Slashdot Mirror
Megapixels & Camera Phones
CEmongler writes "Consumer Electronics publication CoolTechZone.com tackles the integrated camera attachments in today's cell phones. According to the author, "The camera integration has in fact reached such a stage that any self-respecting phone would incorporate at least a megapixel camera. The cutting-edge feature to have though is the 2-megapixel variety. The question is: is it really worth the extra money you pay for it? Without getting into model-by-model comparisons, I am questioning the entire range of 2-megapixel camera phones. Are they really worth it?
For the most part, no."
Look, the number of pixels is simply not as important as the optical properties of the system. I've seen better pictures come out of a four megapixel (MP) camera with better lenses than those that come out of a seven MP camera with poorer quality optics. So, if your lenses allow clean transmission of light without chromatic aberration and little to no change to the fidelity of the image, then you will have better images than just simply bumping up the MP count through commodity CCDs.
This of course is what the phone manufacturers are doing, buying commodity CCDs because that is what is being made. It is cheaper for them to spend an extra dollar or two on a higher MP count CCD rather than putting the development dollars on improving the user experience, interface or infrastructure.
This of course is because people respond to higher MP counts in the same way they like "bling". "Ooooh shiny things!" Come-on people! Put some effort into purchasing quality products that demand a bit more work and are functional for longer periods of time instead of purchasing things that you throw away after only a short time. It shows you are more discriminating, pushes companies to produce better products, is easier on the environment and gives you better quality goods that help to improve your life rather than clutter it up with junk.
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
Who really takes their digicam with them everywhere they go? I know I don't.
What about for us perverts?
When faced with the choice between a phone with a camera and one without, which do you choose? When they are the same price, which do you choose? When they just don't make phones without cameras anymore, which do you choose.
Shut the fuck up, consumer.
I did not own a digital camera up until this xmas, and it was a gift. I purchased my w800i because it's sort of a MacGyver-esk tool used for pictures, music, and communication.
Since I prefer film vs digital, I thought it would be nice to consolidate tools into one device that I have on me all the time. It has proved to be a good investment, despite the $400 investment. The premium price I paid has a lot to do with markets and such, but those aside, the phone fits its niche in my life and it's always convenient to have a camera on you at all times.
Most phones available in the US have really crappy cameras, but the w800i is an exception.
And why? Because the optics still sucks. I guess there ain't enough space for a good camera inside a phone, because the optics ain't small enough. While the ccd or cmos sensor is small enough, it needs good optics to give good quality.
Say you've got the good optics, and a decent sensor... A ccd uses more power than a cmos, and needs more light. A cmos however, gives lots of artifacts (noise) in the picture, but performs better in low-ligt conditions, and needs less power.
Ok, so we go for a ccd. Then we need a good flash, which takes even more power. Power which has to come from a capacitor since a battery can't deliver high enough voltage and enough current fast enough. A capacitor and flash takes up space.
In short, if we want small phones, we won't get decent image quality. If we can accept a phone twice as big as the ones we have, we can just bundle together a normal compact camera and a phone...
Assembling etherkillers for fun an profit
The whole "cameras in cell phones" craze is starting to cause some problems for me. Many DoD installations do not let you take camera phones onsite. This has the effect of severely limiting my cell phone choices, so that I'm stuck with "crackberry" or "super cheap", neither of which is terribly appealing. What happened to a nice, mid-range phone with no camera? It's not even that I don't like a camera integrated into it - it's just not an option for me. This insanity is even starting to creep into PDA phones - witness the Treo 650's digital camera, for instance.
It's gotten to the point where I'm thinking of switching from Sprint to Nextel, just because Nextel's phones actually seem more reasonable for my (and my wife's) usage. Interestingly, the Sprint rep I spoke with said I could do this, and they even had a group for going from Sprint -> Nextel!
-Erwos
Plausible conjecture should not be misrepresented as proof positive.
You have any idea how hard it is getting to find a good phone with all the features you want.. and NOT have a camera attached to it? You almost have to go to Nextel as they seem to be about the only cell company that doesn't have every phone be camera enabled.
I ended up having to get a camera phone just so I could have some of the features I wanted (mainly bluetooth) and found a case that fits the phone that covers over the camera eye. Good enough to get past the rent-a-cop security.
Dammit, I've already got a phone (an old Nokia candybar model that has a wonderful interface and battery life and no stupid camera). Any self-respecting phone should be just a phone. If I want to take along my camera, I'll do so.
I'm hoping my current phone doesn't break so I don't have to involuntarily "upgrade" to the next model which has countless features I don't want and an interface whose designers I want to reciprocally torture by redesigning their TV so that changing channels requires multiple button presses in even the most common case. Gah *head explodes*.
it's a blue bright blue Saturday hey hey
k750 from opening lid to photo can be done in 6 or 7 seconds, not 15 or 30 as this piece of well informed journalism states.
Camera phones are fast replacing a number of regular phones
Are they? The "article" quotes no source and no statistics for this claim. How can anyone be sure?
What does TFA mean by "fast"?
Not sure about it in the US, but in Germany I get a new cellphone every year at least if you make ~150 a month for the provider. I can choose from about 80 models and I pay nothing for the latest model.
