Who needs a video or still camera these days.

[relate22]

I may be coming to the party a bit late but I just saw some video a mate of mine shot using his Mobile phone Nokia N8 that blew me away. The video quality is equal to my Panasonic TZ7 camera.

I then thought well video is easier to shoot than stills then I found some photos from the N8 and when you look at them full size, again amazing.

I know all the purists will say, there is no zoom, etc etc but it really does make me think about having a pocket camera or just a Nokia N8.

Video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KVrqMQtXAPk&feature=player_embedded

Stills.

http://www.nokia.com.au/find-products/all-phones/nokia-n8/gallery#galleryTab=device-content
--
http://www.pbase.com/reelate2
http://www.pbase.com/relate2
What flying means to me.
http://vimeo.com/2598837
Flying highlights
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0lRu3P15BaY
My Youtube Channel http://www.youtube.com/user/relate2#p/u

 

[hotdog321]

Got to admit I enjoyed the video!

 

[emiceek]

Thanks for the heads up. Just threw away all my stuff and am heading out in the morning to get one.

 

[archiebald]

I may be coming to the party a bit late but I just saw some video a mate of mine shot using his Mobile phone Nokia N8 that blew me away. The video quality is equal to my Panasonic TZ7 camera.

I then thought well video is easier to shoot than stills then I found some photos from the N8 and when you look at them full size, again amazing.

I know all the purists will say, there is no zoom, etc etc but it really does make me think about having a pocket camera or just a Nokia N8.

Video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KVrqMQtXAPk&feature=player_embedded

Stills.

http://www.nokia.com.au/find-products/all-phones/nokia-n8/gallery#galleryTab=device-content

It really depends on how high or low your video watching and stills standards are.

Phone cameras are convenient and great for posting on you tube or on a web site, but would you really want to watch the output on a 40 or 50 inch screen, or an A3 size print hanging on your wall?

Personally I am fed up with the P&S image quality and have moved into DSLR for stills and video because the results I can get please me.

 

[relate22]

I have played my 720p video from my Panasonic TZ7 through a 46" plasma and it looks brilliant.

I guess it comes down to two things.

1. Do you want to capture memories or pixel peeping images.

2. How much money to you have to throw around.

If you have the money to indulge your hobby go for it. If your Mr or Mrs average the new crop of mobile phones are in picture quality ahead of even some early DSLRs of 10 years ago.
--
http://www.pbase.com/reelate2
http://www.pbase.com/relate2
What flying means to me.
http://vimeo.com/2598837
Flying highlights
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0lRu3P15BaY
My Youtube Channel http://www.youtube.com/user/relate2#p/u

 

[beshannon]

Who needs a still camera these days?

I do.

--
My photos http://brianshannon.smugmug.com/
My photo blog http://brianshannonphotography.blogspot.com/
My Flickr stream
http://www.flickr.com/photos/brian_shannon_photography/

 

[Chato]

If you have the money to indulge your hobby go for it. If your Mr or Mrs average the new crop of mobile phones are in picture quality ahead of even some early DSLRs of 10 years ago.
--

Really? You do realize that those were not "user shots?" They were carefully prepared, air brushed out, publicity shots.

Now I can post images from my ten year old SLR that are a million years ahead of these, and I can post images from any one of a dozen compacts I've owned which blow all these images away - Many of them well older than 10 years.

But thanks for the link. On another thread someone passed some of these SAME images off as user shots. No offense to you, but that guys a liar.

Dave
--
"Everyone who has ever lived, has lived in Modern Times"

 

[relate22]

I may have overstated it when I said it was better than 10 year old DSLR's but I would say equal.

Not that I believe those official Nokia photos are air brushed, I don't think Nokia would risk the backlash of false advertising.

Here is a photo specifically marked untouched.



--
http://www.pbase.com/reelate2
http://www.pbase.com/relate2
What flying means to me.
http://vimeo.com/2598837
Flying highlights
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0lRu3P15BaY
My Youtube Channel http://www.youtube.com/user/relate2#p/u

 

[Chato]

I may have overstated it when I said it was better than 10 year old DSLR's but I would say equal.

Don't kid yourself...

Not that I believe those official Nokia photos are air brushed, I don't think Nokia would risk the backlash of false advertising.

I know at least one of them is airbrushed.

Here is a photo specifically marked untouched.

