Erik_H Loc: Denham Springs, Louisiana

First, let me admit that I have dogged the cell phone camera ever since they started putting the two together in one platform. That said, my boss recently upgraded his phone to one of the new Samsung Note phones (not the Note 7) and I was actually quite impressed with the image quality he has been getting. Fast forward to last week when I broke my s3 and decided to get the new s7 rather than get the screen replaced on my aging phone. I have been playing with the camera and to be honest, I'm amazed with the quality I'm seeing. Also, I just discovered that it shoots raw DNG files. Before, I would never consider my phone camera as an emergency back up to my Nikons, (the S3's camera was pretty useless) but I may have to rethink that.

56HotRod Loc: Littleton CO

I share your enthusiasm Erik. I've had my S7 Edge since mid August and love the camera. I especially like the voice activated shutter. It makes one-handed operation easy as saying "capture." Have you checked out Snapseed? It's a slick app to enhance your photos.

Haydon

The wheels fall off the bus with prints and many don't understand that with 20x30 prints. Cellphones are fine for down and dirty shots but they shouldn't be relied upon as the end all. There are limitations to any system and without that knowledge, there will be shortcomings unobserved until the wall is hit.

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

You have just discovered what some of us have been talking about on UHH. Other than the limited lense and aperture selection (one setting for each), it is quite a useful camera. And it even comes with very little shutter lag and half way decent post processing software. Just realize it has it's limitations and have fun exploring the menus and it's limits for your standards.

Rongnongno Loc: FL

DNG offered is not a raw. This is one of the biggest 'lie' around.

DNG encapsulate anything from a JPG to a raw. Only advantage you get is that you cannot 'accidentally' over write a DNG while editing.

As to the quality, it indeed is getting much better but if you look closely you will realize that despite the sensor progress there is still no comparison with the real 'thing'. Now if your purpose is web publishing still/video you do not need more than that. Web use/sharing is the only strong point these phone cameras have. Then again 'connectivity' of regular cameras is increasing.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

Erik, put your photons where they count. Try making a 16x20 print of your images. Let's see how that works out.
--Bob

Erik_H Loc: Denham Springs, Louisiana

You are correct, but it still beats the hell out of JPEG only.

WessoJPEG Loc: Cincinnati, Ohio

Cord Camera shop in our town for years had a picture on its window that was life size. It was taken
With a 6 MP camera. Far exceeded 20x30. My Galaxy S5 is 16 MP.

insman1132 Loc: Southwest Florida

No doubt. They have made, and continue to make, wonderful strides with the phone cameras.

Erik_H Loc: Denham Springs, Louisiana

I wouldn't even attempt to print anything larger than about 4x5", I have full frame cameras for that.

londonfire Loc: NY to NC

And I have a 20x30 from a 4 mp Canon 1D but all megapixels are not created equal. Look at the specs regarding pixel size.

dcampbell52 Loc: Clearwater Fl

EXACTLY. People forget that with a cell phone, the size of the sensor is even smaller than that of most point and shoot cameras. Cell Phones are absolutely great for those "oh my gosh" moments when you don't have your camera gear or just want that shot that "happens". Just don't try to blow the photo up any larger than 8x10 or it will fall apart. It is great, if all you do is upload photos to Facebook, send shares in messenger to friends, etc. It just depends on what you shoot photos for. This is one reason that there is still a market for large format cameras or medium format cameras like Hasselblad. With a Hasselblad, you can get a 50mp camera (body only) for around $15,000 US. This is a price drop of about 50%. But, remember that the sensor size is roughly 50mm vs the Digital full frame of roughly 35mm. The camera phone sensors run from 2mm to 4mm in size. The Samsung S7 (arguably the best of the camera phones) has a resolution of 12mp and the sensor is 1/2.5 inches in size. Not to mention that you need to carry a fire extinguisher with you when you carry an S7 right now.

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

Of course, but in general for the last few years some of the better cell phone cameras capture surprisingly good images. These are a few images I've taken with my 2 year old Samsung Galaxy s5. It's not a replacement for my Canon 7D Mark II and good lenses, and it certainly lacks features, but within its limitations it can work well and produce very usable images for a variety of purposes. And, Unlike my DSLR, it's with me 24/7! These images are from jpegs straight out of the phone with no additional processing, Please disregard the tilt which I certainly would correct in post. The shots are reasonably sharp with good color saturation in varying lighting conditions.

(Download)


(Download)


(Download)

WessoJPEG Loc: Cincinnati, Ohio

Balogna go to Apple Store look at photos on their computers. All taken with IPhones , better than anything on here.

dcampbell52 Loc: Clearwater Fl

The issue is not the number of pixels but the size of the sensor. Many Full Frame cameras have the same or less pixels than their AF-C (cropped frame) brothers but the images they produce can be enlarged much bigger. If you think back to film days, almost all film had silver grains of approximately the same size. But, there was a difference between shots with a Minox 8mm camera, a 35mm camera, a Roleiflex 2 1/4 camera, a Hasselblad, and an 8X10 camera. All shot (essentially) the same film but the beginning image was bigger (better) on the 8x10.