General discussions : General : Can camera phones replace low-end dedicated digital cameras
>
New Topic
>
Reply<
Esato Forum Index
>
General discussions >
General
> Can camera phones replace low-end dedicated digital cameras
Bookmark topic
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.
For example, the K750 has the features, and as good quality pictures, as most compact styled 2MP digital camera on the market. With Auto focus, exposure control, focus lock on half-press, macro mode, comprehensive menu and special effects, exif info, and of course 2MP, woud anyone argue that the K750 is a "real" digital camera?
If that doesn't satisfy, what about the "Cybershot" K800? It has all the above, plus 3.2MP, Flash, cybershot menu, panorama and burst mode, red eye reduction, and spot metering.
I think these cameras are good enough to ditch my trust worthy old Kodak CX4200 digital, and to sit back relax and enjoy photography AND the convenience of never having to carry a 2nd piece of equipment when out taking photos. Infact, I've already done that, and have taken 1000's more photos in the same time frame as I would when my camera is not part of my ever-present mobile phone. I have been able to take advantage of some great photo opportunities that I would have missed otherwise (such as metre deep hail in tropical Brisbane).
So what does everyone think? Am I a crazy nutcase to even consider using a phone as a digital camera, or are phone cameras truly coming of age?
_________________
Get free themes from my
themes site[ This Message was edited by: laffen on 2006-04-20 05:11 ]
--
Posted: 2006-03-20 05:08:38
Edit :
Quote
Yeah, I do think that some camera phones, i.e. K750, could make some early digital cameras obselete. On the other hand I don't see cameraphones as replacements for a dedicated digital cameras. Like can you imagine a family taking a K750 on holiday for all their photography needs? I really don't see the mobile phone camera making real cameras obselete.
--
Posted: 2006-03-20 05:42:29
Edit :
Quote
one year ago I would have agreed more or less. But now I feel the cameras are adequate. Having taken many hundreds of photos with the K750 I have come to the conclusion that for everyday snaps many families could indeed use it as a holiday camera, although a dedicated camera may be more useful because it IS separate from the phone (so daddy doesn't have to let little johny play with his phone).
But from a technical perspective I don't see why not. Infact, the K750 has more control than many compact film cameras, so if a cheap compact can be used to take holiday snaps why not a K750?
I'm interested in why you think a family couldn't use a K750 as a camera? (my sister and her family have a spare K750 that they use for that purpose, they seem happy enough). One instance in which I would agree with you, a 5-6MP camera is going to take much more detailed photos of landscapes. While the K750 does fine in this category, a high MP camera is going to be qualitatively different.
What I'm really getting at though, is comparing camera phones to dedicated 2-3MP cameras. I'm interested in the comparison between camera phones and compareable digital cameras - can they be used interchangeably?
--
Posted: 2006-03-20 06:03:13
Edit :
Quote
Offcourse the K750 (and it's walkman/branded cousins like theD750/W800/W810) and the "cybershot" series can replace a low-end digicam - but that's only as fas as casual photography is concerned.
Some limitations are there though:
1. Indoor photographs leave much to be desired when compared to a "proper" camera.
2. The "exposure" and zoom are still playthings - increasing the exposure increases the ISO (leading to a noisier image) and the digital zoom is kidd's stuff.
3. The "autofocus" is infact centre-weighted and not multi-segment.
Being an owner of both the K750 and a proper Sony CyperShot 5 mp camera, I can say that the K750 almost satisfies my day-time needs, except when I *really* need the optical zoom.
I don;t need to carry a separate device, worry about AA batteries and MS issues. However, for the indoor and night shots, I'd love my DSC-W5 any odd day.
But thats only for my trusty SE, or maybe the Sharp 902 - But I can't be so sure about the answer when someone hands me a Samsung D600 or a Moto v3x or a Nokia 6820/N90 though.
--
Posted: 2006-03-20 06:13:53
Edit :
Quote
nice thread maxie! well i guess the development track of camera these days are really adequate enough to replace digital cameras of today. tho they still need more refurnishing and stuff inside and out... you know.. firmwares and technicalities... but then again speaking of adequacy.. YES i will agree with you.
darn i cant still help but think of K800.. argh! yummy!
--
Posted: 2006-03-20 06:19:51
Edit :
Quote
given today's technology, i must say that yes, i'd be willing to take a cameraphone out with me all the time as to carrying a separate dedicated digital camera. i think the latter comes in handy on situations like when you need to:
capture a large picture (i.e. being on top of a mountain and using the scenery as a background),
zoom in on the object (and i'm not even thinking of digital zoom here)
capture photos in below-average lighting conditions (but i think the xenon flash included in the K790 will make up for close-up shots)
other than those things, i'd go on with a cameraphone, because i'm a sucker for all-in-one devices...
--
Posted: 2006-03-20 06:46:28
Edit :
Quote
2 years ago I bought my wife a Casio Exilim EX-S2 2MP camera. She has since... 'misplaced' it so I haven't been able to do what I have wanted since I got my K750 and do a side by side comparison. Based on old photos from the Casio I'd have to say that the 750 is very close to having the same capabilites/quality as the 'real' camera. The lack of a true flash seems to be the only main drawback because it is necessary for a lot of indoor photography, but that can be fixed with the add on flash (which I have). If I'm lucky and find the casio, I will make sure to make the comparison and post the samples for judgement.
--
Posted: 2006-03-20 07:58:39
Edit :
Quote
true.
the "exposure affects iso" issue is the same for many low end cameras anyway - most of them don't have adjustable apertures.
I agree anytime that a 5MP camera would in most cases be more desirable than a 2(and give more control to the photographer), but so would a 12MP be more desirable than a 5MP, but no one other than professional photographers use that as an argument not to use a 5MP camera.
--
Posted: 2006-03-20 08:08:52
Edit :
Quote
It depends on what you want to do.
I still use my analog reflex camera as I think traditional film is still unsurpassed in many ways but I don't carry it around all the time. I want a second camera for snapshots. That is not a type of camera you spend a lot of money on and it being digital has many advantages. For that use a camera with a modest amount of megapixels suffices, as long as you can make acceptable 10*15 prints.
For that use, the mobile phones with camera's from 1.3mpx on do the job and have a major advantage: you can pop it out on occasions it would be a bit bizarre to have brought a camera. A phonecam is less obtrusive.
So as a second device, a handy cam for snapshots, I'd say it is reasonable to ditch a real camera of say 3-4 mpx and use a SE instread. For the serious work it will never be good enough compared to real camera's.
--
Posted: 2006-03-20 09:09:33
Edit :
Quote
i think that is already happening....the cheapest Sony mpx cam available here in India officialy is a 4 mpx.they discontinued the 3 mpx 3 months back.
but i feel that till cam phones get optical zoom,we can still see some low end cameras selling good.
--
Posted: 2006-03-20 10:03:20
Edit :
Quote
New Topic
Reply