That image is probably the best image I've seen from Nokia. Certainly better than the iphone 4.

Take a look at the left fire hydrant connector. Can you see the detail that is smudged away?

Here's a shot from a Canon 540, released in 2005 for the immense price of $119...



I would say the Nokia has a long way to go before it can even match this image. Note the detail in the forground. Flaws and all it dusts the Nokia.

But look, Aside from "quality" how do these cell phones deal with movement?

Mind you, I will be happy to admit that even a cell phone camera is better than no camera at all. On the other hand I carry a camera with me at all times.

Cell phones are more or less useless in low light.

Care to tell me how it would do in a Boiler Room, in a dank and dirty basement with almost no light?

Close crop, Canon 540



100 percent crop



Another image from a basement



Dave

--
http://www.pbase.com/reelate2
http://www.pbase.com/relate2
What flying means to me.
http://vimeo.com/2598837
Flying highlights
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0lRu3P15BaY
My Youtube Channel http://www.youtube.com/user/relate2#p/u

--
"Everyone who has ever lived, has lived in Modern Times"

 

[Richard Homeyer]

medium format has advantages of over aps-c which has advantages over point and shoot cameras and higher end point and shoot cameras have advantages over cheaper ones.

Are there cameras out there that some of these high end camera phones can beat? Sure. The nokia n8 has a carl zeiss lens, a 1/1.83" images sensor and basically a full function computer to control it. That gives it the potential to possibly outperform quite a few compact cameras that use 1/2.5" sensors. Its pretty impressive for a phone and gives it a fighting chance to beat out most point and shoot cameras as it basically has the same thing built in. It of course helps make it smaller since its 28mm f2.2 only. If you can live with no zoom, then you probably have a pretty good competitor for point and shoot cameras. Competing with a dslr, not a chance any more than a point and shoot could. Fyi point and shoot cameras do have their advantages over a dslr like getting a decent zoom range and a fast lens with good depth of field (unless you want shallow dept of field). What do you think the average dslr user would say if you told them they could only have one lens and it was a 28mm f2.2?

I have a sony v1 (5MP so not a lot of pixels to peep there, lol) that in its time was a great camera. I kept using it till I got a dslr (that retails for about 200$ less with kit lens) and haven't touched it since. I'm sorry but being able to shoot anywhere from 18mm to 1000mm (better on either end with a loss in image quality) has its advantages. I would like to see that nokia phone compete with my dslr and a 50mm 1.7 in a average not so brightly lit room. I'm betting the advantage would start to sway to my camera.

You know what I do still use though. My 150$ olympus camera (takes really nice pics, fits in a pocket, has twice the resolution of my dslr etc). It got its purposes and gets used despite the fact that I have a dslr, but my dslr can do a lot it can not.

The question is, do you need and would you use more than the phone camera can provide? If not, then you are probably not going to see the advantages of a dslr (or even a point and shoot) over a phone.

 

[Chato]

medium format has advantages of over aps-c which has advantages over point and shoot cameras and higher end point and shoot cameras have advantages over cheaper ones.

Are there cameras out there that some of these high end camera phones can beat? Sure. The nokia n8 has a carl zeiss lens, a 1/1.83" images sensor and basically a full function computer to control it. That gives it the potential to possibly outperform quite a few compact cameras that use 1/2.5" sensors. Its pretty impressive for a phone and gives it a fighting chance to beat out most point and shoot cameras as it basically has the same thing built in. It of course helps make it smaller since its 28mm f2.2 only. If you can live with no zoom, then you probably have a pretty good competitor for point and shoot cameras. Competing with a dslr, not a chance any more than a point and shoot could. Fyi point and shoot cameras do have their advantages over a dslr like getting a decent zoom range and a fast lens with good depth of field (unless you want shallow dept of field). What do you think the average dslr user would say if you told them they could only have one lens and it was a 28mm f2.2?

I have a sony v1 (5MP so not a lot of pixels to peep there, lol) that in its time was a great camera. I kept using it till I got a dslr (that retails for about 200$ less with kit lens) and haven't touched it since. I'm sorry but being able to shoot anywhere from 18mm to 1000mm (better on either end with a loss in image quality) has its advantages. I would like to see that nokia phone compete with my dslr and a 50mm 1.7 in a average not so brightly lit room. I'm betting the advantage would start to sway to my camera.

