or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Two lens makers tapped by Apple to supply 8MP cameras for iPhone 5
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Two lens makers tapped by Apple to supply 8MP cameras for iPhone 5

post #1 of 73
Thread Starter 
Apple has secured deals with two suppliers to build 8-megapixel camera lenses for the company's forthcoming next-generation handset, a new report claims.

Both Largan Precision and Genius Electronic Optical are said to be supplying smartphone lenses for the iPhone, Taiwan Economic News reported on Monday. Specifically, both are said to be providing 8-megapixel cameras for "Apple's newest iPhone 5."

The report notes that both companies were previously responsible for 5-megapixel lens modules found in the current-generation iPhone 4. Both Largan and Genius are expected to keep ahead of competition as their shipments are boosted by a massive amount of orders from Apple.

Orders from Genius and Largan reportedly pushed both companies to a combined 27.5 percent global market share last year. As sales of the iPhone continue to grow, with a record setting 20.34 million sales by Apple last quarter, both companies' shares could move even higher.

While rumors about the size, shape and even functionality of Apple's so-called "iPhone 5" have varied, one relatively consistent element in rumors leading up to the device's debut has been the camera. For months now, repots have claimed that the new handset will sport an 8-megapixel camera.



Largan was rumored as far back as May to provide the 8-megapixel camera for Apple's next iPhone. Since then, both Bloomberg and The Wall Street Journal have reported that Apple's fifth-generation iPhone will have an 8-megapixel camera.

While Largan and Genius are expected to provided lenses for the 8-megapixel camera, sensors in the shooter were said in June to be ordered from OmniVision. Nearly all of the 8-megapixel sensor orders -- 90 percent -- were expected to be placed with the company.
post #2 of 73
Wait--there is a new iPhone coming??? Why didn't AI inform us before???
Progress is a comfortable disease
--e.e.c.
Reply
Progress is a comfortable disease
--e.e.c.
Reply
post #3 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

While Largan and Genius are expected to provided lenses for the 8-megapixel camera, sensors in the shooter were said in June to be ordered from OmniVision. Nearly all of the 8-megapixel sensor orders -- 90 percent -- were expected to be placed with the company.

No.

OmniVision has given very weak guidance for this quarter, which is a strong indication that they have lost a big customer.

Source: Forbes article from August 25
post #4 of 73
I got a question. Could apple do some sort of mechanism where we have optical zoom? Like keep the thing that usually goes out inside the enclosure but have it do the same zooming in magic that regular cameras do.

Before you start bashing, I know if i want a real camera I should buy a real camera, but how awesome would it be if apple figured out zoom.
--SHEFFmachine out
Da Bears!
Reply
--SHEFFmachine out
Da Bears!
Reply
post #5 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by sheff View Post

I got a question. Could apple do some sort of mechanism where we have optical zoom? Like keep the thing that usually goes out inside the enclosure but have it do the same zooming in magic that regular cameras do.

Before you start bashing, I know if i want a real camera I should buy a real camera, but how awesome would it be if apple figured out zoom.

Optical zoom will degrade picture quality.
post #6 of 73
I hope Apple do something about camera on iPhone in addition to more megapixel & a button on the lock screen. I hope they use their hardware expertise to make camera app launch instantly wheter you access it on a homescreen or a lock screen. For snapshot, sometimes a few seconds delay is already too late.
post #7 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by matrix07 View Post

Optical zoom will degrade picture quality.

Not to my knowledge. Those African photographers are like a milemaway from an animal and still take clear pictures as long as it stands still.
--SHEFFmachine out
Da Bears!
Reply
--SHEFFmachine out
Da Bears!
Reply
post #8 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by sheff View Post

I got a question. Could apple do some sort of mechanism where we have optical zoom? Like keep the thing that usually goes out inside the enclosure but have it do the same zooming in magic that regular cameras do.

Before you start bashing, I know if i want a real camera I should buy a real camera, but how awesome would it be if apple figured out zoom.

