No, a high rens sensor doesn't give you a higher quality image. It allows you to crop, but your losing just a lot of quality in the process. It is much better for you to move and get the proper framing than crop. That's true even with a DSLR.
The base quality of the image no matter the MP is related to the sensor size. The Sensor size then deterimines how thick the camera module can be. In a smart phone, there's no magic. The only way to get a bigger sensor in a smart phone is making the camera module much thicker (thicker phones).
BTW, I've got a Canon G16 (2013 Camera) a camera just bellow the level of the DSLR and that camera has a 12 MP sensor and its performance is extraordinary compared to any smart phone no matter what MP they have.
Canon's top range camera the $7000 dollars 1-ED-X is 18 MP
All their recent DSLR cameras only recently got 20MP and their sensors and lens are ridiculously better than a smart phone of any kind.
DSLR crossed into 20MP only recently BTW and in their case, it on
Yap, yap, yap.
The best camera is the one you have with you. That's my iPhone 6+.
Even if I had one, there's no way I'm gonna lug a 1D or any-D and lenses and flash, etc. around most of the time.
I love my iPhone's videos, its slo-mo, its panos, its easy quick edits, etc.
BUT, if we can get the same overall quality that the 6 Plus delivers, plus more megapixels, in the next iPhone camera....I will be happy.
Looking at the photos I've been taking (which are stunning..can't believe how good the 6 Plus is) on my Retina iMac....i could use a few more megapixels.
Agreed. Can't wait for next year's phone, as I'm on AT&T's NEXT program and can trade up from my 6+!
Don't look around and see that it's not considered the best camera on a phone.
What is considered the best camera phone on the market? After a year the 1020 is still getting the plaudits where I look. The iPhone 6 is a huge leap for them and is just about there. It blows the 1020 away with speed of camera taking though, but that's to be expected with much better internals.
I agree, comparing year old tech with current tech is rough. The camera on the 1020 great for a lot of things. If you can get an image that's sharp then you can crop a lot away and have a lot of detail. That's not all there is to an image. I'm looking at DXO mark as they seem to have tested every phone made.
I know that's just ONE site. And, being the internet I'm sure there are plenty that disagree. That reminds me of the Mythbusters syndrome- when they prove something contrary to the way someone believes them to be they get accused of doing the test wrong.
So please don't take my comments as slamming the high MP camera in your phone, I'm simply saying that pixel count is not the be-all end-all measure of a photo. I think I left auto white balance out of my list earlier, there's another HUGE variable. AWB has come a long way in recent years on all cameras.
I keep forgetting that people use these cameras for video too... which enters into the DXOMark ratings.
Let me put it this way- more pixels @ the same quality in every aspect can be better. Particularly if your camera does pixel binning (getting 8mp out of a 41mp sensor for example) so you don't have to eat up your memory with detail you don't want all the time. This is also a method used for dealing with low light situations.
I mentioned better (and generally bigger) optics earlier- A vocal minority got bent out of shape when Apple made the camera's optics too big to be flush in the latest phone. I can only imagine the crap they'd get if they added optics large enough to do real zooming.
My point (which I should have made long ago) is - for most of 'us' the camera is more than adequate as is. If this new sensor can be added without causing the lens group to stick out even more than it does now, and keep or even improve image quality overall, then super. Lets do it. I would like an 8mp option for saving memory space. So if some of those year-old features were available most people would use them on occasion but they would most likely be bragging rights. Like # of cores, or GHZ...
My reaction to some of these features is - 'yeah that is cool. SO anyway...'
The best camera is the one you have with you. That's my iPhone 6+.
Even if I had one, there's no way I'm gonna lug a 1D or any-D and lenses and flash, etc. around most of the time.
I love my iPhone's videos, its slo-mo, its panos, its easy quick edits, etc.
"The best camera is the one you have with you" So, as i often do, I have my iPhone, iPad, prosumer level Canon 600D and lenses and better level Canon 70D and L lenses with me ... what do I use?
To be serious, I have started doing my own side by side comparisons of all those options. I am lucky to live on a lake in Florida with an array of exotic birds wading 20' to 50' from me all day in brilliant sunshine. So it's been fun testing. So far, all evidence I have points to the fact for anything serious, the money spent on Canon L lenses and a better camera body are worth it. If you are looking at the quality of the bokeh, shadow detail and lack of blown highlights and so on there is simply no comparison or substitute for good glass and sensors. I realize if I went full frame it would only get better. That said there isn't a bad choice amongst that selection for just really nice pictures, they are all excellent. I am constantly amazed by the quality from the Apple devices' cameras, especially when you realize they cost little more than a bottle of wine (the cameras not the devices!). Plus as you say, for a panos, speed effects and other fancy tricks they are great fun.
I agree, comparing year old tech with current tech is rough. The camera on the 1020 great for a lot of things. If you can get an image that's sharp then you can crop a lot away and have a lot of detail. That's not all there is to an image. I'm looking at DXO mark as they seem to have tested every phone made.
