Megapixel camera phones WHY?

[Mweb]

sometimes i wish for a total seperation between cameras and phones. when i see some of the posts in the o2 x3 thread and some of the pictures this device (and others) produce i dont know whether to laugh or cry!!. any cheap £30 digicam would produce images far superior to these blurry blobs :lol: . i only ever use my camera/phones for wallpapers or MMS. i would not dream of making prints from a phone!! despite the fact Kodak is trying to push high ST machines to do just that?. Even if Samsung introduced tomorrow a 10 mp camera phone i would not want it. my simple VGA device will suffice for its intended pupose. if i want to ring someone i use my phone, if i want to take a DECENT picture i use my digicam. simple. ;)

[sunystory@hotmail.com]

I agree with you. But I think it is an arguable question. I do think that some camera phones are at the edge of low end digital camera. The only reason I go for digital camera is simply because it's cheaper, not because it's essentially better.
Have a look at this one.
2megapixel

Picture 1 (http://image.cetizen.com/bbs/gallery/200411/10995576560.jpg)

Picture 2 (http://image.cetizen.com/bbs/gallery/200411/10995511081.jpg)

These camera phones are of course much expansive than the digital camera at this range. The camera at this range is only at most 300 bugs, whereas these camera phones are close to 1000 bugs. (I hear pentax releasing *istDs, I would buy this one at 1000 bugs:))
But I must agree with you. I own S2300, 3megapixel camera phone. It is sufficiently good to replace one of my cameras called digimax V3 (not good, not bad digital camera at 3megapixel). I wish i owned the new S250 from samsung, 5megapixel. I saw the quality of this camera, and it was obviously better than some of the digital cameras I know, although the pricing should be just below low-end DSLR cameras lol. That's what made me to struggle to think whther I should buy a new lens or a camera phone:) I decided to go for a new lens, rather than a camera phone

[Mweb]

The exterior shot is the best i have seen from a phone!! eons better in quality than what is available over here. but i dread to imagine how much that device would retail at over here? which takes me back to the point of cost effectiveness?.

[sunystory@hotmail.com]

mweb6161, yeah, that's why i have to agree with you. The price of this phone is too expansive at this moment. Perhaps when the price falls down, i think it will be a hot debate of whether absorbing the low end consumer digital camera market or not

[Karim]

1 megapixel phones such as 7610 and S700 only use this resolution for marketing. Big public will buy it "just" because it has a better camera than older phones.

[Ayush]

i buy camera phones because they're useful. who here would take their digital camera with them everywhere they go. on the other hand ppl have their phones everywhere. so with a phone camera they can seize every opportunity they get to take a photo.

[ajamils]

i buy camera phones because they're useful. who here would take their digital camera with them everywhere they go. on the other hand ppl have their phones everywhere. so with a phone camera they can seize every opportunity they get to take a photo.

I completely agree with u... the reason why I would spend money of an expensive camera phone is because of the convinience. cuz u never know when some hot girl might pass by :lol:

[xzibit]

Would never use my camera phone as a main camera. For example going on holiday, I would take my digital camera for photos.

The only reason why I want a good quality camera phone, is that occaisionally you come across something you want to capture when you don't have a camera on you, and the better reproduction of the image your phone can do, the higher the possibility you can tell what it is.

For example, I've taken pics on my T630, and when showing people, they question what it is.

[Fisher]

Oh you never know, cell phones might catch up with camera phones. The only big concern I see is requiring too much memory for both phone and camera functions.

[n0iz3]

yeah man, but have you ever seen a clear day photo of a Sharp for example ?
i think u can easily print photos from a GX30. they`re clear, u can`t compare that to the o2...

[WesleyW.]

I really dont care if a phone got an internal digital camera. If i really want to make pictures, I would use my digital camera.

Just wanna buy this one. Cost around ?275 and is very little, only 89x59x26 (same as a cell phone)
http://img.dpreview.com/reviews/images/pentax_optios50.gif

The only thing were an internal digital camera is good for, is when you really want to take a picture of something. But how many times would that be? Like once a month? I know, i am carrying a lots of devices, my PDA, Cell phone, MP3-player and Digital Camera. But i dont think it's a hugh different. My digital camera is always at home, only when i know, i will use it, than i will carry it. Same for my PDA. And I only take my MP3-player with me, if i travel longer than 30 minute.

