Just as an option, you should check out what detail can be pulled out from photos in post when working from a raw file, its awesome.
jpg compression can be done poorly even by the best camera makers, so having uncompressed options would be awesome, makes that 8PM have so much more detail & dynamic range.
I'm old school, from the days of film, the moment is what I aim to capture with a minimum of post processing.
FWIW I've printed far larger than that from photos with even less resolution and the customer pleased as can be with the end product. Really depends a lot on what it's being used for and/or where it's being viewed..
It's the right move, especially on a phone. Because most of the photos people take with a phone are shared on social media or used on computer screens, and 8MP is more than enough for such use. Larger photos mean larger files sizes, which in turn means longer upload times and more bandwidth used, which makes it even more inconvenient to use in fact.
All I want, going forward, in terms of a "better iPhone camera" is better ZOOM. I want to be able to take better, clearer photos, while zooming in a bit. Right now, I'd say that is all that it lacks.
If this means more megapixels, then that's what I need. If it can be done without more megapixels, then that's what I need instead. I don't care which.
if you are talking about the A7 (24MP) vs A7R (36MP) Full frame cameras, the sensor is the same size. It is the pixel density which is lower on the 24MP model. Only reasons to recommend a smaller sensors is if you want a cheaper and more compact camera or you want to shoot macro all the time. Which is not the same thing as recommending the same sized sensor with less MP (aka less pixel density). Which is what we are talking about here.
OK they recommended the lower res model for the average up to serious hobbyist user then, and not solely for reasons having to do with the sensor... ...which I don't recall, but duly noted, thanks....
Yes, in fact there have been dozens of phones with optical zoom and for quite a very long time. back before smart phones were even the rage my old Toshiba, Fujitsu, and Sharp clam shell type phones all had optical zoom. This was around the 1999-2004 timeframe. Most have been bulky though but they certainly existed. Just a few here
Interesting. I do remember some of these, however, with due respect, I specified "smart phones" - and I don't really consider anything around in 2004 (i.e. before the iPhone defined the modern smart phone in 2007) to be "a true smart phone," (I know my LG10000 from 2005 or so could barely, barely get on the net, but not for any useful reason), so I guess, "It depends on the meaning of smart," Lolz......
Agreed! And how many people actually (ever!) print their phone photos?
No, it's the quality of the pixels that counts. A consumer-level half-frame SLR will take a beautifully detailed photo even at a 3 MP setting that will beat the socks off any phone photo taken at 48 MP (or whatever pointless and mythical number the sales-geeks come up with).
BTW: the point of having > 10 MP on an SLR is so the photo can be cropped by a factor of 4 or more (i.e. to a 3 MP frame) without getting jaggies. For the full frame most of the information is useless, unless you're printing a poster. The problem with phone cameras is the lack of a (necessarily) large light-gathering lens for telephoto, which I hear is something Apple itself is interested in addressing via a clip-on.
I'm old school, from the days of film, the moment is what I aim to capture with a minimum of post processing.
I don't need thousands of 20-30MB files.
I totally agree I'm the same, but i don't want to speak on everyone behalf, we are in the age of instagramming pics, so post processing is a thing.
i don't really use it much, but its good to have.
If you have a blown out pick (highlights) you can sometimes save pics using RAW, if it a holiday pic, you can bet your ass ill post process it to save it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark
Yes, but the average user wouldn't care. A pro would have a DSLR already so the segment that would want RAW on an iPhone is relatively small.
yeah its true, Raw file is what the camera spits out, so it should be do-able to have it as an option at least to save RAW, the phone compresses the image after its taken.
For the people that make reference to something like the Sony A7R, with 34MP, yes it is a mirror less camera with a 35mm size sensor, but camera like the (full professional) Canon 1DX & the Nikon D4s have 18MP & 16MP using a 35MM sensor, these are higher end camera than the A7R, infact you could buy 3 A7Rs for the cost of one 1DX or D4s by many considered the best cameras that Canon & Nikon make, they don't have crazy high MP counts, they do have camera that do, but the trade off for image scale doesnt allways make sense.
I found a website site, cameraimagesensor.com, that has some mobile phones listed with information about their sensors. The iPhone 5 sensor size is 1/3.2" with a sensor dimension of 4.54×3.42 mm. The Nokia Lumina 1020 with it's huge sensor of 2/3" and sensor size of 8.80×6.60 mm means it's 4X the size of the iPhone 5. With 38MP (effective pixels), it's actually a bit more than 4X the number of the iPhone's 8MP (effective pixels). This should mean the pixel size is at least close to the same size so they both should about the same amount of light gathering capability. The Lumina's size is also the reason why it requires a big bump on the phone and why it takes up so much real estate inside the camera. Camera physics require a certain focal length to cover that large sensor. There comes a point where trying to cram a good quality CMOS sensor into a small device just doesn't fit the size requirements of that device. There have to be trade-offs.