You might argue that I pay the phone via my monthly bill, but given the competition I don't think it's true anymore. Basically the phone is pretty much a giveaway for staying with the same provider.
Cams in mobiles are pretty handy btw. I use it to record information that I would otherwise forget, stuff like the settings of my distortion pedal for my guitar and the like.
He says he took only 20 pictures in 3 months with his 2 mp camera phone. Why the hell is he reviewing cameraphones then?
I probably take 20 pics per week on mine, I send them to friends and family straight from the phone, sometimes I post things on my family's website from it. I'll never get a phone without a camera.
Couple of things - first off I have a 4MP compact digital camera and a 2MP (Sony K750i) camera phone.
.5 Gb Memory Stick Pro Duo, no flash (but you can buy one)
The camera comes with me to 'occasions' - places where I know I'm going to take photos (outings, birthdays, family stuff, etc) - it has a real optical zoom, 1Gb Sd card and flash.
My phone is with me all the time and so I can take photos of things that catch my eye - landscapes, unexpected events, something fun that happens in the pub - it has only a digital zoom,
And, you know, for outdoor, non-zoomed stuff, the results a re about the same. I'm not a camera buff, nor a pro and I think that is the point - to those of us that just want a memory recording device that will adequately capture an event most phones are up to the task.
And so back to the point of my title - that is certainly my experience IN THE UK and EUROPE - having spent sopme time in the US they are WAY behind when it comes to phone tech - seems to be the result of a bad market and provder model. Anyway - phones in the UK and Europe are certainly up to being useful, usually free with a contract and do the job. I wish more article writers would remember or explicitly state US != World
The problem with the rat race is, even if you win, you're still a rat!
Having a 2 megapixel camera is pretty pointless if you only use it to put a picture of your partner on the phone's main screen, or to send multimedia messages (which reduces the quality to something like VGA quality).
However if you can get the image from the phone to an internet site like Flickr, TextAmerica, Kodak, &c, then it is worth having a 2 megapixel image, just like it's worth having a decent amount of megapixels for your regular digital camera. The higher quality is useful for displaying on a PC, or for printing the photo, and so on.
Unfortunately it's very hard to get your pictures from your phone to the internet. Email and WAP uploaders have proved not good enough for this task, and hardly anyone does this.
A new generation of software is emerging on phones though. Services like ShoZu allow you to upload full quality images from your phone to sites like Flickr, TextAmerica, &c, in a very simple manner, and also allow editing of titles, descriptions and even tags both before and after upload. With this sort of service on your phone it really is worth having a decent camera in your phone.
With the camera, I am ready always to shoot whatever I wanted. It comes handy. Yeah, may not be great picture quality but the capturing the instance is more important for me.
I had a Samsung D500 phone with a 1 Megapixel camera. The quality was superb and I was really impressed with it. The phone had to go though because that was the only good feature, it wasn't even useful as a phone. I got a Nokia 6230i with a 1.3 Megapixel camera. I'm still stunned at how bad the quality of the pictures are.
Basically, if you're going to buy something on the strength of the inbuilt camera, make sure the quality of the pictures is actually good.
Summation 2
I dont care if you can get a 30 megapixel phone, It's images will suck.
The only way they can get lenses in these things is to either use the ceramic lenses or tiny plastic lenses at fixed focus and the image will stink no matter what.
I have an old Fuji S1 3 megapixel digiatal camera in my closet that will kick the crap out of the highest megapixel point and shoot on the market today simply because I can plop a $1000.00 lens on it.
90% of the image is in the optics and ALL cameraphones have crappy optics simply because there is no room for the real stuff.
Unless people want to put a SLR up to their head to talk Cameraphones will always stink at photo's.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Just as digital cameras made it cheaper to just casually take pictures of things because you didn't have to pay for development, having a camera phone makes it more convenient. I don't think anyone is really going to be using the things for real photography (although the article author seems to think so). The author argues against 2MP phones, but the argument seems divided between saying that all camera phones are without merit, or that 2MP offers little to no advantage over 1MP. The latter is simply technology advancing, but I would disagree with the former.
Camera phones seem like more of a social thing. When I bought my last phone, I had the option of getting a camera phone. I opted not to get one because it doesn't really appeal to me, but I can see advantages to them and why some people like them.
"No one likes working in a hamster wheel, and your shop smells of cedar shavings from here." - TaleSpinner
One of the black-clad trainers arrived to investigate my suspicious phone answering shortly thereafter. Had to scroll him through my few snaps to show him nothing was amiss. Still, he kept my phone safely behind the counter until I was ready to go. Reclaiming the phone later was plenty embarrassing.
(Personally I would prefer a ban on hanging out naked to shave out of some exhibitionistic impulse, but that's harder to define than "cell phone camera.")
"Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
Of course they suck..... it's a camera-phone! All manufactured goods have limits.... size.... cost... etc.... If phone makers wanted to integrate a camera that was as good as a standalone digital they'd either have to sacrifice something... like battery life or call quality. Since people still buy camera-phones primarily as phones of course the camera function is going to suck.
