He made some good points, in particular the optical zoom, which I really do miss with my phone... and yet I have taken some pretty good distance shots with my phone. Battery life is also an issue, (e.g. at "an event") but I almost always have a charger with me and I can always turn off my phone if I am trying to conserve battery for photos... I don't get so many calls that it would be an issue and I don't feel tethered to my phone! :)
Here are a few points he did not mention or I feel he was wrong about...
•Wrong... Some phones have cameras that take very clear photos that can be printed up to 8x10... I know because I have one and I have done it.
•Cost... If you are just beginning to take photos and don't own a camera, even the most basic ones will set you back at least $100 and the two "basic point-and-shoot" cameras he highlighted in his post (and most cameras that will do all the things he mentions in his article) are in the $280 neighborhood... I already own my phone (I also own 3 P&S cameras and a DSLR)
•Cost... The "instant gratification" upload card he mentioned is an additional $80.
•Convenience... My phone is always in my pocket... my cameras are not. And the good ones don't fit it my pockets... and I don't always have my purse and/or camera bag on my person... I would miss some great photo-ops if I didn't use my phone.
@marilyn I think that the point of the article is that many people believe that they do not need a point and shoot because they have a phone camera. I have heard many people say that they don't need a camera because they have one on their phone. He is just pointing out that that really isn't the case.
I might have took him seriously was he not working for cnet, while some of his points are valid I think he is wrong. I carry all of my cameras all of the time and I know which one will be best at the time. One of my best pictures comes from my camera phone, my best self portrait comes from my P&S and my DSLR is for when I want to use manual mode creatively but over the last two months my mobile has become my most used weapon.
Mega Pixels only come into play when you start looking at printing huge prints and at 5mp my phone offers a pretty high resolution, I know it will lose this at zoom and I can live with that. Yes I reach for my P&S instead or my DSLR even but all this means is that they have a feature more suited to my requirements. That does not mean they are better.
And as someone pointed out in the comments section re mega pixels my 1987 35mm film camera offers me an infinite number of mega pixels should I ever need them.
It's an interesting tome in that regard - the camera manufacturers are certainly concerned about competition from phones. As sensors and processors improve it will bee interesting to see if lenses become less important.
Mmm, brought up some good points there, both for point and shoots and (in the comments) for phone cameras. I spose it really just depends on what you want from your pictures. Personally, I'd love to be able to take vibrant, detailed pictures all the time, because those are my favorite to look at. But if I'm just with my friends or see something funny on the street, quality isn't as important as just capturing the memory to look back later and laugh.
@pizzaboy Blasphemer! Never disrespect the lens! ;-) Everyone knows that it all comes down to the lens. No matter what sensor you have, if you can't get the light to it, you can't get a good photo.
Over exaggeration but from what I have read. If using ya pc and scanners then obviously you are restricted to what they allow but theoretically a good crisp image on film can be enlarged to any size without looking any definition. 18mp over say 3mp will produce a better image at high resolutions. This is how I understand it, please correct me if I am wrong :) @bradleynovak
Oh... I like the feature of being able to take photographs while simultaneously recording a video. I never use the video capabitility of my cameras because I'd rather take stills. If I could do both at once that would be awesome... I'll have to look in to that!
My husband is in the remodeling business. He uses his iPhone's camera to get "before" shots of his projects, getting shots of small details that need special work, etc. Then, a few weeks later I come in armed with my 7D and tripod and get the "after" shots. He also has an older Canon point and shoot.
@justeddie It's debated by a lot of people what the actual megapixel count is. People say anywhere from 8-85 MP (85 is WAY off). Regardless of the true number, if you could print any size enlargement from 35mm film, medium/large format film would not exist =).
@justeddie@bradleynovak I'll creak open my memory vault and try to remember film... What I do remember is that if you wanted a good enlargement you would try to use the smallest ISO that you could. I think that a lot of your real photographers would use 64 for photo shoots.