And be honest, will you buy yourself a digital camera? I think the answer would be yes. I definately would. If I want to make pictures, I need good pictures, not rubish.

[Memzee]

Cameraphones are for opportunistic photos, you always have your phone with you, so when you see something you want to take a picture of, you can immeadiately. Unless you're a photgrapher by proffession, or you're really into photography, most people don't carry cameras around with them unless they go sightseeing, or on holiday, or whatever. The point is that the only time anyone would carry a camera with them was if they intended to take a photo, if you see something and you want to take a quick picture of it, that's when cameraphones are handy.

I think phones don't need resolution greater than 2MP really, 3MP max. At least until optical zoom and autofocus becomes common.

[marklv]

VGA is worse than useless, so I don't agree that 1MP is too much. Digicams are now moving towards a standard of 5MP, with a range of 3MP at the lower end and 7MP at the higher end (more for SLRs), so in my opinion a cameraphone with a 2MP CCD as standard would be ideal.

I don't think optical zoom is a realistic option for a cameraphone because it increases the weight and bulk of the unit quite substantially.

[Memzee]

marklv, there are already two phones from Samsung that have optical zoom but they're only available in Korea. The CPW Coming Soon section seems to say that we'll be seeing a similar model in January for the GSM market.

[hiappy]

I don't think optical zoom is a realistic option for a cameraphone because it increases the weight and bulk of the unit quite substantially.

In addition, I think more features of a camera on a phone makes it more fragile or prone to damage by accidentaly sit on the phone.

[ThreeX]

sometimes i wish for a total seperation between cameras and phones. when i see some of the posts in the o2 x3 thread and some of the pictures this device (and others) produce i dont know whether to laugh or cry!!. any cheap £30 digicam would produce images far superior to these blurry blobs :lol: . i only ever use my camera/phones for wallpapers or MMS. i would not dream of making prints from a phone!! despite the fact Kodak is trying to push high ST machines to do just that?. Even if Samsung introduced tomorrow a 10 mp camera phone i would not want it. my simple VGA device will suffice for its intended pupose. if i want to ring someone i use my phone, if i want to take a DECENT picture i use my digicam. simple. ;)

That´s a big, fat AMEN to that! I can assure you and everyone else that if i had the choice to get the model i wanted without the cam, i would kindly ask the salesman to insert the camera module up his poop-chute
And to those "capture the moment" guys: Fair play to ya, but i´d rather memorize the moment and make a drawing at home than have a picture i have to guess what it´s a picture of ;)

[Ghibli]

i´d rather memorize the moment and make a drawing at home than have a picture i have to guess what it´s a picture of ;)
Oh please, phone cameras aren't that bad. :insane:

[WesleyW.]

Oh please, phone cameras aren't that bad. :insane:

Yes it is. The only good thing you can say of phone cameras, is it can take pictures, that's all. The big problem of phone cameras is that it has tiny lenses. You need to have big lenses to take good pictures. Because big lenses can absorb more light. So if they are still producing phone cameras with tiny lenses, you cannot make good pictures. I got a very cheap 3MP digital camera at home. When i take some pictures, is perfectly clear, really sharp en good colors. There is none of the phone cameras out of the market where you can say, it got a good colors, sharp pictures and clear. You can only say it makes better pictures than other phone cameras, but still it just cant compete to a real digital camera.

[Ghibli]

Well obviously phone cameras don't produce stellar images; few people are stupid enough to ditch their digital cameras for cameraphones. But they have come a long way and some cheap digital cameras take worse pictures than the best phone cameras.

Phone manufacturers do not develop megapixel phones because people need exceptional picture quality from their phones, but just so they can stay in the mobile race.
It's simple. Sharp produces 1MP phone. Therefore, Siemens and SE must produce 1.3MP phones. Not to be outdone, Mitsubishi unveils 1.3MP phone with interpolation to 2MP. If any of these phones used VGA cameras instead, it'd be no more pointless than it already is. But, would you rather buy a VGA camera phone, or a megapixel phone for the same price? You sure don't need the megapixel camera, but it would be nicer than a VGA one.

If there was only one manufacturer, we'd probably still be stuck with b/w screen phones. Megapixel cameras are the product of competition between phone brands.

[Mweb]

Well obviously phone cameras don't produce stellar images; few people are stupid enough to ditch their digital cameras for cameraphones. But they have come a long way and some cheap digital cameras take worse pictures than the best phone cameras.

