| Author |
Can camera phones replace low-end dedicated digital cameras |
busb
Joined: Jan 29, 2005
Posts: 11
From: UK
PM |
K750i better than early 2MP cameras? More like wishful thinking IMO!
OK, I can't remember the last time I used my Oly 4040 & I use my K750i weekly for picture taking but cameras in phones have poorish lens (too small for starters) & generally fixed focal length & fixed aperture!
When camera phones have 3x optical zoom, full control over shutter speed, variable aperture & larger lenses then these phones will take out the bottom end of the digicam market.
The K750i is amazing for a phone but its low light performance is streaky, highlights wash out very easily & full zoom is nasty.
What does make a device like the K750i so useful is its portability - no more "Damn, I wished I had my camera with me!" Not only that, attach a decent pair of headphones & it will play music well enough & acts as a torch when needed as well.
| |
|
chamak
Joined: Jan 05, 2006
Posts: 226
From: Bangladesh
PM |
Well, IMO if Three things are attached (with proper functionality of course) with Camera phones, they can surely be an everyday replacement for point&shoot cameras:
1. CCD (and of-course not CMOS)
2. Optical Zoom (this 1 is a must and samsung showed it's can b done with B600)
3. Well management of low-light condition. (I think K750 with external flash do the trick)
I think camera phones are not true competitor of dedicated cameras yet, as when i take indoor pictures even in daytime, a lot of noises appear, but we'll see true competitors of dedicated point&shoot cameras very shortly, may be by this time of next year! who knows 
|
Sammy_boy
Joined: Mar 31, 2004
Posts: > 500
From: Staffordshire, United Kingdom
PM, WWW
|
Good points chamak, once they've been addressed I can see camera phones being a serious challenge to low-end digicams, though low end now seems to be 4mp, but if the qualities good enough then that shouldn't be a big influencing factor.
"All it takes for evil to flourish is for good men to do nothing" - Edmund Burke
|
Nitro Fan
Joined: Jun 11, 2003
Posts: > 500
From: London
PM |
I think they already have replaced low end digi cams in a lot of cases. I make that case on the grounds that I see dozens of teenagers taking and sending photos with their phones everyday in all sorts of situations and not holiday or tourlst situations.
When did you last see a youth with a camera digital or othewise ln your street!
|
marlonski
Joined: Oct 16, 2004
Posts: > 500
From: UK
PM |
I have a respectable 2mp camera with 3x optical zoom, it takes a nice picture but then so does my w800. Ok, no optical zoom and night shots are unusable in most cases. To overcome this i have bought myself the MXE-60 flash which really does overcome any issues one would have in using the cameraphone for night shots.
I've actually decided to leave my digital cam at home and just use my w800 on hols with me next month. I'm confident that i will get some excellent shots that will will print at 6x4 with no problems whatsoever. The point here is that I only have a 2mp digital cam and there really isn't a major difference in performance for me to need to take them both.
|
Sammy_boy
Joined: Mar 31, 2004
Posts: > 500
From: Staffordshire, United Kingdom
PM, WWW
|
your hol shots should come out fine, a couple of years ago i used my k700i on hol. it produced some perfectly acceptable results with 0.3mp, 2mp should give u some great prints!
"All it takes for evil to flourish is for good men to do nothing" - Edmund Burke
|
paternoster
Joined: Dec 03, 2005
Posts: 87
From: Belgium
PM |
I own a W800i and a Nikon Coolpix 2.1 MP camera. I only take photographs for fun, on hollyday, a party ...
The W800i now totally replaced my 'old' camera. I bought the MXE-60 flash (works really well) and now I can take picures in low light conditions as well. The picture quality of the W800i is as good (or even better) as the Nikon. You don't have to think about the battery life, you can take pictures all day without having to recharge and it's always in your pocket. Zooming is one of the minors of a photocamera. Optical zoom is a plus for the old Nikon.
For people who just want to press the button when taking a photo (like me) a camera phone is a perfect replacement of a digital camera. When u are interested in more advanced features you should choose a proper digital camera. |
mrao
Joined: Nov 11, 2004
Posts: > 500
From: Mumbai, India
PM |
The rate at which camphones are improving these days,....it may well be the case...if not for anything else but for the convenience of being able to use one device for a multitude of functions
 t610 > k700i > p800 > p900 > p910 > k750i > I-mate Jam > Blokia 6681 > HTC Prophet > HTC Wizard & Nokia N73 > E71 > BB 9000 > HTC Desire > Samsung Galaxy S > Samsung Galaxy S II & the Motorola Xoom <br /> Still Shiny but not so n |
max_wedge
Joined: Aug 29, 2004
Posts: > 500
From: Australia
PM, WWW
|
I agree with all the points about the camera's technical abilities, but isn't it a bit short sighted to say that someone wouldn't use one if they take photography seriously?
