OPPO teases Reno device, shows 10x zoom samples

Right about "cell phone cameras have taken giant performance leaps in the last 5 years.". Even today's best and most expensive cameras can not compete with much old generation's QUALCOMM chipset. Take a look:

Here was QUALCOMM's camera features on its chipset released almost 5 years ago:

https://www.qualcomm.com/news/onq/2015/01/12/snapdragon-camera-features-add-dslr-effects-your-mobile-phone

Plus, SONY In sensor HDR for Mobile phone [I wish also see it on SONY's camera sensor soon] as seen for years:

https://www.sony-semicon.co.jp/products_en/IS/sensor1/technology/hdr-functions.html

Above function are executed on the chipset and sensor level, plus "tricks such as simulated DOF" which are executed by Google software relying on QUALCOMM powerful multi core processors.

FWIW, the recent released QUALCOMM chipset introduced & refined more features as processors are getting more powerful.

M43 has professional dimensions. Consumers want 16:9 or close to it so they can see their photos digitally.

deleted. Mis read comments

Wait, so it's bad to make generalizations about the Chinese, but then it's fine to make generalizations about how intolerant Americans are?

Seems a bit ironic.

continued....

I've been in Brazil for a few weeks now, and one of the really nice things about this country is the virtual absence of racism. There is such a wonderful mix of black, white and every shade inbetween, and the people here come from an extremely diverse range of backgrounds. It's impossible to walk down a street and to know whether the person next to you is Brazilian, Portuguese, Indian or African. It's a great feeling.

What makes you think all the intolerant comments came from Americans anyway?

Also, is "Chinese Companies" a race anyway? Or is it just a description of which country a company operates in? If they said "American Companies", would you assume it is culturally or racially intolerant?

The irony is most of the "crap" made in China was ordered by non-Chinese companies who wanted cheap crap to sell in their own country. Wal-mart is telling the company in China exactly what to make and at what quality spec. But so is Apple and Dell. When the company orders cheap garbage, that's what they get. When they order high end electronics, etc, that's also what they get.

@LoSPt1 How do you know Mike FL isn't talking about Huawei? Neither do I discern Mike FL making any statement of hate for communist countries.

It seems to me Mike FL is making the point that some Chinese companies outright and blatantly lie.

@Revenant, Too right! But some are worse than others.

@LoSPt1 Are you Chinese?

@Wye Photography, no I'm not. What made you think so?

What do you think is the wide end of that zoom? I'm thinking 160/5 = 32mm or so.

If its the same kind of 3x telezoom as the one in their 2018 prototype, it will be 53-159mm.

32mm for the wide end? I don't think so: it's much easier to build a normal-to-telephoto zoom lens than a wide-to-telephoto zoom and the lens, periscope or classic, is smaller.

If they took three primes and equal steps and digital zoom,
this need to be x2.15 steps.
Doable.
15-150mm ? (15mm, 32mm, 70mm, 150mm) or
24-240mm ? (24mm, 52mm, 111mm, 240mm)

The difficult bit for the software is to align the 3 images in such a way that the "joins" are not obvious.

Very difficult if there is fine detail at the overlap points.

It's promising, as the 3 images are shot simultaneously.

But time will tell.

There are three lenses and as many sensors:

- 16mm (equ.) prime lens in front of a 8MP sensor
- 24mm (equ.) prime lens in front of a 48MP sensor
- a periscope lens, either a telephoto prime lens (160mm equ.) or a telezoom (53-160mm equ. as in the 2018 prototype?) -the number of MP of the associated sensor is unknown.

"Very difficult if there is fine detail at the overlap points."

That's assuming an attempt to overlap is actually being made. Consider 3 different lenses, digitally zoomed up til the next lens size, then simply hands off to the next lens. Sure there will be some variation in quality during the computational range (that happens with optical zooms too) but we're pulling enough Mp for it to be feasible for moderate size images.

There are advantages because a fixed FL lens is easier to build and correct than a zoom, needs fewer elements and mechanical manipulation, easier to make better f stop, and is smaller in size.

For a cellphones, without extreme range requirements, this may actually result in improved performance over an actual traditional zoom. At least as far as a casual user is concerned.

For people who would probably not print many, and never see more than 8x10 in size, probably more than adequate.

jxh - You're forgetting that there will be optical aberrations (e.g. barrel or pincushion distortion) at the edges of the image produced by each lens. These will cause weird artefacts at the joins, whether or not the images overlap.

Also, there will be a (very) minor parallax difference between the 3 lenses, that would come into play at very close distances.

But yes, I agree that most users will view the resulting merged images at very small reproduction sizes (typically on a tablet, another phone, or as a small web image), so most of the target buyers probably wouldn't notice any minor artefacts.

I don't know who is talking about the diffraction limit. I didn't talk about when a phone isn't diffraction-limited. I said that it needs the same aperture diameter for the same theoretical performance (because smartphone tele cameras (or crops of them) are diffraction-limited.). Huawei's 80mm camera has an aperture diameter of ≈3.15mm, Apple has 2.5mm , so at 160mm equivalent a smartphone with a 3.15mm aperture diameter is equivalent to f/51.

