Don's right above). No, make fun of me for thinking it would be good to be able to post pictures faster, as if the pictures that people actually ask me to take are on par with "what I had for lunch". You're doing an excellent job of showing how open-minded and non-hating you are.


----------



## Don Haines (Jun 22, 2017)

SkynetTX said:


> This is one of the stupidest ideas I've ever heard. It makes absolutely no sense. Even the best phone pictures has much lower Image Quality than an APS-C camera not to mention FullFrame bodies. Phones should be phones and cameras cameras. In MY opinion even video recording capabilities are needless in a camera. To put a phone in a camera? Why not to put a TV in a Microwave owen? Or a freezer in a BluRay player? Let's quit joking, right?



A pro uses the most appropriate tool for the job, not the most expensive one. Today at work I grabbed the camera Pelican-case, headed off to a remote site, opened up the box, took out the iPad and NOT the 6D, and shot inspection/status pictures of the gear... When I got back to the office, I picked up the iPad, went to the boss, and we looked at the iPad images as we discussed the plan ahead. The iPad was the right tool for the workflow. It sucks at image quality and lens selection, but it shines at convenience... Billions of people will agree that a camera in a phone is a good idea....

Now, a phone in a camera? If you are talking about as an option for real time image transfer, then everyone in a time critical situation with an editor that the images can be sent to will agree that it is a good idea..... but remember, a phone in the camera does not mean running Facebook, browsers, and games....


----------



## Ozarker (Jun 22, 2017)

LonelyBoy said:


> CanonFanBoy said:
> 
> 
> > LonelyBoy said:
> ...



Go have a beer, dude. You're getting weirder by the minute. :


----------



## LonelyBoy (Jun 22, 2017)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Go have a beer, dude. You're getting weirder by the minute. :



I will continue to express my opinion. I will, however, stop talking to you, since you are clearly intent on being rude to me and dismissive of any opinions that differ from your own.


----------



## Ozarker (Jun 23, 2017)

LonelyBoy said:


> CanonFanBoy said:
> 
> 
> > Go have a beer, dude. You're getting weirder by the minute. :
> ...



Actually, I'm mostly just dismissive of your particular opinion. Now have another beer and take some deep breaths. :


----------



## LonelyBoy (Jun 23, 2017)

CanonFanBoy said:


> LonelyBoy said:
> 
> 
> > CanonFanBoy said:
> ...



I don't know why you think I'm worked up; you're the one bothered enough to admit you're being rude and dismissive. Maybe instead of me "having a beer and taking a deep breath" you should learn to have an polite conversation. Also, ending every post with an eye-rolling emoji doesn't help your credibility.

You can go ahead and take a parting shot, if it makes you feel better to have the last word, but you're not worth continuing to go in circles with.


----------



## Ozarker (Jun 23, 2017)

LonelyBoy said:


> CanonFanBoy said:
> 
> 
> > LonelyBoy said:
> ...



Hey! I thought you said you weren't talking to me anymore. Just had to have the last word, didn't you?


----------



## 9VIII (Jun 23, 2017)

LonelyBoy said:


> jolyonralph said:
> 
> 
> > This is necessary.
> ...



I'd say Canon should forget about adding any Android like functionality at all, with the _one_ exception that I wish we had the option to edit photos in camera. If all I really want to do is adjust exposure on a RAW file while I'm actually standing there looking at something, that shouldn't take more than a few seconds.
All they really need to do is add an "Edit" button to the preview menu.
The camera already has all of that functionality (to bake their in camera JPEG's), we just need some user control.


----------



## rfdesigner (Jun 23, 2017)

ScottyP said:


> All the talk of phone cameras eating into the camera market; lets strike back and put a phone into the 1dx3. Big body with tons of spare room for the minimal electronics required. Ergonomically somewhat larger than ideal but the image quality would destroy the competition. I offer this brainstorm for Canon's use, free of all royalty claims.
> 
> Mic drop.



so you're looking for something a bit like this?

https://www.cnet.com/products/enfora-gsm-gprs-compact-flash-card-wireless-cellular-modem/specs/


----------



## Rejay14 (Oct 6, 2017)

Don Haines said:


> 9VIII said:
> 
> 
> > Actually, having a SIM Card in the 1D makes perfect sense.
> ...



So are you one of the few people that knows the "other meaning" of ATM?


