[mrspandex]

Why on earth would I want my camera to be running a full phone OS? It's one thing to build a camera into a phone for convenience, but when will having an OS and touchscreen in the back of my camera make something more convenient?

[pilif]

That's what I told a guy I went to school with when he has shown me Snakes on his Nokia phone. Who'd ever want to play a game on a phone?

And then, around two years later, I asked him who'd ever want a color display on their phone when he was showing off his T68. Who'd ever need a color display on a phone...

I also remember laughing about the ridiculous camera add-on for that T68. I mean: who'd ever want a camera in their phone?

In this present case, being able to instantly upload to Dropbox or picture sharing sites certainly has some appeal, but I guess we'll have to see how this develops over time.

I certainly stopped asking "why on earth..." when talking about gadgets though :-)

[roc]

Communication programs would make synchronizing and sharing photos (particularly one-offs) much easier.

Touch-to-focus, touch-to-set-white-balance are pretty awesome and far more user-friendly than comparable functions/processes on today's point-n-shoots (when they're even available).

Applications would be able to extend what are fairly difficult-to-kludgy with todays point-n-shoots (HDR, stitched panoramas, night shots, etc)

etc.

[esolyt]

There are smartphones, tablets, netbooks, watches, ski goggles running Android. It is interesting to consider Android as a "phone OS".

Sure, your camera doesn't need apps. Neither does your phone. But just because it's not necessary, doesn't mean that it won't provide lots of benefits. You can, for instance install Dropbox and use Camera Upload to automatically sync all your photos to all your devices the moment you shoot them.

[slantyyz]

>> Sure, your camera doesn't need apps.

A lot of people seem to like using apps on their phones for photography though. This Samsung camera seems like a great Instagram camera.

[esolyt]

That's exactly what I meant. A camera doesn't NEED apps, but it would be useful to have the ability. I would definitely use Instagram and Dropbox Camera Upload with this device.

[blinkingled]

To the extent that it can provide better, more responsive, more flexible user interface than your typical camera - nothing wrong with it.

(NEX5 user - great camera but every time I use the interface it always feels less than friendly/sophisticated)

[goggles99]

When there is an app on the Play store for 3.99 that makes your camera a much better camera.

[jarek]

Better than a 1/2.3" sensor in front of a f/2.8-5.9 lens? Right.

[goggles99]

You are kidding right? I said better camera, not better sensor or picture quality. What makes a better camera often is more features or a better interface for taking pictures, post processing them or sharing/archiving/distributing them.

How many point and shoot camera's can upload pictures to any existing/future social media websites? How many point and shoot camera's can run Photoshop? How many can archive to any cloud storage median immediately after taking the picture?

Many apps will follow this camera. There are already many Android camera apps that are far better than the stock Android 4.1 camera. They have a far better than the interface of any point and shoot camera. There are also already many Android photo manipulation apps that are better than any built into ANY other camera in any price range.

Down-voters are likely jealous Apple fanboys. And your comment is quite short sighted jarek. If you think that a superior lens and sensor is all it takes to make a "better" camera you should stick to old school "film" cameras.

[jarek]

1/2.3" and f/2.8-5.9 are on the Android camera in question.

I haven't shot a film camera since disposables in the 90s but thanks for the thought.