For us practical people who don't get off on bragging about their "megapixels on their cell phone" or their "gigabytes on their flash drive" its simply not a concern at all. Sadly enough, I do work with one of those people, tried to show off his new flash drive which held 6gb. I might have been impressed if he even had the foggiest notion of exactly how much information 1 gigabyte is. I would also put money on the fact that its sitting in his pocket totally empty as are the (2) 250gb external hard drive we just had to buy him.
The point of this rant is these are the types of people who drive companies to produce all these products that have no practical use other than to have 'more megabytes' than yours.
Check out the cave on the east side of lake Hylia. Strange and wonderful things live in it.
I just want a phone with a gigabyte of flash memory and bluetooth capability to be able to mount as a drive and store data on.
Brought to you by Carl's Junior.
We used to use a regular digital camera, and just keep one in each conference room. But they kept growing legs, getting misplaced, needing batteries, or just malfunctioning. Cameras that are owned by individuals have the advantage that the individual actually takes care of the thing, so it is much more likely to be available and work when it is needed.
The key to any tool is to use it appropriately. A camera can be misused, such as to transmit confidential material to a competitor. A camera can also be very useful, to record and communicate drawings within the company.
Banning cameras does not protect the confidential information, unless the organization also bans email, removable disks, printers, paper, and briefcases. Only two things are actually accomplished by banning any specific tool: It makes the organization less productive; And it tells the people that they are not trusted. Both effects are counter-productive.
We're up to about 4 megapixel phones in Japan and have had mpeg video and true 3G for years. There have been sites for uploading directly for years. You folks are just years behind since western companies have no incentive to invest - they would rather just continue to suck every last ounce of profit from older technology.
The same is true in TV broadcast technology and internet speed and cost. Creative people always find ways to make technology interesting.
It's about EASY. I have a camera phone. It was free with my contract. It has a 2MP camera. I take it with me everywhere because it's my phone, so if I see something I want to snap, I can. Camera phones are not for people that want artistic or even "good" pictures. What they take is memories and reminders, things otherwise forgotten, not art. So get off your damn high horse. Of course it would be great if they managed to fit a DSLR quality camera system inside a phone. FOr now they can't and the products are STILL great, and within the budget of most people here in the UK.
"The camera integration has in fact reached such a stage that any self-respecting phone would incorporate at least a megapixel camera."
That's of course not true, since there's an antire range of business phones with no camera at all (the lack of camera is even a feature in that environment), and a lot of them come with VGA camera (0.3 MP).
I still think there's enough sense left in the phone manifacturers to embed phone features depending on their target audience desires/needs, and not because of some ill conceived understanding of "self-respectness".
"I am questioning the entire range of 2-megapixel camera phones. Are they really worth it? For the most part, no"
The phone manifacturers don't try to put the embed camera as a standalone camera replacement, so why do you? Yes ok, breaking news, phone cameras are not to be used by photographers for professional work. Duh.
I am a happy owner of a K750i which is part of the review, and I actually claim the quality of the photos is pretty good compared to the majority of other phones with lesser cameras. You can even use it to make average to good quality prints for your home album, especially if you first process the image a bit to clean it up.
The 2MP camera phones are actually the first that you can use to make photos you can keep, and not just a smudge where you barely recognize someone's face on. For this, they are perfect.
And the K750i is so tiny! Not quite like the pro cameras you compare it with...
Wouldn't we rather see a stripped down cell phone, which, instead of cameras, games, voice recognition, accelerometers and spacecraft launch pads, would be rediculously tiny and cheaper than it's behemoth counterparts. It's hardly like they are small enough as they are.
Well, that's how I would like them anyway. The extra things are just junk. (Apart from the launch pad, possibly.)
Swedish plasma phys. PhD student; MSc EE; knows maths, programming, electronics; finance interest; seeks opportunities
I have to say I feel it was entirely worth it.
Firstly i'm not coming on to defend my purchase. To be honest the phone was free anyway on a contract upgrade I needed to make so I thought i'd go for it.
The phone is a Nokia N70 and, for all of its foibles (including the incredibly annoying slide open camera activation / lens protection cover) the camera stands out as a superb product.
I'd love to link to an image i've taken from it but fear the slashdot effect would ruin me on hosting charges.. but under the right conditions (ie NOT night time) the camera returns impressive pictures. Yes, in low light it makes everything look incredibly washed out - yes the delay is enormous on taking a picture - but in good average daylight conditions pictures come back looking almost as good as those of my old 2MP Olympus point and shoot which i've since retired.
One of the 'points' of camera phones for me was just having a camera with you at all times in case something unusual happened - be that a car accident (and you need to record photographic evidence of the scene), a good sunset, etc - the increase in MP allows you to do this more and more - previous generations meant that the picture was only 640x480 or so and this didn't really allow you to get the whole picture across!
Cheers.
"Hey! Unless this is a nude love-in, get the hell off my property!!"
There is nothing amazing in 2MP cameraphones. In Korea entry level phones have 5MP cameras and decent Sony Cybershots with 3,2 MPs are inside new Sony Ericsson GSM phones of K-series. The article is simply obsolete.
6 of those do not have a camera. There is a mixture of PDA, basic and more advanced phones in there. The one that stood out is the E60 which seems to have a lot of features without turning into a PDA or having a camera.
This article is FUD.