I know that's just ONE site. And, being the internet I'm sure there are plenty that disagree. That reminds me of the Mythbusters syndrome- when they prove something contrary to the way someone believes them to be they get accused of doing the test wrong.
So please don't take my comments as slamming the high MP camera in your phone, I'm simply saying that pixel count is not the be-all end-all measure of a photo. I think I left auto white balance out of my list earlier, there's another HUGE variable. AWB has come a long way in recent years on all cameras.
I keep forgetting that people use these cameras for video too... which enters into the DXOMark ratings.
Let me put it this way- more pixels @ the same quality in every aspect can be better. Particularly if your camera does pixel binning (getting 8mp out of a 41mp sensor for example) so you don't have to eat up your memory with detail you don't want all the time. This is also a method used for dealing with low light situations.
I mentioned better (and generally bigger) optics earlier- A vocal minority got bent out of shape when Apple made the camera's optics too big to be flush in the latest phone. I can only imagine the crap they'd get if they added optics large enough to do real zooming.
My point (which I should have made long ago) is - for most of 'us' the camera is more than adequate as is. If this new sensor can be added without causing the lens group to stick out even more than it does now, and keep or even improve image quality overall, then super. Lets do it. I would like an 8mp option for saving memory space. So if some of those year-old features were available most people would use them on occasion but they would most likely be bragging rights. Like # of cores, or GHZ...
My reaction to some of these features is - 'yeah that is cool. SO anyway...'
DXO Mark is interesting but they do a terrible job at comparing the iPhone and 1020, by not showing comparable photos and having a graph they don't explain. They're even rating the S4 and S5 cameras as better than the 1020. The difference between an iPhone 5 and 1020 is 2 points. Seems very suspect, but thank you for the link. It's a Windows site but you get great comparison of apples vs apples photos and the most telling is the night shot. They actually mention the DXO review here. Also the photo of the guy drinking shows miles of difference. After comparing the photos I'm stumped on the DXO remarks.
Having recently moved up in the Canon DSLR line and am certainly enjoying that extra bit of crop ability for stills from a higher pixel count. Yes zooming in HD, up to 3 x with no quality drop, requires these high numbers but imagine what will be needed for a 4K video crop zoom!
Which is fine when you have a dslr sized sensor which has room for larger pixels but not so good in a phone camera sized sensor.
Sony uses these in their Z series phones.
I've found that the iPhone 6 takes stunning photos, particularly of people at night under artificial light.
The iPhone's 8 megapixels forms the basis of "it's the same as a three year old android phone" comparisons from idiots.
HTC went further, they use 4 and 5 megapixel sensors which often kills a sale as soon as you mention it.
Which just goes to show that people can be pretty stupid when meaningless numbers are involved.
No, a high rens sensor doesn't give you a higher quality image. It allows you to crop, but your losing just a lot of quality in the process. It is much better for you to move and get the proper framing than crop. That's true even with a DSLR.
The base quality of the image no matter the MP is related to the sensor size. The Sensor size then deterimines how thick the camera module can be. In a smart phone, there's no magic. The only way to get a bigger sensor in a smart phone is making the camera module much thicker (thicker phones).
BTW, I've got a Canon G16 (2013 Camera) a camera just bellow the level of the DSLR and that camera has a 12 MP sensor and its performance is extraordinary compared to any smart phone no matter what MP they have.
Canon's top range camera the $7000 dollars 1-ED-X is 18 MP
All their recent DSLR cameras only recently got 20MP and their sensors and lens are ridiculously better than a smart phone of any kind.
DSLR crossed into 20MP only recently BTW and in their case, it on
I've got a 24 megapixel NEX-7, which takes stunning shots but frankly it's a lot easier to whip my phone out of my pocket rather than be burdened with a camera bag with accoutrements.
I'm not convinced of the need for a 21MP sensor yet. The problem with smartphone cameras is there is not optical zoom. Using higher Rez sensors allows a high quality image even with "zoom", which is actually cropping.
I've wished that Apple would use newer sensors though. The 16MP version would be about perfect. And with the option for 128GB storage, there is enough space.
It's more of it being that there is of course 4k displays and more like the new iMac, who wouldn't want a picture at native resolution.
Cropping away pixels only works well if you have very good glass in front of those pixels. If there's not enough light, too much movement of subject or camera, lens flare, C/A, purple fringing, defraction (?SP) etc then cropping will make these flaws more obvious.
SO, if a 41MP sensor in a phone has glass good enough to capture pixel level sharpness without lens errors, then congrats. There are times where you have plenty of light and stillness where this will work fine. Glad to hear the 1020 is a good camera. Enjoy it. Don't look around and see that it's not considered the best camera on a phone.
More MP means smallER pixels (or sensels). Smaller means they can not physically collect as much light as their larger counterparts (unless some wonderful new tech comes out). You'll notice that the 'speed' of the glass on your iPhones has increased. The widest aperture number has decreased letting in more light which is HUGELY important. Then there's bokeh and other glass attributes...
