41 megapixal camera phone ... really?

"The 41 megapixel camera means you can zoom with any blur as you would on a traditional camera, though the level of detail is far better than entry level cameras."

What on Earth does this mean?

"A similar standalone camera would cost around £300 alone up against the lens, flash and ability of the Nokia Lumia 1020 camera."

ok.

"Street photography fans will love the possibilities too. For many, the camera will feel like a DSLR camera for beginners, despite the tiny lens."

That's nice.
 
a 41MP camera phone ? You mean like this one from nearly 3 months ago ? ;)
 
I suspect that for a camera to be capable of good quality high MP's such as this 41mp, you would need to have a HUGE sensor and I don't think the sensor in a phone will be that big at all. Now a full frame camera phone would interest me more ^^.
 
I think the pixel density works out to be the equivalent of over 750mp on a 35mm sensor :eek: of course more than likely my maths was a little off but still...I wouldn't be expecting any stunning images out of it...
 
You all missed the point. All about is to produce better 5-8MPx picture by combining information from more than one pixel of the sensor. Or to have better digital zoom than any other phone on the world.

At least it is interesting and very innovative tech and for a phone camera nothing come close to that Nokia.
 
Last edited:
RainMaker said:
You all missed the point. All about is to produce better 5-8MPx picture by combining information from more than one pixel of the sensor. Or to have better digital zoom than any other phone on the world.

At least it is interesting and very innovative tech and for a phone camera nothing come close to that Nokia.
Click to expand...

If you'd read the thread I linked to from July you'd see that very point being discussed.
 
Phones these days are all about the cameras, I remember when phones first came out and I was thinking ... "who wants a camera on a phone"

How wrong I was eh.......

Even the phone adverts hardly mention anything else than the camera... so the question now is - Is it a camera with all the other stuff added or a phone etc with a camera ?:thinking:

The lines are getting mixed up and blurred :cautious:
 
I hate the camera on my samsung s2, slow as a snail.

Something like this would be quite usefull to me if its good when I get my new phone as if your at a party or the alike and not there work replated its always nice to be able to get a half decent photo.
 
In good light, the Nokia is actually pretty good - far better than you'd expect. Google it and see...
 
.

It has lots of very tiny pixels.

When did this become a measure of quality.
 
MWHCVT said:
If you want you can tell us all what is so amazing about it...
Click to expand...
If you are that interested, you can google it ;):p

Given the number of pixels and sensor size, it should be pants. It isn't.
 
arad85 said:
If you are that interested, you can google it ;):p

Given the number of pixels and sensor size, it should be pants. It isn't.
Click to expand...

Well last time I looked this is a discussion forum...I'd like to know about it if someone would like to explain about it but I'm really not that interested that I want to sit one work out marketing crap to work out the true possibilities
 
MWHCVT said:
Well last time I looked this is a discussion forum...I'd like to know about it if someone would like to explain about it but I'm really not that interested that I want to sit one work out marketing crap to work out the true possibilities
Click to expand...

arad85 said:
Given the number of pixels and sensor size, it should be pants. It isn't.
Click to expand...
 
to be fair it actually does capture some good detail, smashes my Samsung out the water if i'm honest.

All the reviews say how good it is also...... but they all say that in no way shape or form can it out perform even a basic DSLR.

But who cares, its a PHONE!! It would make a superb thing to have when just out and about, as previously mentioned, my S2's 8mp camera is truely rubbish in anything other than bright sunshine and even then its average at best.

I always like these guys reviews

http://connect.dpreview.com/post/5234892048/nokia-lumia-1020-camera-review?page=6
 
3200 iso on the phone to be fair not too shabby.



Bu then could it ever replace a slr... hell no but I don't think the purpose of a phone camera is to do that, people read too much into things on the reviews with regarding "ooo, will it mean no place for an slr" of course not.
 
Last edited:
mid_gen said:
Only among gear snobs who can't be bothered to read what it actually does.
Click to expand...

I'm not a gear snob and neither do I automatically buy anything some marketing department wants me to believe. Being a gear snob is a bad thing... as is buying marketing BS and so far I've seen nothing from any phone that's anything other than poor when compared to even a half competent "camera."

I have family who are into phone and they tell me how great the cameras are and I agree they're fine for viewing on a phone, posting on Friendface or for small prints but as can be seen from the examples they are in no way outstandingly "good" in a way which enthusiast hobby photographers would say "good. They're adequate for small images and that's fine but lets not run away with the marketing hype just yet :D
 
arad85 said:
Have a look (these are BIG images):

http://www.noknok.tv/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/nokia-lumia-1020-pro-highres-18.jpg

http://www.noknok.tv/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/nokia-lumia-1020-pro-highres-16.jpg

Gets ropey at the edge of the image, bit I've definitely seen worse....
Click to expand...

I think those images prove my point.

They're fine from a phone but would anyone say that these were "good" if they came from a camera?

My God. My G1 does better than that and it's years old and although it's a nice camera it doesn't compare with the DSLR's I've had when images are looked at very closely or when at the extreme of what's possible. My G1 can't really match a DSLR if I'm being honest and looking very closely this phone can't match my G1 and for these reasons I just think that this just doesn't live up to the more extreme statements from marketing.