You know what I do still use though. My 150$ olympus camera (takes really nice pics, fits in a pocket, has twice the resolution of my dslr etc). It got its purposes and gets used despite the fact that I have a dslr, but my dslr can do a lot it can not.

The question is, do you need and would you use more than the phone camera can provide? If not, then you are probably not going to see the advantages of a dslr (or even a point and shoot) over a phone.

I have yet to see a phone camera perform in low light. Yet my digicams do.

I have yet to see a phone camera take pictures of action. Yet my digicams do. Admittedly, not well, but they do.

Obviously the quality of phone cameras has improved. But they are still for the purpose of taking "snapshots;" all well and good to take sanapshots, but I like a real camera, even the limited digicam machines.

Once you bring SLR's into the question, it becomes moot. How am I going to shoot sports and wildlife with a cell phone?

Dave
--
"Everyone who has ever lived, has lived in Modern Times"

 

[jrtrent]

I know all the purists will say, there is no zoom, etc etc but it really does make me think about having a pocket camera or just a Nokia N8.

How much money to you have to throw around. If you have the money to indulge your hobby go for it. If your Mr or Mrs average the new crop of mobile phones are in picture quality ahead of even some early DSLRs of 10 years ago.

Other than the fact that I hate wide angle lenses, I have no qualms about the picture quality of the camera phone--the information I've read and the sample pictures I've seen at the Nokia Conversations site are impressive--but I don't want to have a telephone with me all the time. My AT&T Trimline has worked flawlessly for me for many years, and it sits on my desk at home where it belongs. And speaking of throwing money away, current list price on that phone is $14.99 (though you can get it for less); the N8 you mention has a list price of $549 (though you can get it for less). And while it's been a while since I've checked service charges, mobile phone costs have been quite a bit higher than using a landline.

I have no complaints about my salary, but being a public school teacher means I don't have the sort of disposable income that lets me throw big bucks at a lot of different hobbies, and I'd rather spend my money on cameras than telephones.

 

[Richard Homeyer]

For someone that carries their phone with them all the time which many do, its a usable tool if you don't have a camera with you (better than nothing and usable to a point). I can think of times I didn't have a camera but did have a phone. It may be 600$ but people don't think about it that way. It probably cost about 100-150$ with contract and people don't see that they are actually paying 1000$ for it (increased service costs to pay for the phone). They see a 150$ device that is a pda, computer that can run software, phone, usable camera, gps, and whatever else. With the nokia the camera module cost about 31$ while the total cost of parts is about 190$ (that's just cost of parts to nokia). The camera modules are made by the same major camera companies that make our cameras. Its probably comparable to about a 150$ camera. It is well known that with small size comes compromises like higher price and lesser abilities. Completely leaving phones out of the equation, the smaller you try to make a camera (even an expensive one), the more trade-offs you make as far as abilities and performance. They have taken this to the extreme (keep in mind that a lot of the room in the phone is for other devices and the camera module is really quite tiny). Its got its place but its never going to compete with a real camera of larger size any more than a super sub compact camera could compete with a dslr. Its probably not going to compete with a larger 150$ camera and its not going to compete with a dslr at all. That doesn't mean it doesn't have its place but my take on it is its usable in a pinch if you don't have a camera with you.

Anyone that is saying that it can compete with larger more expensive cameras hasn't used and compared both or are not using their cameras to the extent that they have exceeded the abilities of the camera phone. They still have their place though.

 

[RedFox88]

And speaking of throwing money away, current list price on that phone is $14.99 (though you can get it for less); the N8 you mention has a list price of $549 (though you can get it for less). And while it's been a while since I've checked service charges, mobile phone costs have been quite a bit higher than using a landline.

You sound old, talking about a land line. Most people under age of 30 probably don't have a land line just like they're unlikely to have a non-moble desktop computer. They are the mobile generation.

And list prices of most mobile phones are higher - if bought on their own. But agree to a service contract and a $500 phone can cost $150 or $200.

I have no complaints about my salary, but being a public school teacher means I don't have the sort of disposable income that lets me throw big bucks at a lot of different hobbies, and I'd rather spend my money on cameras than telephones.

But to others, they use a phone for talking, texting, web surfing, photos far more each day than a camera. A camera that can only do photos. So to them a good modern phone is far more versatile and a better use of their money.

