Camera Phone vs Digital Camera vs Analog Camera QUALITY

[namessuck]

Can anyone explain the big differences between these 3?

I have a 5 megapixel rear camera on my LG Thrill. At first I thought the quality was really good when I took pictures. Then when I put them on to my computer and saw the native resolution of 2592x1944 I was not impressed. The pictures really aren't that sharp and sometimes look blurred/blended. The phone does have a flash and sometimes those pictures taken with the flash look a bit better, but not by much.

I also have a Fuji something Digital Camera from 2004. It's like 0.3 Megapixel, but I remember it taking decent photos. I have no idea where it is.

Lastly I have a really old Cannon something Analog camera that was given to me. I believe it's from the 1980s. I am not sure where it is and I can't comment on the quality because I took some pictures and misplaced the camera. It's probably in a box somewhere.

 

[480sparky]

Cell phone cameras a OK for taking snapshots.

0.3mp for a digital camera, even a point-and-shoot, is absolutely dismal.

A film camera is still usable if film is what you're in to.

 

[o hey tyler]

Can anyone explain the big differences between these 3?

I have a 5 megapixel rear camera on my LG Thrill. At first I thought the quality was really good when I took pictures. Then when I put them on to my computer and saw the native resolution of 2592x1944 I was not impressed. The pictures really aren't that sharp and sometimes look blurred/blended. The phone does have a flash and sometimes those pictures taken with the flash look a bit better, but not by much.

I also have a Fuji something Digital Camera from 2004. It's like 0.3 Megapixel, but I remember it taking decent photos. I have no idea where it is.

Lastly I have a really old Cannon something Analog camera that was given to me. I believe it's from the 1980s. I am not sure where it is and I can't comment on the quality because I took some pictures and misplaced the camera. It's probably in a box somewhere.

Well, we know you have an LG Thrill, but I'm unfamiliar with the "Fuji Something" or the "Canon something."

I am fairly confident that the Fuji Something will render the worst image quality, as its from 2004. But shooting film with the Canon Something is a totally different ball game. A ball game that heavily depends on if it has interchangeable lenses or not.

I can tell you that the LG thrill isn't anything special. It's a camera phone, with "optics." It has a small sensor and several limitations.

From a pure image quality standpoint, depending on if the Canon Something has interchangeable lenses, that would most likely render the best images. However it would cost money per shot.

 

[techniker]

Regarding digital; the size, sensitivity and quality of the sensor that records the light.

I remember using digital cameras in the nineties that recorded to 3.5" floppy disks.

 

[namessuck]

Finepix e510 by Fuji.

I will have the find that Cannon I have no idea where it went. Yes it had interchangeable lens. I had the short one which was stock and a very long one.

 

[Snowtographer]

Since it sounds like the Canon is an SLR, it is your best bet for good images. Buy film online, and if you have a local Costco, development is very inexpensive. Like $2..It's pretty much negligible compared to buying a new DSLR, especially if you just dabble in the hobby or only "need" a camera infrequently. Some prefer the look of film to digital, it has a higher dynamic range and some prefer the look of analog grain vs. digital noise.

 

[namessuck]

I remember when Digital Cameras first came out people said the quality was crap compared to film. It's been a long time since then so is it pretty even now?

I am no expert as you can see. I just take photos for fun, but I do appreciate quality.

I actually don't think it was a Cannon. I think it's a Mamiya if I am spelling that right. I will find it and upload some pictures of it.

 

[bhop]

Digital has surpassed 35mm film in what most people consider "quality".

Film still has appeal to many people, myself included. For me, it's because I get the "look" I want straight out of my camera without having to photoshop and make it look like film..

 

[KmH]

Digital Camera Sensor Sizes: How it Influences Your Photography

Cannons go "BOOM". Canons go 'click'.

 

[Snowtographer]

Digital has surpassed 35mm film in what most people consider "quality".

Film still has appeal to many people, myself included. For me, it's because I get the "look" I want straight out of my camera without having to photoshop and make it look like film..

I remember when Digital Cameras first came out people said the quality was crap compared to film. It's been a long time since then so is it pretty even now?

I am no expert as you can see. I just take photos for fun, but I do appreciate quality.

I actually don't think it was a Cannon. I think it's a Mamiya if I am spelling that right. I will find it and upload some pictures of it.

I agree with bhop. I'm proud to say I shoot my film camera entirely for personal fulfillment..I like the feel and dynamic range of film photos, and in the case of the timeless and legendary Tri-X 400 (really the only film I shoot) I feel the grain adds beauty. I develop it in my bathroom too, and I find the whole process of developing film to be very zen and therapeutic. But taking pictures of friends skiing or pictures that NEED color, my DSLR is a little bit more clear and crisp and lacks the graininess of Tri-X. I just got my DSLR in the last few weeks, mostly because I had abandoned photography since starting college and losing access to my bathroom/darkroom.

 

[christop]

I also have a Fuji something Digital Camera from 2004. It's like 0.3 Megapixel, but I remember it taking decent photos. I have no idea where it is.

0.3Mpx would be something like 640x480. I think my sister had a camera with that resolution in the late 90's. It's probably a 3Mpx camera if it's from 2004. While that's extremely low compared to today's cameras, that's still enough to make a decent 4x6 print.

 

[Light Guru]

I have two main cameras. My cell phone which has a image sensor the smaller then a peace of corn and my large format camera that produces 4 inch by 5 inch negatives.

Ill let you guess witch camera produces better images.

 

[namessuck]

It's a 5.2 megapixel I just googled it.

Fujifilm Finepix E510 5MP Digital Camera with 3.2x Optical Zoom
[h=1]according to Amazon.com[/h]So is that better than my LG Thrill's camera?

I still gotta find this Analog camera so you guys can tell me if it's any good.

I also have a fourth gen iPod Touch. It only has a 0.7 megapixel rear camera. Talk about crapola quality.

One thing I don't get though between the iPod Touch and the LG Thrill. The iPod Touch has no delay when taking pictures. You can just snap them off. The LG Thrill has about a 2.5 second delay before taking the picture. Flash on or flash off.

 

[Snowtographer]

The lens is better on the digital camera I'm sure. It probably takes decent pictures. Better than the cameraphone.

Honestly, how much are you feeling personally invested in learning more about photography? If you just want the ability to take nice pictures, that digital camera will be fine. You can even buy a new point and shoot pretty cheaply and get stunning performance compared to yours.

The film camera might be fun for you, and it might just be a hassle...Like film can be. It all depends on what you want to do.

 

[Canuk]

Most people forget that a 35mm film camera has a full frame sensor that is 35mm x 24mm (for 35mm film anyways). Yes a film SLR will take higher quality pictures than a early digi cam and camera phones. That being said, a point and shoot or compact film camera, 35mm, will still out perform the above camera because the sensor is still "full frame". The optics on compact or point and shoot cameras where not all garbage, same as not all point and shoot digi cams are garbage. The size of the sensor in this case allows for more info to be gathered.