I think there is a serious disconnect between prosumers understanding the consumer. No this is not SLR caliber or even high-end point and shoot caliber. The average consumer doesn't care. They just want to be able to capture those special memories in their life without it looking seriously screwed up. For most this will be enough, including myself.
I doubt I will be using my Powershot and my Mino HD much at all anymore since I can carry around one device.
I think there is a serious disconnect between prosumers understanding the consumer. No this is not SLR caliber or even high-end point and shoot caliber. The average consumer doesn't care. They just want to be able to capture those special memories in their life without it looking seriously screwed up. For most this will be enough, including myself.
I doubt I will be using my Powershot and my Mino HD much at all anymore since I can carry around one device.
I think there is a serious disconnect between prosumers understanding the consumer. No this is not SLR caliber or even high-end point and shoot caliber. The average consumer doesn't care. They just want to be able to capture those special memories in their life without it looking seriously screwed up. For most this will be enough, including myself.
Exactly. This won't replace my high end digital for important events like graduation, recitals, etc. But for the every day kicking around kind of stuff, it will be nice to have a better picture than my iPhone 3G provides.
While my iPhone 4 won't replace my SLR - or even my dedicated digital camera, these pictures are truly amazing - far better than any smart phones I've ever seen, even from phones with more MP (so much for the 'My phone has 8 MP and yours only has 5' whining). For a change, I'll be able to pull out my phone and take a good picture rather than something that's quick, but not very good.
MP are as useful a measurement of quality for cameras of any sort as GHz are for the performance of a processor. It has become a marketing tool. 8 megapixels on many smart phones, combined with crappy optics, usually just leads to poor photos which take up more space. I'm glad Apple focuses on quality over megapixels. Most high-end brands in the camera business, at least when it comes to their good hardware, do.
I must say that while I hoped iPhone 4 would record good-looking video, I was totally blown away by the 10-second sample video.
I've been thinking about getting a small camcorder to take everywhere (something like Sony's Bloggie) but since I'll get the iPhone anyway those are completely unnecessary for me.
MP are as useful a measurement of quality for cameras of any sort as GHz are for the performance of a processor. It has become a marketing tool. 8 megapixels on many smart phones, combined with crappy optics, usually just leads to poor photos which take up more space.
Yes, I do 99.99% of my photo viewing on my computer screen, so lots of megapixels aren't helpful. I'm still using a 3MP Kodak camera and I've set the preferences to use even fewer pixels than that. My iPhoto library is something like 20GB (including the iPod photo cache) so it's nice to keep the file sizes low.
Does anyone know if I'll be able to set the iPhone 4 to capture fewer than 5MP? (According to the latest in a series of contradictory conversations with AT&T, I should be receiving one next week.)
Yes, they're OK for a camera phone. But "stunning?" "Awesome?" Seriously?!
Look at the clouds ? they're completely blown out. The grass and trees are muddy and have almost no contrast. And this is taken at sunrise! Some of you folks need to get a grip. This is ten year-old 1st generation digital camera quality.
Yes, it's a HUGE step up from my 3G iPhone. But that's not saying much. So I'm not selling my camera gear anytime soon. ...
I wish this whole discussion would just stop.
All the pictures we are talking about here have been resized and compressed for upload including all the originals the article is talking about. What's the point of even discussing this when we aren't talking about the originals or seeing the photos in the original resolution without compression artifacts?
Aren't the vast majority of cellphone pictures just a couple of drunk girls in a bar holding up the camera to shoot themselves? This upgrade, and the front-facing lens in particular, should vastly improve those shots.
Seriously, though, many people are not all that particular about the quality of their photographs. They just want a memento of some event, and this upgrade will give them something of decent enough quality that they can print and keep. Whether or not it will stand beside a DSLR is ridiculous. Obviously it won't, but it could produce a good enough result that the DSLR won't be needed quite as much as before.
One thing is certain after looking at the statement...................................IT's NOT ATT HE'S TALKING ABOUT. I've never heard the words ATT and QUICK CONNECTIVITY in the same sentence.
Congratulations on the most obvious post of the day. This came out of Prague, which is in the Czech Republic, so obviously there is no AT&T. Therefore, what point was your post other than to try to be funny (and fail)?
My point exactly. It's a nice photo for a PHONE photo!
Yes, it is much easier to carry the PHONE with you, and maybe get a nice enough picture
to email folks, but NO ONE is going to use ANY PHONE to take high quality photo's for a client or themselves to print.
The Nikon D300 is a wonderful camera, that could probably be a good phone, but not both. And so goes for the iPhone and other PHONES. They are great PHONES, but not great cameras and none of the companies taut them as great cameras.