 

[ptodd]

And speaking of throwing money away, current list price on that phone is $14.99 (though you can get it for less); the N8 you mention has a list price of $549 (though you can get it for less). And while it's been a while since I've checked service charges, mobile phone costs have been quite a bit higher than using a landline.

You sound old, talking about a land line. Most people under age of 30 probably don't have a land line just like they're unlikely to have a non-moble desktop computer. They are the mobile generation.

I can remember hearing some speculation that in years to come, our grandchildren will say "what, you used to phone someone's house in the hopes that they'd be there?! Couldn't you just phone them?".

These days, I live with my parents and work from home. I have a phone on my desk, but it is very rare for someone to call me on it... ~98% of the time it's for my mum. I can pick up the phone almost before it's finished its first ring, but I work in the attic of quite a tall house... so doing so is likely to entail me having to first shout from my desk, then get up and search the house / garden...

The only reason I've ever had a landline when not living with my parents was for internet.

I don't use my mobile very heavily, either (at least, not for voice calls)... but the cost of using a mobile these days is fairly marginal in most circumstances. The cost of line rental of a landline here in the uk would cover quite a lot of mobile use...

--
Peter

 

[Bill Force]

OH, you mean I can't use your Swarovski 800 on my Nokia, how rude!
--

' You don't have to have the best of everything to get the best out of what you do have'.

 

[Chato]

OH, you mean I can't use your Swarovski 800 on my Nokia, how rude!

Have you seen all the adapters for the iPhone?

There are a couple which let you hook up an SLR lens, there's one that consists of a telephoto lens...

Why, the IQ I've seen beats the hell out of shooting with a lens cap on. Smooth detail, that without looking an an image for more than a minute or two, I can tell if it's a dog or a person. Buildings spring into life, so that I can actually tell if the shot was of a midtown skyscraper or a log cabin. I'm amazed at the quality!!!!

Dave

--

' You don't have to have the best of everything to get the best out of what you do have'.

--
"Everyone who has ever lived, has lived in Modern Times"

 

[jrtrent]

But to others, they use a phone for talking, texting, web surfing, photos far more each day than a camera. A camera that can only do photos. So to them a good modern phone is far more versatile and a better use of their money.

I'm sure it is, or they wouldn't spend their money on it. I happen to derive more use and pleasure from a camera that offers more features and versatility than the cameras built into portable phones.

You sound old, talking about a land line. Most people under age of 30 probably don't have a land line just like they're unlikely to have a non-moble desktop computer. They are the mobile generation.

I not only sound old, I look old, feel old, and think old. And yes, my computer is a non-mobile desktop model, as is the computer I use at work. As for me, I still get around, don't even need a cane yet; I just don't understand wanting to talk, text, web surf, etc., away from home. When I'm away from home, I'm at work, or church, maybe visiting family or friends, enjoying a museum, relaxing at the library or a public park, working on my game at the bowling alley, doing volunteer tutoring at the community center, etc., etc. In none of those circumstances do I desire to talk on the phone, and in most I would consider use of a phone inappropriate. Even my desk phone at home spends a great deal of time with its ringer turned off because I'm engaged in something I don't want to be distracted from.

I know mobile phones can be turned off, too, but people seem to take one's ownership of such a device as an implicit invitation to just call anytime. My dad, now 85, says the most common complaint he's gotten since starting to use a cell phone (which he leaves at home or possibly in the glove box of his car when he's out) is along the lines of, "What's the point of having a cell phone if I still can't get ahold of you?" The idea of being constantly reachable by phone, and I continue to be astonished at the situations and numbers of times I see people drop what they're doing to reach for some bleeping phone, seems more like an anchor than an aid to mobility, a restriction of freedom and independence rather than a liberating tool.

 

[Chato]

But to others, they use a phone for talking, texting, web surfing, photos far more each day than a camera. A camera that can only do photos. So to them a good modern phone is far more versatile and a better use of their money.

I'm sure it is, or they wouldn't spend their money on it. I happen to derive more use and pleasure from a camera that offers more features and versatility than the cameras built into portable phones.

You sound old, talking about a land line. Most people under age of 30 probably don't have a land line just like they're unlikely to have a non-moble desktop computer. They are the mobile generation.