----------



## Talys (Oct 6, 2017)

CanonFanBoy said:


> 4. Some of you are nuts. Especially the one who thinks putting a phone in a FF camera will somehow make it take better photos because phones do such a great job with tiny lenses and sensors. Good Lord.




It's not an absolutely insane idea. People are willing to pay a lot of money for a good camera on a smartphone. But the problem with smartphones is that the sensors are tiny and the built in lenses are tiny, so you can never get any cool lenses. No wide angles. No macro. No telephoto. No filters. 

So imagine a mirrorless, EF mount ILC phablet. You could take off and replace a mounting adapter and put on a dedicated pancake lens to make your phablet more phone-like for the times you need it as such. At other times, you can put on an EF adapter + grip that yielded a FF mirrorless ILC.

The EF mount/grip can support a battery, and they could even have multiple sizes of the grip/mount for different purposes and ergonomics. A slim mount that's M6 sized for when you want a small and light camera, up to a 1DX grip/mount for when you want to do sports photography!

I'd buy one! Of course, I'd probably never use it. But I'm pretty sure I'd buy one


----------



## littleB (Oct 6, 2017)

Without this, Canon is more than certainly *******!


----------



## LDS (Oct 6, 2017)

ScottyP said:


> All the talk of phone cameras eating into the camera market; lets strike back and put a phone into the 1dx3.



"Putting a phone in a camera" may mean two things:

1) Put a mobile radio into it so it can transfer images using mobile communications
2) Put a mobile OS into it.

I see benefits from 1) for all those people who need to transfer image instantly and can't rely on a WiFi setup and/or paired phones. I see very little, or not at all from 2), and also many disadvantages.

Also, 1) will work well if the transfer technology is kept simple and don't rely on third party systems that can change whenever they like. For example, most social media API for uploading photos, etc. change whenever the company like. Standard protocols are much more stable, and you can setup your own servers if you need them. Otherwise firmware needs to be kept up to date, and older cameras may never be updated - just look at what happened to many smart TVs, many apps stopped working because there was no incentive to update them.

Option 2) will just amplify those issues, and add new ones. Mobile OS are generic OS not designed around camera needs. They are designed to run several tasks at the same time, not to focus on a single critical task like shooting. They are made of many different layers that make them more flexible, but also bigger, slower, and more vulnerable. They need much more frequent updates, and far more complex ones. Canon would also need to customize any existing mobile OS a lot to keep camera performance in line with actual ones, and it's expensive.

Even phone makers don't update older phones because of the cost, do you believe Canon would? Updates also means older apps may not work anymore, nor new ones may not work on older systems. This would also reduce the resale value of older cameras a lot, they would be regarded obsolete much quicker. 

While cameras like the 1300D can be threatened by phone, I guess the 1Dx line is still safe for a while... and anyway turning them into phones would not help.


----------



## Deleted member 91053 (Oct 6, 2017)

Thank god I still have some film cameras!
I take pictures - am I weird? I thought that was what cameras were for..................


----------



## unfocused (Oct 7, 2017)

Always dangerous when months' old threads get revived.

In all seriousness though, cameras could benefit from some of the connectivity of tablets. I've long advocated this. Wireless connectivity, some simple apps for basic editing, ability to upload to Dropbox or social media. I find it ridiculous that a $6,000 camera can't simply and seamlessly connect to the internet for quick uploading of images. 

I shoot a lot of sports and events for a small college. I am a one-man band, so I don't have the legions of support people that the major college and pro sports photographers have. I find it very annoying that any parent can upload a picture to Facebook from their phone, while I can't. 

I've taken a lot of grief for saying this in the past, but I am warning the wedding photographers out there that they will be under increasing pressure to provide the bride with at least a handful of pictures from the ceremony while the reception is still going on.


----------



## Jopa (Oct 7, 2017)

unfocused said:


> I find it very annoying that any parent can upload a picture to Facebook from their phone, while I can't.



People still use facebook! That's crazy.


----------



## takesome1 (Oct 7, 2017)

Several years ago this suggestion was around. 
During the early selfie craze it might have made sense to put a phone in a PS. 
But it appears this new brilliant idea was dissmissed by the camera companies long ago.


----------



## Talys (Oct 7, 2017)

Jopa said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > I find it very annoying that any parent can upload a picture to Facebook from their phone, while I can't.
> ...



But the real question, unfocused, is... why can't you upload a picture to Facebook from their phone, while they can? ;D


----------

