Megapixels & Camera Phones 323
CEmongler writes "Consumer Electronics publication CoolTechZone.com tackles the integrated camera attachments in today's cell phones. According to the author, "The camera integration has in fact reached such a stage that any self-respecting phone would incorporate at least a megapixel camera. The cutting-edge feature to have though is the 2-megapixel variety. The question is: is it really worth the extra money you pay for it? Without getting into model-by-model comparisons, I am questioning the entire range of 2-megapixel camera phones. Are they really worth it?
For the most part, no."
Interface, interface, interface..... (Score:5, Insightful)
This of course is what the phone manufacturers are doing, buying commodity CCDs because that is what is being made. It is cheaper for them to spend an extra dollar or two on a higher MP count CCD rather than putting the development dollars on improving the user experience, interface or infrastructure.
This of course is because people respond to higher MP counts in the same way they like "bling". "Ooooh shiny things!" Come-on people! Put some effort into purchasing quality products that demand a bit more work and are functional for longer periods of time instead of purchasing things that you throw away after only a short time. It shows you are more discriminating, pushes companies to produce better products, is easier on the environment and gives you better quality goods that help to improve your life rather than clutter it up with junk.
Re:Interface, interface, interface..... (Score:5, Insightful)
Just like processor MHz when buying computer systems. It's a rough guide to speed, but there are other (often more important) factors. But it's so much easier to rate & quantize things when you can just pick a number and say bigger is better.
Re:Interface, interface, interface..... (Score:2)
It's the same with digital cameras
Old Argument (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Interface, interface, interface..... (Score:2)
Re:Interface, interface, interface..... (Score:2)
or even better....Best Buy listing the SpecInt and SpecFP of all the comps, and tell consumers to use that number instead of MHz/RAM.
Re:Interface, interface, interface..... (Score:2)
I had an older Kodak 5MP camera that was replaced (by gift) in September with a 7.2 MP camera. While the Kodak was older, clunkier, and didn't have as many megapixels, it still took better photos than the new camera which had a great review [dpreview.com] on the Digital Photography Review. I've seriously thought about going back to the older camera
As far as ph
Convenience (Score:2)
Re:Convenience (Score:2)
The times I have used it have been to "talk" to my wife, like before Thanksgiving she sent me to buy a Turkey, and I couldn't decide so I took pictures of two of them, and sent them to her and she told me which one to get.
Perhaps the turkey story isn't as interesting as having a camera just in case you see some bare breasts.. but hey...
Re:Interface, interface, interface..... (Score:4, Interesting)
In the end, you will not be able to ever get the same quality out from a tiny unit like on a camera phone as you get from an APS-sized fixed-lens or SLR-type one.
That said, I have both a DSLR and a 1.2Mp cameraphone and they both have their uses. The DSLR is more important of course, but I would not want to be without the cameraphone either. Even though I drag the big camera around most of the time, I still now and then find myself in situations where I didn't have it, or taking it out would have taken too long and drawn too much attention, or I just wanted to send a picture of something to my SO, and going via DSLR, computer and email was at least two steps too many and half a day too slow.
Re:Interface, interface, interface..... (Score:2)
LOL, yes indeed. Me too.
I still now and then find myself in situations where I didn't have it, or taking it out would have taken too long and drawn too much attention, or I just wanted to send a picture of something to my SO, and going via DSLR, computer and email was at least two steps too many and half a day too slow.
I carry around a small digital camera (Elph, but I'm looking at one of those super thin Sonys) with me for those times too as the qu
It's not about quality, duh! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It's not about quality, duh! (Score:3, Interesting)
Using crappy equipment is loads of fun.