What's to figure out? Internal optical zoom has been around for years... I suppose if it was included you would say they are awesome for inventing it right, and I'm sure they would try and patent it!
post #9 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by sheff View Post

Not to my knowledge. Those African photographers are like a milemaway from an animal and still take clear pictures as long as it stands still.

When you have more than one piece of glass in len, it did. Those African photos will look significantly better and sharper if they were shot by prime.
post #10 of 73
Optical zoom requires many compromises: size, complexity, expense, and performance.

Let's put aside the smartphone size limitations for a moment.

When you build a lens for a fixed focal length, there is an optimum design, many of which date back to the late 19th century. If you cut an 85mm lens in half from Nikon, Canon, Minolta, Pentax, whoever, you will see almost identical lens designs.

When you build a zoom lens, there is no optimum design because you have a range of focal lengths you are trying to address, so you need to move things around.

In order to make a zoom lens, you need multiple lens elements in different groups which are adjusted depending on focal length and focusing. Some of these super-zooms have 15-20 elements. More lens elements reduces the amount of light transmitted. Ordinary glass (windows, drinking glasses, etc.) absorb about 10%. You can increase the light transmission by using special lens coatings; it is difficult to develop a lens coating that addresses the entire visible light spectrum at the proper levels. The best coatings are usually the most expensive. Cheaper coatings will result in some chromatic aberration.

Having multiple lens elements also introduces image distortion (e.g., barrel or pincushion), some of which can be reduced by using aspherical elements and/or making them out of special glass with different refractive properties, which are difficult and expensive to manufacture. Again, you will see these aspherical elements in the most expensive zoom lenses. Inexpensive zooms won't have them, and there will be more distortion.

Regarding size and complexity, you can create a more compact and less expensive zoom lens design with fewer elements and simpler mechanics, but you will give up performance. Looking at the 35mm SLR market, you will see slow (like f/5.6-8) consumer zooms that are relatively compact; racked out, these zooms often have atrocious depth of field performance. The high-performance zooms (like the models that stay at f/2.8 throughout the entire range of focal lengths) tend to be very big and very expensive.

Now a smartphone is a small piece of equipment. There are size limitations and enormous difficulties in milling high-quality, precision lenses at that size, creating the necessary mechanism to move the various groups into place.

Could it be done? Sure. At the price point to make it attractive to cellphone manufacturers? Maybe for some. At a quality level good enough for Steve Jobs and Apple? It doesn't appear to be the case.

The laws of optical physics and the economics of consumer electronics manufacturing haven't really overlapped here enough.

One thing for certain. No zoom lens will optically outperform a fixed focal length lens. That's why there are still fixed focal length lenses.
post #11 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by sheff View Post

Not to my knowledge. Those African photographers are like a milemaway from an animal and still take clear pictures as long as it stands still.

Btw, don't mistake a picture taken a mile away with a zoom len. It could actually be shot by prime, a tele-photo len.
post #12 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by cvaldes1831 View Post

Optical zoom requires many compromises: size, complexity, expense, and performance.

Nice short summation of it all. Gimme a prime 300mm f2.8 telephoto any day!
"I used to be disgusted, but now I try to be amused."
Macbook Pro 2.2
Reply
"I used to be disgusted, but now I try to be amused."
Macbook Pro 2.2
Reply
post #13 of 73
I'll eat my sandwich if an 8 megapixel camera on a slimmer iPhone is better than a 5 megapixel camera. The top of the range canon point and shoot is only 10 megapixels.

All 8 megapixel photos do is make the file size bigger making them take longer to upload to cloud via photostream, draining more battery. They will likely have poorer, or at least not better low light performance.

Please stick with 5 megapixels and concentrate on a better Lens.
Check out my Apple Tech Podcast: Cidercast
Reply
Check out my Apple Tech Podcast: Cidercast
Reply
post #14 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by sheff View Post

Not to my knowledge. Those African photographers are like a milemaway from an animal and still take clear pictures as long as it stands still.