I use my mobilep hone camera, it's a lousy 1MP. Using a 2MP camera phone really makes it possible to see details and colours. You can argue that this has nothing to do with the amount of Mega Pixels your camera has; e.g. the lense, the CMOS area, is more important etc etc. But more megapixels usually means better quality.
Should you buy a new phone just because it's a 2MP camera, why not! If you take pictures, tell my why I wouldn't want them in better resolution?
Last year amounted to 20MB (~200-300 pics) of photos from my phone. Most of them would never have been shot if I didn't have a mobile phone with a camera, and I assure you that I want to keep alot of them.
Well, I just use the USB-cable that comes with it to get the images over to my computer. It works ok, ofcourse you have to have your comupter nearby, but arenä't we all geeks in here? =) Seriously, I have recently upgraded from a Sonyericsson T610 (crappy camera) to a W800i (better camera) and all of a sudden found lots of practical uses for it. Not to take family-album type photos, but for instance -Take a picture of the bus time-table when I pass the bus-station so I can check when it is time to head back and not miss a twice-an-hour bus with a minute or two -Take "before" pictures of stuff I disasesemble (like pulling out a lot of cables from a switchboard or something) to make it easier to put back together if I screw up and there is no documentation at hand -Check if I missed a spot on the back of my head while shaving it =P I also find it plenty good for taking "drunk party pictures" in situations I really hesitate to bring my "real" digital camera for fear of losing it or having it smashed in a brawl or getting puked on. (Yeah I know I should probably stop going to those social occasions...) -
-Queen of the Kung-Fu fairies
Any self-respecting phone should be just a phone. If I want to take along my camera, I'll do so.
Once again the chorus of "I just want a phone with buttons and a 10digit display". Look, you obviously don't get it, the convenience of a camera phone is that you DON'T HAVE to bring a camera along with you. If you're lifestyle is such that random photo ops don't appear frequently, then fine, buy yourself a phone without a camera (or just ignore the camera feature of your phone). For me, this occurs often, often enough that I get a lot of use out of the camera in my cell.
According to the article “the handsets aimed at business users, such as the Nokia 9300i and the O2 Atom/Mini incorporate some pretty heavy duty cameras.”
Nokia 9300i does not have a camera! Nokia 9500 have a camera.
From my point of view a good modern GSM phone has the following features:
Only to idiots, are orders laws.
-- Henning von Tresckow
http://www.gsmarena.com/sony_ericsson_k800-1485.ph p
\m/
Not going to happen.
;) It also lets me add the GPS coordinates to any picture that is taken with the built in camera, and will plot it on a map for me online if I wish.
Almost every cellular phone company that is not based in Japan competes with the ones who are.
I have seen 2 models of cellular phone here in Japan without a camera built in. Both of those models are meant for "old people". It's simply a keypad with an lcd display so you can double czech the number you are calling. Keys are big for people who have a hard time pushing these tiny buttons. Even the latest phones designed for elementary school children have cameras and gps built into them.
On the other hand, some of the latest models here in Japan come with 4 megapixel cameras built in.
I am of the mind, however, that a phone should be exactly that. Something to call others with. A way to take calls when I am not in the office. Don't get me wrong. I like my current phone (W21S) but I never use any of the features of it. I call people. People call me. What use have I for the GPS, TV tuner, Radio, Java, QR Code reader, and camera that are built in? The camera does come in handy sometimes, for those spontaneous shots or situations, but other than that, I don't need the other features. Hell, I'm thinking of re-activating my "old" lcd only phone mostly because of it's "lack" of features.
Here in Japan, we simply cannot buy phones without most of these features. They don't exist.
I DO like the GPS features though. For example. I go to the cell phone shop and pick myself up a phone with a GPS. Then, I pick up some phones for the kids (and wife). Those phones will transmit their GPS coordinates to my phone when I request to know the other phone's locations. If the "child" phones are not within GPS range (due to the kids being in school or on the bus or whatnot), then I will get approximations on where they are based on triangulation of the standby signal they generate when in contact with 3 or more cellular towers. All in all, a good way to keep track of those teenagers' whereabouts
Get used to the idea that cell phones will have cameras built into them. If you don't like that, use land lines.
Sorry.
"Freedom in the USA is not the ability to do what you want. It is the ability to stop others from doing what THEY want"
The reason the quality of cellphone cameras is so poor is due to the small size of the lense. Same is true for ultra compact digital camera's. For example, take an old Canon Ixus v2 and a brand new Ixus 50. The Ixus 50 is very slim, about two times smaller than the v2, has got 5MP, the newest DIGIC II processor, bla blah. But it has trouble focusing and shooting in low light, and despite the wide angle lens, Canon decided to include a heavy flash to increase focal depth, contributing to many over exposed shots. The good old 2MP Ixus v2 might be a little irresponsive at times and doesn't have the full fancy framerate auto-gamma übercool LCD display, but it beats the Ixus 50 easily on the lighting, colours and image quality departement.
Image quality is limited by optics and by the size (overall size -- in millimeters) of the sensor. With trashy optics and a tiny sensor, it doesn't matter how many (ever tinier) pixels one jams onto that sensor; the image quality just won't be there.