Re:It's not about quality, duh! (Score:3, Interesting)
wouldn't be so sure about that. what if crappy cams like the one on your phone are the lomo of the future? [flickr.com]
My ideal GSM phone. (Score:2)
Re:Interface, interface, interface..... (Score:2)
Re:Interface, interface, interface..... (Score:2)
Re:Interface, interface, interface..... (Score:2)
At the very least we should be able to send the photo to the phone for viewing, or take the card from the camera and put it into the phone for viewing and sending, as is the case with Sony
Re:Interface, interface, interface..... (Score:3, Insightful)
I noticed with digital cameras I have used. A photo taken by a 0.5 MP camera at 640x480 produces a lower quality, and smaller file size than the photos taken at 640x480 on a 5 MP camera. The smaller size comes from the jpeg compression on a photo with more info in it. My theory is, a 5MP (with proper software, and a CPU to do the work) has much more information to truly get a average of what every individual pixel color tr
Re:Interface, interface, interface..... (Score:2)
You are forgetting one very important factor in digital camera's quality: The CCD. A CCD can hardly be summarized to its number of pixels. The amount of light needed to actually impress a good image on the CCD can vary tremendously, thus lowering the need for a stabilizer/flash with a good CCD.
Of course, there is a catch, which is that often the size of the CCD is directly proportional to its quality, wh
Article has a point, but... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Article has a point, but... (Score:2)
Slashbots that think the proper attire is one specialized device for each function needed (one mp3 player, one phone, one pda, one digicam...)? Just wait and read here... Should be the +5 posts.
Re:Article has a point, but... (Score:2)
Well I think the point is that the cameras built into phones - even with much-touted improvements - are still pretty crappy cameras in the grand scheme & so you *still* need to have a seperate digicam along with the phone. Why have one in the phone? If the phone's camera were good enough to be a primary camera then I agree with you - why have two devices when
Re:Article has a point, but... (Score:2)
It's used as my primary camera. For people of limited finances, not able to afford a EOS 350 or something, they work just fine.
Example: A rose - macr [deviantart.com]
Re:Article has a point, but... (Score:2)
Re:Article has a point, but... (Score:2)
and if I don't have my laptop but I think I might want to take some photos then it's small enough to go in my jacket pocket too.
Re:Article has a point, but... (Score:5, Interesting)
I do.. I go farther. I carry a Fuji S3 and a couple of lenses EVERYWHERE.
Why? because you never know when something will happen and you can bethe only guy with a photo of it. I sold 4 photos to a local news outlet of the Immigration Demonstrations from 2 days ago I made enough to pay for more camera gear.
My hobby pays for it's self because I have the camera with me at all times. Some people with pocket point ans shoots were the ONLY people to get a photo of the Plane crashing into the WTC and other historic events that can only be captured by having a camera on hand.
Take photos all the time and you will end up with some that are easily saleable to news outlets.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Article has a point, but... (Score:3, Insightful)
But, if I am driving down the road and see 10,000 people marching to the government buildings I am a fool for not taking photos, that's history going on right in front of me.
And if I am able to sell some of those photos, Cool my hobby is paying for it's self!
I tend to sell about 20-30 photos a year. Mostly from events I am attending that a newspaper did not have a photographer atten
Re:Article has a point, but... (Score:4, Interesting)
First go to events where staff photographers for the paper are at and talk to them. Staff photogs are not threatened by the freelancers and gladly will give up some information after getting to know you. Also you can do the formal approach by talking to the editor and asking about freelance photo submissions (Think spiderman's day job) and even article submission. There are many events for the "metro" page that just do not get covered and they usually are stuck putting filler in there. if you can take photos and write a 300-500 word article about an event that happens locally that was not covered you dramatically increase your chances. Althouggh writing is not easy, I have not tried it but I know of a couple that is sucessful with it.
Your first few photos will get you peanuts or will be free to the paper. You are unknown and unless you have a photo of Bin-Laden serving burgers at Wendys or a major news event that you have the only existing photos of they can simply say "no thanks".
I get near top dollar because I have worked with them for a couple of years and have had regular publication... I.E. I am one of their freelance pros in their eyes. I know what they would like and deliver it.
Finally, take a crapload of pictures at an event. If you can fill 2 gigs of photos from an event then you are sure to have at least 1 or 2 sellable photos.
A good event photographer needs to be a good social engineer as well.