One thing this article leaves out is the photo compression factor of the cameras in these phones. How much data is lost to this compression to allow more than a few photos to reside on the phones internal memory? We all know the Samsung phones don't have very much memory left for photos with all the garbage that's loaded on them so just how many 38MP photos will fit on the Lumina? What happens with video? What happens with a panoramic photo? How long does it take these photos to transfer to your computer or the cloud?
btw: my Canon 60D's 18MP sensor is 22.30×14.90 mm or 9X the size of the Lumina and has a pixel size of 18.5 microns; way more than any mobile phone would ever be capable of using.
I refused to buy a camera mobile phone (back before the iPhone was even released) until there was a comparable one to my digital still camera. So that meant looking for 5-6Mpixels. None of the iPhones when they came out had it. It wasn't until the iPhone 4 that something was comparable. Meanwhile I had bought the Nokia N95 which had a similar Mpixel sensor. Pictures taken on a mobile phone are horrible. Even the best quality pictures taken on an iPhone or iPad, pale in comparison to pictures taken by much cheaper throw-away digital camera at the same megapixel size. So put a 18 or 32mpixel sensor in a mobile phone if you want, but it's still garbage-in-garbage-out. Most people take pictures inside, which requires low-light adaptability without a flash.
We've come quite a ways from the film cameras with disposable flash bulbs. But some things still remain the same.
I refused to buy a camera mobile phone (back before the iPhone was even released) until there was a comparable one to my digital still camera. So that meant looking for 5-6Mpixels. None of the iPhones when they came out had it. It wasn't until the iPhone 4 that something was comparable. Meanwhile I had bought the Nokia N95 which had a similar Mpixel sensor. Pictures taken on a mobile phone are horrible. Even the best quality pictures taken on an iPhone or iPad, pale in comparison to pictures taken by much cheaper throw-away digital camera at the same megapixel size. So put a 18 or 32mpixel sensor in a mobile phone if you want, but it's still garbage-in-garbage-out. Most people take pictures inside, which requires low-light adaptability without a flash.
We've come quite a ways from the film cameras with disposable flash bulbs. But some things still remain the same.
The interesting thing was, the photo's taken with the N95 (or other Nokia 5 megapixel camera phones) had much smaller file sizes than those taken with the 2 Megapixel iPhone 3G.
64-bit memory addressing is a key component to the level of security the iPhone 5s. It's not a bump your chest spec like Samsung and supporting media would make you believe it is. Read Apple's recently released document regarding their security technology.
I'm old school, from the days of film, the moment is what I aim to capture with a minimum of post processing.
I don't need thousands of 20-30MB files.
You must have never worked in a professional studio. Photos used in ads were routinely touched up. Wether it was tricks with the developer, or touching up the negative, it was a regular step in the process. The only difference now is that ability is now available to the masses thanks to technology.
Comments
Righhhhtttt....... Anyways.......
Just as an option, you should check out what detail can be pulled out from photos in post when working from a raw file, its awesome.
jpg compression can be done poorly even by the best camera makers, so having uncompressed options would be awesome, makes that 8PM have so much more detail & dynamic range.
I'm old school, from the days of film, the moment is what I aim to capture with a minimum of post processing.
I don't need thousands of 20-30MB files.
FWIW I've printed far larger than that from photos with even less resolution and the customer pleased as can be with the end product. Really depends a lot on what it's being used for and/or where it's being viewed..
The 5s camera is amazing.
All I want, going forward, in terms of a "better iPhone camera" is better ZOOM. I want to be able to take better, clearer photos, while zooming in a bit. Right now, I'd say that is all that it lacks.
If this means more megapixels, then that's what I need. If it can be done without more megapixels, then that's what I need instead. I don't care which.
if you are talking about the A7 (24MP) vs A7R (36MP) Full frame cameras, the sensor is the same size. It is the pixel density which is lower on the 24MP model. Only reasons to recommend a smaller sensors is if you want a cheaper and more compact camera or you want to shoot macro all the time. Which is not the same thing as recommending the same sized sensor with less MP (aka less pixel density). Which is what we are talking about here.
OK they recommended the lower res model for the average up to serious hobbyist user then, and not solely for reasons having to do with the sensor... ...which I don't recall, but duly noted, thanks....