Wildlife photographers use prime lenses. The big animal and bird photographers heavily favor 300mm-f/2.8 and 600mm-f/4 prime telephotos, They usually have 1.4x and 2x teleconverters in their kits, but those degrade optical performance.

They aren't using zoom lenses to get those magazine quality images. Those are the same lenses you'll see on the sidelines of any Division I-A or pro football game.
post #15 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by theguycalledtom View Post

The top of the range canon point and shoot is only 10 megapixels.

The Elphs are 12.1 megapixels, and the PowerShots are 14.1, I think.
"I used to be disgusted, but now I try to be amused."
Macbook Pro 2.2
Reply
"I used to be disgusted, but now I try to be amused."
Macbook Pro 2.2
Reply
post #16 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by theguycalledtom View Post

I'll eat my sandwich if an 8 megapixel camera on a slimmer iPhone is better than a 5 megapixel camera. The top of the range canon point and shoot is only 10 megapixels.

All 8 megapixel photos do is make the file size bigger making them take longer to upload to cloud via photostream, draining more battery. They will likely have poorer, or at least not better low light performance.

Please stick with 5 megapixels and concentrate on a better Lens.

Yeah, when I hear 8 MP I don't jump of joy that's for sure.
post #17 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by mzaslove View Post

The Elphs are 12.1 megapixels, and the PowerShots are 14.1, I think.

Canon Powershot G12, 10mega-pixel: http://usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/p.../powershot_g12
Check out my Apple Tech Podcast: Cidercast
Reply
Check out my Apple Tech Podcast: Cidercast
Reply
post #18 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by techmuncher View Post

What's to figure out? Internal optical zoom has been around for years... I suppose if it was included you would say they are awesome for inventing it right, and I'm sure they would try and patent it!

Wow you joined just to post this. Very original. I am sure I speak for everyone when I say welcome. Your fresh insights will benefit us all.
post #19 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by matrix07 View Post

Optical zoom will degrade picture quality.

So will increasing the pixel density (all other things being equal), but that doesn't stop it from happening.
post #20 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by theguycalledtom View Post

Canon Powershot G12, 10mega-pixel: http://usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/p.../powershot_g12

Um, Canon PowerShot SX210: http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consum...rshot_sx210_is

14.1
"I used to be disgusted, but now I try to be amused."
Macbook Pro 2.2
Reply
"I used to be disgusted, but now I try to be amused."
Macbook Pro 2.2
Reply
post #21 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by ConradJoe View Post

So will increasing the pixel density (all other things being equal), but that doesn't stop it from happening.

Hmm.. Let me give you a clue. maybe all other things NOT being equal?
post #22 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by mzaslove View Post

Um, Canon PowerShot SX210: http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consum...rshot_sx210_is

14.1


Yeah because Canon's g12 top of the range point and shoot is $200 more expensive than the sx210 but you think its better because of more megapixels?

Get real.
Check out my Apple Tech Podcast: Cidercast
Reply
Check out my Apple Tech Podcast: Cidercast
Reply
post #23 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by theguycalledtom View Post

Yeah because Canon's g12 top of the range point and shoot is $200 more expensive than the sx210 but you think its better because of more megapixels?

Get real.

I didn't have a judgement one way or the other. You stated a supposed fact: top of the line point and shoot canon was 10 megapixels. I pointed out that this was not true. We were never discussing that. And the fact that the G12 is $200 more isn't because it's necessarily better because of the chip it's using -- it's a DSLR look-alike, and although a point-and-shoot in theory, is not a pocket camera point and shoot. The SX210 is.

You made a statement...it was incorrect. That's all I pointed out. Not having tested them out side-by-side, I can't say which is better, though the lens in the DSLR could be better by the nature of the body configuration being able to handle a larger lens.

Go figure.