Re:Article has a point, but... (Score:2)
If I'm going somewhere where I'll want pictures to remind me of it later, I bring a proper camera. If I'm out in town, I don't need a camera. It's that simple - there is *nothing* out-and-about in town that I would want a camera for, especially a low-quality PoS camera. Yes, I know they get used to take pictures in pubs, and I wonder how many of those cameras survive longer than a couple of months with owners like that. If you ne
Why My Phone has a Camera (Score:3, Interesting)
Since I prefer film vs digital, I thought it would be nice to consolidate tools into one device that I have on me all the time. It has proved to be a good investment, despite the $400 investment. The premium price I paid has a lot to do with markets and such, but those aside, the phone fits its niche in my life and it's always convenient to have a camera on you at all times.
Most phones available in the US have really crappy cameras, but the w800i is an exception.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Why My Phone has a Camera (Score:2)
That comment alone disqualifies your opinion.
Re:Why My Phone has a Camera (Score:2, Informative)
This is where the cameraphone finds its niche.
If I was saying that digital *quality* was crap, I can see where my comments would be unfounded, but seeing that I'm not, it doesn't make sense to discount my comments...
No, they're not worth it! (Score:4, Informative)
And why? Because the optics still sucks. I guess there ain't enough space for a good camera inside a phone, because the optics ain't small enough. While the ccd or cmos sensor is small enough, it needs good optics to give good quality.
Say you've got the good optics, and a decent sensor... A ccd uses more power than a cmos, and needs more light. A cmos however, gives lots of artifacts (noise) in the picture, but performs better in low-ligt conditions, and needs less power.
Ok, so we go for a ccd. Then we need a good flash, which takes even more power. Power which has to come from a capacitor since a battery can't deliver high enough voltage and enough current fast enough. A capacitor and flash takes up space.
In short, if we want small phones, we won't get decent image quality. If we can accept a phone twice as big as the ones we have, we can just bundle together a normal compact camera and a phone...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:No, they're not worth it! (Score:4, Informative)
CMOS CAN be result in quality that surpasses CCD, all while using far lower power and generating much less heat.
Problematic (Score:5, Interesting)
It's gotten to the point where I'm thinking of switching from Sprint to Nextel, just because Nextel's phones actually seem more reasonable for my (and my wife's) usage. Interestingly, the Sprint rep I spoke with said I could do this, and they even had a group for going from Sprint -> Nextel!
-Erwos
Re:Problematic (Score:2)
It's gotten to the point where I'm thinking of switching from Sprint to Nextel, just because Nextel's phones actually seem more reasonable for my (and my wife's) usage. Interestingly, the Sprint rep I spoke with said I could do this, and they even had a group for going from Sprint -> Nextel!
First of
Re:Problematic (Score:3, Insightful)
As a sprint consumer, I would like to inform you that Spring Mobile Phone Corporation doesn't offer a Treo without a camera. Furthermore, Sprint will not activate your phone unless it has a Sprint stamp on it.
Second, the talk of switching from Sprint to Nextel is going to be a lost one soon enough. Sprint has talked about how they are going to switch all voice traffic to their CDMA network and use the iDEN for PTT only. Thus, the lines will conve
Re:Problematic (Score:5, Informative)
Try again. [sprint.com]
Re:Problematic (Score:2)
Re:Problematic (Score:2)
Jeez, it's not just camera phones. Some installations practically make you strip down and leave *all* "devices" at the security gate. Laptops, PDAs, USBkeys, cell phones, even wrist watches are required to be removed. It's amazing how much electronic stuff we routinely haul around with us and it's not until you have to start paying attention to it that it strikes you how dependent we have become on it. You think "How in the hell am I goin
Re:Problematic (Score:4, Insightful)
you can purchase special tamper detection stickers that can be placed over the cellphone's camera optics. if it is removed it will visibly damage the sticker. ( I tried several ways of trying to get it off, short of treating your camera lens with silicone first you cant keep it from making the tell-tale marks on the sticker)
when you check in you get the sticker applied, when you leave your phone is inspected and the sticker removed. If you tampered with the sticker you are pretty much hosed.