It's a decent phone camera and that's where the hype should stop.
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
They're fine from a phone but would anyone say that these were "good" if they came from a camera?
Click to expand...
No one is talking about "good". We are taling good enough for purpose. I reckon you could probably print to around 18 x 12 and view from a normal distance and they'd be fine (i.e. at full screen on my 27" monitor, both of those images are great).... Not going to win landscape photographer of the year, but then when was the last time you could slip a D800 and lens into a coat pocket.
 
Camera's in Smartphones are improving all the time, for most people they are good enough to replace P&S, not everybody into photography most pics taken with phones will only ever get posted to Facebook ect.

The Nokia 1020 isn't actually the best cameraphone, that goes to the Nokia Pureview 808, which has a bigger sensor than the 1020, but is running on Nokia old Symbian software and is quite bulky to.

http://www.flickr.com/groups/808pureview/

In the next few years smartphones will completely replace P&S camera's, they now figured out how to get OIS in a small lens next up will be optical zoom, once this happens the P&S will be no more.
 
people even bought into the 110 film system.....
 
Terrywoodenpic said:
people even bought into the 110 film system.....
Click to expand...

There really would be no innovation if the world was run by people like you. You should be applauding the fact that new sorts of imaging technology allows people to develop an interest in photography, not denigrating it.
 
At 41MP it's obviously not great, however after downsampling some of the photo's to 8MP equivalent size I think it's better than the camera on my Galaxy S3.
 
Ricardodaforce said:
There really would be no innovation if the world was run by people like you. You should be applauding the fact that new sorts of imaging technology allows people to develop an interest in photography, not denigrating it.
Click to expand...

I welcome innovation

The 110 film system was not only ill concieved by Kodak, it lost money for everyone who became involved. But it generated a number of quite pretty little cameras that no one used.

Phones are not about photography... any more than compacts are about lipstick and powder. As they were from the twenty's onward. :thinking:

I actuall have one of these... http://kodak.digitalfx.tv/
 
Last edited:
barratt1988 said:
Surely its gonna be awful in low light and its a bit overkill for fb images because it wont be used for anything more.
Click to expand...

No, completely the opposite. That's why it has 41MP. It captures images at 41MP and then downsamples to 5MP reducing noise massively. The 41MP also means you can have a zoom function that doesn't really reduce image quality, ie a digital zoom that works. That's why it is by far the best phone camer out at the moment for low light images. That and the fact the sensor is much bigger than other phone sensors, alongside many compact sensor sizes as well.

woof woof said:
I think those images prove my point.

They're fine from a phone but would anyone say that these were "good" if they came from a camera?

My God. My G1 does better than that and it's years old and although it's a nice camera it doesn't compare with the DSLR's I've had when images are looked at very closely or when at the extreme of what's possible. My G1 can't really match a DSLR if I'm being honest and looking very closely this phone can't match my G1 and for these reasons I just think that this just doesn't live up to the more extreme statements from marketing.

It's a decent phone camera and that's where the hype should stop.
Click to expand...

It's a decent phone camera and will bet most low/mid end compacts. People are going to go over the top about beating DSLRs like a few compacts, however in reality for those not using a DSLR and just a cheap compact this will probably be better at taking photos. That is why there is so much hype about it.
 
Amp34 said:
barratt1988 said:
Surely its gonna be awful in low light and its a bit overkill for fb images because it wont be used for anything more.
Click to expand...
No, completely the opposite. That's why it has 41MP. It captures images at 41MP and then downsamples to 5MP reducing noise massively. The 41MP also means you can have a zoom function that doesn't really reduce image quality, ie a digital zoom that works. That's why it is by far the best phone camer out at the moment for low light images. That and the fact the sensor is much bigger than other phone sensors, alongside many compact sensor sizes as well.
Click to expand...
Moreover it boosts mechanical IS. It is by far the best phone in low light (and not only).

stu.artd said:
At 41MP it's obviously not great, however after downsampling some of the photo's to 8MP equivalent size I think it's better than the camera on my Galaxy S3.
Click to expand...
Probably you are joking. Nokia 1020 is miles ahead from your Galaxy S3 as camera phone.
 
Terrywoodenpic said:
I welcome innovation

The 110 film system was not only ill concieved by Kodak, it lost money for everyone who became involved. But it generated a number of quite pretty little cameras that no one used.

Phones are not about photography... any more than compacts are about lipstick and powder. As they were from the twenty's onward. :thinking:

I actuall have one of these... http://kodak.digitalfx.tv/
Click to expand...

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!).
 
Last edited:
41 mp of crap is still crap. Seen this months back. Wasn't impressed then by the smudgy details, still not.
 
I think this is the phone my eldest is about to get.

I'll nab it for a cross section of pics and post them up.
 
Does anyone actually use there phone camera for anything serious? I only use mine to snap. I dnt really care how big the files are I have a dslr for photography.

And the biggest shame is that this 'amazing' camera is attached to a crappy nokia.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top