Not all photographers care about technically perfect pictures, and are quite happy to "only" have good composition (isn't that what it's all about?). And besides it takes a certain degree of photographic skill to understand and get the most out of something as limited as a camera phone. It's a skill in itself - and it forces the photographer to rely more on their skill than the equipment. You can get excellent results with something like a K750, and those who think of it as a toy either haven't used one, or are short selling their own photographic ability. I know I myself have actually learnt more about control over lighting factors since owning and using a camera phone (going back to vga units even).
In the fifties there was a photographer who became very famous for using box brownies. He suffered the same fate as photographers today who use cheap compact cameras or digital phone cameras - he was laughed at by many professionals for using consumer equipment to practice his art.
On this very website we have a many regular photographers who use the K750 for their daily photographer needs. Just check out the picture threads for K750, W800 and even the K700. Okay so there is a lot of chaff, but amongst the good are some awesome pics. Arez for example stands out, or Chili from the K700 thread. Now the K700 is a vga camera, yet Chili is able to use the strengths of the camera to create some very artistic and inspired images. There are many other excellent photographers contributing to these threads.
Not all photography has crystal clear perfectly exposed prints as it's primary goal. Some care more about the actual content.
I do appreciate having every available MP and feature possible, which is why I will buy the K800 when it comes out - but the factor that I'm trying to get at in this thread, is that the convenience of always having a camera on one's person is made possible by camera phones, and that they (Atleast K750 and it's ilk) are good enough now that it's possible to rely on a camera phone for most purposes, even if you might ideally prefer better.
Another thing I'm surprised at is the number of people who claim that dedicated digital cameras will always have more control than a camera phone. In my experience most small pocket sized cheap to medium priced 2MP cameras are no better than the K750. They usually have atrocious colour rendition, pixelation, distortion and noise in lowlight. They have fixed focus lenses and their inbuilt flashes are weaker than the K750 camera light. The K750 is atleast as good, and many times much better, than these types of digital cameras.
In comparing my K750 against my CX4200 2.1MP auto focus kodak digital camera, I'd have to say the only area where the kodak is better is less "fish eye" distortion around the outside of the picture and better lowlight performance (but only just). The Kodak has a glass lense.
I used the Kodak to take photos for a photography exhibition, and received many positive comments about the work. I plan to do the same with the K750 and don't expect that my work will be boycotted because I have used a camera phone.
So am I a serious photographer or just a poser with a camera phone? Perhaps you are thinking "well I can't judge if he is a photographer or not if he doesn't show us his pictures". Well that happens to be my point to the letter: you can't judge a photographer by their equipment, you have to see their work first. And I don't claim to be brilliant anyway, I just like taking photos. I don't want to post my pics here because my ability as a photographer is not the issue. (If you want to see some of my pics, check out the K750 picture thread or the K700 thread).
However if you want to see a professional photograher not afraid to use camera phones check out Arez's site (Arez hope you don't mind me linking to you):
http://www.pbase.com/ares/camera_phones
Arez has even used the venerable T610 to excellent affect. If you have any doubt that a camera phone can be a tool for real photography, then check the link I'm sure you will be surprised.
|
mongoose3800
Joined: Nov 29, 2005
Posts: 416
From: Australia
PM |
If my w800 didn't have those annoying Vertical lines i'd use it even more - I do use it a fair bit. My cheap 3mp camera provides much better quality photo's though - even when toned down to 2mp. K750/W800 are only low end camera's suitable for basic photography and will never replace a real camera simply because of the need for a big lense to take really decent photo's and too have the all important zoom. |
dazbradbury
Joined: Nov 24, 2002
Posts: > 500
From: UK - Derby/London
PM, WWW
|
I think we all know, apart from max_wedge, that real photographers will never use camera phones. I truly appreciate the fact that it's nice to have an all in one solution, and having a camera phone is indeed very handy. But I am not going to undergo the same argument in this thread.
Purpose built, high-end, digital camera's will always be better than the best camera phone of the time. That is clear.