Works well, most people simply leave their phone at the securit desk, those that "MUST" have their phone, have to go through this and read the riot act twice as to what will happen if the sticker is found damaged.
99% of people really do not need their cellphone in a secure area.
Re:Problematic (Score:4, Informative)
WE contacted a tamper sticker manufacturer and asked them what could be done and if they had any "removeable" types. They did we tested several different types and picked one that only needed an alcahol pad to fully clean the tiny bit of residue fro mthe phone after use. They are a PITA to install without flaking off the tell-tale indicator paint/layer but after a few months the security guys are good at it.
so we had them print up some with serial numbers. works great.. might not be DoD security standards but it passed us subversive types attempts at thwarting it here.
I was only able to make silicone oil to make it so I could remove it without damage. but it's extremely obvious when putting the sticker on that sometihng is wrong as it will slide all over instead of sticking.
Re:Problematic (Score:2)
I've never gotten the logic of this position, who is it that you trust enough to be physically present but not enough not to take any pictures ? If you are worried about the person taking pictures, it implies that the person is not being chaperoned while in the facility. It seems to me that if the person can be trusted to work or visit the location, they co
Re:Problematic (Score:2)
Keep honest men honest. You trust these people enough for them to work there, but nobody's perfect. Every man has his price; some bribe, or blackmail, or threat, which will make him turn traitor.
Very well; let us suppose you work in the secret weapons facility, with your camera phone, trusted not to photograph anything. Should you decide to become a spy, it would
Re:Problematic (Score:2)
It has everything but the kitchen sink and cam.
Sorry, I only found the german link, therefore this item might not be available in the US...
Re:Problematic (Score:2)
I couldn't agree more. I don't want a camera phone. I don't want one which plays MP3s. I don't want one which can let me surf the web. I don't wa
Re:Problematic (Score:2)
I don't want a camera. I don't want an MP3 player. I don't want email. I don't want web. I don't want AIM. I don't want SMS.
I want a FRIGG
Samsung i730 (Score:2)
Hack it (Score:2)
I've opened up my phone before, to poke around & you can literally unplug the camera & pull it out. Mine isn't secured in any way that would prevent this & I imagine other phones are similarly made.
Fill in the resulting hole with the appropriate color of silicone sealant or caulk, smooth it out and you should be good to go. Should be a reversible process in case you ever have warranty issues.
The perfect phone for you vs. a lit
Re:Problematic (Score:2)
Phone manufacturers aren't considering this group of individuals because there aren't enough of them to comprise a significant market segment. Financially speaking, they don't matter.
Sure, the carriers would like anything put on the
More important to note... (Score:3, Insightful)
You have any idea how hard it is getting to find a good phone with all the features you want.. and NOT have a camera attached to it? You almost have to go to Nextel as they seem to be about the only cell company that doesn't have every phone be camera enabled.
I ended up having to get a camera phone just so I could have some of the features I wanted (mainly bluetooth) and found a case that fits the phone that covers over the camera eye. Good enough to get past the rent-a-cop security.
They mean it at the fitness club, too (Score:3, Interesting)
One of the black-clad trainers arrived to investigate my suspicious phone answering shortly thereafter. Had to scroll him through my few snaps to show him nothing was amiss. Still, he kept my phone safely behind the counter until I was ready to go. Reclaiming the phone later was plenty embarrassing.
(Personally I would prefe
Re:More important to note... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:More important to note... (Score:2, Informative)
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:More important to note... (Score:4, Insightful)
Clue : The plural of "anecdote" is not "data"
Re:More important to note... (Score:2)
Couldn't agree with you more. However allow me to play devil's advocate for a moment. While many technology-focused workplaces, including car companies, and government/military/pharmaceutical companies may have such policies in place, what percentage of the employed population do they really represent? Aren't their headcounts vastly outnumbered by all the restaurants, retial stores, and gas stations that can be found everywhere and don't ban cellphones?
Maybe w
Re:More important to note... (Score:2)
Re:More important to note... (Score:2)
Whatever (Score:5, Insightful)
Dammit, I've already got a phone (an old Nokia candybar model that has a wonderful interface and battery life and no stupid camera). Any self-respecting phone should be just a phone. If I want to take along my camera, I'll do so.
