Camera Phones Again (Page 5): Just think of what a top-of-the -line DSLR or ML with the Qualcomm Cellular Modem Chip would be like. Take the highest quality photos AND share them...

delder Loc: Maryland

Just think of what a top-of-the -line DSLR or ML with the Qualcomm Cellular Modem Chip would be like. Take the highest quality photos AND share them INSTANTLY anywhere in the world!

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

Novots wrote:

Do phone prints and camera prints essentially look the same at typical print sizes, 4×6, 8×10 etc.? If one doesn't print their images and only looks at them on some sort of device, isn't a phone camera good enough?

That depends on which camera and which phone. I have seen some beautiful prints from high end phone cameras. And dedicated cameras still do some things phone cameras have trouble with - like birds in flight or low light sports, whether they are printed or viewed on a device.

delder Loc: Maryland

Grandpa Ron wrote:

If you are a camera buff you understand the things a camera can do that a phone cannot. If you are the average person that likes to take pictures, you think phone.

There are a lot more folks who care about the quality of their camera photos, than that small portion of the population that care about their camera's abilities.

If they put a view finder and tripod mount and a serious photographer's app on a phone, they would capture an even larger market share.

Or put a 5G chip in a Camera!

kufengler Loc: Meridian, Idaho 83646

Novots wrote:

Do phone prints and camera prints essentially look the same at typical print sizes, 4×6, 8×10 etc.? If one doesn't print their images and only looks at them on some sort of device, isn't a phone camera good enough?

I would think printed images could vary depending on printer and ink type, along with print sizes. At home, I print 4x6 - 8x10 prints. When I still worked at HP I had access to larger prints, up to 24x36. To my eyes, there was a difference between the small vs larger prints. I also have them displayed on a 50" Samsung sometimes on a 65") at home. Definitely makes a difference, but that may be my eyes and mind how I see them.

Grandpa Ron

When I went in recently for a routine chest Xray, I jokingly asked a 20 something technician for two 5x7's and an 8x10 glossy. l got the strangest deer-in-the-headlights look. She had no idea of what I meant. Her photos were on a cell phone or computer monitor.

Young folk have little need for hard copies, they have hundreds on their electronic devices, and they can share them or save them to the cloud with a push of a button.

Toment Loc: FL, IL

sailwiz wrote:

I'm not mr. science or tech, so please explain to me why a "company spent a large portion of its Unpacked presentation outlining the various new camera improvements: a higher-resolution 200-megapixel sensor, wider dynamic range, steadier optical image stabilization for video, faster autofocus and clearer shots in low light, among other upgrades" and our cameras can't seem to match or perform like that. Thank you.

Computational photography.

fetzler Loc: North West PA

sailwiz wrote:

I'm not mr. science or tech, so please explain to me why a "company spent a large portion of its Unpacked presentation outlining the various new camera improvements: a higher-resolution 200-megapixel sensor, wider dynamic range, steadier optical image stabilization for video, faster autofocus and clearer shots in low light, among other upgrades" and our cameras can't seem to match or perform like that. Thank you.

There are NO 200 megapixel cellphone cameras. The laws of physics do not allow a small sensor to have this number of pixels. Of course one can us upscale the number of pixels in an image with some success using software. It is rather easy to take night photographs on any modern digital camera. If you need higher shutter speeds then you will get more noise due to the high ISO. Again software can help reduce this noise. Your photograph will still not be as noise free as one taken at base ISO but it may be OK.

fetzler Loc: North West PA

delder wrote:

Or put a 5G chip in a Camera!

Just so you know the 5G standard is not fully implemented in the US. It is unlikely that users will see better than 4G performance. (Yes, I know folks are being sold "5G' phones). Much of the limitations are due to radio physics in the real world.

Flyerace Loc: Mt Pleasant, WI

I have the iPhone 13 Pro Max. The photos are pretty fantastic. The capabilities of this phone will never be completely used by me. I still make photos with my Nikon camera, but sometimes I just don't have it with me. "The best camera, is the camera you have with you". That seems to be true. I've seen the iPhone 14 Pro Max and the photos are even more exciting!

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Flyerace wrote:

I have the iPhone 13 Pro Max. The photos are pretty fantastic. The capabilities of this phone will never be completely used by me. I still make photos with my Nikon camera, but sometimes I just don't have it with me. "The best camera, is the camera you have with you". That seems to be true. I've seen the iPhone 14 Pro Max and the photos are even more exciting!

Simply a different camera in a different box with different characteristics.
(Some people are simply stuck.)

2th Loc: Tehran

which camera can be handheld for 10 seconds. the most I can hold is about 1/15 0f a second. I,m an avid 45 year photographer. since Minolta XG-1 . but for the last 2 weeks I,m happy with my Samsung S-23 ultra .and kept my D-850 and lenses , tripod and assorted lenses at home. May be getting old.Don.t feel offended

2th Loc: Tehran

I,m 65 now but still say S23-ultra Samsung is excellent.