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.
Interesting, but it doesn't actually answer the question or get very close to it either.
I don't know the answer either, but I do know there are new liquid lenses that might do the trick without taking up too much space, but it's pretty leading edge stuff. Not likely ready for engineering into actual devices.
Interesting, but it doesn't actually answer the question or get very close to it either.
I don't know the answer either, but I do know there are new liquid lenses that might do the trick without taking up too much space, but it's pretty leading edge stuff. Not likely ready for engineering into actual devices.
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.
There are companies that sell add on lenses that provide fixed zoom optics. When I saw it, I thought, OK, if I wanted a real camera I should buy a real camera.
P.S., I did once have success holding the iPhone camera up to the eyepiece of a refractor telescope.
If in fact the iPhone 5 will have an 8 MP camera, we can take it as a given that Apple believes that there are substantive improvements over the 5 MP camera provided in the iPhone 4, and that they'll describe those advantages in some detail when the new model is rolled out.
Apple doesn't just play the "feature and spec" game like some of its competitors, instead focusing steadfastly on improvements that make the real-life user experience measurably better. We can look to the Retina Display in the iPhone 4 as an example.
So in what what ways will the camera experience be better for iPhone 5 users? It will be interesting to see how Apple explains and demonstrates that at the upcoming product rollout.
Interesting, but it doesn't actually answer the question or get very close to it either.
I don't know the answer either, but I do know there are new liquid lenses that might do the trick without taking up too much space, but it's pretty leading edge stuff. Not likely ready for engineering into actual devices.
Actually, we do know the general answer.
If other smartphone manufacturers were using optical zoom lenses in their devices, we'd know that there were commercially viable parts. Also, we'd probably know the quality of said camera units based on rants and/or raves about the images taken with such handsets.
Since there isn't a preponderance of optical zoom equipped cameras in smartphones, the answer is that the technology isn't there yet, at least not in a commercially viable manner. I'm pretty confident in saying that if there were an optical zoom smartphone camera lens module, at least one company other than Apple Inc. would be using it, regardless of the possibly crappy image quality.
It will be years before that liquid lens technology makes its way to consumer photography. Most likely it would show up in some high-end point-and-shoot models or SLR lenses first. It looks promising though in a pretty demoware/vaporware sort of way.
So Apple is putting an 8MP camera in the iPhone 5? Really? My 3 year old Sony C905 Cyber-shot has an 8.1MP camera. The current Sony phones have at least a 12MP camera with tons of features. Why is Apple doing so little to lead the market with the iPhone 5, camera-wise??? I guess this is to be expected. I like my iPhone 4, but the hardware in it is mediocre and even the iPhone 5 really won't be that cutting edge at this point. \
Uh, smartphones don't have the same amount of free space as regular point-and-shoot cameras do.
Also, photography isn't the primary purpose of a smartphone, so manufacturers need to make some hard decisions about how much they will let a CMOS sensor costs, keeping a watchful eye on the Bill Of Materials.
With a camera, the manufacturer can allocate more of the BOM to the sensor.
I will point out that Sony-Ericsson is operating at a loss so maybe they should spend less money on camera sensors. They might be making nice handsets (although they don't seem to top the customer satisfaction rankings) but they should consider doing so in a profitable manner. It would make their shareholders happier.
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.
Optical zoom requires many compromises: size, complexity, expense, and performance.... No zoom lens will optically outperform a fixed focal length lens. That's why there are still fixed focal length lenses.
This is a candidate for post of the year. I'm surprised people would continue to argue the point.
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.
More glass means more aberrations, more surfaces for light to reflect off and a host of other ills. For a zoom getting all the corrections correct, across the zoom range, is a significant challenge even with computers.
On the otherhand cell phone cameras are so marginal and the lenses so small that the quality difference might not be noticable. After all if you have a crappy sensor and lens, would a significantly worst zoom be a problem.
This is a candidate for post of the year. I'm surprised people would continue to argue the point.
There are or have been some pretty bad fixed focal length lenses out there. Yes the norm is for prime lens to out perform zooms but there are always exceptions to the rule.
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.
They're not a mile away. They are far, but it's more like photographing an athlete in a sports stadium. And they're shooting with 400mm, 500mm or 600mm lenses, frequently with an extender that makes the lens double that length.
In addition, they're not using an optical zoom (which electronically zooms). They're using an actual physical zoom where the lens elements move.
Optical zooms give terrible results, because in essence, it's a crop. And in a cell phone camera, you're already dealing with the tiniest sensor imaginable. It's a miracle they're as good as they are.
