Digital Camera Vs. Camera Phone

An anonymous reader writes "CNet.co.uk has done some simple head-to-head testing of camera phones alongside digital cameras to see which device takes the best quality pictures. The results are surprising, with Nokia's latest handset, featuring a built-in 5-megapixel camera, taking more vibrant pictures in medium light conditions than a 10-megapixel dSLR. Of course, the pictures aren't fully representative of how the images would look at full size; but given that most people resize images to put on Flickr, we could start to see a decline in dedicated digital cameras sales and an increase in camera phone sales."

Comments

Herd-mentality.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Of course, the pictures aren't fully representative of how the images would look at full size; but given that most people resize images to put on Flickr, we could start to see a decline in dedicated digital cameras sales and an increase in camera phone sales.""

Most people? How do you come to that conclusion?

It's possible.

[timeOday]

I think there are going to be a lot of defensive replies from dSLR owners. But with enough light, a small lens and sensor can take a good picture.

Re:It's possible.

[Jeff DeMaagd]

Before anyone jumps on me, I don't have a dSLR, nor do I know how to use one.

Let's just say that their methodology is suspect at best:

"All the shots were taken with devices taken straight out of the box, and we used the default settings or an automatic mode if there was one".

A person should not be buying a dSLR if they aren't going to take the time to learn how to use it. They should just be buying a point and shoot camera. The 5MP camera, they noted that it does badly in low light and the light has a blue tinge.

The only thing that this thing compares is the quality of scaled-down pictures.

It's kind of pointless to clamor for a high megapixel camera if it's only going to be scaled down to VGA res for the web. 2MP would be plenty and offer plenty of oversampling for web. If you want to do good prints, then that's where a nicer camera comes into play, but they don't compare that.

Re:It's possible.

[CptPicard]

It's possible that this "vibrancy" factor is due to the fact that most consumer cameras "enhance" the picture automagically. They fix contrast, add saturation, etc. It's a real PITA for those of us who just want the data off the sensor though, so that we can then Photoshop things to our preference. DSLRs tend to produce "duller" pictures by default, but you're expected to add the "pop" later on, and the potential is there in the image.

Another possibility is that the tester used some crappy kit lens. For example the one that came with my EOS 300D a few years back is plain awful, and the first thing was to get a proper lens.

Re:It's possible.

[badasscat]

I think there are going to be a lot of defensive replies from dSLR owners. But with enough light, a small lens and sensor can take a good picture.

"Good pictures" start with accuracy. That's the entire point of a camera, and that's what separates good cameras from bad cameras. Even in the pre-digital days, sure, different films and different settings would give you different results, but photographers paid the big bucks for cameras that would given them a reliable baseline of accuracy - that meant being capable of things like high shutter speeds for daylight photos, low shutter speeds for night photos, high quality light metering, and lenses capable of high resolutions, high color accuracy and low distortion. What a photographer chooses to do artistically is another matter, but the point is photographers don't rely on their cameras to be the artists; that's the photographer's job, not the camera's.

So I don't even need to look at the article to know what the word "vibrant" means with regard to the Nokia photos - it means "artificially jacked colors". In other words, not at all accurate, in other words crap.

I mean, look. I have a 2mp cell phone camera and I have an 8mp DSLR. I use my cell phone camera when I'm just out and about and don't care about quality. But there is a huge difference in color accuracy, noise and detail between even the best cell phone cameras and the worst dslr's. And that difference is not going away.

So I guess you can consider me one of your "defensive" dslr owners - but hopefully, there will always be defenders of the truth out there.

Re:It's possible.

[Hawthorne01]

Warning: Photography Rant Ahead!

I am sick and tired of camera snobs thinking that more money = better pictures. Look people, I worked as a commercial still photog for 15 years, with clients like IBM, ITT Finance and Compaq and I got out around the turn of the millenium because I saw how things were headed. I just can't compete with the millions of great cheap/free photos out there now. If you all think OSS is revolutionizing the software world, wait 'til you see what websites like istockphoto and sxc.hu are doing to commercial shooters.

Ok, where was I... Oh yeah, cheap cameras. I had Sinars and 'Blads with enough lights to blind a whole regiment and still have my Nikons. But my favorite camera of all time was/is the Olympus XA becuase it was there when I needed it (and I'm in some good company in that regards). I ended up getting hundreds of great candids and quick landscape shots with my XA because it was with me when it was the right time and place to take a great picture. Fat lot of good that EOS 1DS will do you sitting on the closet shelf at home does you if a great picture happens to be right in front of your eyes.

