• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join free Log in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

Digital cameras are losing...

#64
Phil Smith said:
A camera phone is no match for a DSLR because of the amount of control you can have over the image with respect to exposure, depth of field, shutter speed. The EOS 1D Classic was 4 mega pixels but there isn't a single phone camera today that can match it for image quality
Click to expand...

Wow, this keeps getting taken to further and further extremes. No one has claimed in this thread that camera phones are better than point-and-shoots and certainly no one has said that camera phones are functionally comparable to dSLRs!

bc
 
#65
really....? cell phone pictures are crap.

I have never heard of or seen a crappy cell phone picture.:confused:

I figured all these great pictures came from a cell phones.:rolleyes:


Why would you use a camera to take a picture? you use a phone to take pictures. :confused:

Why would you use a phone to make a phone call?
That is what lawn mowers are for...gee wiz.

I'm sure if they put enough apps on a lawn mower, people would be dumb enough to make phone calls with them to.
 
#69
I'm with DigMe on this topic. Phone cameras are not what they used to be and some of them do take good pictures, not DSLR quality, but definitely as good and better then a whole lot of point and shoot on the market. Which, for most people makes it so point and shoot have no use to them.
 
#70
DigMe said:
^ did you just take the delorean back to 2003 to make that post?

bc
Click to expand...

No joke. Obviously phone cameras aren't up to snuff with DSLR cameras, but like others gave said, they're roughly comparable to a lot of point and shoot cameras out there. Add into that the talk that some phone manufacturers are thinking about adding hdr software into phones and those comments are quite out dated.
 
#71
DigMe said:
The Nokia 808 that we've been talking about has a sensor that is far bigger than just about any point-and-shoot.

bc
Click to expand...

Huh, that thing has a bigger sensor than in my x10, I guess I was mistaken.

I still don't think that it would equate to a better picture on the part of the phone though. If you look at things like processors and firmware, a phone's processor has to be built to deal with a lot of different things (often at once) while a camera has a dedicated processor that has been built with taking pictures, processing and recording them in mind. Firmware is also photo-specific on cameras - with the exception of camera's that allow you to GPS tag and things like that.

I also don't reckon that a phone could ever be as flexible and as easy to handle as a camera, than a camera. Using touch-screen menus is incredibly fiddly especially when you want to quickly change shutter speed for example while something is passing you by. On my camera it is a simple case of turning a dial on the back of my camera whereas on a phone you have to deal with touchscreens which are nowhere near as reliably accurate and responsive as a physical dial.

Remember, megapixels aren't everything! As far as I can see megapixels are a horrendous marketing thing which other than specific purposes (landscape photography, medium and large format cameras) really don't make a lot of difference. Mobile phone manufacturers in particular have seemed to be able to drum into people's heads that more megapixels equals a better camera. Well I bet my 12 megapixel fujixilm x10 can take better pictures than that 41 megapixel phone. Why? Because it is a dedicated photo-making machine.
 
#72
sloasdaylight said:
No joke. Obviously phone cameras aren't up to snuff with DSLR cameras, but like others gave said, they're roughly comparable to a lot of point and shoot cameras out there. Add into that the talk that some phone manufacturers are thinking about adding hdr software into phones and those comments are quite out dated.
Click to expand...

HDR software on-board cameras is a null point when you consider that you can make a HDR picture from one RAW file using computer software, and you get a lot more options when processing through a computer.

Afterall, HDR is just three pictures combined to one, you don't even need special exposure bracketing to do it.
 
#73
Asa,

I keep repeating this but people seem to keep missing it - the point of this discussion is not to claim that phones take better pictures than a point and shoot (especially an enthusiast model like the x10). You're arguing with yourself because we're not saying that.

bc
 
#74
DigMe said:
Asa,

I keep repeating this but people seem to keep missing it - the point of this discussion is not to claim that phones take better pictures than a point and shoot (especially an enthusiast model like the x10). You're arguing with yourself because we're not saying that.

bc
Click to expand...

The point of this thread as far as I can see is about phones replacing cameras. To me, image quality is the deciding factor here, and that is what I am discussing.
 
#79
Asa Samuel said:
HDR software on-board cameras is a null point when you consider that you can make a HDR picture from one RAW file using computer software, and you get a lot more options when processing through a computer.

Afterall, HDR is just three pictures combined to one, you don't even need special exposure bracketing to do it.
Click to expand...

You can make an HDR looking image from 1 RAW, but be prepared to spend a lot of time manipulating it.

And HDR is more than 3 images if you're doing it right, try doing it with 5-7 and you'll see a vast improvement over 3.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back