And by the way, higher mega pixel counts in such a small sensor will give INFERIOR results, especially when not shooting in bright light. The reason is that when the photosites on the sensor are so close together, they heat up. And that heat causes noise at high ISOs (low light). Camera makers increase the mega-pixel count solely for marketing purposes, because most idiots think more is better. ("Mine is bigger than yours.")
They're not a mile away. They are far, but it's more like photographing an athlete in a sports stadium. And they're shooting with 400mm, 500mm or 600mm lenses, frequently with an extender that makes the lens double that length.
In addition, they're not using an optical zoom (which electronically zooms). They're using an actual physical zoom where the lens elements move.
Optical zooms give terrible results, because in essence, it's a crop. And in a cell phone camera, you're already dealing with the tiniest sensor imaginable. It's a miracle they're as good as they are.
Optical zooms give terrible results, because in essence, it's a crop.
You're getting "optical" and "digital" zoom mixed up. Digital zoom is a crop, but optical zoom is not. It uses the optics, i.e. glass, to zoom in on the subject. There's no cropping involved. And yes, it will also degrade the image compared to a prime lens. Unless, of course, you're comparing a good zoom to a crappy prime.
I'm looking forward to the 8 megapixel sensor. Sensor technology is a developing area, so it's not necessarily going to be worse than the existing 5 megapixel sensor in the iPhone 4. The 13 megapixel sensor in my Panasonic GH2 blows away the 6.3 megapixel sensor in my old Canon D60.
And by the way, higher mega pixel counts in such a small sensor will give INFERIOR results, especially when not shooting in bright light. The reason is that when the photosites on the sensor are so close together, they heat up. And that heat causes noise at high ISOs (low light). Camera makers increase the mega-pixel count solely for marketing purposes, because most idiots think more is better. ("Mine is bigger than yours.")
Improvements in software and changes to the A/D conversion make a big difference here, along with various cooling methods. Some manufacturers have done things like put the sensors in a low power mode until they're about to take a picture just to mitigate heat buildup. You really need more information to know what the net effect to the end result will be here.
Ever process raw camera files manually? If you look at the results from a quality image processing software today, they're different in quality and output resolution from what you would have gotten a few years ago. I could process out the same files and the difference would would be immediately obvious, so quality isn't dictated solely by how many pixels they cram onto a chip. You need to see the end result.
To the comment about sony, they have a lot more experience with camera design than apple.
Comments
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.
Interesting, but it doesn't actually answer the question or get very close to it either.
I don't know the answer either, but I do know there are new liquid lenses that might do the trick without taking up too much space, but it's pretty leading edge stuff. Not likely ready for engineering into actual devices.
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.
I think you're confused. It degrade quality compare to prime len which is used in all iPhone.
Edit: to be clear, if you're thinking about digital zoom, to me there's no such a thing. It's just a good name for "crop & enlarge".
Interesting, but it doesn't actually answer the question or get very close to it either.
I don't know the answer either, but I do know there are new liquid lenses that might do the trick without taking up too much space, but it's pretty leading edge stuff. Not likely ready for engineering into actual devices.
That technology AFAIK is still in its infancy.
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.
There are companies that sell add on lenses that provide fixed zoom optics. When I saw it, I thought, OK, if I wanted a real camera I should buy a real camera.
P.S., I did once have success holding the iPhone camera up to the eyepiece of a refractor telescope.
Apple doesn't just play the "feature and spec" game like some of its competitors, instead focusing steadfastly on improvements that make the real-life user experience measurably better. We can look to the Retina Display in the iPhone 4 as an example.
So in what what ways will the camera experience be better for iPhone 5 users? It will be interesting to see how Apple explains and demonstrates that at the upcoming product rollout.
Interesting, but it doesn't actually answer the question or get very close to it either.
I don't know the answer either, but I do know there are new liquid lenses that might do the trick without taking up too much space, but it's pretty leading edge stuff. Not likely ready for engineering into actual devices.
Actually, we do know the general answer.
If other smartphone manufacturers were using optical zoom lenses in their devices, we'd know that there were commercially viable parts. Also, we'd probably know the quality of said camera units based on rants and/or raves about the images taken with such handsets.
Since there isn't a preponderance of optical zoom equipped cameras in smartphones, the answer is that the technology isn't there yet, at least not in a commercially viable manner. I'm pretty confident in saying that if there were an optical zoom smartphone camera lens module, at least one company other than Apple Inc. would be using it, regardless of the possibly crappy image quality.
It will be years before that liquid lens technology makes its way to consumer photography. Most likely it would show up in some high-end point-and-shoot models or SLR lenses first. It looks promising though in a pretty demoware/vaporware sort of way.
