Slashdot Mirror
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."
"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?
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.
"Is 3DS MAX really more powerful than Google Sketch?" - We gave 10 randomly selected people half an hour to learn to use them, and then compared the results.
And, coming soon...
"Is DVCPRO HD actually better than VHS (after you resize it to 64x48 pixels)?"
"Is a dual-socket, quad-core workstation actually faster than a ZX Spectrum (when playing Space Invaders)?"
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.
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.
For every expert, there is an equal and opposite expert. - Arthur C. Clarke
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.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
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.
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.
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.
That isn't even remotely what the article said. It said: "As you can see the top photo, taken in medium light conditions, is in focus and the colours are very vibrant, if not a little over saturated." and, "This difference in colour is likely due to the N95 processing the shot after it was taken."
Nowhere do they describe if the images actually represented a faithful reproduction of the colors of the objects, and they did not test under multiple lighting conditions, such as outdoors, under incandescent and fluorescent lights, etc. They also did not conduct any test which would demonstrate the camera's dynamic range, and they did not show us any 1:1 crop areas.
There's one simple site I point any of small but persistent who claim things like "film is superior to digital" (it hasn't been for at least a few years, in terms of resolution, signal to noise ratio, and dynamic range.) Clarkvision. The guy lays it all out in cold, hard science with good illustrative graphs and examples.
Does Pixel Size Matter? lays a real cold hard blow to all the idiots that claim dSLRs are overpriced or unjustified. They VASTLY outperform "point and shoot" cameras because the sensors are huge. Current dSLRs already approach the theoretical maximum sensitivity, SNR, etc. The bigger the sensor well, the more photons it collects- and the less electronic amplification is necessary. dSLRs have sensors the size of your phone's screen. Your phone's camera has a sensor around the size of an eraser. Not only does that cause a lot of noise problems, but it causes problems for aliasing filters (which spread light across the red, blue, and green sensor wells.) It's very easy to make a very good aliasing filter on a scale required for the very large pixels in a dSLR. Sensor wells in the point and shoots are so tiny that the filters really, really blur the image.
Practically, this means that if you and I stand next to each other and take a photo towards sunset, and then take both to a photo lab and get them printed, my (several year old dSLR) will blow your (current P&S) out of the water. My photo will have more detail because of better aliasing on the sensor and dramatically less noise (which doesn't have to be hidden with blurring). Nevermind that I can shoot a photo at 800 ISO and it'll have less noise than your camera at 100 ISO, which means I get several stops of sensitivity which I can use for, oh, a faster shutter speed so there's less motion blur, or a smaller aperture for greater depth of field.
Please help metamoderate.
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.
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."
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.
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.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
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.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Bzzzt wrong answer. I shoot both 645 and digital professionally and film still has many advantages- better dynamic range, better resolution, less noise at high ISO, much better enlargeability, true black and white, and permanence.
Much of that stuff was accurate two years ago; that doesn't make it so today.
The widest dynamic range for slide film is Fuji's duplicating film, CDU-II. About eight stops, compared to ten or more for most digital SLRs. Negative film may get you nine stops in ideal conditions, but it's a mistake to say that the best DSLRs and studio backs have short dynamic range.
Film does have the advantage of a non-linear response to light - and non-linear response to color, which is one attraction to film - each has a unique palette. Digital sensors respond in a linear fashion. I prefer the character of film for this reason, but again, I find no reason to shoot film in most situations; grand landscape work with my 4x5 is one place where film clearly wins. In smaller formats, digital is recording more information in a wider range than any camera or film.
You won't find film capable of recording density that the best sensors are capable of. Not anymore. The only way to get ahead of large sensors today is with square inches of film; that's why I still shoot 4x5. After making test prints from a Canon 1DS mkII and 6x7 slide film scanned on a Tango at 3500 dpi, I'm convinced the 1DS is of comparable, if not better quality - and this was almost two years ago.
The clean signal of these newer, better sensors mean more of the information captured is usable as image data; there's no grain, and at low ISO, no discernible noise.
What is this "true" black and white of which you speak? Colored filters in front of black and white film do affect the image; black and white images are made by exposing color-sensitive emulsion that is made with a single layer of un-dyed silver halide. Same thing as Kodachrome slide film - without the dye.
All black and white films are sensitive to different wavelengths on the spectrum. By post-processing your own black and white using Channel Mixer in Photoshop, you're doing the same thing - selecting the percentage of each primary color portrayed as a monochrome image. Seriously - did you not understand that this is how black and white film works?
The concept of "true" black and white may make sense to someone who doesn't understand how film works - but even Photo 101 students know that "black and white" films are color sensitive.
Permanence is one department in which film wins hands down for ease of handling, cataloging, and durability - but make a print of your digital file on to Fuji Crystal Archive (a silver-based paper popular for printing digital work) and your permanence problem becomes a lot less scary - suddenly you have a more permanent copy that is human readable.