SmartCameras are the answer

Started Jan 30, 2013 | Discussions thread
ryder78
Contributing MemberPosts: 546
Like?
Re: dedicated cameras which are smart are the answer to better mobile photography
In reply to dholl, Feb 3, 2013
Reading helps:

dholl wrote:

The disadvantage of phone cameras is that their output is poor, and that there is no real control over the images you create, other than post-processing them to within an inch of their life (becoming not photography, but digital art).

The idea of "connecting" photographers on-the-go is a good workable concept. It won't grow if all it offers is poor image quality.

Solution: proper cameras to offer internet-connection as standard. With their 3" touchscreens fully able to "connect" just like any smartphone. Even phone calls will be possible, thanks to a speaker/mic combo, and an external headphone/mic connector.

Advantage: we finally start seeing some decent photos round here.


Well, I have gone through that earlier. It's just that I fail to comprehend the intention of this post and what you're trying to achieve by bringing camera phones into the picture and your posts here on DPReview on the dismal output of smartphones and the constant criticism on their performance and IQ in photography.

FWIW images can be shared on the forums by almost any cameras from compacts to DSLRs and full-frames. Hence I don't really understand on your remark that we will only start seeing some decent pictures here when proper cameras come with internet-connection as standard. People have been posting wonderful pictures here taken by "proper cameras" that don't come with wifi. As a matter of fact most camera manufacturers have included wifi as a standard feature in few of their P&S models. Having more smartcameras in the market doesn't relate to having more decent photos on the forum.

From the tone of your post above, what I think is you regard smartphones as a poor photography tool, and that the awful images from these phones do not deserve a place on this forum as much as the higher quality output offered by "proper cameras".

I am not sure on the actual definition of "proper cameras", whether it's defined by type(full-frame, DSLR, mirrorless or compacts), or sensor-related(full-frame, APS-C, four-thirds, 1", 1/1.7" etc.). If you are referring to compacts, in my view the difference in IQ between the better smartphones and P&S cameras in good light is minimal. I believe I have mentioned this before here in my reply to your thread on Open Talk several months ago - the Nokia Pureview 808's IQ in both good light and low light is superior to P&S cameras costing up to about $350. In good light, most smartphones offer comparable IQ to P&S in the $200-$350 price range. Even if there is a difference, it would be quite subtle, and I wager that most would fail a blind test to identify smartphones from P&S cameras just by looking at a set of images taken in good light. The differences will come down to white balance as the clarity, saturation and sharpness will usually be quite close among these devices.

I have said this many times before and looks like I'll be repeating myself here. Personally I don't feel the IQ of most smartphones(in good light) are poor or dismal. As a matter of fact most of them take nice and decent pictures comparable to P&S cameras up to around $250. The 808's IQ is comparable or better than most of the better compacts due to its large 1/1.2" sensor.

If you are referring to DSLRs or full frames when you mentioned "proper cameras" then your comment on the poor output of smartphones is comprehensible. Still, I don't regard the output or IQ of smartphones in good light to be poor or awful. Perhaps mediocre at their worst level. I guess people sometimes tend to exaggerate things.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow