camera phones

Discussion in 'Digital Discussion & Q&A' started by grahamhunter2001, Dec 9, 2007.

  1. grahamhunter2001

    grahamhunter2001 TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2007
    Messages:
    7
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Glasgow, Scotland
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    I've seen the continued emergence of the camera phone over the last few years and I'm wondering if anyone can explain something to me.

    I'm pretty convinced that the quality (in terms of sharpness, colours etc) of pictures from a camera phone is far less than that of a decent P&S or dSLR but can't figure out why. I'm figuring its something to do with the optics of the lenses used for each device but was wanting a better explanation.

    Also, I've noticed some of the camera phone lenses claiming to be f/2.8. I thought the f/ number defined the maximum physical aperture size thus the aperture at f/2.8 is the same physical size for any device (or lens), am I wrong?

    Thanks
    Graham
     
  2. DHammer

    DHammer TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2007
    Messages:
    82
    Likes Received:
    0
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    They are inferior because of every aspect of a camera. Everything is miniaturized and its meant to be a phone first and foremost so the camera aspect is a novelty afterthought. Now that said they have improved but resolution will never be anywhere close to a 'camera' because of the relatively microscopic side of the sensor.
     
  3. JIP

    JIP No longer a newbie, moving up!

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2006
    Messages:
    3,019
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Pittsburgh PA
    Smaller sensor, smaller glass, lesser in-camera processor.
     
  4. Patrice

    Patrice No longer a newbie, moving up!

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2006
    Messages:
    2,392
    Likes Received:
    381
    Location:
    Campbellton, New Brunswick, Canada
    As to your question about aperture. It is not an indication of a fixed variable, but a ratio of the lens opening to the focal length of the lens. Thus f2.8 for a 20 mm lens is a much smaller opening than f2.8 for a 400 mm lens.
     
  5. Garbz

    Garbz No longer a newbie, moving up!

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2003
    Messages:
    9,713
    Likes Received:
    203
    Location:
    Brisbane, Australia
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    And to expand on Patrice's comment When you have a tiny sensor like in a camera phone you're looking at a crop factor for 8x and up. So your stock standard 50mm field of view becomes 6.25mm. Thus the f/2.8 opening is tiny in comparison.

    Also JIP is very wrong in his statement about smaller glass. Often the lenses are plastic :p
     
  6. grahamhunter2001

    grahamhunter2001 TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2007
    Messages:
    7
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Glasgow, Scotland
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    Thanks for the explanations guys, makes sense now.

    Patrice and Garbz, thanks for the fuller explanation on the aperture, it's much clearer now.

    Graham
     
  7. bango707

    bango707 TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2007
    Messages:
    124
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Downtown LA
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    here is a picture I took with my 2MP Sony Ericsson W810
    [​IMG]

    There is quite a bit of noise but its still pretty nice for a camera phone. I took this while I was shooting a time lapse North of the Golden gate on Mt. Tam.
     
  8. Garbz

    Garbz No longer a newbie, moving up!

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2003
    Messages:
    9,713
    Likes Received:
    203
    Location:
    Brisbane, Australia
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    Yep looks about where digital cameras were 6 years ago. Except in a phone.
     
  9. Patrice

    Patrice No longer a newbie, moving up!

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2006
    Messages:
    2,392
    Likes Received:
    381
    Location:
    Campbellton, New Brunswick, Canada
    Lots of distortion, plenty of flare and hardly any exposure range. My very first digital, a Sony that used floppy disks, did a much better job.
     
  10. Garbz

    Garbz No longer a newbie, moving up!

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2003
    Messages:
    9,713
    Likes Received:
    203
    Location:
    Brisbane, Australia
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    Floopy disks :shock: You had one of those too? !!!! I thought I was the only one who ever used something so useless. 1.3mpx stored about 5 photos on a floppy disc and took about a minute to write after you click the button!!!
     
  11. mrodgers

    mrodgers No longer a newbie, moving up!

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2007
    Messages:
    1,662
    Likes Received:
    7
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    Never had one myself. I have a Casio QV-10A sitting in front of me right now. I'm new here, and have said that the Fuji 2650 2mp was my first digi-cam, but this Casio actually was the first for me. 0.25 MP. We had the Sony 1.3 mp at work and I was amazed by it. I wanted one! LOL. Even if it was only for the convienience of having the floppy disk since my Casio you had to bother with connecting it to the serial port to get your pictures. How's that for camera advancement. Hard to believe there was a time that inserting a floppy into a camera looked like great convenience.

    Funniest part..... I paid nearly as much for that Casio than many of you paid for your DSLR cameras, LOL. It was the first digi-cam I ever saw in the store and I snatched it up quickly. That was a time pre-marriage and pre-children, so I had the money to spend.
     
  12. Passion4Film

    Passion4Film TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2006
    Messages:
    311
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Florida, USA
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    Haha! I had the Sony Mavica FD-75 and it cost $500 and held about 30 photos per floppy. It was like, .33MP.

    All the photos I ever took with it (heavy use between May 2001 and December 2003) fits on half a CD.

    ... WOW.
     

Share This Page