As mentioned before- IF there's a way to pack more MP while retaining the same light gathering capability and quality of lens then great. Do it. Physics dictates that to do that we need larger lens groups at this point.
Crap, I didn't even mention dynamic range captured. That's a whole 'nuther important variable. Oh, and noise too (aka digital grain).
Have you honestly looked into the 1020 AT ALL? From what you say the answer is a resounding NO. In fact probably the only *camera* phone that is better than the 1020 AT PICTURES is the Pureview 808.
Did you know that the 1020 uses a MASSIVE sensor as far as phones are concerned? The iPhone and Android phones use a sensor typically 1/3" where as the lumia 1020 is 2/3" or you can look here: http://cameraimagesensor.com/size/#242,238,a
Of course the iPhone 6 uses a FAST aperture of f/2.2, most entry level DSLRs come with slow 4.5-5.6 kit lens and it isnt until you move to either expensive fast primes or very expensive zooms that you get better than f/4 and most zooms only do f/2.8. Want to guess what the 1020 uses? It has the same f/2.2 aperture as the iPhone 6.
But then you mention DoF, lets first compare them at 35mm or FF DSLR equivalents. A FF DSLR at f/2.8 or below will create a very pleasant DoF that will blur the background. Being honest here, neither the 1020 or the iPhone 6 can do this. The iPhone 6 has a DoF equivalent of f/16 and the 1020 has a DoF equivalent of f/8. Since you were worried about defraction, the good news is that both phones suffer greatly from it.
Oh, but what about Dynamic range, flash, and noise you ask? The 1020 creates RAW files which allow you to adjust the noise to your fitting rather than use the crap jpegs almost all other phones give you? The RAW file retains way more dynamic range than a jpeg will ever hope to, it also allows you to use photoshop/lightroom/aperture to adjust the noise levels to where it doesn't look over processed. The iPhones look overly contrasty and that tends to throw out the dynamic range captures which is then lost when using jpegs.
And I believe another link was posted which shows what the 1020 is capable of.
BUT here is the big catch, the camera is just one part of the device, and the 1020 is a one trick pony in this regard. The rest of it was average when it was released and way out dated now. Not to mention that the camera module is huge, but like you said, if you want good glass you need large glass.
More pixels doesn't make everything better always. THAT was my point.
Since this isn't a thread about the 1020 vs iPhone 6 I sent a message to sammy to continue this discussion. The images from his link had plenty of blown highlights, and other issues. HOWEVER, it's a fine camera. As it should be, it's a nice lump.
Simmer down now. Sheesh.
ANYWAY... I see there's another rumor about future iPhone having multiple cameras. Interesting stuff.
Having recently moved up in the Canon DSLR line and am certainly enjoying that extra bit of crop ability for stills from a higher pixel count. Yes zooming in HD, up to 3 x with no quality drop, requires these high numbers but imagine what will be needed for a 4K video crop zoom!
I've been a Canon user since 1969, with the F1. The problem is that right now, Canon tops out at about 21MP with a full frame sensor. Unfortunately, Sony makes sensors that are a bit better than Canon does, and they have that 36MP sensor. Nikon, after having spent years in sensor hell, trailing after Canon in the IQ race, went ahead with the D700, and has been out in front ever since. Not by a terrible amount, but still.. They use the Sony sensors, though they and Sony tweak them for Nikon, and so get a bit more density range at the low end, though Canon is about as good, or better at high ISO's, particularly with the new 7DMII.
With a tiny sensor and a 21MP rate, this sensor, even if it's better than another smartphones sensors at the same pixel count, will be far noisier than a full frame part from anyone. Nokia's very high Rez sensor has a very good image, but they bin the sensing sites to a much lower image Rez. When they don't, detail is high, but noise is visible. Also, the lens has a problem with those tiny sites.