Whether or not low-end obsolute camera's are better or not is a different matter, and one that I see as irrelevant. You need to think of the price tag of the k800i, it will be high. An equivelent phone without camera will be much cheaper. Can that money that is left over purchase a better digicam? To be honest, i don't know, but i'm going to say you probably could. And a serious photographer probably would, even if it cost that little extra.
And for the argument about the skill involved, I am sure you know that a purpose built camera comes with much more manual control. Maybe not a low-end digicam, but a high end one definately does. So the amount that can be achieved is far greater, so the skill can be put to BETTER use. This has nothing to do with MP count. This is fact, and i don't see how you can argue it.
If you want to see some good photo's there are hundreds of photo of the day competitions where regular people post their photo's. You will see the people posting their pictures have good equipment. They have camera's that allow them to control all aspects of their photographs. Better equipment does lead to higher quality photographs.
For example:
http://www.steves-digicams.com/daily_dpotd.html
No offence to Arez, he has some nice photo's, but i'm sure even he can appreciate his skills as a photographer would be put to better use with a better camera. I doubt he actually wants a crap lens, or the inability to zoom, the low resolution, the lack of fully manual control, the lack of a good flash, etc etc.
The point i'm trying to make is that as a photographer, you aspire to create the nicest photographs. You want to be able to be thrown into a situation and create pleasent results. Better results or at least more options, will always come from better equipment.
|
OluYom
Joined: Oct 27, 2004
Posts: > 500
From: Nigeria
PM, WWW
|
I own a Kodak Advantix F320 digicam I haven't used in over a year. Reason: its never there when I need a camera. But my Nokia 9500 is; so 95% of my pictures in the last one year have been recorded on the 9500 (which does not even come close to the K750 et al in terms of camera performance).
But the pictures show me what I want to see: memories of my wife, kids, friends, rare events et al, that I needed to capture at a particular time and that would probably never re-present themselves once the moment is gone.
The quality is not superb or whao!, but its good and actually printable.
That, IMO, is the greatest strength of the camera phone. Its always there.
PS: I used to be known as AYA |
dazbradbury
Joined: Nov 24, 2002
Posts: > 500
From: UK - Derby/London
PM, WWW
|
@ AYA, that is the perfect camera phone use. And the same reason I would end up using the camera in my phone.
But you wouldn't consider yourself a photography enthusiast, or a serious photographer, or even put such photographs in an exhibition. Or am I wrong?
|
rockygali
Joined: Nov 21, 2005
Posts: > 500
From:
PM, WWW
|
i agree with max_wedge...
Martin Parr is a PRO.... how come hes endorsing K750... yes of course its commercialism... but then again look at his shots taken with the said camphone. if that still taken care of by commercialism then take K750 urself and try it out... if you have a friend whos into photography then let him handle K750. after the run down listen to wots hes gotta say...
and youll find out max_wedge is hitting major points with it... and of course others who is seeing the same as his... including me.
"Darkness is the absence of light.. and not the opposite..." |
OluYom
Joined: Oct 27, 2004
Posts: > 500
From: Nigeria
PM, WWW
|
Quote:
|
On 2006-03-21 06:13:15, dazbradbury wrote:
@But you wouldn't consider yourself a photography enthusiast, or a serious photographer, or even put such photographs in an exhibition. Or am I wrong?
|
|
No; I wouldn't. But then most people on this planet would fit into my category, and as long as it stays that way, Yes; camera phones would naturally continue to serve as a viable alternative to a dedicated digicam (low or high-end) for most people in everyday situations. More people are likely to purchase and use camera phones rather than digital cameras.
Here is max's opening line: Quote:
| Personally I feel the digital cameras in phones are advanced enough in some phones to make the need to own a low end digital camera for snap-shots or non-professional photography obsolete. |
|
That makes very good sense, IMO, and still does not in any way take away any merit from your point that professionals and photo enthusiasts (a very small minority) would find camera-phones inadequate for their purposes.
As a matter of fact, it does seem that the two of you are saying the same thing, but strangely seem bent  on antagonising yourselves 
_________________
DSnet Interactive>>
PCs: http://domainstandard.net/board/
Mobile: http://domainstandard.net/boards/
[ This Message was edited by: AYA on 2006-03-21 07:39 ] | |
|
Access the forum with a mobile phone via esato.mobi
|
Posted: 2006-03-20 18:47
t610 > k700i > p800 > p900 > p910 > k750i > I-mate Jam > Blokia 6681 > HTC Prophet > HTC Wizard & Nokia N73 > E71 > BB 9000 > HTC Desire > Samsung Galaxy S > Samsung Galaxy S II & the Motorola Xoom 