Yes, in fact there have been dozens of phones with optical zoom and for quite a very long time. back before smart phones were even the rage my old Toshiba, Fujitsu, and Sharp clam shell type phones all had optical zoom. This was around the 1999-2004 timeframe. Most have been bulky though but they certainly existed. Just a few here
Images for phone with optical zoom camera
Interesting. I do remember some of these, however, with due respect, I specified "smart phones" - and I don't really consider anything around in 2004 (i.e. before the iPhone defined the modern smart phone in 2007) to be "a true smart phone," (I know my LG10000 from 2005 or so could barely, barely get on the net, but not for any useful reason), so I guess, "It depends on the meaning of smart," Lolz......
Agreed! And how many people actually (ever!) print their phone photos?
No, it's the quality of the pixels that counts. A consumer-level half-frame SLR will take a beautifully detailed photo even at a 3 MP setting that will beat the socks off any phone photo taken at 48 MP (or whatever pointless and mythical number the sales-geeks come up with).
BTW: the point of having > 10 MP on an SLR is so the photo can be cropped by a factor of 4 or more (i.e. to a 3 MP frame) without getting jaggies. For the full frame most of the information is useless, unless you're printing a poster. The problem with phone cameras is the lack of a (necessarily) large light-gathering lens for telephoto, which I hear is something Apple itself is interested in addressing via a clip-on.
I'm old school, from the days of film, the moment is what I aim to capture with a minimum of post processing.
I don't need thousands of 20-30MB files.
I totally agree I'm the same, but i don't want to speak on everyone behalf, we are in the age of instagramming pics, so post processing is a thing.
i don't really use it much, but its good to have.
If you have a blown out pick (highlights) you can sometimes save pics using RAW, if it a holiday pic, you can bet your ass ill post process it to save it.
Yes, but the average user wouldn't care. A pro would have a DSLR already so the segment that would want RAW on an iPhone is relatively small.
yeah its true, Raw file is what the camera spits out, so it should be do-able to have it as an option at least to save RAW, the phone compresses the image after its taken.
For the people that make reference to something like the Sony A7R, with 34MP, yes it is a mirror less camera with a 35mm size sensor, but camera like the (full professional) Canon 1DX & the Nikon D4s have 18MP & 16MP using a 35MM sensor, these are higher end camera than the A7R, infact you could buy 3 A7Rs for the cost of one 1DX or D4s
by many considered the best cameras that Canon & Nikon make, they don't have crazy high MP counts, they do have camera that do, but the trade off for image scale doesnt allways make sense.
I refused to buy a camera mobile phone (back before the iPhone was even released) until there was a comparable one to my digital still camera. So that meant looking for 5-6Mpixels. None of the iPhones when they came out had it. It wasn't until the iPhone 4 that something was comparable. Meanwhile I had bought the Nokia N95 which had a similar Mpixel sensor. Pictures taken on a mobile phone are horrible. Even the best quality pictures taken on an iPhone or iPad, pale in comparison to pictures taken by much cheaper throw-away digital camera at the same megapixel size. So put a 18 or 32mpixel sensor in a mobile phone if you want, but it's still garbage-in-garbage-out. Most people take pictures inside, which requires low-light adaptability without a flash.
We've come quite a ways from the film cameras with disposable flash bulbs. But some things still remain the same.
I refused to buy a camera mobile phone (back before the iPhone was even released) until there was a comparable one to my digital still camera. So that meant looking for 5-6Mpixels. None of the iPhones when they came out had it. It wasn't until the iPhone 4 that something was comparable. Meanwhile I had bought the Nokia N95 which had a similar Mpixel sensor. Pictures taken on a mobile phone are horrible. Even the best quality pictures taken on an iPhone or iPad, pale in comparison to pictures taken by much cheaper throw-away digital camera at the same megapixel size. So put a 18 or 32mpixel sensor in a mobile phone if you want, but it's still garbage-in-garbage-out. Most people take pictures inside, which requires low-light adaptability without a flash.
We've come quite a ways from the film cameras with disposable flash bulbs. But some things still remain the same.
The interesting thing was, the photo's taken with the N95 (or other Nokia 5 megapixel camera phones) had much smaller file sizes than those taken with the 2 Megapixel iPhone 3G.
64-bit memory addressing is a key component to the level of security the iPhone 5s. It's not a bump your chest spec like Samsung and supporting media would make you believe it is. Read Apple's recently released document regarding their security technology.
You must have never worked in a professional studio. Photos used in ads were routinely touched up. Wether it was tricks with the developer, or touching up the negative, it was a regular step in the process. The only difference now is that ability is now available to the masses thanks to technology.