<div class="quote-container" data-huddler-embed="/t/183476/apple-isight-supplier-sony-unveils-new-21mp-cmos-sensor-with-4k-video-phase-detection-af#post_2641305" data-huddler-embed-placeholder="false"><span>Quote:</span><div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by <strong>Rich Gregory</strong> <a href="/t/183476/apple-isight-supplier-sony-unveils-new-21mp-cmos-sensor-with-4k-video-phase-detection-af#post_2641305"><img src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" class="inlineimg" alt="View Post"/></a><br/><br/><p>I agree, comparing year old tech with current tech is rough. The camera on the 1020 great for a lot of things. If you can get an image that's sharp then you can crop a lot away and have a lot of detail. That's not all there is to an image. I'm looking at DXO mark as they seem to have tested every phone made.</p><p> </p><p>http://www.dxomark.com/Phones/Apple-iPhone-6-and-6-Plus-review-Bigger-and-better.-Apple-set-gold-standard-for-smartphone-image-quality</p><p>; </p><p>I know that's just ONE site. And, being the internet I'm sure there are plenty that disagree. That reminds me of the Mythbusters syndrome- when they prove something contrary to the way someone believes them to be they get accused of doing the test wrong.</p><p> </p><p>So please don't take my comments as slamming the high MP camera in your phone, I'm simply saying that pixel count is not the be-all end-all measure of a photo. I think I left auto white balance out of my list earlier, there's another HUGE variable. AWB has come a long way in recent years on all cameras. </p><p> </p><p>I keep forgetting that people use these cameras for video too... which enters into the DXOMark ratings.</p><p> </p><p>Let me put it this way- more pixels <span class="huddler-mention">@ the same quali</span>ty in every aspect can be better. Particularly if your camera does pixel binning (getting 8mp out of a 41mp sensor for example) so you don't have to eat up your memory with detail you don't want all the time. This is also a method used for dealing with low light situations. </p><p> </p><p>I mentioned better (and generally bigger) optics earlier- A vocal minority got bent out of shape when Apple made the camera's optics too big to be flush in the latest phone. I can only imagine the crap they'd get if they added optics large enough to do real zooming. </p><p> </p><p>My point (which I should have made long ago) is - for most of 'us' the camera is more than adequate as is. If this new sensor can be added without causing the lens group to stick out even more than it does now, and keep or even improve image quality overall, then super. Lets do it. I would like an 8mp option for saving memory space. So if some of those year-old features were available most people would use them on occasion but they would most likely be bragging rights. Like # of cores, or GHZ... </p><p> </p><p>My reaction to some of these features is - 'yeah that is cool. SO anyway...'</p></div></div><p> </p>
DXO Mark is interesting but they do a terrible job at comparing the iPhone and 1020, by not showing comparable photos and having a graph they don't explain. They're even rating the S4 and S5 cameras as better than the 1020. The difference between an iPhone 5 and 1020 is 2 points. Seems very suspect, but thank you for the link. It's a Windows site but you get great comparison of apples vs apples photos and the most telling is the night shot. They actually mention the DXO review here. Also the photo of the guy drinking shows miles of difference. After comparing the photos I'm stumped on the DXO remarks.
I have my beef with DXOMark, and I'm not the only one. They like to present it as totally objective. But that's not so. They review sensors too, though they don't admit that that's what they're doing. So you really need to look at all the graphs and charts—and actually understand what they all mean, and are measuring, to get an answer. Their scores are worthless, and have always been.
Which is fine when you have a dslr sized sensor which has room for larger pixels but not so good in a phone camera sized sensor.
Sony uses these in their Z series phones.
I've found that the iPhone 6 takes stunning photos, particularly of people at night under artificial light.
The iPhone's 8 megapixels forms the basis of "it's the same as a three year old android phone" comparisons from idiots.
HTC went further, they use 4 and 5 megapixel sensors which often kills a sale as soon as you mention it.
Which just goes to show that people can be pretty stupid when meaningless numbers are involved.
Except that HTC's cameras really sucked. This is both objectively, and subjectively. They recently went away from that camera concept and are offering cameras that are more conventional. Their old idea was that 4MP was enough, because people used their cameras for Facebook, email, etc. therefor, resolution didn't matter. So they used bigger pixels to get better noise ratios. But they blew it anyway. Their cameras lost so much detail that it has been a joke in the industry. The noise wasn't all that much better either.
So it works the other way around as well, you need a certain number of pixels to hold detail.
Years ago, when Canon came out with the D60, an APS 6MP sensor camera, I was testing it in my lab (I ran a commercial film lab in NYC for many years). I found that it was just sharp enough for an 8x12, full frame print. But that if I doubled the PPI in Photoshop, it looked much better. I needed to do that for an 11x16.5 print to get it to look sharp.. Talking about digital prints from a Fuji Pictography 4000 at 400 dpi.
It's more of it being that there is of course 4k displays and more like the new iMac, who wouldn't want a picture at native resolution.
We have to be realistic, and ask ourselves what we really will be using our images for. I don't use my display Rez to determine what my camera Rez should be.
Have you honestly looked into the 1020 AT ALL? From what you say the answer is a resounding NO. In fact probably the only *camera* phone that is better than the 1020 AT PICTURES is the Pureview 808.
Did you know that the 1020 uses a MASSIVE sensor as far as phones are concerned? The iPhone and Android phones use a sensor typically 1/3" where as the lumia 1020 is 2/3" or you can look here: http://cameraimagesensor.com/size/#242,238,a
Of course the iPhone 6 uses a FAST aperture of f/2.2, most entry level DSLRs come with slow 4.5-5.6 kit lens and it isnt until you move to either expensive fast primes or very expensive zooms that you get better than f/4 and most zooms only do f/2.8. Want to guess what the 1020 uses? It has the same f/2.2 aperture as the iPhone 6.