Phone manufacturers do not develop megapixel phones because people need exceptional picture quality from their phones, but just so they can stay in the mobile race.
It's simple. Sharp produces 1MP phone. Therefore, Siemens and SE must produce 1.3MP phones. Not to be outdone, Mitsubishi unveils 1.3MP phone with interpolation to 2MP. If any of these phones used VGA cameras instead, it'd be no more pointless than it already is. But, would you rather buy a VGA camera phone, or a megapixel phone for the same price? You sure don't need the megapixel camera, but it would be nicer than a VGA one.

If there was only one manufacturer, we'd probably still be stuck with b/w screen phones. Megapixel cameras are the product of competition between phone brands.
In absolute terms they are still not very good though are they? which was my point in the first place! ;)

[Memzee]

OK, I think we can all agree on this:

'Cameraphones aren't good enough to replace digital cameras, but are good enough to capture unexpected kodak moments.'

OK? ;)

[WesleyW.]

OK, I think we can all agree on this:

'Cameraphones aren't good enough to replace digital cameras, but are good enough to capture unexpected kodak moments.'

OK? ;)

I can agree with it. It's like girls making pictures of them self with a webcam. :lol:

[saliquincer]

mweb6161,
I prefer go for Sony DSC-P150 :D flat & stylish with 7.2 mpxl effective...
also Im waitn' for some new 2.1 mpxl camera phones in 2005. :D
specially successor of S700 and P1000.

[Memzee]

I don't think we'll see an upgrade to the S700i for a while, I think a downgrade (smaller version) is on the cards though. Possibly with a VGA camera and smaller screen maybe.

[saliquincer]

Memzee,
i think 3Q of 2004 !!!
but S500 .. about first Q of 2004.

[Memzee]

Yes, if that's what they're called. :)

[Daywalker]

OK, I think we can all agree on this:

'Cameraphones aren't good enough to replace digital cameras, but are good enough to capture unexpected kodak moments.'

OK? ;)

U have got it spot on ;) although i do like the sound of the 5mega pixel camera phone :D just a shame that the (UK) is always so far behind we are only just getting 2 MP

[Sweaty Bottom]

I agree with you. But I think it is an arguable question. I do think that some camera phones are at the edge of low end digital camera. The only reason I go for digital camera is simply because it's cheaper, not because it's essentially better.
Have a look at this one.
2megapixel

Picture 1 (http://image.cetizen.com/bbs/gallery/200411/10995576560.jpg)

Picture 2 (http://image.cetizen.com/bbs/gallery/200411/10995511081.jpg)

These camera phones are of course much expansive than the digital camera at this range. The camera at this range is only at most 300 bugs, whereas these camera phones are close to 1000 bugs. (I hear pentax releasing *istDs, I would buy this one at 1000 bugs:))
But I must agree with you. I own S2300, 3megapixel camera phone. It is sufficiently good to replace one of my cameras called digimax V3 (not good, not bad digital camera at 3megapixel). I wish i owned the new S250 from samsung, 5megapixel. I saw the quality of this camera, and it was obviously better than some of the digital cameras I know, although the pricing should be just below low-end DSLR cameras lol. That's what made me to struggle to think whther I should buy a new lens or a camera phone:) I decided to go for a new lens, rather than a camera phone



wat 3 megapixel phone is it...and is it possible to use it in the UK?

[Lowrider]

1 - I never carry cameras, even on vacation, (only did that while my kids where small), I can buy postcards or download pictures of any location any time...

2 - My phone is always in my pocket, so I can take pictures I could never with a camera...

3 - Good camera phones are not expensive, my Sharp 902 costed 200 euros plus some points...

[skillhata]

i think cameraphone technology was such a big jump. and by that i dont mean it in a goood way. to have phones that will hit the UK with 2MP and optical zoom already is a bit far ahead IMO. it wouldve been better to start releasing megapixel camera's probably in august - to let technology evolve bit by bit.
i would personally never buy a phone with optical zoom-but would buy a phone with 2 MP cam possibly in the near by future . i already own a 1.3 - and i am sattasfied as i will ever be with it

[Lowrider]

I dont see the problem of having optical zoom already, on the contrary, now I agree the software is not as good as it should in my 902, particularly it takes ages to focus...