I advise people who want a point and shoot (which has a much bigger sensor than a cell phone, but much smaller than an SLR) to not bother with more than 3 megapixels or so. There are some expensive "advanced" non-SLR digital cameras that have sensors comparable to SLR sensors, but most point and shoot cameras have sensors no more than 1/2" on the diagonal. Most digital SLR's are about 1.2" diagonal, and 35 mm SLR's (such as film cameras and the EOS 5D and 1Ds digital cameras) are a bit less than 2" on the diagonal.
The basic issue here is the pixel size, which (along with lens speed) controls how much light the pixel can gather. The larger the pixel, the more light it can gather and the less noise it will have. There's also the wavelength of light to consider; as the pixel gets smaller, the ability to resolve between neighboring pixels becomes less.
The sweet spot for digital SLR's with APS-C sensors with 1.5 or 1.6 cropping factors (such as the low to midrange Canon and Nikon cameras) seems to be about 8-10 megapixels. Canon's latest offering (the 30D) stayed at 8 MP. The Nikon D200 is 10 megapixels, but it's noisier at high ISO settings than the 20D/30D. This would suggest that full-frame (35 mm) digital SLR's won't get much above 20 megapixels (based on pixel size), and you'll have to go to medium format to get much more than that. If the Foveon sensor ever gets perfected the marketing numbers will triple (since each position would have a sensor for each color), but the grid won't change.
It's possible to reduce noise by lowering the effective ISO (in other words, allowing more light into the sensor by requiring longer exposures). So while the EOS 20D has excellent noise performace even at ISO 800, a typical point and shoot (with its tiny sensor) will be very noisy above ISO 100 or 200.
Finally, there's the matter of the lens. My own tests suggest that I only get the full 8 megapixel resolution out of the 20D if I use a good lens (such as the 85 f/1.8 or 200 f/2.8 prime lenses), well stopped down and very carefully focused, and otherwise in good conditions (on a tripod or with a very short exposure). I recently took a shot at sunset with a 1 second exposure at f/16 with my 200 mm lens and there was very sharp single pixel detail. Even slight blur will very quickly reduce the useful pixel count; if it's blurred to the extent that there's no useful detail at less than 2 pixel resolution, you're effectively at the 2 megapixel level.
So what does all of this mean? Camera phones have tiny sensors, with cheap lenses, and can't have long exposures. However many pixels the sensor may have, I'd be surprised if the effective resolution of the output is more than a few hundred thousand pixels.
obligitory onion reference
The Camera-Phone
Death and danger are my various breads and various butters.
It has been available more than a year ago = 7 dog year.
3 megapixel plus optical zoom or/and motion canceler phone deservers the title of cutting edge in Japan.
2-megapixel is "cutting edge"? Last time I made a post about Japanese cell phones being better than the ones in the West, I got a bunch of replies telling me that "I was wrong", "if they're better, why haven't they taken over the market" and so on.
But, I haven't lived in North America for a while, so I honestly don't know. Is 2-megapixel "cutting edge"? Is that how pathetic cameras are in the West? My current 3G Japanese cell phone is by no means top of the line (it cost less than one American cent, and came with no commitment--I was already a subscriber when I bought it) and it still has a 2-megapixel camera (including video, digital zoom, barcode reader), flashlight (that doubles as the camera's flash), schedule, calculator, currency converter, alarm clock, MP3 player, Bluetooth interface, I can surf the web, use it as a television remote control, check train schedules, play video games, interface with my television, sing karaoke on it, and on and on and on. I'm sure I'm forgetting a lot of stuff. And NO, the battery life for modern Japanese phones isn't as crappy as people say it is.
I've actually moved away from Japan, so I'm not sure, but I imagine that all self-respecting Japanese phone companies have moved away from 1-megapixel phones completely, and are just selling their existing stocks to bargain hunters and the elderly. After all, a cell phone is an absolute necessity in Japan. Even octogenarians have them. I've heard that in Japan there are 3 cell phones for every 2 people.
The only phones that DON'T have a camera are made for niche markets. For example, one of my friends works at a Japanese bank, and she's not allowed to bring a camera of any kind to work, even if it's just a cell phone camera. So she had to buy one without a camera in it. I imagine she had a hard time finding it; that's the only phone I've ever seen in Japan without a decent camera in it.
Of course megapixels don't mean much without the optics to match. Compare these two images, both taken at 640x480. Spotting the photo taken on the Treo isn't hard...
Cutting edge is not 2 mega pixel, it at least 3. Check out the SonyEricsson K790a, it has a 3.2 MP camera and is actually branded as a CyberShot digital camera. And phone. If you don't know it, CyberShot is Sony's digital camera brand. CyberShot cameras are generally good, but admittedly I haven't tried the new phone. Of course to review the cameras you have to do a thorough job. ;)
I'd wait until someone like Philip Askey of dpreview.com or Steve's Digicams made a favorable review. At least if it's a camera you need
Any technology distinguishable from magic, is insufficiently advanced.