And you're using SnapSort as the judge of quality camera equipment?
"I used to be disgusted, but now I try to be amused."
Macbook Pro 2.2
Reply
"I used to be disgusted, but now I try to be amused."
Macbook Pro 2.2
Reply
post #24 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by cvaldes1831 View Post

One thing for certain. No zoom lens will optically outperform a fixed focal length lens. That's why there are still fixed focal length lenses.

Is anyone working on a lens that mimics the human eye's lens? Rather than relying on multiple fixed lenses that move in relation to one another, the human lens is malleable--a tiny anular muscle stretches or releases it to change its optics, all without sacrificing clarity. Would seem to be an ideal solution for a tiny camera where space is an issue. I would guess it is down-scalable since small mammals with tiny eyes have the same mechanics. You'd think with all our modern synthetic materials that something could be made to work like this.

Should have titled: Eye-dle spec-ulation
A.k.a. AppleHead on other forums.
Reply
A.k.a. AppleHead on other forums.
Reply
post #25 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by mzaslove View Post

I didn't have a judgement one way or the other. You stated a supposed fact: top of the line point and shoot canon was 10 megapixels. I pointed out that this was not true. We were never discussing that. And the fact that the G12 is $200 more isn't because it's necessarily better because of the chip it's using -- it's a DSLR look-alike, and although a point-and-shoot in theory, is not a pocket camera point and shoot. The SX210 is.

You made a statement...it was incorrect. That's all I pointed out. Not having tested them out side-by-side, I can't say which is better, though the lens in the DSLR could be better by the nature of the body configuration being able to handle a larger lens.

Go figure.

The G12 does not have an interchangeable lens, it is a point and shoot. I am not incorrect. This is not subjective. The G12 has a much better sensor than the SX210.
Check out my Apple Tech Podcast: Cidercast
Reply
Check out my Apple Tech Podcast: Cidercast
Reply
post #26 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by theguycalledtom View Post

The G12 does not have an interchangeable lens, it is a point and shoot. I am not incorrect. This is not subjective. The G12 has a much better sensor than the SX210.

Yawn. I didn't say it had interchangeable lenses, did I? It's a bulky thing, unlike the SX210 - its body-type is closer to a DSLR than a pocket camera (really, you better have on an overcoat to slip that puppy into a pocket).

Look, you stated a fact. It was incorrect. The G12 just might have a better sensor, but that wasn't what you said.

Me, for "bulky camera work" I use an EOS 1D Mark IV. For light stuff (taking pictures of cast and crew to learn their names, grabbing quick shots when I arrive somewhere new off the plane, etc.) I use a Panasonic LUMIX DMC-FH5.

The G12 is a tweener.
"I used to be disgusted, but now I try to be amused."
Macbook Pro 2.2
Reply
"I used to be disgusted, but now I try to be amused."
Macbook Pro 2.2
Reply
post #27 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robin Huber View Post

Is anyone working on a lens that mimics the human eye's lens? Rather than relying on multiple fixed lenses that move in relation to one another, the human lens is malleable--a tiny anular muscle stretches or releases it to change its optics, all without sacrificing clarity. Would seem to be an ideal solution for a tiny camera where space is an issue. I would guess it is down-scalable since small mammals with tiny eyes have the same mechanics. You'd think with all our modern synthetic materials that something could be made to work like this.

Should have titled: Eye-dle spec-ulation

It would be great if there's a kind of len that can match our eyes. Still, human eyes can't zoom.
post #28 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by matrix07 View Post

Hmm.. Let me give you a clue. maybe all other things NOT being equal?

Same lens maker, thinner body: What did you have in mind that will make the increased megapixels yield a better photo?
post #29 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by ConradJoe View Post

Same lens maker, thinner body: What did you have in mind that will make the increased megapixels yield a better photo?