But then you mention DoF, lets first compare them at 35mm or FF DSLR equivalents. A FF DSLR at f/2.8 or below will create a very pleasant DoF that will blur the background. Being honest here, neither the 1020 or the iPhone 6 can do this. The iPhone 6 has a DoF equivalent of f/16 and the 1020 has a DoF equivalent of f/8. Since you were worried about defraction, the good news is that both phones suffer greatly from it.
Oh, but what about Dynamic range, flash, and noise you ask? The 1020 creates RAW files which allow you to adjust the noise to your fitting rather than use the crap jpegs almost all other phones give you? The RAW file retains way more dynamic range than a jpeg will ever hope to, it also allows you to use photoshop/lightroom/aperture to adjust the noise levels to where it doesn't look over processed. The iPhones look overly contrasty and that tends to throw out the dynamic range captures which is then lost when using jpegs.
BUT here is the big catch, the camera is just one part of the device, and the 1020 is a one trick pony in this regard. The rest of it was average when it was released and way out dated now. Not to mention that the camera module is huge, but like you said, if you want good glass you need large glass.
The problem with those Nokia models is that they are very unpopular. VERY unpopular. They are saddled with Win Phone, and before that, the older versions used Symbian. The camera is about the only thing on those phones they can use as a selling point.
But in order to have those cameras, the phones are thick, and I seem to remember that there is a camera bump. People don't want phones that thick and clutzy. So if Apple was willing to make a phone that thick, they could put a bigger sensor inside. But why would they?
Except that HTC's cameras really sucked. This is both objectively, and subjectively. They recently went away from that camera concept and are offering cameras that are more conventional. Their old idea was that 4MP was enough, because people used their cameras for Facebook, email, etc. therefor, resolution didn't matter. So they used bigger pixels to get better noise ratios. But they blew it anyway. Their cameras lost so much detail that it has been a joke in the industry. The noise wasn't all that much better either.
So it works the other way around as well, you need a certain number of pixels to hold detail.
Years ago, when Canon came out with the D60, an APS 6MP sensor camera, I was testing it in my lab (I ran a commercial film lab in NYC for many years). I found that it was just sharp enough for an 8x12, full frame print. But that if I doubled the PPI in Photoshop, it looked much better. I needed to do that for an 11x16.5 print to get it to look sharp.. Talking about digital prints from a Fuji Pictography 4000 at 400 dpi.
What I think Apple did was settle on a compromise, I guess they found 8 megapixels was the sweet spot.
iPhones have always taken great pictures ever since they launched with a 2 megapixel camera when the norm was 5, quality beats quantity almost every time.
I had a Fugipix 4 megapixel camera, I remember my nephew going on about his cheap 6 megapixel camera being "better" based on that alone.
It wasn't, the results were clear.
My first camera was an old Kodak Box Brownie that my mother handed down, I used to use black and white film, unfortunately I lost all those albums many years ago, that's where I learnt how to take photo's.
Comments
No, a high rens sensor doesn't give you a higher quality image. It allows you to crop, but your losing just a lot of quality in the process. It is much better for you to move and get the proper framing than crop. That's true even with a DSLR.
The base quality of the image no matter the MP is related to the sensor size. The Sensor size then deterimines how thick the camera module can be. In a smart phone, there's no magic. The only way to get a bigger sensor in a smart phone is making the camera module much thicker (thicker phones).
BTW, I've got a Canon G16 (2013 Camera) a camera just bellow the level of the DSLR and that camera has a 12 MP sensor and its performance is extraordinary compared to any smart phone no matter what MP they have.
Canon's top range camera the $7000 dollars 1-ED-X is 18 MP
All their recent DSLR cameras only recently got 20MP and their sensors and lens are ridiculously better than a smart phone of any kind.
DSLR crossed into 20MP only recently BTW and in their case, it on
Yap, yap, yap.
The best camera is the one you have with you. That's my iPhone 6+.
Even if I had one, there's no way I'm gonna lug a 1D or any-D and lenses and flash, etc. around most of the time.
I love my iPhone's videos, its slo-mo, its panos, its easy quick edits, etc.
I wouldn't trade quality for more megapixels.
BUT, if we can get the same overall quality that the 6 Plus delivers, plus more megapixels, in the next iPhone camera....I will be happy.
Looking at the photos I've been taking (which are stunning..can't believe how good the 6 Plus is) on my Retina iMac....i could use a few more megapixels.
Agreed. Can't wait for next year's phone, as I'm on AT&T's NEXT program and can trade up from my 6+!
Don't look around and see that it's not considered the best camera on a phone.
What is considered the best camera phone on the market? After a year the 1020 is still getting the plaudits where I look. The iPhone 6 is a huge leap for them and is just about there. It blows the 1020 away with speed of camera taking though, but that's to be expected with much better internals.