Like someone pointed out, a camera, of any MP, is limited by the fact that it is in a phone -- a device with limited resources. You need to understand what you are playing with. Some phones like the Nokia N90, have Carl Zeiss lens, but still the images aren't comparable to a dedicated camera. A good photograph is influenced by a lot of things apart from the lens -- white balance and shooting mode could do wonders. I have seen that my K750i takes awesome macro shots [see for yourself here: http://www.geekybodhi.net/gallery2/ ], but it sucks when there's any kind of motion. Then there is also the ability to control the shutter speed. I haven't seen a phone camera that allows for manual adjustment of the speed of the shutter, but it can be done by using the Night Mode many phones have, which slows shutter sync; alas, this also means that they become over sensitive to any vibration and pick up a lot of noise.
A few pics in a couple of months with an article deadline isn't doing justice to the the hardware. Camera phones are good, no doubt. But you need to spend time to understand what they can do and can't do, before jumping to conclusions. Camera phones are all about getting close to the subject. Once you understand that, working with them is a charm.
If the cellphone makers would just offer each model sans camera, maybe a couple of dollars cheaper, they might just be surprized at how few people actually want one. The only cellphones I have found without a camera anymore are also lacking other features, such as bluetooth.
Concealed Handgun License Courses in Plano, Texas
The samsung i730 pda phone is a great phone without a camera. A little big, and runs windows ce (which could be a - if you're a linux guy), but it is a swiss army knife of phones. It essentially replaced my ipod and gameboy while traveling short places.
as soon as it says "... the O2 Atom/Mini incorporate some pretty heavy duty cameras."
(although the article goes to correct this of course)
The camera in O2's XDA Exec (slightly larger than an XDA Mini; both made by HTC and both also badged by numerous vendors) has a 2M camera in it (actually it has 2 cameras, but that's another story). As a camera, it is of laughably bad quality - it's worse than any other digital camera I've seen and the pictures are worse than those taken with the Instamatic that I had when I was a kid.
Under anything other than perfect lighting conditions the metering will be either too dark or too dark. The CCD seems relatively fast (no real evidence of camera shake) but otherwise it has no redeeming features at all. If you want to take pictures, get a camera.
no camera; it needs a
tripod to place calls.
Why not just open up your phone and yank out the lens/sensor assembly?
I've opened up my phone before, to poke around & you can literally unplug the camera & pull it out. Mine isn't secured in any way that would prevent this & I imagine other phones are similarly made.
Fill in the resulting hole with the appropriate color of silicone sealant or caulk, smooth it out and you should be good to go. Should be a reversible process in case you ever have warranty issues.
The perfect phone for you vs. a little time and effort, or what used to be called 'hacking'.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
That's what Bluetooth is for. (at least, one thing.)
If Jesus wants me it knows where to find me.
My roommate's Sony Ericsson W800 with 2MP takes better pictures than my LG VX9800 with 1.3MP.
My Olympus C7000 Zoom digital camera with 7MP takes better pictures than both phones.
Hard to get pictures from your phone to the internet? Just plug into your PC, and when ActiveSync hooks up... oh I forgot this is slashdot, where smartphones are evil.
My high quality digicam is the size of a packet of cigarettes, so why not carry it everywhere?
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
Yes, the optical properties are critical.
No they don't use "commodity CCDs". Cameras for cell phones are a very high volume custom business, they are all specially designed for cell phones.
Cell phone makers _REQUIRE_ that the camera be very small, esp. very short. This in not compatible with a good quality lens. The result is bad optitcs, see the first point above.
You're absolutely right. I've got a K750, which has 2MP and autofocus. It actually takes perfectly good snaps.
Now I'm sure a proper camera would take better shots, I own one, but I'm not going to carry it around with me (however small it may be) just on the offchance I see something I want to take a picture of.
For example yesterday a group of us did some heavy whiteboarding. At the end I just took a snap of the board and now I've got a decent image I can send out to the people who were there and I can use as a reference.
One final quibble - I'm sure the Nokia has a vile interface - but SE is very simple. I open the shutter, point the phone and press a button. Just as fast as any other camera really.
Oh - and this really is the final thing. A nice cameraphone is fun. I have a stupid little message board thingie (www.bobpitch.com) - users register their phone number against their account and if they see anything interesting, take a snap and send it in from their phone. People on the board see the picture or video and SMS back.
Point I'm trying to make is that new camera-phones aren't supposed to be replacing cameras - they're supposed to be replacing old, poor quality camera-phones.
It's never been about the megapixels, or exactly how great the pic was. If I wanted a great picture, I would use a real camera.
For me it's all about how easy is it to get my stuff off (or sometimes on) my phone, and to my computer. The last time I had to navigate Verizon's 'easy method' I ended up feeling like an idiot, and the only people who could help me were 13 year old script kiddies on a forum. I swear I have some computer experience out there, and am not a total moron.
I know they don't want you to automatically get stuff on your phone, because then who would they sell ringtones and wallpapers to? I just want to get the pictures off the phone the same way I do it with my digital camera. Speaking of which, I need to call Verizon and see about a possible USB adapter for my phone, and see if that would work.
Nothing hides evidence like a stew. -Gus Pratt
Personally, I'd really like a phone that emphasized reception, battery life, tactile feedback for the keypad rather than looks, handset construction and a real cradle over all the crap (camera, color screen, fancy ringtones, digital audio playback) that you can't buy a phone without these days.
Something like a Samsung N200 which I had but broke down on me after just shy of 3 years of service and abuse.