I not only sound old, I look old, feel old, and think old. And yes, my computer is a non-mobile desktop model, as is the computer I use at work. As for me, I still get around, don't even need a cane yet; I just don't understand wanting to talk, text, web surf, etc., away from home. When I'm away from home, I'm at work, or church, maybe visiting family or friends, enjoying a museum, relaxing at the library or a public park, working on my game at the bowling alley, doing volunteer tutoring at the community center, etc., etc. In none of those circumstances do I desire to talk on the phone, and in most I would consider use of a phone inappropriate. Even my desk phone at home spends a great deal of time with its ringer turned off because I'm engaged in something I don't want to be distracted from.

I know mobile phones can be turned off, too, but people seem to take one's ownership of such a device as an implicit invitation to just call anytime. My dad, now 85, says the most common complaint he's gotten since starting to use a cell phone (which he leaves at home or possibly in the glove box of his car when he's out) is along the lines of, "What's the point of having a cell phone if I still can't get ahold of you?" The idea of being constantly reachable by phone, and I continue to be astonished at the situations and numbers of times I see people drop what they're doing to reach for some bleeping phone, seems more like an anchor than an aid to mobility, a restriction of freedom and independence rather than a liberating tool.

I agree. I don't own a cell phone and don't want a cell phone. When I'm working, the company gives me one, and it's certainly useful for that scenario.

I base my opposition on the Bible

John 12: 3

"Leaveth thy cell phone at the door, and trouble not they neighbors. God can reach you without a phone."

Dave
--
"Everyone who has ever lived, has lived in Modern Times"

 

[graybalanced]

Other than the fact that I hate wide angle lenses

I used to hate wide angle, as well, until I began to understand what they were valuable for and used them accordingly...

My AT&T Trimline has worked flawlessly for me for many years, and it sits on my desk at home where it belongs. And speaking of throwing money away, current list price on that phone is $14.99 (though you can get it for less); the N8 you mention has a list price of $549 (though you can get it for less). And while it's been a while since I've checked service charges, mobile phone costs have been quite a bit higher than using a landline.

It depends on how you use them. With all due respect, I detect some stuck-in-old-ways thinking, which I myself am sometimes guilty of. I am one of the last people in my circle of friends and family who still has a landline. The pricing structure I am more unhappy with is the landline. The basic cost of the landline is not so bad, but when I add the features I find useful, it's over $40 a month. And the problem is that the features I added (caller ID etc) are all included for free in a cell phone plan. My last voice-only cell plan was about $40. The only reason I pay more now is that I have a smartphone with an mandatory, though unlimited, data plan.

When I talked about stuck-in-old-ways thinking, what I means is that you are talking about a phone as something you only talk on. That is the 20th century view. That is how I use my landline. That is not how I use my cell phone. My cell phone is a portable computer that can assist me at all times. This is very powerful. It helps me shop (by telling me if there are better prices for the item I just scanned with the phone camera), it helps me find unfamiliar places in cities I've never been to before (with its GPS map), shows me where the traffic jam is so I can avoid it, it helps me communicate with people on multiple levels without having to open my mouth and bother other people (via typing a text message, Facebook, etc), and functions as a photographic portfolio book I always have on me, which has come in very handy. I used it to watch an Internet video that taught me how to upgrade my laptop's hard drive; of course I could not view it on my laptop because I was disassembling it! And that wasn't the first time I called up a video or online reference to guide me in something I was doing at any location and time. Or looked up some information we needed now, without having to go home first.

I am a strong believer in phone etiquette and will never interrupt a face-to-face conversation just because my phone silently vibrates. That is an issue of personal responsibility, not a property of the technology itself. But I appreciate very much the flexibility of being able to communicate without waiting to get home to check the answering machine, which is what I used to do until the last year of the previous century and seems so archaic now. Maybe your life isn't intertwined with others so much, and so all you need is a voice phone tethered to home. That's OK. But others benefit greatly from having a very capable, globally networked mini-computer in their hand. My friends and I are very socially active and mobile technology helps us get together face to face more often, not isolating us in tech bubbles like some think. Businesspeople obviously benefit, but I also see families using cell phones in much more meaningful and bonding ways than just me and my individual social life.

You can get an iPhone 3GS for $49. The camera is not great, but again, when used properly it can be useful, though no substitute for even my point-and-shoot. But countless people have demonstrated how it can be used to produce real art.