I'm hoping my current phone doesn't break so I don't have to involuntarily "upgrade" to the next model which has countless features I don't want and an interface whose designers I want to reciprocally torture by redesigning their TV so that changing channels requires multiple button presses in even the most common case. Gah *head explodes*.
Re: (Score:2)
Over generalisation about time-to-picture (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Over generalisation about time-to-picture (Score:2)
Metrics please (Score:3, Insightful)
Camera phones are fast replacing a number of regular phones
Are they? The "article" quotes no source and no statistics for this claim. How can anyone be sure?
What does TFA mean by "fast"?
Re:Metrics please (Score:2)
A couple of years ago, nobody I knew had one. Today, nearly everybody I know has one. I've spotted a number of people with these phones just walking around town. Okay, it's anecdotal and not a scientific study. Seriously, though, what's so difficult to believe about it? Despite popular belief around here, camera phones really are useful.
Some current numbers from Nokia (Score:2)
6 of those do not have a camera. There is a mixture of PDA, basic and more advanced phones in there. The one that stood out is the E60 which seems to have a lot of features without turning into a PDA or having a camera.
Re:Some current numbers from Nokia (Score:2)
Re:Metrics please (Score:2)
The cheapest option for the consumer frequently wins. Look at PC-DOS.
Re:Metrics please (Score:2)
Well, it is my personal experience that nearly everyone getting a new (GSM) phone gets a camera phone. Contract users often get 'free' phones and 'upgrades' (new phones) on renewing the contracts (often yearly). This means there's not much of a market for cheap, low-featured phones; why pay for a cheap phone with a no colour screen, no camera, no IrDA
You pay for it?? (Score:3, Insightful)
You might argue that I pay the phone via my monthly bill, but given the competition I don't think it's true anymore. Basically the phone is pretty much a giveaway for staying with the same provider.
Cams in mobiles are pretty handy btw. I use it to record information that I would otherwise forget, stuff like the settings of my distortion pedal for my guitar and the like.
Re:You pay for it?? (Score:2)
I kinda like the trashy look of those cheapo optics...
Please be nice to me, as I am not a native speaker let me know if the lyrics have glaring errors in it.
the reviewer is the problem (Score:5, Insightful)
I probably take 20 pics per week on mine, I send them to friends and family straight from the phone, sometimes I post things on my family's website from it. I'll never get a phone without a camera.
Just a regional issue? (Score:2, Interesting)
The camera comes with me to 'occasions' - places where I know I'm going to take photos (outings, birthdays, family stuff, etc) - it has a real optical zoom, 1Gb Sd card and flash.
My phone is with me all the time and so I can take photos of things that catch my eye - landscapes, unexpected events, something fun that happens in the pub - it has only a digital zoom,
Worth it: if you can get pictures somewhere useful (Score:3, Informative)
However if you can get the image from the phone to an internet site like Flickr, TextAmerica, Kodak, &c, then it is worth having a 2 megapixel image, just like it's worth having a decent amount of megapixels for your regular digital camera. The higher quality is useful for displaying on a PC, or for printing the photo, and so on.
Unfortunately it's very hard to get your pictures from your phone to the internet. Email and WAP uploaders have proved not good enough for this task, and hardly anyone does this.
A new generation of software is emerging on phones though. Services like ShoZu [shozu.com] allow you to upload full quality images from your phone to sites like Flickr, TextAmerica, &c, in a very simple manner, and also allow editing of titles, descriptions and even tags both before and after upload. With this sort of service on your phone it really is worth having a decent camera in your phone.
Re:Worth it: if you can get pictures somewhere use (Score:2)
That's what Bluetooth is for. (at least, one thing.)
Quality varies (Score:2)
Basically, if you're going to buy something on the strength of the inbuilt camera, make sure the quality of the pictures is actually good.
They all suck (Score:5, Insightful)
The only way they can get lenses in these things is to either use the ceramic lenses or tiny plastic lenses at fixed focus and the image will stink no matter what.
