41 megapixal camera phone ... really?

s162216 said:
I wouldn't exactly call the 110 system a failure, in fact you can get some really good images out of it and it was quite popular (according to my parents nearly everyone they knew in the 70's owned or used a Kodak 110 Instamatic for their family snaps). Plus you could get some quite high end cameras: the little Pentax Auto 110 was truly a tiny (world's smallest) SLR with interchangable lenses, motordrive, teleconverters, the works (I have one that I use for a bit of fun as it truely enjoyable to use).

Are you sure your not referring to the 'Disc' system as that was definitly bad. It had some good things going for it like being really small, easy to use etc, but the negatives were even more tiny, the 'disc' cartridges were expensive to manufacture, and the picture quality was further worsened by the simple fact that the labs were supposed to buy a new sort of printing lens for specifically for disc prints, but they found that they could actually print them using their usual lenses (but with a reduction in sharpness) which just made it even more unpopular with a reputation of poor quality (which was probably deserved!).
Click to expand...

The 110 film was only the equivalent of 16 mm (13x17mm)

The 126 instamatic was far more popular and took pictures 28mm square.

However both systems used double ended cassettes that had trouble holding the film flat. Which was some what wasted on the better precision cameras that came out, in either format. so quality was always compromised.
I had a shop during this period and would sell at least a dozen 126 cameras on a Saturday. 110 cameras never sold that well and people complained about the print quality which was better than the "Disc" cameras (11x8mm) but not by much.
At least the disks did not have the same flatness problems as is was coated on the same base stock as 5"x4" film and always had the latest generation coatings.
 
Last edited:
Terrywoodenpic said:
The 110 film was only the equivalent of 16 mm (13x17mm)

The 126 instamatic was far more popular and took pictures 28mm square.

However both systems used double ended cassettes that had trouble holding the film flat. Which was some what wasted on the better precision cameras that came out, in either format. so quality was always compromised.
I had a shop during this period and would sell at least a dozen 126 cameras on a Saturday. 110 cameras never sold that well and people complained about the print quality which was better than the "Disc" cameras (11x8mm) but not by much.
At least the disks did not have the same flatness problems as is was coated on the same base stock as 5"x4" film and always had the latest generation coatings.
Click to expand...

Apparently Kodak did actually used to test and release all of their new emulsions in disc first so they were sometimes 1 or 2 generations ahead of anything available for other formats, as even they realised that it really needed it to get anything out of the tiny negative!

It may not be perhaps the best format around, but I will stand by what I said as you can get some fantastic results out of 110 using modern emulsions (I have some of the last generation Fuji Superia 200 110 which gives some absolutely lovely results [it was frozen from new when I brought it off the seller]).
 
dp preview opinion

It is pretty impressive, getting images that good from a phone cam. But for £559 you can get a phone and a real camera. Poser-bait, really.
 
Sony Ericson c905 cybershot 8.1mp camera phone, I got bloody fantastic pictures and vids off this thing. Used to balance it on a glass or something at a pub or meal and just let it record till the battery ran out. I have some brilliant pics and vids taken with this phone and it got me into photography.
It all came undone when it fell into a cup of tea I was using as a rotating camera mount:crying:

The thing is, how hard is it to put a phone capability into any device...

I think that the arm computer thing on the alien in the film 'Predator' is where it will all end up...

"Wheres the bloody Pap photographer"...

"He's using the tree's"
 
RainMaker said:
Moreover it boosts mechanical IS. It is by far the best phone in low light (and not only).

Probably you are joking. Nokia 1020 is miles ahead from your Galaxy S3 as camera phone.
Click to expand...

What would I be joking about?

To make it crystal clear and at the risk of repetition I said I think it's better than my s3. For a fair comparison I down sampled the 1020 image to the same resolution.
That's just my opinion though, I know some are distinctly unimpressed by the nokia.
 
Last edited:
Don't worry, when you stop feeling inadequate because your precious DSLR is 'only' 20MP, the tech will filter down and you'll be able to buy a 100MP FF one that downsamples to 20mp and blows the current tech away.
 
