Reading mode: Light Dark

Camera Phones vs. DSLR...which is better?

Go to last post
That would only be true if all or even most buyers were as informed as you and me and even knew what image quality was. Most buyers just waltz into a store and pick what looks cute and fits in their budget,
Apollux said:
You know what is funny? A couple of days before the article came
out I was killing some time in the mall and saw a new electronics
store been installed. The owner and his staff where there
acomodating the merchandise and whatnot.

I enter the store and ask for their digital cameras, he (the owner)
explain that most of them are still on storage elsewhere, but there
a few already in the store. Among these few there was this tinny,
and I do mean TINNY, little 3MP point and shoot from Phillips.
Looked amazing and the prize was almost too good to be true. I
asked the owner for a test drive of the camera, so I turn it´s
flash off and take some images on the mall corridor.

Back into the store we downloaded the images to their office
computer. Let me tell you, the first thing that came to my mind was
"this is really BAD image quallity, a Cell Phone could take better
pictures".

So yes, if the trend continues not far into the future cell phones
will be stealling serious sales from the low end point and shoots.
Then we will be left with SLRs, serious compacts and cell phones,
and nothing else.
Click to expand...
 
J A K said:
Drebeler said:
J A K said:
"NT" means no text.
Click to expand...
Also known as (n/t or N/T).

The complaint button is the RAT button.
I don't use it. Do you, Joe?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
All I know is that "EASY" button does NOT work ....