Could be right, but the main thing to me is what chip? Ive never seen a chip change pixel density, etc. without changing other important factors: array size, pixel size (to get the density), linear full well, dynamic range, QE, etc. I doubt the two chips are compatible across the board. Well have to wait and see.
"I used to be disgusted, but now I try to be amused."
Macbook Pro 2.2
Reply
"I used to be disgusted, but now I try to be amused."
Macbook Pro 2.2
Reply
post #30 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robin Huber View Post

Is anyone working on a lens that mimics the human eye's lens? Rather than relying on multiple fixed lenses that move in relation to one another, the human lens is malleable--a tiny anular muscle stretches or releases it to change its optics, all without sacrificing clarity. Would seem to be an ideal solution for a tiny camera where space is an issue. I would guess it is down-scalable since small mammals with tiny eyes have the same mechanics. You'd think with all our modern synthetic materials that something could be made to work like this.

I've never heard of anyone working on such a malleable lens, at least not for a commercial deployment. I wouldn't be surprised if there's some sort of malleable optical polymer that can alter itself with an electrical current living in some lab somewhere on this planet.

It should be pointed out the human eye is a fixed focal length lens; it has no zoom capabilities.

Inexpensive, compact, high-performance lenses that mimic the focal length of the human eye have been around for a long time, and there is very little commercial incentive to find a replacement. Many inexpensive lenses are based on the venerable Cooke triplet design.
post #31 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by ConradJoe View Post

Same lens maker, thinner body: What did you have in mind that will make the increased megapixels yield a better photo?

Better glass, better sensor for a start. It's a year later after all. I'm sure technology always progress.
post #32 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by mzaslove View Post

Look, you stated a fact. It was incorrect.

Nope, I said the top of the range canon point and shoot is 10mp. The G12 is 10mp, you may be deluded and feel that the sx210 is better, but that's your opinion, not fact. Ask any canon rep, G12 is the top of the range.

Pixel density is more important than megapixels.
Check out my Apple Tech Podcast: Cidercast
Reply
Check out my Apple Tech Podcast: Cidercast
Reply
post #33 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by theguycalledtom View Post

Nope, I said the top of the range canon point and shoot is 10mp. The G12 is 10mp, you may be deluded and feel that the sx210 is better, but that's your opinion, not fact. Ask any canon rep, G12 is the top of the range.

If you say so binky. I gotta get back to preparing my kit for an astrophotography run tonight (with a REAL CCD that puts all these silly cameras to shame). Hope all is nice down-under.
"I used to be disgusted, but now I try to be amused."
Macbook Pro 2.2
Reply
"I used to be disgusted, but now I try to be amused."
Macbook Pro 2.2
Reply
post #34 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by cvaldes1831 View Post

Optical zoom requires many compromises: size, complexity, expense, and performance.

Let's put aside the smartphone size limitations for a moment.

When you build a lens for a fixed focal length, there is an optimum design, many of which date back to the late 19th century. If you cut an 85mm lens in half from Nikon, Canon, Minolta, Pentax, whoever, you will see almost identical lens designs.

When you build a zoom lens, there is no optimum design because you have a range of focal lengths you are trying to address, so you need to move things around.

In order to make a zoom lens, you need multiple lens elements in different groups which are adjusted depending on focal length and focusing. Some of these super-zooms have 15-20 elements. More lens elements reduces the amount of light transmitted. Ordinary glass (windows, drinking glasses, etc.) absorb about 10%. You can increase the light transmission by using special lens coatings; it is difficult to develop a lens coating that addresses the entire visible light spectrum at the proper levels. The best coatings are usually the most expensive. Cheaper coatings will result in some chromatic aberration.

Having multiple lens elements also introduces image distortion (e.g., barrel or pincushion), some of which can be reduced by using aspherical elements and/or making them out of special glass with different refractive properties, which are difficult and expensive to manufacture. Again, you will see these aspherical elements in the most expensive zoom lenses. Inexpensive zooms won't have them, and there will be more distortion.

Regarding size and complexity, you can create a more compact and less expensive zoom lens design with fewer elements and simpler mechanics, but you will give up performance. Looking at the 35mm SLR market, you will see slow (like f/5.6-8) consumer zooms that are relatively compact; racked out, these zooms often have atrocious depth of field performance. The high-performance zooms (like the models that stay at f/2.8 throughout the entire range of focal lengths) tend to be very big and very expensive.