Phone cameras have a time and a place... saturday night out in town. There snap shot cameras designed to make things look punchy and somewhat decent. Nothing more than that. Its pointless having 40mp but fools thing that mp's make a good camera and will buy it. Even if the phone is rubbish
 
Interesting reading ,
I like how the camera in phones are pretty good as it's nice to always have the means to shoot pictures and video with viewable results having said that though I personally am not after insane quality but the biggest thing that has always let it down is the low light performance which by the looks of it the higher mp sensors will dramatically reduce.
I like all the added software you get with the camera nowadays too , like full retouching. In my HTC I've even got curves and levels as standard! All the retouching and edit tools are great , and to be honest I find myself taking more with the smartphone simply because it's so easy to share the picture with friends and family .
 
the 808 was a better camera, or atleast lens anyways. And you could get useful huge images from it without much effort at all
 
Its electronic 'Fresh' Orange juice from concentrate.....
The technology isn't really improving the product to the customer; but it does a lot to help the people that put the badge on the box sell it and maximize revenue from it, and most consumers know or care that there's any difference.
 
So this camera phone has an extraordinary amount of mega-pixels but Even on my 24.2 mp Nikon D3200 I only use around 13 of these to save space on my memory cards. And if we're honest a higher mp number only means you can print them big and retain detail which if you had a real interest in doing you'd buy a DSLR to get better overall quality and not a phone. I won't go into the fact that it isn't the best phone in the world and that the other phone camera like the one on the new Apple Iphone 5S which now has image stabilisation and other features like HDR for the photographer that needs a camera all the time.
 
Ricardodaforce said:
Interesting that this NatGeo photographer doesn't have the anti-phone camera snobbery that persists here. His article published yesterday, makes for an interesting read. But hey, you guys know better eh!

http://proof.nationalgeographic.com...of-the-scottish-highlands-with-the-iphone-5s/
Click to expand...

In the current National Geographic issue, the photography special 215 year anniversary one, there is an ad in there featuring a Nat Geo photographer who used the phone exclusively for a trip and had a lot of good things to say about it.

The best camera is the one that's with you, and if all I had was this camera phone I'd be pretty happy.
 
KayJay said:
In the current National Geographic issue, the photography special 215 year anniversary one, there is an ad in there featuring a Nat Geo photographer who used the phone exclusively for a trip and had a lot of good things to say about it.

The best camera is the one that's with you, and if all I had was this camera phone I'd be pretty happy.
Click to expand...

You're fighting against inherent snobbery that won't change. That link I posted was ignored by those that denigrate anything related to mobile phone photography.
 
Ricardodaforce said:
You're fighting against inherent snobbery that won't change. That link I posted was ignored by those that denigrate anything related to mobile phone photography.
Click to expand...

Some people are just ignorant. It's basically the same thing when digital came around and folk said it would never take off. There is a post in the main forum by a bloke that works for Olympus talking about the death of dSLR's and he mentions how in today's world all people are interested in is statistics and spending as much money they can on the 'best' kit. What happened to just taking photos using what you have at your disposal? Surely the best images come from using the tools that give you the most joy.

I'm with you on this.
 
artyman said:
I have an 8MP on my HTC and I don't think I'd need or want any higher. It does produce some passable video though, I shot this with it attached to my screen visor. http://youtu.be/lSrITb3E1D8
Click to expand...

It's a 41 MP super-sampled camera - the output files are not 41MP.

With a supersampled camera you can get much better low light noise performance and, for a given output size, you get a much greater level of detail.

If it were outputting 41MP files, it would look a bit crap, but with some innovative computational photography and scaling, it isn't.
 
planetjamez said:
So this camera phone has an extraordinary amount of mega-pixels but Even on my 24.2 mp Nikon D3200 I only use around 13 of these to save space on my memory cards. And if we're honest a higher mp number only means you can print them big and retain detail which if you had a real interest in doing you'd buy a DSLR to get better overall quality and not a phone. I won't go into the fact that it isn't the best phone in the world and that the other phone camera like the one on the new Apple Iphone 5S which now has image stabilisation and other features like HDR for the photographer that needs a camera all the time.
Click to expand...