Yes, folks will be impressed with the photo's taken by the iPhone, and those folks, don't likely care about having a good Digital SLR camera. All they want is a great phone that is pretty good at other things.
All the pictures we are talking about here have been resized and compressed for upload including all the originals the article is talking about. What's the point of even discussing this when we aren't talking about the originals or seeing the photos in the original resolution without compression artifacts?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kyle76
Aren't the vast majority of cellphone pictures just a couple of drunk girls in a bar holding up the camera to shoot themselves? This upgrade, and the front-facing lens in particular, should vastly improve those shots.
Seriously, though, many people are not all that particular about the quality of their photographs. They just want a memento of some event, and this upgrade will give them something of decent enough quality that they can print and keep. Whether or not it will stand beside a DSLR is ridiculous. Obviously it won't, but it could produce a good enough result that the DSLR won't be needed quite as much as before.
Nobody was questioning people who said "this is much better than xxx phone/iPhone".
It won't replace my Canon T1 but it'll be nifty to have a decent camcorder/camera at my disposal. The first step in taking a great photo is having a camera to shoot it with!
I'm certainly not going to buy another point-and-shoot digital camera or a Flip Mino (or similar) ever again.
My next digital photograph purchase would have to be a dSLR with RAW capabilities, and if I wanted to do more high-end video, I'd buy a better videocamera.
I'm excited that the iPhone 4 is going to be a capable point-and-shoot and pocket camcorder.
I'm no expert in any area regarding photography, but I do that an image and video has a psychological effect so I don't think can honestly judge the quality of the camera looking at various whole images until we can see side-by-side photos from different cameras shooting the same images and videos.
This is what I was thinking. I would really love to see some side-by-side pics from say a real dSLR, the iPhone4, the 3GS, and maybe another "good" camera/phone. That would be a really awesome comparison, especially a series of pics in differing light conditions. I hoping that we'll see this kind of comparison here in about 2 weeks once some photographers have a chance to get their hands on the real deal.
The photos look ok. But does that really mean anything considered that they were taken outside in full daylight? Where digital cameras always perform rather badly is in low light situations. A better test would be taking pictures in a bar while half inebriated.
This will never be as good as dedicated device. What many fail to understand though is that 95% of the people are never going to use the features inside those cameras so the end result will look as good as if it was shot with a cell phone. The comment you are replying to is a pointless exercise. For that poster it was good enough for them.
Most will not tread though the thick booklets and they will not bother to navigate through the UI looking for the correct settings much less know what the best settings in a situation are. They have no idea what is a macro in relation to photography, know what an RGB histogram is or even know what an ISO is. If you attempt to teach them all they'll ask you is "How do I take a picture?"
Comments
I doubt I will be using my Powershot and my Mino HD much at all anymore since I can carry around one device.
I think there is a serious disconnect between prosumers understanding the consumer. No this is not SLR caliber or even high-end point and shoot caliber. The average consumer doesn't care. They just want to be able to capture those special memories in their life without it looking seriously screwed up. For most this will be enough, including myself.
I doubt I will be using my Powershot and my Mino HD much at all anymore since I can carry around one device.
Ditto.
I think there is a serious disconnect between prosumers understanding the consumer. No this is not SLR caliber or even high-end point and shoot caliber. The average consumer doesn't care. They just want to be able to capture those special memories in their life without it looking seriously screwed up. For most this will be enough, including myself.
Exactly. This won't replace my high end digital for important events like graduation, recitals, etc. But for the every day kicking around kind of stuff, it will be nice to have a better picture than my iPhone 3G provides.
Just put it on YouTube. Here is the link.
Thank you.
While my iPhone 4 won't replace my SLR - or even my dedicated digital camera, these pictures are truly amazing - far better than any smart phones I've ever seen, even from phones with more MP (so much for the 'My phone has 8 MP and yours only has 5' whining). For a change, I'll be able to pull out my phone and take a good picture rather than something that's quick, but not very good.
MP are as useful a measurement of quality for cameras of any sort as GHz are for the performance of a processor. It has become a marketing tool. 8 megapixels on many smart phones, combined with crappy optics, usually just leads to poor photos which take up more space. I'm glad Apple focuses on quality over megapixels. Most high-end brands in the camera business, at least when it comes to their good hardware, do.
I've been thinking about getting a small camcorder to take everywhere (something like Sony's Bloggie) but since I'll get the iPhone anyway those are completely unnecessary for me.
MP are as useful a measurement of quality for cameras of any sort as GHz are for the performance of a processor. It has become a marketing tool. 8 megapixels on many smart phones, combined with crappy optics, usually just leads to poor photos which take up more space.