I've found N200s on ebay but nothing in decent condition. I'd be overjoyed if I could buy a brand new phone with the same function and design for a reasonable price.
... For me personally I'm pretty happy with the 640x480 fixed lens no-flash cam on my P800. I have a 5mp Minolta Dimage A1 that gets _amazing_ results, but it's also big and bringing it along means that I'm on a photography 'mission'.
The phone cam is good for the spontaneous shot. Mine is pretty fast to load the camera program (and has a dedicated cam button) and I can whip out the phone and shoot a pic within 3 secs. The resolution is low when compared to a computer monitor, but when viewed on a standard TV the resolution is great. There's definitely noise but no more so than a DV pause on S-Video. Also, the quality of the 'print' is not the point, it's the quality of the moment captured.
The cam is no substitute for a real cam of course, but for camblogging, spontaneity, and even real-life stuff like car accidents or 'citizen reporting' it's fine.
Oh, and real-life camphone save.. my old 2mp Elph died after I landed in Belgium for a 2-week vacation, I ended up using my camphone to document my trip to Normandy, Paris, Amsterdam, Brussels, and Waterloo. As long as I had adequate daylight it worked pretty darned well IMHO. A side benefit was that I could get away with taking snaps in the Van Gogh museum without attracting unwanted attention (they prohibit cameras there) as well as at other museums on that trip (Louvre, Pompidou Ctr, Rijksmuseum, etc). And with the 128MB memory stick duo I get at least 250 snaps...
Us photographers have already had this argument dozens of times over dSLR vs. pocket camera (and a phone camera is the ultimate pocket camera). The problem with non-dSLRs is not the MP, nor is it necessarily the optics. The limiting factor is the chip size. No tiny camera phone is going to achieve a low-noise image because the photosites on the sensor are packed so close together. These cameras will never be serious for picture taking until technology provides a high-dynamic range, noise-free image from a tiny sensor.
Having said that, the best camera is the one you have with you. What do I use my camera phone for? When I park in a parking lot next to a jerk (someone who's askew in their spot, over the line, etc), I snap a picture that includes their license plate, make/model, and the horribleness of their parking job. If there's a ding in my door when I get back, they're busted! If I ever get caught snapping by the jerk, I'll just tell him I run a website called inconsideratebuttholes.com and I'm thinking of making him the feature of the day.
(I've often thought about leaving such parkers a note--something along the lines of, "Your parking job is inconsiderate and I hope you'll think about this next time you leave the house"--using nothing, of course, but my ignition key and their hood.)
but have you considered the following argument: shut up.
Higher megapixel count = better film, which is obviously a good thing but no magic bullet.
> But, since it isn't costing you anything, what exactly are you arguing?
That the extra weight and bulk makes a phone with a camera worse than a phone with no camera.
Your argument is just plain stupid. It's like saying "since the 50-pound brick attached to your phone doesn't cost you anything, why are you complaining?"
They are great, Mimio and eBeam are two makers off the top of my head. They even have the kind that you just attach devices to the side instead of having to buy a whole new whiteboard.
-nosebreaker.com
Seems like a trolling slashdot post to me.
* It's not about the number of pixels, it's about the lense and camera design
* I just want a PHONE that is a PHONE goddammit
* blah blah blah
For those who believe humans have free will, slashdot provides plenty of evidence to the contrary. I think I've seen these same posts modded up in a dozen different stories about camera phones. It reminds of the dilbert cartoon where the most overused phrase is how "swimming is the best form of exercise".
LS
There is a fine line between being a cultivated citizen and being someone else's crop. - A. J. Patrick Liszkie
While it's true that good optics are more important than sheer number of megapixels, the 2MP threshold is important because it's really the minimum resolution at which you can have a decent looking 4x6 print. 1.3MP images still look fuzzy when printed at that size.
Tech that's here waiting to be implemented:- lens-slimmer-digital-cameras-better-cameraphones-1 18113.php
http://www.gizmodo.com/gadgets/liquid-lens/liquid
My buddy told me about this company in Japan called ColorZip. In their own words...
"We started Colorzip because we believe that ColorCodeTM technology is the most exciting mobile content delivery and management system ever imagined. It is the only technology in the world that allows any device with a CCD/CMOS camera and an Internet connection to read color-coded images and instantly download music, video and data from a server."
See http://www.colorzip.co.jp/
They apparently already have a beta working on many mobile phone's Java App.
Not only is the camera in a camera phone inferior to a purpose built camera, but the audio quality of the phone is inferior to just standing in front of the person you are talking to!
Why does anyone buy these things?
They whose government reduces their essential liberties for temporary security, receive neither liberty nor security.
"the number of pixels is simply not as important as the optical properties of the system" - True, but only for similar numbers of pixels. How good a lens would it take to get a good picture from a 320x240 CCD?
More pixels make better pictures until you get over a few megapixels or so, then you can see the difference the optics makes, and at that point, once 4 megapixel CCD are standard kit in phones, there will be a few more cents spent on the optics.
They whose government reduces their essential liberties for temporary security, receive neither liberty nor security.
