Posted by Paul DeCesare on July 11, 2013 at 11:39 PM
Today Nokia announced their 41mp camera phone. A 41mp phone with a sensor as small as a corn flake with a lens the size of a pea. Whatever.
Engadget says it has 6 Carl Zeiss "lenses". They mean elements. Should be better than a standard point n shoot I would think, except for higher end ones like the G15.
BTW, are point & shoots dead yet? Camera phones can at least do that with on board processing and an internet connection. Still with a lens the size of a pea and the low-noise capability of a UHF TV with a hanger for an antenna.
Thank you for tuning into another episode of me feeling ornery and tired of marketing pushing false ideas about what's useful.
Hey Paul - That camera is the second phone Nokia has made with a 41 MP sensor... the previous was called the PureView, and (I think) was only available outside the US. And I'd disagree about the usefulness of lots of pixels. Sure, each one gets noisy, but overall noise in an image is largely based on the sensor size, not the pixel size. The default mode for the PureView is to down-res the 41MP to an 8 MP image. Plus it's a modern, back-illuminated sensor, which helps. Overall, it should yield good medium-res photos with the capability to generate really high-res stuff in good light.
Basically, if they can keep the overall efficiency and speed up, you're always going to be better off with more pixels than less. That's why you're seeing things like the D800, which is fairly noisy per pixel, but has so many of them it doesn't really matter. (The D800 is pretty close in pixel level noise to something like a D300, or about 2 stops worse than a D3S). I'm actually a little surprised at this point that someone hasn't released an APS-C SLR with 40-60 MP.
So if the pixels are decent (which they likely are in comparison to other tiny sensor pixels) and the camera electronics can keep up with the number of them, I think it's a great idea. Samples I've seen compared to other smartphones seem to bear this out as well - it does very well. Here's a link to DxOMark's mobile phone page, which has the PureView on top (granted they are rating more than just the sensor).
That page also includes a graph showing the change occurring from P&S cameras to phones... per your other question.
I used to carry a point n shoot ultra-compact in my pocket all the time. I had several, wearing them out after a couple of years. I didn't carry a cell phone. Finally, when it was time to replace my latest ELPH, I got an iPhone. Its camera isn't great in image quality, control, and user interface, but it gets the job done. I don't even go running for my spouse's rebel when a snapshot opportunity presents itself. I just whip out the ol' iPhone. Like I said, it's not as good a camera as most point n shoots I've used, but when the optical viewfinder went extinct in the ultra-compacts, why not use a smart phone? I use the phone camera less than I used to use a point n shoot pocket camera, but I really think I've bought my last pocket camera.
Regarding point n shoot cameras, I think one of the last big differences is whether you want a zoom or not. Zooming on a cell phone doesn't do much for me,but you can still get a cute little zoom lens on the point n shoots. I've got a little bitty Canon that has quite a good zoom on it; it's much, much better than my cell phone.
Taking a little bit of a different tack, here, but I see these camera phones as a 'dumbing down' of photography to the lowest common denominator. It's truly sad to observe that seeing and critical thinking are giving way to expediency and a detachment from the wonderful things the world has to offer.
I see these camera phones as a 'dumbing down' of photography
I've seen some pretty good photos by iPhonagraphers. It's amusing to see people walking along the beach and from time to time holding up their tablet to take a snapshot of a shorebird. But the 'photography dummies' who can't make a decent snapshot with their smart phone, couldn't do it with a point n shoot either.
Don't you think a market will persist for sub-SLR cameras that have features such as optical zoom and exposure control that aren't available on phones?
Discussion
6 repliesEngadget says it has 6 Carl Zeiss "lenses". They mean elements. Should be better than a standard point n shoot I would think, except for higher end ones like the G15.
BTW, are point & shoots dead yet? Camera phones can at least do that with on board processing and an internet connection. Still with a lens the size of a pea and the low-noise capability of a UHF TV with a hanger for an antenna.
Thank you for tuning into another episode of me feeling ornery and tired of marketing pushing false ideas about what's useful.
Over and Out!
Basically, if they can keep the overall efficiency and speed up, you're always going to be better off with more pixels than less. That's why you're seeing things like the D800, which is fairly noisy per pixel, but has so many of them it doesn't really matter. (The D800 is pretty close in pixel level noise to something like a D300, or about 2 stops worse than a D3S). I'm actually a little surprised at this point that someone hasn't released an APS-C SLR with 40-60 MP.
So if the pixels are decent (which they likely are in comparison to other tiny sensor pixels) and the camera electronics can keep up with the number of them, I think it's a great idea. Samples I've seen compared to other smartphones seem to bear this out as well - it does very well. Here's a link to DxOMark's mobile phone page, which has the PureView on top (granted they are rating more than just the sensor).
That page also includes a graph showing the change occurring from P&S cameras to phones... per your other question.
I used to carry a point n shoot ultra-compact in my pocket all the time. I had several, wearing them out after a couple of years. I didn't carry a cell phone. Finally, when it was time to replace my latest ELPH, I got an iPhone. Its camera isn't great in image quality, control, and user interface, but it gets the job done. I don't even go running for my spouse's rebel when a snapshot opportunity presents itself. I just whip out the ol' iPhone. Like I said, it's not as good a camera as most point n shoots I've used, but when the optical viewfinder went extinct in the ultra-compacts, why not use a smart phone? I use the phone camera less than I used to use a point n shoot pocket camera, but I really think I've bought my last pocket camera.
--P
I've seen some pretty good photos by iPhonagraphers. It's amusing to see people walking along the beach and from time to time holding up their tablet to take a snapshot of a shorebird. But the 'photography dummies' who can't make a decent snapshot with their smart phone, couldn't do it with a point n shoot either.
Don't you think a market will persist for sub-SLR cameras that have features such as optical zoom and exposure control that aren't available on phones?