Now a smartphone is a small piece of equipment. There are size limitations and enormous difficulties in milling high-quality, precision lenses at that size, creating the necessary mechanism to move the various groups into place.

Could it be done? Sure. At the price point to make it attractive to cellphone manufacturers? Maybe for some. At a quality level good enough for Steve Jobs and Apple? It doesn't appear to be the case.

The laws of optical physics and the economics of consumer electronics manufacturing haven't really overlapped here enough.

One thing for certain. No zoom lens will optically outperform a fixed focal length lens. That's why there are still fixed focal length lenses.

Thanks that totall answers my question.
--SHEFFmachine out
Da Bears!
Reply
--SHEFFmachine out
Da Bears!
Reply
post #35 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by cvaldes1831 View Post

Optical zoom requires many compromises: size, complexity, expense, and performance.

Let's put aside the smartphone size limitations for a moment.

When you build a lens for a fixed focal length, there is an optimum design, many of which date back to the late 19th century. If you cut an 85mm lens in half from Nikon, Canon, Minolta, Pentax, whoever, you will see almost identical lens designs.

When you build a zoom lens, there is no optimum design because you have a range of focal lengths you are trying to address, so you need to move things around.

In order to make a zoom lens, you need multiple lens elements in different groups which are adjusted depending on focal length and focusing. Some of these super-zooms have 15-20 elements. More lens elements reduces the amount of light transmitted. Ordinary glass (windows, drinking glasses, etc.) absorb about 10%. You can increase the light transmission by using special lens coatings; it is difficult to develop a lens coating that addresses the entire visible light spectrum at the proper levels. The best coatings are usually the most expensive. Cheaper coatings will result in some chromatic aberration.

Having multiple lens elements also introduces image distortion (e.g., barrel or pincushion), some of which can be reduced by using aspherical elements and/or making them out of special glass with different refractive properties, which are difficult and expensive to manufacture. Again, you will see these aspherical elements in the most expensive zoom lenses. Inexpensive zooms won't have them, and there will be more distortion.

Regarding size and complexity, you can create a more compact and less expensive zoom lens design with fewer elements and simpler mechanics, but you will give up performance. Looking at the 35mm SLR market, you will see slow (like f/5.6-8) consumer zooms that are relatively compact; racked out, these zooms often have atrocious depth of field performance. The high-performance zooms (like the models that stay at f/2.8 throughout the entire range of focal lengths) tend to be very big and very expensive.

Now a smartphone is a small piece of equipment. There are size limitations and enormous difficulties in milling high-quality, precision lenses at that size, creating the necessary mechanism to move the various groups into place.

Could it be done? Sure. At the price point to make it attractive to cellphone manufacturers? Maybe for some. At a quality level good enough for Steve Jobs and Apple? It doesn't appear to be the case.

The laws of optical physics and the economics of consumer electronics manufacturing haven't really overlapped here enough.

One thing for certain. No zoom lens will optically outperform a fixed focal length lens. That's why there are still fixed focal length lenses.

That is why there is something called a liquid optical zoom that throw away all the mechanicals and uses fluids and its characteristics of refracting light to be used as a "lens".

"Like I said before, share price will dip into the $400."  - 11/21/12 by Galbi

Reply

"Like I said before, share price will dip into the $400."  - 11/21/12 by Galbi

Reply
post #36 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by cvaldes1831 View Post

No.

OmniVision has given very weak guidance for this quarter, which is a strong indication that they have lost a big customer.

Source: Forbes article from August 25

The optimistic point of view is that they simply didn't want to be too aggressive with their guidance, given the world economic woes. From Motley Fool: "On the traditional analyst call, worldwide sales VP Ray Cisneros fielded plenty of guidance questions from shocked and outraged analysts, and his message was consistent: This "cautious" guidance is all about macroeconomics and PC sales, and not at all a smartphone story."

http://www.fool.com/investing/genera...aming-buy.aspx

Further, Sony has stated (I can't find the quote but I remember it clearly) that they view their cameras as a competitive advantage for their phones and they wouldn't want a competitor in Apple to buy away that advantage.