I agree, comparing year old tech with current tech is rough. The camera on the 1020 great for a lot of things. If you can get an image that's sharp then you can crop a lot away and have a lot of detail. That's not all there is to an image. I'm looking at DXO mark as they seem to have tested every phone made.
http://www.dxomark.com/Phones/Apple-iPhone-6-and-6-Plus-review-Bigger-and-better.-Apple-set-gold-standard-for-smartphone-image-quality
I know that's just ONE site. And, being the internet I'm sure there are plenty that disagree. That reminds me of the Mythbusters syndrome- when they prove something contrary to the way someone believes them to be they get accused of doing the test wrong.
So please don't take my comments as slamming the high MP camera in your phone, I'm simply saying that pixel count is not the be-all end-all measure of a photo. I think I left auto white balance out of my list earlier, there's another HUGE variable. AWB has come a long way in recent years on all cameras.
I keep forgetting that people use these cameras for video too... which enters into the DXOMark ratings.
Let me put it this way- more pixels @ the same quality in every aspect can be better. Particularly if your camera does pixel binning (getting 8mp out of a 41mp sensor for example) so you don't have to eat up your memory with detail you don't want all the time. This is also a method used for dealing with low light situations.
I mentioned better (and generally bigger) optics earlier- A vocal minority got bent out of shape when Apple made the camera's optics too big to be flush in the latest phone. I can only imagine the crap they'd get if they added optics large enough to do real zooming.
My point (which I should have made long ago) is - for most of 'us' the camera is more than adequate as is. If this new sensor can be added without causing the lens group to stick out even more than it does now, and keep or even improve image quality overall, then super. Lets do it. I would like an 8mp option for saving memory space. So if some of those year-old features were available most people would use them on occasion but they would most likely be bragging rights. Like # of cores, or GHZ...
My reaction to some of these features is - 'yeah that is cool. SO anyway...'
"The best camera is the one you have with you" So, as i often do, I have my iPhone, iPad, prosumer level Canon 600D and lenses and better level Canon 70D and L lenses with me ... what do I use?
To be serious, I have started doing my own side by side comparisons of all those options. I am lucky to live on a lake in Florida with an array of exotic birds wading 20' to 50' from me all day in brilliant sunshine. So it's been fun testing. So far, all evidence I have points to the fact for anything serious, the money spent on Canon L lenses and a better camera body are worth it. If you are looking at the quality of the bokeh, shadow detail and lack of blown highlights and so on there is simply no comparison or substitute for good glass and sensors. I realize if I went full frame it would only get better. That said there isn't a bad choice amongst that selection for just really nice pictures, they are all excellent. I am constantly amazed by the quality from the Apple devices' cameras, especially when you realize they cost little more than a bottle of wine (the cameras not the devices!). Plus as you say, for a panos, speed effects and other fancy tricks they are great fun.
said no photographer, ever.
I agree, comparing year old tech with current tech is rough. The camera on the 1020 great for a lot of things. If you can get an image that's sharp then you can crop a lot away and have a lot of detail. That's not all there is to an image. I'm looking at DXO mark as they seem to have tested every phone made.
http://www.dxomark.com/Phones/Apple-iPhone-6-and-6-Plus-review-Bigger-and-better.-Apple-set-gold-standard-for-smartphone-image-quality
I know that's just ONE site. And, being the internet I'm sure there are plenty that disagree. That reminds me of the Mythbusters syndrome- when they prove something contrary to the way someone believes them to be they get accused of doing the test wrong.
So please don't take my comments as slamming the high MP camera in your phone, I'm simply saying that pixel count is not the be-all end-all measure of a photo. I think I left auto white balance out of my list earlier, there's another HUGE variable. AWB has come a long way in recent years on all cameras.
I keep forgetting that people use these cameras for video too... which enters into the DXOMark ratings.
Let me put it this way- more pixels @ the same quality in every aspect can be better. Particularly if your camera does pixel binning (getting 8mp out of a 41mp sensor for example) so you don't have to eat up your memory with detail you don't want all the time. This is also a method used for dealing with low light situations.
I mentioned better (and generally bigger) optics earlier- A vocal minority got bent out of shape when Apple made the camera's optics too big to be flush in the latest phone. I can only imagine the crap they'd get if they added optics large enough to do real zooming.
My point (which I should have made long ago) is - for most of 'us' the camera is more than adequate as is. If this new sensor can be added without causing the lens group to stick out even more than it does now, and keep or even improve image quality overall, then super. Lets do it. I would like an 8mp option for saving memory space. So if some of those year-old features were available most people would use them on occasion but they would most likely be bragging rights. Like # of cores, or GHZ...
My reaction to some of these features is - 'yeah that is cool. SO anyway...'