And ... where the heck is the "ANY" key on my computer keyboard ???
J A K said:
J A K said:
~~~~~~~~
Drebeler.
Click to expand...
I've used it twice (when I smelled cheeze). :-)

Regards,

Joe Kurkjian, Pbase Supporter

http://www.pbase.com/jkurkjia/original



SEARCHING FOR A BETTER SELF PORTRAIT
Click to expand...
--
Thanks for reading .... JoePhoto

( Do You Ever STOP to THINK --- and FORGET to START Again ??? )
 
3. Depth of Field
4. Stabilization: passive weight and room for optical stabilization
5. interchangeable lenses gives more choices (shift lens)

in fact, there are no fundamental differences if we allow cell phones to be any size. Also, you specify image "quality", but these are functional differences that are just as important.

-m
Eric Fossum said:
OK, brain trust, give me 5 fundamental technical reasons why DSLRs
are better than a mere camera phone in terms of image quality.
Here is a running start.

1. Larger pixel size = better dynamic range
2. Better optics (NOT bigger optics)
3. ?
4. ?
5. ?

-Eric
Click to expand...
 
I have to admit I am impressed by the quality of the photo from the N95. I nearly got that phone. Now I am miffed that I didn't.

Obvioulsy camera phones will never be as good as a DSLR. But when I go to work or hang out with my mates, I don't want to lug a DSLR and several lenses with me. Something like the N95 might even eliminate having a cheap P&S camera in my bag, as I have a mobile with me anyway.

It's a bit chunky, but the picture quality really is impressive, especially compared to the Ixus, which doesn't come free with a contract.....
 
I was trying for two hours to make a phone call with my DSLR, but I just couldn't figure out how to do it.

Then I tried the camera phone, and in only ten seconds I was connected and talking on the phone.

A pathetic performance from the DSLR.
 
No Contest!!

Camera phones are like point and click cameras for estate agents. Yes their technology is improving but there will always be a gap as the cost per component will always be less. I have seen the results with Nokia N95 and great 'For a phone' are limited. A good digital camera with a reasonable sensor with wait for it 'OPTICAL zoom lenses or a range of 'Prime' lenses always a winner - NO CONTEST!!
 
Eric Fossum said:
Glenn NK said:
If someone doesn't know why a DSLR is better than a cell at taking
pictures, then explaining it is pretty much a waste of time.
Click to expand...
Glenn, that is funny, given my background. I was hoping to uncover
some fundamental issues from the brain trust out there.

Put another way, what is stopping us (those of us in the camera
module business) from making a DSLR-quality camera phone?

Do you have any useful input?
-Eric
Click to expand...
I will apologize for having derided the concept because making a DSLR-quality camera phone is quite possible - in fact it can be done. Whether or not the result will be what you want may be another matter.

Perhaps by the time you get the image quality AND versatility of a cell phone to that of a DSLR (lenses, flash, tripod mount, filter mounts, etc) , it will be the size of a Canon 5D.

By the time you modify a Volkswage Beetle so it can function as a logging truck, it will be the same size as the logging truck. One could add a cell phone to a camera with less weight and size gain than adding a quality camera to a cell phone.

It comes down to size AND versatility. It doesn't appear that lenses with both quality and versatility will be coming down in size any time soon. If it was possible, then it would be done already because the savings in materials and manufacturing costs would be enormous, and would confer an enormous economic advantage to the manufacturer.

Lenses are not electronic devices; they are optical devices and can't be continually scaled down. In fact, as lenses have been getting better, they have been getting bigger. A f/2.8 lens must be larger than a f/4 lens in order to gather more light.

The key difference between camera phones and DSLRs is versatility for a given level of image quality. One must choose what level of quality and versatility one needs/wants. The vehicle can't be both a Beetle and a logging truck and function well at both tasks.
--
Glenn NK
Victoria, BC

30D + 24/105 + 17/55 + 100 f/2.8 macro + Tokina 12/24 + Kenko tubes + 500D closeup lens + Manfrotto 486RC/190 + Lightroom
 
Glenn NK said:
Lenses are not electronic devices; they are optical devices and
can't be continually scaled down. In fact, as lenses have been
getting better, they have been getting bigger. A f/2.8 lens must
be larger than a f/4 lens in order to gather more light.
Click to expand...
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0505/05052401thin_lens.asp

"Scientists at Canada's Universite Laval have invented a lens that is five times thinner than a piece of paper and can zoom without using mechanical parts. The lens is created by adding a small quantity of photosensitive material to a liquid crystal cell. When a weak electrical current is applied, the crystals realign differently from those in the periphery and thus take on the shape and behavior of a lens. The researchers have been able to modify the lens’ focal distance from 1.6 to 8 meters in a few milliseconds by increasing the voltage from 1.5 to 4.5 volts."
Glenn NK said:
The key difference between camera phones and DSLRs is versatility
for a given level of image quality. One must choose what level of
quality and versatility one needs/wants. The vehicle can't be both
a Beetle and a logging truck and function well at both tasks.
Click to expand...
Indeed. There will probably always be larger cameras that serious photographers will have good reasons for wanting to use (be the reasons image quality, versatility, speciality, ergonomics or whatever). Nonetheless, smaller consumer level cameras (including increasingly the ones in phones) will continue to become more and more suitable to the needs of ordinary people who just want decent images (with no great demands on lens speed or focal lengths etc) and minimal hassle.

It's difficult to speculate what fundamental limits there might ultimately be on how far, for example, camera phones can progress, IMHO. Who knows what technological revolutions may await?

--

 
Glenn NK said:
It comes down to size AND versatility. It doesn't appear that
lenses with both quality and versatility will be coming down in
size any time soon. If it was possible, then it would be done
already because the savings in materials and manufacturing costs
would be enormous, and would confer an enormous economic advantage
to the manufacturer.

Lenses are not electronic devices; they are optical devices and
can't be continually scaled down. In fact, as lenses have been
getting better, they have been getting bigger. A f/2.8 lens must
be larger than a f/4 lens in order to gather more light.
Click to expand...
Actually, lenses are geometric objects, and as a colleague of mine has pointed out, it you scale the lense perfectly, then it continues to work the same, give or take diffraction effects. The problem of course is manufacturing perfect tiny lenses. If you can make nearly perfect tiny lenses and you can control their motion, says with MEMS technology, then the performance can be quite good. However, due to financial constraints (e.g., a camera phone lens needs to cost less than $2.) the number of elements is limited to 3 or 4, and there is no real room to add coatings etc.

I am not sure why you say an f/2.8 lens must be larger than a f/4 lens? You must be thinking about keeping something else constant, like focal length, because I can show you itsy bitsy f/2.8 lenses.

So, as the image sensor size scales down, focal lengths shrink and lens diameters shrink, and in fact, we typically aim for an f/2.8 lens as the constant of scaling, along with FOV.

-Eric
 
As lenses get smaller and smaller, the size of imperfections (we don't live in a perfect world) become more significant. This relates to the geometry of lenses (which are still physical objects).

My comment about an f/2.8 lens being larger than a f/4 lens of course assumes all other things being equal. As you get smaller, then the lens gets smaller - and the problem noted above kicks in.

The "paper thin" lenses noted by a previous poster holds promise perhaps, but the same technology will apply to DSLRs too, not just camera phones.

Camera phones are still stuck with trying to be everything to everyone - which seldom works in any endeavour.
--
Glenn NK
Victoria, BC

30D + 24/105 + 17/55 + 100 f/2.8 macro + Tokina 12/24 + Kenko tubes + 500D closeup lens + Manfrotto 486RC/190 + Lightroom
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

HicHic
Can a Pixel phone outresolve a G9ii with a Pro lens?
2 3 4
Replies
63
Views
19K
HicHic
HicHic
K
Phones with the cleanest high res photos- questions and comparisons
Replies
11
Views
6K
Drzewoid
D
O
Photography versus mobile story telling
Replies
6
Views
5K
Ferenc MOGOR
Ferenc MOGOR
Edgar_in_Indy
We need a "light quotient" to replace meaningless megapixels and confusing 1/x.xx sensor sizes.
2 3 4
Replies
75
Views
25K
Edgar_in_Indy
Edgar_in_Indy
Paulalikescameras
Your phone is most likely not outputting JPEGs in sRGB, making sharing photos worse
Replies
3
Views
4K
ZorSy
Z

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top