I bought a bunch of Omnivision stock after the plunge, and if you think management is not lying on their conference call, it might be a good idea.
post #37 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by sheff View Post

Not to my knowledge. Those African photographers are like a milemaway from an animal and still take clear pictures as long as it stands still.

He was actually correct. You're getting much better lens quality by receiving a very simple design. Simple lens design gives you a way better cost to performance ratio and you're avoiding extra moving parts, especially those that would extend outward from the phone (which isn't something that I think would garner apple's approval). As for "African photographers" did I miss something in the article? Not all professionals you see on safari trips are using zoom lenses. In fact when you think of the really huge white canon lenses those are mostly fixed focal length designs. Building a 400 mm F2.8 results in a massive lens. The fast aperture aids with focusing and being able to shoot with the fastest shudder speed that the lighting will permit. Building such a thing into a zoom design would be absolutely insane.



Quote:
Originally Posted by theguycalledtom View Post

I'll eat my sandwich if an 8 megapixel camera on a slimmer iPhone is better than a 5 megapixel camera. The top of the range canon point and shoot is only 10 megapixels.

All 8 megapixel photos do is make the file size bigger making them take longer to upload to cloud via photostream, draining more battery. They will likely have poorer, or at least not better low light performance.

Please stick with 5 megapixels and concentrate on a better Lens.

You guys are correct in your logic but you're looking at an incomplete picture here (hehe). Lens design has quite a few factors but in terms of sharpness they're generally measured by their ability to resolve pairs of white and black lines at varying spatial frequencies from the center to the edge of their image circles. It's not a simple case of pass or fail but more one of maintained contrast levels they can maintain at different frequencies assuming that the lens is made perfectly. Sample variation in the manufacturing process is a separate issue. It's entirely possible for them to test whether or not they've hit a wall with their current lens design. If it was outperforming the sensor then this could be a logical upgrade.


Quote:
Originally Posted by ConradJoe View Post

So will increasing the pixel density (all other things being equal), but that doesn't stop it from happening.

This isn't as simple as people think. All sensors have a certain amount of wasted space in addition to the inherent limitations of the RGBG array. They simply aren't perfectly packed in and there are gaps. Decreasing the size has created problems in the past with light sensitivity but it isn't the only factor, and you don't know how they are designing around it, or how either manufacturer came up with their stated numbers for resolution. I'm not even getting into the presence of things like low pass filters or microlenses in certain cameras or their effect on image data. What's relevant is the difference in detail resolved by one or the other once the image is in a form viewable by the end user. Before you ever see this it's interpolated, adjusted in contrast, sharpened, and compressed to a jpeg, so without comparing end result to end result, it's not a functional comparison.





Ok I got carried away there.
post #38 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by matrix07 View Post

Optical zoom will degrade picture quality.

No. Optical zoom is the only kind of zoom that *won't* degrade picture quality. That's kind of the point.

Edit: arcane "photo-phile" arguments above not withstanding of course.
post #39 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by techmuncher View Post

What's to figure out? Internal optical zoom has been around for years... I suppose if it was included you would say they are awesome for inventing it right, and I'm sure they would try and patent it!

Maybe go back and re-read the question. You clearly missed the point.
post #40 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by Galbi View Post

That is why there is something called a liquid optical zoom that throw away all the mechanicals and uses fluids and its characteristics of refracting light to be used as a "lens".

Yes, that's all very nice, but are these available at a price point appropriate for a consumer electronics device like a smartphone?

II've already mentioned above that I believe such a lens exists in some lab, but that doesn't make it a viable commercial product. We know that Apple produces hundreds if not thousands of prototypes in their labs and only one or two see the light of day and make it to a store shelf.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Two lens makers tapped by Apple to supply 8MP cameras for iPhone 5