Basically, the lower the ISO, the more pixels the film had. On the other hand, to use the smaller ISO films you had to have more light. People that were serious about art prints would use medium or large format cameras.
@bradleynovak@justeddie
If you'd have said 'film' Eddie you might have been agreed with but 35mm is film for the masses, tiny negs mean not great super big enlargements. 120 film used to be required in the fashion industry when doing a two page spread in a magazine, so that gives you an idea of the kind of limits of blowing up 35mm.
As for point and shoot cameras beating phones, of course they do. I don't think this guys biased i think its a no brainer. As always convenience for the masses beats quality.
@ all. I'm still learning. It's a large subject and everything I say is either from what I have read or been told. Or in the case of my argument r.e for mobile camera is drawn from experience with all three.
Not all point and shoot cameras are better than mobile phones. Yes the higher end models maybe but not all. And that is drawn from experience. I am always open to education, sorry if I come across like I think I know it all. I did write from what I understand. :)
@justeddie I don't think that you came across that way. I would still argue that a decent PnS with 3X or greater optical zoom and a decent lens will beat a camera phone almost all the time unless the contest is to send the picture you just took to someone! ;-)
@jwlynn64 I use my phone fixed focus. Optical zoom would win hands down. the zoom on my phone isn't worthy of a mention. Point and shoot to me is fixed focus, all the cameras I used with film would have been fixed focus as a youngster.
@jwlynn64 Ha ha, but wait until they have a couple of small lenses and use stereo decoding to create stuff like shallow DOF, also as ISO gets higher no need for fast lenses - the glass will become much less important :)
@pizzaboy It all boils down to light on some type of recording medium. No matter how good your medium, the light still has to get there. You might have the greatest sensor in the world but it still requires that the light gets directed to it. The better the lens, the better the result.
I understand what you are saying about DOF but that will require two lenses (so the lens becomes twice as important!) so that they computer can determine the proper orientation of the items in your shot.
Write a Reply
Sign up for a free account or Sign in to post a comment.
Tweets ahoy!
Join the Group
Pin With Me
Here are a few points he did not mention or I feel he was wrong about...
•Wrong... Some phones have cameras that take very clear photos that can be printed up to 8x10... I know because I have one and I have done it.
•Cost... If you are just beginning to take photos and don't own a camera, even the most basic ones will set you back at least $100 and the two "basic point-and-shoot" cameras he highlighted in his post (and most cameras that will do all the things he mentions in his article) are in the $280 neighborhood... I already own my phone (I also own 3 P&S cameras and a DSLR)
•Cost... The "instant gratification" upload card he mentioned is an additional $80.
•Convenience... My phone is always in my pocket... my cameras are not. And the good ones don't fit it my pockets... and I don't always have my purse and/or camera bag on my person... I would miss some great photo-ops if I didn't use my phone.
Mega Pixels only come into play when you start looking at printing huge prints and at 5mp my phone offers a pretty high resolution, I know it will lose this at zoom and I can live with that. Yes I reach for my P&S instead or my DSLR even but all this means is that they have a feature more suited to my requirements. That does not mean they are better.
Basically, the lower the ISO, the more pixels the film had. On the other hand, to use the smaller ISO films you had to have more light. People that were serious about art prints would use medium or large format cameras.
If you'd have said 'film' Eddie you might have been agreed with but 35mm is film for the masses, tiny negs mean not great super big enlargements. 120 film used to be required in the fashion industry when doing a two page spread in a magazine, so that gives you an idea of the kind of limits of blowing up 35mm.
As for point and shoot cameras beating phones, of course they do. I don't think this guys biased i think its a no brainer. As always convenience for the masses beats quality.
Not all point and shoot cameras are better than mobile phones. Yes the higher end models maybe but not all. And that is drawn from experience. I am always open to education, sorry if I come across like I think I know it all. I did write from what I understand. :)
I understand what you are saying about DOF but that will require two lenses (so the lens becomes twice as important!) so that they computer can determine the proper orientation of the items in your shot.