I have an old Fuji S1 3 megapixel digiatal camera in my closet that will kick the crap out of the highest megapixel point and shoot on the market today simply because I can plop a $1000.00 lens on it.
90% of the image is in the optics and ALL cameraphones have crappy optics simply because there is no room for the real stuff.
Unless people want to put a SLR up to their head to talk Cameraphones will always stink at photo's.
Re:They all suck (Score:2)
>Unless people want to put a SLR up to their head to talk Cameraphones will always stink at photo's.
I think you forget cameras don't require/haven't always had lenses. I can see with HDTV that they are using fixed lenses, and everything is in focus. Eventually the tech will be their (cheaper anyway) to tell what direction light is coming from without a bulky lense directing it. and a 30 MP flatsurface is all you will need to have every
Re:They all suck (Score:3, Insightful)
The SE K750, W800, Nokia N90 (with Zeiss optics), Sharp 902, are all good examples of 2mp autofocus camera phones that take decent pictures.
The upcoming SE K790/K800, Sharp 903 are 3mp camera phones that also take decent pictures. I seem to remember that the Sharp also had an optical zoom.
Re:They all suck (Score:2)
And if I had a budget of $1000 for photography equipment, that might matter to me.
Look; yes, cell phone cameras suck. With one of the best on the market (SE K750i), I get photos that are best described as "acceptable". However, if it's a choice between an "okayish" picture, and none at all (because carrying a camera regularly isn't something I do), I'll take okayish.
I would never suggets replacing a good camera with a phone camera, nor would I consider it a crit
Of course they suck..... (Score:2)
Data storage please (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Data storage please (Score:2)
A Camera is a Tool (Score:4, Insightful)
We used to use a regular digital camera, and just keep one in each conference room. But they kept growing legs, getting misplaced, needing batteries, or just malfunctioning. Cameras that are owned by individuals have the advantage that the individual actually takes care of the thing, so it is much more likely to be available and work when it is needed.
The key to any tool is to use it appropriately. A camera can be misused, such as to transmit confidential material to a competitor. A camera can also be very useful, to record and communicate drawings within the company.
Banning cameras does not protect the confidential information, unless the organization also bans email, removable disks, printers, paper, and briefcases. Only two things are actually accomplished by banning any specific tool: It makes the organization less productive; And it tells the people that they are not trusted. Both effects are counter-productive.
Having bought a 2MP Camera Phone... (Score:4, Informative)
Firstly i'm not coming on to defend my purchase. To be honest the phone was free anyway on a contract upgrade I needed to make so I thought i'd go for it.
The phone is a Nokia N70 and, for all of its foibles (including the incredibly annoying slide open camera activation / lens protection cover) the camera stands out as a superb product.
I'd love to link to an image i've taken from it but fear the slashdot effect would ruin me on hosting charges.. but under the right conditions (ie NOT night time) the camera returns impressive pictures. Yes, in low light it makes everything look incredibly washed out - yes the delay is enormous on taking a picture - but in good average daylight conditions pictures come back looking almost as good as those of my old 2MP Olympus point and shoot which i've since retired.
One of the 'points' of camera phones for me was just having a camera with you at all times in case something unusual happened - be that a car accident (and you need to record photographic evidence of the scene), a good sunset, etc - the increase in MP allows you to do this more and more - previous generations meant that the picture was only 640x480 or so and this didn't really allow you to get the whole picture across!
Cheers.
It's about using the camera (Score:2, Troll)
I use my mobilep hone camera, it's a lousy 1MP. Using a 2MP camera phone really makes it possible to see details and colours. You can argue that this has nothing to do with the amount of Mega Pixels your camera has; e.g. the lense, the CMOS area, is more important etc etc. But more megapixels usually means better quality.
Should you buy a new phone just because it's a 2MP camera, why not! If you take pictures, tell my why I wouldn't want them in better resolution?
Last year amounted to 20M
For everyone who wants a cameraless cellphone (Score:2, Interesting)
Almost every cellular phone company that is not based in Japan competes with the ones who are.
