Slashdot Mirror
Two Megapixel Cameraphone Shootout
Siddharth Raja writes "It's been almost exactly a year since MobileBurn published their last 'horribly un-scientific' test of 1MP cameraphones. This time, they take the latest two megapixel models from Sony Ericsson and Nokia and put them through their paces.
The tests cover aspects ranging from lens distortion and contrast to exposure. Nokia's phone uses a custom lens solution from Carl-Zeiss, but it looks like the Sony Ericsson phone still has better optics. On the flip-side, the Nokia phone is better with colours and calculating the white balance."
I think that this article is the perfect context for Buy Nothing Day. Talk about excess and waste.
Intron: the portion of DNA which expresses nothing useful.
Now taking bets on the number of 'I don't want a camera, I want a phone that functions as a phone - they should get that right!' posts..
Expect to see an sharp increase in the number of lockerroom and bathroom pics.
What I really want to see is a comparison between a 2 megapixel cameraphone and a half-decent 2 megapixel digital camera, such as were top-of-the-line just a few short years ago?
My Canon SD110 "Digital Elph" served me very well for three or four years, until I replaced it with a 4-megapixel model. It had very pleasing color rendition. I've been quite satisfied with 8x10 enlargements from it even though they are very slightly softer than the pictures from my wife's 5-megapixel camera.
So the question for me is: if I was happy with a good 2 megapixel "digital camera," if I bought a 2 megapixel cameraphone would I be equally happy with it?
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
Nokia has dropped the ball and are believing their own marketing fluff. No-one actually wants a Carl Zeiss lense on their phone. No-one cares how good the optics are on a phone. Optics snobs buy cameras.
Seriously - rather than trying to turn phones into appliances, Nokia should learn from Apple and see that what people want are tiny, elegantly simple gadgets that do just one thing and do it very well. Instead of a phone costing $900, make one costing $20, and you can expect people to buy many.
How about a phone stripped down to just:
- GSM module
- speaker
- mike
- battery
- on/off button
Carries a single number and dials this when it's switched on. About the size of a fat CF card. Pretty colors. Very cheap - $10-20. I wrote this idea up on: http://www.shouldexist.org/.
My blog
"Aha", I pretend to hear you cry, "But if the Kodak's still better, why not use it?" Answer, because (a) the old Kodak doesn't work any more, and (b) (more importantly) I couldn't carry the Kodak around all the time, it was too big, and carrying it AND an iPod AND a phone AND a wallet is uncomfortable. So, from my point of view, despite being a cameraphone hater two weeks ago, the V635 is a vast improvement on what I had before. In addition to being a cellphone, it's a good-enough camera that goes where I go. And I'd imagine the same is true of the cameraphones reviewed here too.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Brilliant! That statement almost exactly makes sense.
I've got the K750i, and I'm impressed.
:)
Thanks to network subsidies it will cost me around $10/month for the entire contract, and that includes a decent amount of calls. That, combined with a decent camera make it a good deal.
As for quality, to my eyes it is BETTER than a Konica Minolta Z3 - it is far less grainy. However the Z3 is a 4.2mp unit with a decent zoom lens, and the actual print quality is much better. The quality isn't a touch on my old 2pm Canon A60, but the difference isn't fatal - the pictures are perfectly acceptable in good lighting conditions, and will look nice printed at a standard size
Camera phones with a decent camera in are a great idea for the reasons posted with the article, although they'll never be a replacement for an SLR.
According to a recent survey conducted by Parks Associates, reveals that US consumers are more interested in camera phones than music phones. According to the report 52% of US consumers intend to buy a cell phone with an integrated camera and 30% were planning to purchase a phone capable of downloading music.
So will see more camera phones, and it is easy to carry phone, talk and take snaps. Soon we may see 2-5 MP mobile phones and they could be killer phones.
The important thing is not to stop questioning --Albert Einstein.
[RANT]
Am I the only person who wants to know how, exactly, deciding which cell phone was better became deciding which camera was better?
What does a camera have to do with a cell phone, really?
When I went to buy a phone recently, the only thing any salesperson wanted to talk to me about was the cameras. I could not care less about the camera, but I ended up with one anyway. At the same time, a feature I really wanted to have - that my old, dying phone had - I couldn't find on any of the "better" new phones: a nested phone book, so that one name (one entry in the phone book list) could be associated with multiple numbers from which I could choose after selecting the name. Instead, every phone I saw had a strict one-number, one-listing phone book.
I really don't care if a phone has a feature I'm not going to use, but I do care if it has that and not features I actively want. Particularly when the features I actively want actually have something to do with being a phone.
[/RANT]
Reality has a conservative bias: it conserves mass, energy, momentum...
A two-megapixel cameraphone?
I just wanted to add to this discussion one little thing. I used to be in the avid "Just want a "phone" phone." group. However recently, my finacee was in an accident. She thought the person in front of her had gone so she started out and popped the rear of the car in front. The woman immediately jumps out of the car and starts yelling and screaming for the police. Basically, this woman was being a bitch.
As soon as the police showed up, they looked at the woman and asked (many times) "where's the damage". As soon as my finacee took out the camera phone and started documenting the accident, everything settled down and the bitch^H^H^H^H^H^H Lady finally left.
I basically just wanted to say, camera phones do serve(rarely) a purpose and I'm glad I have one now.
Cliff Claven
K.E.G. Party Chairman
Founding Leader of: Koncerned for Egalitarin Governance
The single most important thing with a camera is having it with you when a photo opportunity arrives. Always carrying a camera around is normally not an option, while carrying a phone arround is perfectly fine.
Sooner or later, camera phones will have picture quality and usability that is "good enough" for point and click purposes and low end point and click cameras will see a sales drop. Low-end camera producers should look into partnerships with mobile phone companies for this reason.
Higher end cameras will always have a market as a combined high-end camera and phone would be a huge and complex monstrosity that noone would touch. High-end cameras you bring when you know you are going to take photographs anyway.
Nokia should learn from Apple and see that what people want are tiny, elegantly simple gadgets that do just one thing and do it very well.
The latest version of the iPod, besides playing music, will also display album art and lyrics; store contacts, text files and to-do lists; play a few arcade games; time your laps while jogging; function as an alarm clock in multiple time zones; display photo slideshows; and play video on its 2.5" screen.
I love Apple's iPod, and it's still a superior music player, but let's do away with the "does one thing well" myth already. It's moved on quite a bit since then.