DXO Mark is interesting but they do a terrible job at comparing the iPhone and 1020, by not showing comparable photos and having a graph they don't explain. They're even rating the S4 and S5 cameras as better than the 1020. The difference between an iPhone 5 and 1020 is 2 points. Seems very suspect, but thank you for the link. It's a Windows site but you get great comparison of apples vs apples photos and the most telling is the night shot. They actually mention the DXO review here. Also the photo of the guy drinking shows miles of difference. After comparing the photos I'm stumped on the DXO remarks.http://allaboutwindowsphone.com/features/item/20233_Camera_head_to_head_Nokia_Lumi.php
Having recently moved up in the Canon DSLR line and am certainly enjoying that extra bit of crop ability for stills from a higher pixel count. Yes zooming in HD, up to 3 x with no quality drop, requires these high numbers but imagine what will be needed for a 4K video crop zoom!
Which is fine when you have a dslr sized sensor which has room for larger pixels but not so good in a phone camera sized sensor.
Sony uses these in their Z series phones.
I've found that the iPhone 6 takes stunning photos, particularly of people at night under artificial light.
The iPhone's 8 megapixels forms the basis of "it's the same as a three year old android phone" comparisons from idiots.
HTC went further, they use 4 and 5 megapixel sensors which often kills a sale as soon as you mention it.
Which just goes to show that people can be pretty stupid when meaningless numbers are involved.
No, a high rens sensor doesn't give you a higher quality image. It allows you to crop, but your losing just a lot of quality in the process. It is much better for you to move and get the proper framing than crop. That's true even with a DSLR.
The base quality of the image no matter the MP is related to the sensor size. The Sensor size then deterimines how thick the camera module can be. In a smart phone, there's no magic. The only way to get a bigger sensor in a smart phone is making the camera module much thicker (thicker phones).
BTW, I've got a Canon G16 (2013 Camera) a camera just bellow the level of the DSLR and that camera has a 12 MP sensor and its performance is extraordinary compared to any smart phone no matter what MP they have.
Canon's top range camera the $7000 dollars 1-ED-X is 18 MP
All their recent DSLR cameras only recently got 20MP and their sensors and lens are ridiculously better than a smart phone of any kind.
DSLR crossed into 20MP only recently BTW and in their case, it on
I've got a 24 megapixel NEX-7, which takes stunning shots but frankly it's a lot easier to whip my phone out of my pocket rather than be burdened with a camera bag with accoutrements.
1) Native resolution doesn't mean it's the best viewing experience.
2) The new iMac is 5K so we need to now wait for 5K sensors?
Cropping does not = zoom.
Cropping away pixels only works well if you have very good glass in front of those pixels. If there's not enough light, too much movement of subject or camera, lens flare, C/A, purple fringing, defraction (?SP) etc then cropping will make these flaws more obvious.
SO, if a 41MP sensor in a phone has glass good enough to capture pixel level sharpness without lens errors, then congrats. There are times where you have plenty of light and stillness where this will work fine. Glad to hear the 1020 is a good camera. Enjoy it. Don't look around and see that it's not considered the best camera on a phone.
More MP means smallER pixels (or sensels). Smaller means they can not physically collect as much light as their larger counterparts (unless some wonderful new tech comes out). You'll notice that the 'speed' of the glass on your iPhones has increased. The widest aperture number has decreased letting in more light which is HUGELY important. Then there's bokeh and other glass attributes...
As mentioned before- IF there's a way to pack more MP while retaining the same light gathering capability and quality of lens then great. Do it. Physics dictates that to do that we need larger lens groups at this point.
Crap, I didn't even mention dynamic range captured. That's a whole 'nuther important variable. Oh, and noise too (aka digital grain).
Have you honestly looked into the 1020 AT ALL? From what you say the answer is a resounding NO. In fact probably the only *camera* phone that is better than the 1020 AT PICTURES is the Pureview 808.
Did you know that the 1020 uses a MASSIVE sensor as far as phones are concerned? The iPhone and Android phones use a sensor typically 1/3" where as the lumia 1020 is 2/3" or you can look here: http://cameraimagesensor.com/size/#242,238,a
Of course the iPhone 6 uses a FAST aperture of f/2.2, most entry level DSLRs come with slow 4.5-5.6 kit lens and it isnt until you move to either expensive fast primes or very expensive zooms that you get better than f/4 and most zooms only do f/2.8. Want to guess what the 1020 uses? It has the same f/2.2 aperture as the iPhone 6.
But then you mention DoF, lets first compare them at 35mm or FF DSLR equivalents. A FF DSLR at f/2.8 or below will create a very pleasant DoF that will blur the background. Being honest here, neither the 1020 or the iPhone 6 can do this. The iPhone 6 has a DoF equivalent of f/16 and the 1020 has a DoF equivalent of f/8. Since you were worried about defraction, the good news is that both phones suffer greatly from it.
Oh, but what about Dynamic range, flash, and noise you ask? The 1020 creates RAW files which allow you to adjust the noise to your fitting rather than use the crap jpegs almost all other phones give you? The RAW file retains way more dynamic range than a jpeg will ever hope to, it also allows you to use photoshop/lightroom/aperture to adjust the noise levels to where it doesn't look over processed. The iPhones look overly contrasty and that tends to throw out the dynamic range captures which is then lost when using jpegs.