Does the D3200 super sample?
 
jon ryan said:
dp preview opinion

It is pretty impressive, getting images that good from a phone cam. But for £559 you can get a phone and a real camera. Poser-bait, really.
Click to expand...

So after paying £550 for an iPhone or a GS4 what camera are you going to get for £9?:LOL:

It's a camera phone, a single device that does calls (well everything) and photos so you only need one device. I don't carry my DSLR around most of the time, like most people, rather we take random photos with a camera phone. The nicer the cameraphone the better.
 
Ricardodaforce said:
Interesting that this NatGeo photographer doesn't have the anti-phone camera snobbery that persists here. His article published yesterday, makes for an interesting read. But hey, you guys know better eh! http://proof.nationalgeographic.com/2013/10/07/capturing-the-aura-of-the-scottish-highlands-with-the-iphone-5s/
Click to expand...

Its a lot easier to take a stunning mobile phone image in stunning scenery. The depth of field effects are excellent and at a casual glance you really don't think phone camera for any of them. Makes me want a 5s even more.
 
Amp34 said:
So after paying £550 for an iPhone or a GS4 what camera are you going to get for £9?:LOL:

It's a camera phone, a single device that does calls (well everything) and photos so you only need one device. I don't carry my DSLR around most of the time, like most people, rather we take random photos with a camera phone. The nicer the cameraphone the better.
Click to expand...

You only need the one device but it's worth considering "the best images come from using the tools that give you the most joy", mentioned by KayJay above. For me that's not my camera phone. Mine is too slow in comparison to my compact, granted it's not the best cam phone but an iphone 4 or galaxy s3 are hardly the worst examples you could find. Because of this when I don't take my dslr I take a compact along with me, and I took 2 of my favourite photo's in the last year with compacts, and printed them at A3+.

If using a camera phone is what people want to do and they're happy with their results then that's great. I've used mine (had cam phones since the sharp gx10!) and been happy on occassion. I'm just happier using something else. It's not snobbery or elitism in any way. It's simpy down to what I enjoy using.
 
droongos said:
Can't even begin to imagine the storage problem....
Click to expand...
The pictures I posted above are 7.7k x 4.3k and 13MB in size. The phone itself comes in 32G or 64G sizes. No problems with storage there ;)
 
stu.artd said:
You only need the one device but it's worth considering "the best images come from using the tools that give you the most joy", mentioned by KayJay above. For me that's not my camera phone. Mine is too slow in comparison to my compact, granted it's not the best cam phone but an iphone 4 or galaxy s3 are hardly the worst examples you could find. Because of this when I don't take my dslr I take a compact along with me, and I took 2 of my favourite photo's in the last year with compacts, and printed them at A3+.

If using a camera phone is what people want to do and they're happy with their results then that's great. I've used mine (had cam phones since the sharp gx10!) and been happy on occassion. I'm just happier using something else. It's not snobbery or elitism in any way. It's simpy down to what I enjoy using.
Click to expand...

The point I was trying to make is that the price isn't biased on it being a good camera phone, the price is based on it being Nokia's flagship phone. If you're looking at a 1020 you'll probably be looking at an iPhone 5 (of some description) a GS4 or a similar high end phone. The camera is a value added product for the majority rather than something that will persuade many to buy it instead of a £100 low end smartphone.

Whike the quote is true the other useful quote is the best photos are taken with the camera you have with you. You are in the minority carrying a compact or DSLR around with you at all times, most people will only take a camera out on special occasions or when they are specifically looking to shoot. Having a camera in a device most people carry round all day, every day means that's the camera most photos are taken with. If you can get it to a stage where it's as good as a low/mid end compact then all the better.
 
Don't think I disagree with any of that. If I could match the capability of my compact with a new phone then I probably would.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top