Mike FL: Lars Rehm;
While you do "Lab test", can you please add an real camera such as Canon S120 (and even a RX100-3) into the Lab DB for comparing to Phone cameras.
By doing so, we can have some reference for IQ, especially High_ISO / LOW_light IQ.
" can you please add an real camera such as Canon S120 (and even a RX100-3)" - do phones have imaginary cameras? there are already references for IQ, they're called "other phones."
Jim Evidon: I usually avoid phone reviews on what used to be a digital camera site, but I decided to take a look at the review.
What I find is that digital phones are now where digital cameras were 10 years ago. As far as I can see, the only use for digital cameras in hand held phones is (1) use it if you need to catch the freeway accident you pass when your real camera isn't handy; i.e, it's probably better than nothing...a debatable point point. And/or (2) it's good for those people that really could care less about photography and like to engage in narcissistic exercises like taking selfies. Blech!
"My 11 year old DSLR still takes way better photos than any modern phone." - and for the last 11 years you don't take your dslr everywhere
Photato: Motorola is now a Chinese company.Google sold it to Lenovo last year.
and this is irrelevant to the image quality of the camera.
sportyaccordy: I still think an array of smaller sensors would work better. 4 1/2.3" sensors adds up to 1 1" sensor. Plus you would be able to get much more resolution and probably more light transmission by breaking up each sensor to a color (i.e. CMYK). Would be cheaper to make and more versatile than this as well. Just a matter of time
you're laboring under the delusion that you're the first one who came up with this or it hasn't already been prototyped before. and like every armchair scientist, you don't put your money where your mouth is. so unless there's a product using this concept, with a performance and price tag that competes with what's out there, you're just pulling numbers out of thin air.
you seem to know everything about sensor quality and cost from reading this graph, why don't you educate the engineers that do this for a living with your brilliant cost saving idea, then. while you're at it, explain to them that there's nothing special needed to make the sensors work together.
you can also argue that multiple small batteries yielding the same total volume would be cheaper than an equivalent larger battery. how many cameras actually do that?
your simplistic assumptions do not hold up to the real world.
"smaller sensors are cheaper to make than larger ones" is not the same as "many small sensors in the same camera are cheaper than a large one".
"a monochromatic sensor yields more resolution and is less susceptible to optical issues" is not the same as "several monochromatic sensors in the same camera yields more resolution and is less susceptible to optical issues"
your fallacious generalization has no proof.
your point is that your idea hasn't been implemented because manufacturers can be dumb or shortsighted?
consider the opposite thought - "a single sensor would work better than an array of sensors. it would probably be able to get more resolution and be cheaper to make, manufacturers producing this would earn profits today because they can be smart and farsighted. "
the difference between that statement and your idea is that yours has no proof.
you haven't proved your argument
"They can be very dumb/shortsighted" - and that's why you're the genius who's going to out-invent all the camera manufacturers
RRJackson: I shouldn't say anything, but you can work with whatever lens you can mount.
If you've got a prime that doesn't distort too much or suffer from really bad fringing you can make due with it for a lot of situation, almost no matter what the focal length. As long as you don't need 7 feet for the minimum focus distance.
If you have a 90mm f/2.8 Macro and it's your only lens you'll learn to make it sing for you, even if the angle of view seems a little tight.
Or the opposite; people walk around with an iPhone with a lens that has the same effective angle of view of a 30mm lens on a 135-based camera and most people never give it a second thought. That's what they have and they use it.
why stop there? get a lens that covers 4 x 5 and take some great photos, maybe someday you'll be able to afford a more capable camera.
joe6pack: I don't understand why smartphones need to get thinner and thinner. Just look at all those people who bought iPhones and the double the thickness with a case. My cheap smartphone is much thinner.
manufacturers make many kinds of phones, period. there are many to choose from. for people who want this set of features, it's available for them. if it's not for you, there's no need to bray and compare what you own just to justify your purchase.
Chris Noble: I get a kick when I see "Kodak" or "Zeiss Vario Sonnar" (hint: Sony lenses) or any other of the myriad of 20th-century brand names which have been licensed to Asian manufacturers, and then reviewers who assume there is some inherent product quality simply because the name has been licensed.
what you say about the range of Asian quality isn't incorrect. however, you can't speak for someone else's thoughts when the question is a simple yes or no.
nothing you said is wrong, but nothing you said confirmed or rejected the idea of an upgrade path
Cathy2015: Hi, I am planning a trip on January 12th and I don't know what I should use as a camera for the trip: my good old Panasonic Lumix DMC-TZ5 or my new iPhone 6 plus. Even though the iPhone 6 plus is much newer, it seems to me that the good old Lumix is still a better camera.
What would you use as your camera for great pictyres if you were me: the iPhone 6 plus or the Panasonic Lumix DMC-TZ5?
I really have no clue about cameras and I have no idea what all the spec mean :(
I'd appreciate some opinions (please).
F - you're not responding to Cathy, she didn't ask you any of those questions.
cathy - what kind of trip are you taking? what did you end up using for your trip?
zodiacfml: for the sake disagreeing, there are people who already have old lenses with them that they're itching to use on a full frame digital camera. it's not even about the image quality.
if the so-called upgrade path is problematic and people struggle doing it, you are proving the myth to be correct.
just because there are people are doing it, it doesn't mean that point two is wrong
so you think there's an inherent lack of product quality simply because the name has been licensed to Asians?
what's your obsession with asking for things you don't really want? if you aren't interested in a 12mm phone with optical zoom, what are you even doing here?
you get your priorities straight. if you're interested in an optical zoom, then get one which features it. you said it doesn't matter to you how thick the phone is.