Why not look here? http://gizmodo.com/the-best-smartphone-camera-iphone-6-edition-1637751507
And I believe another link was posted which shows what the 1020 is capable of.
BUT here is the big catch, the camera is just one part of the device, and the 1020 is a one trick pony in this regard. The rest of it was average when it was released and way out dated now. Not to mention that the camera module is huge, but like you said, if you want good glass you need large glass.
Static- Yes I have looked at 1020 images.
They are fine.
Did you look at the DXO comments?
More pixels doesn't make everything better always. THAT was my point.
Since this isn't a thread about the 1020 vs iPhone 6 I sent a message to sammy to continue this discussion. The images from his link had plenty of blown highlights, and other issues. HOWEVER, it's a fine camera. As it should be, it's a nice lump.
Simmer down now. Sheesh.
ANYWAY... I see there's another rumor about future iPhone having multiple cameras. Interesting stuff.
I've been a Canon user since 1969, with the F1. The problem is that right now, Canon tops out at about 21MP with a full frame sensor. Unfortunately, Sony makes sensors that are a bit better than Canon does, and they have that 36MP sensor. Nikon, after having spent years in sensor hell, trailing after Canon in the IQ race, went ahead with the D700, and has been out in front ever since. Not by a terrible amount, but still.. They use the Sony sensors, though they and Sony tweak them for Nikon, and so get a bit more density range at the low end, though Canon is about as good, or better at high ISO's, particularly with the new 7DMII.
With a tiny sensor and a 21MP rate, this sensor, even if it's better than another smartphones sensors at the same pixel count, will be far noisier than a full frame part from anyone. Nokia's very high Rez sensor has a very good image, but they bin the sensing sites to a much lower image Rez. When they don't, detail is high, but noise is visible. Also, the lens has a problem with those tiny sites.
I have my beef with DXOMark, and I'm not the only one. They like to present it as totally objective. But that's not so. They review sensors too, though they don't admit that that's what they're doing. So you really need to look at all the graphs and charts—and actually understand what they all mean, and are measuring, to get an answer. Their scores are worthless, and have always been.
Except that HTC's cameras really sucked. This is both objectively, and subjectively. They recently went away from that camera concept and are offering cameras that are more conventional. Their old idea was that 4MP was enough, because people used their cameras for Facebook, email, etc. therefor, resolution didn't matter. So they used bigger pixels to get better noise ratios. But they blew it anyway. Their cameras lost so much detail that it has been a joke in the industry. The noise wasn't all that much better either.
So it works the other way around as well, you need a certain number of pixels to hold detail.
Years ago, when Canon came out with the D60, an APS 6MP sensor camera, I was testing it in my lab (I ran a commercial film lab in NYC for many years). I found that it was just sharp enough for an 8x12, full frame print. But that if I doubled the PPI in Photoshop, it looked much better. I needed to do that for an 11x16.5 print to get it to look sharp.. Talking about digital prints from a Fuji Pictography 4000 at 400 dpi.
We have to be realistic, and ask ourselves what we really will be using our images for. I don't use my display Rez to determine what my camera Rez should be.
The problem with those Nokia models is that they are very unpopular. VERY unpopular. They are saddled with Win Phone, and before that, the older versions used Symbian. The camera is about the only thing on those phones they can use as a selling point.
But in order to have those cameras, the phones are thick, and I seem to remember that there is a camera bump. People don't want phones that thick and clutzy. So if Apple was willing to make a phone that thick, they could put a bigger sensor inside. But why would they?
Except that HTC's cameras really sucked. This is both objectively, and subjectively. They recently went away from that camera concept and are offering cameras that are more conventional. Their old idea was that 4MP was enough, because people used their cameras for Facebook, email, etc. therefor, resolution didn't matter. So they used bigger pixels to get better noise ratios. But they blew it anyway. Their cameras lost so much detail that it has been a joke in the industry. The noise wasn't all that much better either.
So it works the other way around as well, you need a certain number of pixels to hold detail.
Years ago, when Canon came out with the D60, an APS 6MP sensor camera, I was testing it in my lab (I ran a commercial film lab in NYC for many years). I found that it was just sharp enough for an 8x12, full frame print. But that if I doubled the PPI in Photoshop, it looked much better. I needed to do that for an 11x16.5 print to get it to look sharp.. Talking about digital prints from a Fuji Pictography 4000 at 400 dpi.
What I think Apple did was settle on a compromise, I guess they found 8 megapixels was the sweet spot.
iPhones have always taken great pictures ever since they launched with a 2 megapixel camera when the norm was 5, quality beats quantity almost every time.
I had a Fugipix 4 megapixel camera, I remember my nephew going on about his cheap 6 megapixel camera being "better" based on that alone.
It wasn't, the results were clear.
My first camera was an old Kodak Box Brownie that my mother handed down, I used to use black and white film, unfortunately I lost all those albums many years ago, that's where I learnt how to take photo's.