Has everyday, "affordable" camera quality/technology changed much from 2010 to 2016?

[Archinist]

How much have cameras ranged in the usual price range of $100 to $1,000 improved in the past 6 years? Have they changed much at all? I am talking about common cameras such as (D)SLR cameras, phone cameras, webcams, security cameras and "casual" cameras. How much has the quality of the image and the stability of the cameras changed, if at all by a noticeable degree? Or has camera technology already reached a standstill many years ago?

[General Zod]

Phone cameras are good enough for the average peon, but still not good enough to replace a DSLR when you actually have a grasp of a DSLR's capabilities. Especially if you want to do anything specifically artistic with minimal post-processing (read: no filters or photoshop), or capture high-speed action shots. Long exposures are basically impossible for phones.

[Tribble]

That's still a pretty big leap though. Budget point-and-shoot cameras are effectively obsolete for most people.

[Elheru Aran]

There used to be two or three camera categories: basic user, semi-pro, and professional. Basic is stuff like your old school disposable cameras, Polaroids, cheap digital cameras... good enough to take a few quick pictures at family events, that kind of thing, nobody expects crazy quality, they just want to capture memories. Semi-pro is a step up-- more functions, higher image quality. Professional is the stuff with 2-foot lenses, National Geographic type cameras.

When things went digital, that didn't change much, but phones did change the paradigm considerably because previously you had to carry both a camera and your phone if you wanted a decent picture. Now? You don't need the camera because the phone does a pretty darn good job on its own, and the only reason to get a separate camera is if you're semi-pro or professional. Phone cameras are immediately available, store the pictures to flip through later, and allow you to carry it pretty much anywhere-- you don't have to remember (or lose) a possibly valuable camera.

[Iroscato]

The last digital camera I bought was in 2009 - back then phone cameras were in the 3-5mp range, if I recall correctly. The camera was a relatively cheap, 8mp model. Nowadays 16-20mp on phones is common, my current phone is a cheap Chinese brand and has a 16mp main camera, with a 5mp selfie camera. I'm not sure what most amateur digital cameras can manage, but 50mp+ wouldn't surprise me.

[Elheru Aran]

Yeah, my dad has a camera that you could consider somewhat intermediate between 'amateur' and 'semi-pro'-- it's not much bigger than a pack of cigarettes but damn he does some gorgeous photos with it. Very sharp, high resolution.

[General Zod]

The last digital camera I bought was in 2009 - back then phone cameras were in the 3-5mp range, if I recall correctly. The camera was a relatively cheap, 8mp model. Nowadays 16-20mp on phones is common, my current phone is a cheap Chinese brand and has a 16mp main camera, with a 5mp selfie camera. I'm not sure what most amateur digital cameras can manage, but 50mp+ wouldn't surprise me.

20-24 is the norm on low end model DSLRs. The 50+ are still a bit more expensive than the average amateur is likely to fork out. (And honestly it's not the megapixels that kill you, it's the cost of getting new lenses.)

[aerius]

The last digital camera I bought was in 2009 - back then phone cameras were in the 3-5mp range, if I recall correctly. The camera was a relatively cheap, 8mp model. Nowadays 16-20mp on phones is common, my current phone is a cheap Chinese brand and has a 16mp main camera, with a 5mp selfie camera. I'm not sure what most amateur digital cameras can manage, but 50mp+ wouldn't surprise me.

Megapixels don't really matter for phone cameras, when you consider the sensor sizes and the diffraction limits of the lenses they're limited to around 8mp or so of actual resolution in an ideal best case scenario. Real world is probably closer to 6mp. With the lens & sensor being as small as they are, that's all you can get without breaking the rules of physics, they might spec 20mp but the equivalent of 6-8mp is all you'll get out of it.

Most DSLR and other large sensor cameras will get the full resolution of the sensor unless the lenses suck, you'll get an honest 20-50mp depending on which one you buy. And you're not going to get 50mp out of them unless you're using a tripod or have really good shooting technique, camera shake and vibration will drop that resolution down a lot.

[Starglider]

1080p security cameras were almost non-existent in 2010; a handful of models at ridiculous prices. Mass market IP cameras were 720p at best, lots of quarter megapixel junk still around. In 2016, 1080p IP cameras are cheap and ubiquous; 4K cameras are at about the same stage (technically available but impractical for most customers) that 1080p cameras were in 2010. This is mostly a processing electronics issue not a sensor issue; both at the camera end and lack of adequately powerful video servers to capture a useful number of 4K streams. 4K also requires 10G ethernet adoption for large scale applications, which has been rather slow mostly due to 10GbaseT DSP complexity and power consumption issues, and/or post-gigabit wireless standards which are still too new and expensive to integrate into commodity cameras.