I have seen 2 models of cellular phone here in Japan without a camera built in. Both of those models are meant for "old people". It's simply a keypad with an lcd display so you can double czech the number you are calling. Keys are big for people who have a hard time pushing these tiny buttons. Even the latest phones designed for elementary school children have cameras and gps built into them
There's no sense in this at all (Score:3, Informative)
I advise people who want a point and shoot (which has a much bigger sensor than a cell phone, but much smaller than an SLR) to not bother with more than 3 megapixels or so. There are some expensive "advanced" non-SLR digital cameras that have sensors comparable to SLR sensors, but most point and shoot cameras have sensors no more than 1/2" on the diagonal. Most digital SLR's are about 1.2" diagonal, and 35 mm SLR's (such as film cameras and the EOS 5D and 1Ds digital cameras) are a bit less than 2" on the diagonal.
The basic issue here is the pixel size, which (along with lens speed) controls how much light the pixel can gather. The larger the pixel, the more light it can gather and the less noise it will have. There's also the wavelength of light to consider; as the pixel gets smaller, the ability to resolve between neighboring pixels becomes less.
The sweet spot for digital SLR's with APS-C sensors with 1.5 or 1.6 cropping factors (such as the low to midrange Canon and Nikon cameras) seems to be about 8-10 megapixels. Canon's latest offering (the 30D) stayed at 8 MP. The Nikon D200 is 10 megapixels, but it's noisier at high ISO settings than the 20D/30D. This would suggest that full-frame (35 mm) digital SLR's won't get much above 20 megapixels (based on pixel size), and you'll have to go to medium format to get much more than that. If the Foveon sensor ever gets perfected the marketing numbers will triple (since each position would have a sensor for each color), but the grid won't change.
It's possible to reduce noise by lowering the effective ISO (in other words, allowing more light into the sensor by requiring longer exposures). So while the EOS 20D has excellent noise performace even at ISO 800, a typical point and shoot (with its tiny sensor) will be very noisy above ISO 100 or 200.
Finally, there's the matter of the lens. My own tests suggest that I only get the full 8 megapixel resolution out of the 20D if I use a good lens (such as the 85 f/1.8 or 200 f/2.8 prime lenses), well stopped down and very carefully focused, and otherwise in good conditions (on a tripod or with a very short exposure). I recently took a shot at sunset with a 1 second exposure at f/16 with my 200 mm lens and there was very sharp single pixel detail. Even slight blur will very quickly reduce the useful pixel count; if it's blurred to the extent that there's no useful detail at less than 2 pixel resolution, you're effectively at the 2 megapixel level.
So what does all of this mean? Camera phones have tiny sensors, with cheap lenses, and can't have long exposures. However many pixels the sensor may have, I'd be surprised if the effective resolution of the output is more than a few hundred thousand pixels.
Cautionary Tale (Score:4, Funny)
The Camera-Phone [theonion.com]
I'm sorry to make another Japan reference... (Score:2, Interesting)
But, I haven't lived in North America for a while, so I honestly don't know. Is 2-megapixel "cutting edge"? Is that how pathetic cameras are in the West? My current 3G Japanese cell phone is by no means top of the line (it cost less than one American cent, and
of course (Score:5, Insightful)
Cutting edge (Score:2)
I'd wait until someone like Philip Askey of dpreview.com [dpreview.com] or Steve's Digicams [steves-digicams.com] made a favorable review. At least if it's a camera yo
I would prefer ZERO pixels (Score:2)
If the cellphone makers would just offer each model sans camera, maybe a couple of dollars cheaper, they might just be surprized at how few people actually want one. Th
Swimming is the best form exercise (Score:4, Interesting)
* I just want a PHONE that is a PHONE goddammit
* blah blah blah
For those who believe humans have free will, slashdot provides plenty of evidence to the contrary. I think I've seen these same posts modded up in a dozen different stories about camera phones. It reminds of the dilbert cartoon where the most overused phrase is how "swimming is the best form of exercise".
LS
Re:Do you have a choice? (Score:2)
Re:Not worth it?! (Score:2)