You just did ("because smartphone tele cameras (or crops) are diffraction-limited"), which is not usually true.

So for the people who say that it doesn't make sense:
1. The Galaxy K Zoom has an aperture diameter of 7mm at 10x zoom. The Mate 20 Pro has ≈3.15mm. 7/3.15 = 2.2 , that's twice as large.
2 The K Zoom has an aperture diameter of ≈ 4.5mm at ≈150mm equivalent, that's 40% more than Huawei's 3.15mm.
3. A phone with an aperture diameter of 3.15mm (Huawei) or 2.5mm (Apple) is extremely (!!!) diffraction limited at 160mm equivalent or 240mm equivalent

Galaxy K Zoom is a clunky and chunky POS. Why are we trying to use it as a reference?

Why not? No other phone delivers such tele capabilities. It would be great, if a phone achieves the same thing without being "chunky". Of course it doesn't just need a larger aperture diameter, it also needs enough pixels or a good physical focal length, but that's obvious.

And by the way, of course the Galaxy K Zoom is diffraction-limited. At ≈150mm equivalent the K Zoom is equivalent to f/33 and at 240mm equivalent it is equivalent to f/35. So when the aperture diameter is smaller than the aperture diameter of the K Zoom, the same theoretical performance is impossible.

Diffraction isn't an all or nothing thing.

The effect is gradual, and it gets worse and worse and worse as you stop down more.

The f6.3 aperture of the Galaxy K zoom is very slow for a 1/2.3" sensor.

It remains to be seen if the aperture will be better or worse on this Oppo, given the shorter focal range and folded optics.

So predictions of theoretical performance are very premature...

"The effect is gradual, and it gets worse and worse and worse as you stop down more."
Yes, but there is always a limit how much you can resolve. You just might not notice it when the resolution of the sensor is not high enough. Every camera has a theoretical limit how much it can resolve (no matter how many pixels you have or how large the aperture is, there is still a limit). If the Galaxy K Zoom had a very sharp lens and good image processing, then the Oppo phone needs the same aperture diameter, otherwise the same amount of details (at a certain field of view) is theoretically impossible due to diffraction because the resolution of the Galaxy K Zoom sensor is significantly higher than its theoretical resolution limit.

Of course the theoretical performance would be only a little bit worse, if the Oppo phone achieves nearly(!) the same aperture diameter. I was talking about the same(!) theoretical performance. I never said that there is a huge difference when the aperture diameter is 100% the same or 99% the same, you guys have a powerful imagination :)

I bet Oppo doesn't know what diffraction is. The will a tiny sensor and a small aperture diameter, and be done with it. The main Target is to put "10x zoom" in the ad before somebody else produces the same stupidity.

The cameras in those phone cost no more than $30. What kind of R&D can be put in this cheap camera?

Actually I had Galaxy K zoom, and the quality was pretty good, even compared to modern day flagships.

Until they present full-size samples...

princecody:

No.

Small sensor, slow lens. Won't be able to shoot it at ISO 1000 or above.

entoman:

Not until that single device has a faster lens and can readily be shot at ISO 1600 will such devices touch the sales of cameras like the Sony RX100V or the Panasonic LX10, etc.

"The phone may also appeal to those who want to take discreet photos, as most "subjects" would ignore someone with a smartphone, while even a small "real" camera might attract more attention."

RXO.

RXO would attract less attention, but doesn't double up as a smartphone. Also it only has a tiny monitor, making it virtually useless for composition or for chimping.

Although the smartphone will have lower image quality, it looks more "innocent" when someone is looking at the screen, as onlookers would probably assume that the user was reading a message or looking at f***book.

It's too early to judge what the image quality of the phone will be like. It will obviously be inferior to the Sony, but might be plenty enough to satisfy the average person who just wants to post on flickr etc.

entoman:

But you didn't specify the double up part.

I look forward to seeing raws from this Oppo.

Simon Says,

Computational photography is unlikely to "solve" the problem of lowlight in 2020.

This periscope zoom is going to be very slow, which makes lowlight use a problem.

entoman:

Come on, and the 2021 version, can't touch a camera like the Panasonic FZ2000.
That has a 1 inch sensor and much faster lens.

Howabout RAW - I think you misunderstand the typical Panasonic buyer.

I know lots of people who have the FZ1000 or FZ2000, and a couple who own RX100 series cameras.

None of them are "photographers" - they are mostly "spotters" who want a quick record shot of a bird, animal, train or whatever.

None of them are concerned about high image quality.

As Xavios indicates above, there are a huge number of people who buy megazooms and are "not particularly interested in picture quality, only to preserve memories".

All they want is a small image to put on a website or share on social media.

They'd happily give up their megazooms in favour of a good zoom phone, and a 10x zoom would keep most of them happy.

entoman:

I don't think those FZ2000 users you cite are typical.

And even if they were, and they tried out this Oppo, they would react badly to the IQ from the Oppo's zoom in anything close to low light.

Why do you think all the compacts now are like 20x or more zoom? That's all they got!

tkbslc:

So you're not counting the RX100V as a compact right?

Not in this comparison no. But if you wanted to throw down a sick burn you should have used the Ricoh GR III.