And another thing about small cameras (and to some extent, cameraphones): You don't look like a freaking dork when you're shooting. Unless you're God's gift to hospitality, getting a candid, relaxed environmental portrait while trying to light the place like Yusef Karsh is a recipe for disaster. Learning how to slow down and get to know my subjects before I picked up a camera made a bigger difference in my work than anything I bought at a camera store.

Re:It's possible.

[dgatwood]

The white balance is all over the map. The N95 shot looks good, but only because of the subject matter. The particular objects happen to look better with a blue cast. The N95 white balance is actually way, way off. If you look at the image with a color meter, you can see that the white areas are actually very purple. The IXUS is very yellow. The Sony (as is typical for Sony) is very orange. The Nokia 6300 is a blusih green (more green than blue). The other Canon is very orange. None of them are anywhere CLOSE to correct white balance. None of them.

The high end Canon photo looks like it is the closest to accurately representing what your eye would probably see under the same circumstances, assuming that this was shot with standard incandescent lights (i.e. almost no compensation), while the Nokia phones overcompensated (a lot), and the Sony did just what I'd expect from Sony (exactly the same amount of overly-red hue whether indoors or in broad daylight). The others didn't appear to compensate enough, but tried to compensate a little.

As for clarity, even at this level of size reduction (which is pretty substantial), the high end Canon took slightly sharper photos, but what was most striking was that the depth of field for the Nokia N95 is so noticeably wider due to the small lens even when viewed at a reduced size. There's no real foreground or background. It is all just flat. While that might make it easier for novices to shoot photos that aren't blurry, it often makes for very visually busy photos.

The reality is that most users probably can't tell the difference, but for those who can, I would much rather color correct the Canon photo a little than use the N95 photo. If the background were a crowd of people instead of a blank wall, you would immediately understand why. :-)

Another thing that I'm not seeing is any mention of the exposure. There's no guarantee that camera phone images of moving objects/people in interior lighting would look anywhere near as good. I realize that it is MUCH harder to come up with a reproducible test case for a moving object (though a swining clock pendulum would be a good place to start). However, that's where larger lenses are most likely to result in a significant improvement. They allow you to gather enough llight more rapidly than with a smaller lens, allowing for a faster shutter speed without the graininess associated with a gain up.

Where to Start?

[smack.addict]

Most people take pictures to put them on Flickr? In what bizarre alternate universe?

And camera phones take pictures as good as a dSLR? You can be 80% blind and still tell that camera phones take inferior pictures.

Flickr?

[dreamchaser]

but given that most people resize images to put on Flickr

Most people with digital cameras don't even know what flickr is. They email their pics to relatives or print them out, or just save them on their hard drive.

I'm getting a sense that slashdot is in a way getting like Washington DC. People inside the beltway are totally detatched from what the majority of people are doing in their lives, and so is slashdot.

More vibrant = more artificial, but people like it

[AaronLawrence]

Amusing that CNet (that bastion of photographic expertise) kept commenting positively on how "vibrant" the N95 photo was. Obviously the Nokia boosts the colours artificially, to make the photo look more exciting, even though the colours are not that strong in reality. Of course, they invalidate their entire results by not making any comment (let alone measurements or reference photos) on how close the photos were to the real colours.

But the interesting thing is what this says about people - the average person doesn't care much about realism, they want a nice looking photo regardless, and if the phone adjusts things artificially to make it look "better" then that might actually be the right thing to sell more phones. It's kind of an extension of the point and click idea.

"Vibrant"

[evilviper]

Vibrant doesn't mean much of anything to me... About as much as audio sounding "warm".

It sounds like "vibrant" to them simply means over-saturated. It wouldn't be difficult to tweak ANY of the images to be more "vibrant".

It's really impossible to tell which photo more faithfully reproduces the actual scene, without seeing it in person. The Nokia may work well on animation colors, but if people come out high-contrast, looking more like cartoons, it's not a good camera.

In other words, this article is utterly useless.

Sensationalized

[metalhed77]

I'm suprised, the camera phone did a great job, which is a good thing for consumers who don't know how to color correct their photos. However, as the article points out, this is solely a product of post-processing in the camera. I'm quite surprised that the 400D did such a terrible job with the white balance. Was it stuck on the daylight preset or was the AWB that bad?