[sidneylopsides]

I use my S700i for capturing the moment type shots, and it's much easier to use that than carry my camera around. The prints are repsectable at 6x4, they don't look much different than from a proper camera unless you look closely, but just as a picture are ok.
If I want to take proper pics I use my camera.
The thing with the lenses is interesting, you do get larger front lenses on digicams with zoom, but look at a fixed focal length cheap cam and the aperture is about the same, the sensor size in the same in some digicams and cameraphones too. It's the mechanics of zoom and focusing that takes up more space, and the small size leads to lenses with more distortions. Look at the S700i having corner softness, the GX30 has barrelling and the 6630 has vignetting (dark corners) all because of the limits of small, fixed lenses and apertures.

[Memzee]

sidneylopsides, I agree. Manufacturers need to concentrate on improving accuracy rather than resolution.

[sidneylopsides]

I had an idea of replacing the lens in the S700i to see if it could be improved, I may try when it stops being my main phone. I found two possible alternatives. :)

[Karim]

an idea of replacing the lens in the S700i
BAD idea :eek:

[sidneylopsides]

Why would that be? :p It won't be till I get Clara or something so it won't be as important anyway :)

[hiappy]

I dun see why sidneylopsides shouldnt replace the lens if sidneylopsides has the money ;)

[Amirul Rasyid]

I agreed..sometimes when I spot somethings..I can capture it to my cameraphone..Its like a spontaneous reaction

[Ghibli]

I've just experienced the true usefulness of cameraphones.:)

Last weekend, while my aunt and I were driving back to Singapore from Malaysia, she accidentally hit a car ahead, and there was some bumper damage to our car.
With her Siemens S65, she could take a picture of the bumper and send it to her mechanic, who then advised her what to do next depending on the extent of the damage. It was immensely useful.:)

[iron_mike010]

i would even dream of printing photos taken with phone!!!

i'd only email them to people or whatever

[sidneylopsides]

A good qualit 1.3Mp picture will look ok printed at 6x4. The S700i prints some decent ones anyway.

[klankymen]

really, they should be working on phonecams with better focus, instead of trying to up the resolution. i mean look at sharp 902, its great for not moving shots if you leave a little focus time, but id much rather have a nice sharp (no pun intended) VGA pic of some kind of an action (say a jumping snowboarder, or a sign out of a moving car window)

[sidneylopsides]

The problem is that you have to start sacrificing something for size.
The problem you get on most, like the one described in the last post is not focusing, but movement.
When the camera is that small you have a very short focal length, which means you need a small aperture, which means less light, which means longer shutter speed which leads to motion blur.

Aperture size is a problem as that affects the depth of focus, a large aperture has a small depth of focus and a small aperture has a larger one. Depth of focus is the distance from the lens that the image appears in focus. Nearly all cameraphones are fixed focus so there is a fixed distance for optimal focus.

Say you have two identcal cameras, one at F2.8 and one at F8, both fixed focus at 2m. The one at F2.8 will say have a focus range of 1.9m to 2.4m and the one at F8 might be from 1m to 5m. This means that generally a fixed focus and aperture camera would havea smaller F number to get a better depth of focus. The problem there is that a smaller aperture means you get less light into the camera, meaning you have to have a longer shutter making movement more likely to cause blurring. The F2.8 camera might expose for 1/100th of a second and the F8 might be around 1/15th

The S700i is F4 which means it has good depth of focus but lets less light in making for longer exposures, the Sharp camers seem to be the same, the GX30 doesn't tell you though and I'm not sure about the 902. The D500 is F2.6 which give loads of light but smaler focus range, the 6630 is F2.8 but the lens isn't too good, giving noticable vignetting (dark corners).

[Lowrider]

Good post, I see you know photography, I have done some serious stuff myself, but quit long ago...

[astral]

its true i always use my cell phone...soo the camera is usefull...
i got my nokia 6630 and the camera is awesome...1.2 megapixel....


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v124/tcfan/01202005003.jpg

[Mweb]

In view of recently introduced 2 megapixel cameraphones i would just like to restate my original opinion that WHATS THE BIG DEAL?, bearing in mind also that my favourite device does not even have a camera in it (8910i)

[saliquincer]

I dont think we wont see any high-end-class phone without camera !!!
these camera phones will kill digital cameras very soon !
SAMSUNG SCH-770 is the leader ...

[TRicks.]

