camera phones

[grahamhunter2001]

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

 

[DHammer]

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.

 

[JIP]

Smaller sensor, smaller glass, lesser in-camera processor.

 

[Patrice]

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.

 

[Garbz]

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

 

[grahamhunter2001]

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

 

[bango707]

here is a picture I took with my 2MP Sony Ericsson W810

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.

 

[Garbz]

Yep looks about where digital cameras were 6 years ago. Except in a phone.

 

[Patrice]

Yep looks about where digital cameras were 6 years ago. Except in a phone.

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.

 

[Garbz]

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!!!

 

[mrodgers]

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!!!

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.

 

[Passion4Film]

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.