They didn't really address night time flash performance. Lots of people want to take pictures when they go out at night and these tests were inadequate since the subjects were small and close. Large people 5-6 feet away require a brighter flash and/or higher ISOs. Cell phone cameras haven't the room for a large flash and the capacitors it requires. I wonder how these phones would fare under these conditions?

Also not addressed was dynamic range. The test scene was fairly flat. If you're on a vacation, and whip out your dinky cell phone to take a picture of the landscape, what might on a DSLR be a nice image of the land and sky, could turn out to be a dark silhouette of the land with a detailed sky, detailed land with a blown out sky, or some combination. How good is the metering as well? Will your relatives be a series of black lumps against the grand canyon if you aren't a pro photog? The more this stuff is automatic the more joe consumer wins.

Additionally, the lens choice on the 400d is slightly disappointing. Cheap lenses like the 18-55 kit lens can't really give you the detail possible with 10 megapixels.

Re:Herd-fermentality.

[Anonymous Coward]

This is total bull. Does the OP work for Nokia? This looks like viral marketing gone wrong. Five megapixel cameras with small cheap lenses do not take more "vibrant" pictures than digital SLR cameras with Zeiss lenses. Also, the assertion that "most people resize their images to put on flikr" is ridiculous. Less than one thousandth of one per cent of images taken with digital cameras have ended up on flikr. What are the authorities the OP relies on? I don't think I'm going to take Slashdot seriously any more. It's being invaded by bs.

Did they *look* at their own images?

[Kadin2048]

It's not their methodology that I question, it's their eyesight.

There are some seriously shit pictures in that article. I mean, really bad. They might be acceptable for eBay, but then again, I used to use a 680x480 toy that downloaded over the serial port for taking photos for eBay. It's not exactly a high standard.

With the exception of the Nokia N95, which I do admit is impressive for a camera phone, the natural light photos are terribly yellow. They remark "the colours came out fairly balanced if not a little yellow..." about the top one of these two images. A little yellow? Look, Mr M&M there looks like he needs to get on dialysis, because his kidneys are shot. There's no white balance at all. It's tough to take the rest of their conclusions seriously when that's all they have to say there.

With the flash on, it gets the color right (apparently it's just hardwired for the 5000K flash or whatever it has in there), but all the highlights blow out -- and it's not even that high-contrast a scene. I'd hate to see what would have happened on a black background.

The N95 is, admittedly, impressive with its flash turned off. It's a pretty passable image at that resolution. I don't have much negative to say about it. But the flash image below, which they describe as "vibrant"...? I'm not sure 'oversaturated' covers it; it's bordering on ridiculous. It's not even attractive oversaturation, like you might get on some consumer films designed for that effect (Agfa Ultra, Velvia, etc.), or by playing in photoshop; it's just ugly.

Now, granted, in the 400D's photos (last page), they're doing something wrong in the available-light shot, because although they say they're using the automatic settings, it's obviously not auto-white-balancing, and I know that camera will do that in its automatic modes. Leaving that aside, the flash shot beats anything out of any of those cellphones, by a large margin. The lighting is pretty even (there are a few hot spots on the cat, but given that it was straight front flash, it could be worse), the highlights aren't blown, the colors are realistic, and the shadow detail is good.

The photos tell the tale far better than their narrative does: you get what you pay for.

Re:Herd-fermentality.

[The Great Pretender]

Funny, I put all my digital pictures of my kids on Flickr and have never resized a single one. All 600+ are there in their full glory for family to download as they want and create their horrible home-made cards and calendars that they then send back to me (thanks Apple for that software). As for phone cameras taking taking better pictures I have to agree with our AC friend here, bunch of bull, or at least in my experience.

Re:Herd-fermentality.

[trisweb]

Their definition of "better" was simply not accurate (the better camera is apparently the "one that got the white balance right"), and they probably didn't know how to take a representative shot with either the Canon P/S or dSLR cameras -- simple settings would have made the white balance correct and the colors more "vibrant" (used as their biggest measure of quality). The scene was obviously also very poorly lit.

That said, it is good that the better camera phones got the white balance correct; that's the main problem I have with my dinky camera phone, all the photos come out too orange or blue, never what they're supposed to be. But come on, obviously, you can't say a camera phone can compete with even a midrange pocket digital camera with options and lens quality and stuff, no less any digital SLR. You just can't make stupid comparisons... but then when have we ever trusted CNet with being 'intelligent'?