Yes, I do 99.99% of my photo viewing on my computer screen, so lots of megapixels aren't helpful. I'm still using a 3MP Kodak camera and I've set the preferences to use even fewer pixels than that. My iPhoto library is something like 20GB (including the iPod photo cache) so it's nice to keep the file sizes low.
Does anyone know if I'll be able to set the iPhone 4 to capture fewer than 5MP? (According to the latest in a series of contradictory conversations with AT&T, I should be receiving one next week.)
Yes, they're OK for a camera phone. But "stunning?" "Awesome?" Seriously?!
Look at the clouds ? they're completely blown out. The grass and trees are muddy and have almost no contrast. And this is taken at sunrise! Some of you folks need to get a grip. This is ten year-old 1st generation digital camera quality.
Yes, it's a HUGE step up from my 3G iPhone. But that's not saying much. So I'm not selling my camera gear anytime soon. ...
I wish this whole discussion would just stop.
All the pictures we are talking about here have been resized and compressed for upload including all the originals the article is talking about. What's the point of even discussing this when we aren't talking about the originals or seeing the photos in the original resolution without compression artifacts?
Seriously, though, many people are not all that particular about the quality of their photographs. They just want a memento of some event, and this upgrade will give them something of decent enough quality that they can print and keep. Whether or not it will stand beside a DSLR is ridiculous. Obviously it won't, but it could produce a good enough result that the DSLR won't be needed quite as much as before.
One thing is certain after looking at the statement...................................IT's NOT ATT HE'S TALKING ABOUT. I've never heard the words ATT and QUICK CONNECTIVITY in the same sentence.
Congratulations on the most obvious post of the day. This came out of Prague, which is in the Czech Republic, so obviously there is no AT&T. Therefore, what point was your post other than to try to be funny (and fail)?
Yes, it is much easier to carry the PHONE with you, and maybe get a nice enough picture
to email folks, but NO ONE is going to use ANY PHONE to take high quality photo's for a client or themselves to print.
The Nikon D300 is a wonderful camera, that could probably be a good phone, but not both. And so goes for the iPhone and other PHONES. They are great PHONES, but not great cameras and none of the companies taut them as great cameras.
Yes, folks will be impressed with the photo's taken by the iPhone, and those folks, don't likely care about having a good Digital SLR camera. All they want is a great phone that is pretty good at other things.
Skip
I wish this whole discussion would just stop.
All the pictures we are talking about here have been resized and compressed for upload including all the originals the article is talking about. What's the point of even discussing this when we aren't talking about the originals or seeing the photos in the original resolution without compression artifacts?
Aren't the vast majority of cellphone pictures just a couple of drunk girls in a bar holding up the camera to shoot themselves?
Seriously, though, many people are not all that particular about the quality of their photographs. They just want a memento of some event, and this upgrade will give them something of decent enough quality that they can print and keep. Whether or not it will stand beside a DSLR is ridiculous. Obviously it won't, but it could produce a good enough result that the DSLR won't be needed quite as much as before.
Nobody was questioning people who said "this is much better than xxx phone/iPhone".
But when dodos started saying things like it's better than $249 dedicated cameras or as good as his friends' SLR photos, well, then it got into Ridiculousland.
My next digital photograph purchase would have to be a dSLR with RAW capabilities, and if I wanted to do more high-end video, I'd buy a better videocamera.
I'm excited that the iPhone 4 is going to be a capable point-and-shoot and pocket camcorder.
Thank you.
YouTube re-encoded it.
YouTube re-encoded it.
Ah. You edited. I was abou to mention that there was a 720p version.
I'm no expert in any area regarding photography, but I do that an image and video has a psychological effect so I don't think can honestly judge the quality of the camera looking at various whole images until we can see side-by-side photos from different cameras shooting the same images and videos.
This is what I was thinking. I would really love to see some side-by-side pics from say a real dSLR, the iPhone4, the 3GS, and maybe another "good" camera/phone. That would be a really awesome comparison, especially a series of pics in differing light conditions. I hoping that we'll see this kind of comparison here in about 2 weeks once some photographers have a chance to get their hands on the real deal.
Nobody was questioning people who said "this is much better than xxx phone/iPhone".
But when dodos started saying things like it's better than $249 dedicated cameras or as good as his friends' SLR photos, well, then it got into Ridiculousland.
This will never be as good as dedicated device. What many fail to understand though is that 95% of the people are never going to use the features inside those cameras so the end result will look as good as if it was shot with a cell phone. The comment you are replying to is a pointless exercise. For that poster it was good enough for them.
Most will not tread though the thick booklets and they will not bother to navigate through the UI looking for the correct settings much less know what the best settings in a situation are. They have no idea what is a macro in relation to photography, know what an RGB histogram is or even know what an ISO is. If you attempt to teach them all they'll ask you is "How do I take a picture?"