Also, photography isn't the primary purpose of a smartphone, so manufacturers need to make some hard decisions about how much they will let a CMOS sensor costs, keeping a watchful eye on the Bill Of Materials.
With a camera, the manufacturer can allocate more of the BOM to the sensor.
I will point out that Sony-Ericsson is operating at a loss so maybe they should spend less money on camera sensors. They might be making nice handsets (although they don't seem to top the customer satisfaction rankings) but they should consider doing so in a profitable manner. It would make their shareholders happier.
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.
Agreed
Optical zoom requires many compromises: size, complexity, expense, and performance.... No zoom lens will optically outperform a fixed focal length lens. That's why there are still fixed focal length lenses.
This is a candidate for post of the year. I'm surprised people would continue to argue the point.
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.
We all have to start somewhere... and thanks for the welcome, a nice touch.
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.
last week I shot an elephant in my pajamas. how he got in my pajamas... i don't know.
it was by the viaduct. Vy a duck? Vy not a chicken?
ask chico.
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.
More glass means more aberrations, more surfaces for light to reflect off and a host of other ills. For a zoom getting all the corrections correct, across the zoom range, is a significant challenge even with computers.
On the otherhand cell phone cameras are so marginal and the lenses so small that the quality difference might not be noticable. After all if you have a crappy sensor and lens, would a significantly worst zoom be a problem.
This is a candidate for post of the year. I'm surprised people would continue to argue the point.
There are or have been some pretty bad fixed focal length lenses out there. Yes the norm is for prime lens to out perform zooms but there are always exceptions to the rule.
I believe most fixed focal length lens cell cameras don't even focus.
Software sharpening is not the same as focusing.
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.
They're not a mile away. They are far, but it's more like photographing an athlete in a sports stadium. And they're shooting with 400mm, 500mm or 600mm lenses, frequently with an extender that makes the lens double that length.
In addition, they're not using an optical zoom (which electronically zooms). They're using an actual physical zoom where the lens elements move.
Optical zooms give terrible results, because in essence, it's a crop. And in a cell phone camera, you're already dealing with the tiniest sensor imaginable. It's a miracle they're as good as they are.
And by the way, higher mega pixel counts in such a small sensor will give INFERIOR results, especially when not shooting in bright light. The reason is that when the photosites on the sensor are so close together, they heat up. And that heat causes noise at high ISOs (low light). Camera makers increase the mega-pixel count solely for marketing purposes, because most idiots think more is better. ("Mine is bigger than yours.")
They're not a mile away. They are far, but it's more like photographing an athlete in a sports stadium. And they're shooting with 400mm, 500mm or 600mm lenses, frequently with an extender that makes the lens double that length.
In addition, they're not using an optical zoom (which electronically zooms). They're using an actual physical zoom where the lens elements move.
Optical zooms give terrible results, because in essence, it's a crop. And in a cell phone camera, you're already dealing with the tiniest sensor imaginable. It's a miracle they're as good as they are.
Proof reading is your friend.
Optical zoom will degrade picture quality.
Never heard of that. It's digital zoom that degrade picture quality.
Optical zooms give terrible results, because in essence, it's a crop.
You're getting "optical" and "digital" zoom mixed up. Digital zoom is a crop, but optical zoom is not. It uses the optics, i.e. glass, to zoom in on the subject. There's no cropping involved. And yes, it will also degrade the image compared to a prime lens. Unless, of course, you're comparing a good zoom to a crappy prime.
I'm looking forward to the 8 megapixel sensor. Sensor technology is a developing area, so it's not necessarily going to be worse than the existing 5 megapixel sensor in the iPhone 4. The 13 megapixel sensor in my Panasonic GH2 blows away the 6.3 megapixel sensor in my old Canon D60.
And by the way, higher mega pixel counts in such a small sensor will give INFERIOR results, especially when not shooting in bright light. The reason is that when the photosites on the sensor are so close together, they heat up. And that heat causes noise at high ISOs (low light). Camera makers increase the mega-pixel count solely for marketing purposes, because most idiots think more is better. ("Mine is bigger than yours.")
Improvements in software and changes to the A/D conversion make a big difference here, along with various cooling methods. Some manufacturers have done things like put the sensors in a low power mode until they're about to take a picture just to mitigate heat buildup. You really need more information to know what the net effect to the end result will be here.
Ever process raw camera files manually? If you look at the results from a quality image processing software today, they're different in quality and output resolution from what you would have gotten a few years ago. I could process out the same files and the difference would would be immediately obvious, so quality isn't dictated solely by how many pixels they cram onto a chip. You need to see the end result.
To the comment about sony, they have a lot more experience with camera design than apple.