Nearly all Nokia Camera phones are easy to use. You press up on the D-Pad (or joystick) and then press the D-Pad/Middle soft key and there you go, picture taken. (ok, perhaps you need to unlock the keypad first, which you don't need to do with a K750i). Most Nokia phones take pictures far quicker than a K750i too, but this is mostly due to the fact the K750i has a slight pause to focus.
That said, the K750i beats all of Nokia's current camera phones, hands down for quality of image - yes, this even includes the Series 60 phones with their Karl Zeiss lenses.
Comparing my K750i to my ancient 2MP camera, the two are pretty close in quality of pictures. The "proper" camera probably edges it out in most pictures.
One area Camera phones really suck at is night shots, from excess noise due to the tiny sensor, or crap illumination from their flash substitutes, which are positioned far too close to the lens.
Why hasn't anyone mentioned that the main point of the camera on a phone is that it gives you something to do while looking for reception? Then once you find a place where you can actually make a call, you can take a picture of it so that you can use it again.
While simply rapming up the megapixel count and using conventional lenses will actually degrade image quality, use of coputational imaging technologies such as cubic phase masks http://www.cdm-optics.com/site/index.php has the potential to increase image quality over conventional cameras.
Put simply cubic phase masks deliberately blur images in a fashion which allows for the sampling of the wavefront. Thus by tossing a lot of pixels and computational power at deblurring, a batter image than possible with conventional optics is possible. And yes, they are working on a cell phone version.
I keep Canon EOS 20D, three lenses (a wideangle zoom, a fast 50mm prime lens for low light/thin DOF situations and a tele zoom) and some miscellaneous tools such as extension tube set and a combined timer/remote with me most of the time. I'm not even doing it for any money; I'm just shooting for my own fun, whatever happens to catch my eye, whether it's a couple of sparrowsor a beach in infrared.
:)
I realize that most people might find carrying ~2.5 kilograms of photography equipment around somewhat uncomfortable, but then again, there are plenty of people in the world doing things that I would think as uncomfortable. I'll leave mountain climbing, body piercings and swimming in freezing water to them, just like they leave camera-lugging to me
(Well, obviously I won't take the camera equipment with me to places where it's not welcome, but then again
Everyone who makes generalizations should be shot.
Are you saying that you can get away with a crappy amp if you feed it into top-of-the-range speakers? If anything that would probably show up just how bad it is.
It's true I tell you, feller at work's next door neighbour read it in the paper.
One button press to switch to camera mode, and can connect to a printer with pictbridge.
...so the last paragraph was nicely unfinished. It would have been something like:
(Well, obviously I won't take the camera equipment with me to places where it's not welcome, but then again, as my employer does not have a problem with me having the equipment with me at work as long as I don't shoot anything company confidential, I can carry it around me most of the time.)
Everyone who makes generalizations should be shot.
..I am questioning the entire range of 2-megapixel camera phones. Are they really worth it? For the most part, no
Sorry, but Yes!!
My old Nokia came with a 640x400 camera and the camera in my current Nokia is 1600x1200. It's a huge difference and the 2MP photos rock! If you have a choice, go for the better camera!
Actually, I have trouble believing most cell phone lenses can even pass 1MP adequately. Most SLR lenses that cost between 1X and 2X as much as the whole cell phone won't really do 6MP unless they're stopped down quite a bit. There's no WAY one of those cell phone lenses can do 4MP.
The camera-phone space is moving with incredible speed - and there is a huge variety of devices out there. The quality and features of sensor and lens package still varies broadly. That said, the best of the 2MP cameras out there deliver truly nice snapshots - far better than the 1.3MP. That's primarily because the 2MP sensors are more and more often coupled with relatively nice autofocus lens packages. So far, the Sony and Nokia cameras appear to lead with Samsung coming fast. The trends are very promising too; Sony's upcoming K790 and K800 will have autofocus and anti-shake technology. Basically tech from the ultra-compact digital cameras is migrating quickly into phones. I've written more about this at http://blog.scanr.com/scanr_blog/2006/04/making_ev ery_pi.html (I'm on the team there.)
As a very loose rule of thumb - look for autofocus with 2.0 MP. If the phone manufacturer spec'ed autofocus then there are good odds the camera will perform well. If it's fixed focus 2.0.... caveat emptor.
> That's what Bluetooth is for.
;)
Unless of course you use Verizon, in which case they've crippled your phone for you so that you have no ability to send pictures etc to and from your phone using Bluetooth.
Unless you're a geek who's willing to take your phone's life into your hands, you're screwed and can't get the pix off except through them (by paying of course).
No comment on whether I've done this with my Verizon phone.
Camera phones should never have the options that a digital camera has. There should always be a separation. Camera phones are for taking pictures of my friends doing kegstands. Digital cameras are for shooting the rolling hills of Tuscany while on vacation in Italy.
Ant
Search Engine Marketing
If you want to compare it to audio, i am saying that until you get to a 'reasonable' bitrate ,an expensive amp and fancy speakers or even a studio quality microphone will not do much better than walmart ones.
They whose government reduces their essential liberties for temporary security, receive neither liberty nor security.
Then you're a bit of an idiot. With the audio example, the transformation is digital to analog. With the camera, it's the other way. You do understand causality, right?
It's true I tell you, feller at work's next door neighbour read it in the paper.