I dont think we wont see any high-end-class phone without camera !!!
these camera phones will kill digital cameras very soon !
SAMSUNG SCH-770 is the leader ...

For phone cameras to have the quality of a normal digital camera - there so much that needs to be sacrificed to the extent that it no longer works well as a phone.

I d always prefer two serperate devices - each excelling at what they do best and phone cameras are just a novelty in my eyes...I ll use it for snaps that I ll never print out but as wallpaper or Photo ID. :rotate:

:)

[sidneylopsides]

I'd like to have something with me all the time that I could use to snap shots good enough to print, and also to listen to music too. The K750i is going to be close to doing this perfectly for me.
I'm getting more and more certain that the camera module is based on the one found in the Sony DSC-U30/40 ultra compact cameras, the lens specs are almost identical, and even the picture size is the same at a rather odd 1632x1224.
I do have a proper digicam but it's rather large so I don't always carry it with me. I do always have the S700i with me though and I take alot of pictures with it.
Ideally i want the K750i with a 2 or 4GB Duo in it, then that will be all I need to carry most of the time. :)

[Evilkern]

Problem is, camera fones use plastic(or similar) lenses, these don't allow for the same sort of detail as your standard compact camera lens. The optics on digital compacts are far superior than mobile phone ones. However to make the phone optics better, it has to be made bigger. The current technology has to be further developed to allow for one, all purpose device which will be your camera, phone,camcorder,laptop etc.

[Phoenix81]

The problem is that you have to start sacrificing something for size.
The problem you get on most, like the one described in the last post is not focusing, but movement.
When the camera is that small you have a very short focal length, which means you need a small aperture, which means less light, which means longer shutter speed which leads to motion blur.

Aperture size is a problem as that affects the depth of focus, a large aperture has a small depth of focus and a small aperture has a larger one. Depth of focus is the distance from the lens that the image appears in focus. Nearly all cameraphones are fixed focus so there is a fixed distance for optimal focus.

Say you have two identcal cameras, one at F2.8 and one at F8, both fixed focus at 2m. The one at F2.8 will say have a focus range of 1.9m to 2.4m and the one at F8 might be from 1m to 5m. This means that generally a fixed focus and aperture camera would havea smaller F number to get a better depth of focus. The problem there is that a smaller aperture means you get less light into the camera, meaning you have to have a longer shutter making movement more likely to cause blurring. The F2.8 camera might expose for 1/100th of a second and the F8 might be around 1/15th

The S700i is F4 which means it has good depth of focus but lets less light in making for longer exposures, the Sharp camers seem to be the same, the GX30 doesn't tell you though and I'm not sure about the 902. The D500 is F2.6 which give loads of light but smaler focus range, the 6630 is F2.8 but the lens isn't too good, giving noticable vignetting (dark corners).

Well, you are right but in cameraphone with very tiny sensor size, shallow DOF is not that serious issue. You can get sharp picture even when using the widest aperture e.g. f2.8. The pics below are taken with two camera with different sensor size at the same aperture.

Digital Compact ( IXUS 430 ) at focal lenght 22.2mm (equal to 108mm film equivalent)
http://www.pantip.com/cafe/camera/topic/O3343147/O3343147-3.jpg

Canon EOS 20D at focal lenght 68mm (=108mm)
http://www.pantip.com/cafe/camera/topic/O3343147/O3343147-4.jpg

You can see that at the same setting the smaller sensor camera gives deeper DOF. So in common cameraphone with much smaller sensor compare to digicam, you don't have to worry about DOF. It's very sharp even wide open.
http://www.pantip.com/cafe/camera/topic/O3343147/O3343147-6.jpg

[sidneylopsides]

True enough, the effect is lessened, and as most camera phones are fixed at somewhere roughly around 35mm in 35mm photography, it reduces the effect even more.

[Memzee]

I look forward to the liquid lenses being implemented. They're much smaller and allow for optical zoom without all the mechanical bulk needed using the existing method. (It's basically a thin transparent membrane in a liquid suspension that warps according to the voltage that's placed across it I think).. I'll try and find a link.

[sidneylopsides]

They're are made by a French company, Varioptic I belive. It is quite a simple idea, the lens contains water and an oil, they naturally stay apart and form a curved interface between the liquids. Applying a charge causes the curvature to be affected, changing the optical properties allowing for focusing. For zoom it does still require extra lenses but is very compact.