Have smartphone cameras reached point-and-shoot quality?
0. phoneArena posted on 04 Feb 2013, 09:51
The debate about the quality of smartphone cameras and whether or not they have reached point-and-shoot level has been current for at least a few years now, and while we're generally not the ones to say that they have, our opinion has recently started to change...
This is a discussion for a news. To read the whole news, click here
1. cezarepc posted on 04 Feb 2013, 10:00 36
My N8 puts traditional point and shoots to shame. Low-end point and shoots have low-quality optics which results to barrel distortion which is non-existent on my N8 (and even other smartphones like GS2, iPhone4/4S, GS3, etc). Processing is also better thanks to the continuous upgrades of socs and software.
Nokia even took it to another level and introduced Pureview.
Edit: Personally I use the xenon flash in Low-light conditions (e.g. parties, bars, etc). But manually configuring the ISO and exposure can give you decent images even without flash.
27. JWS65 posted on 04 Feb 2013, 19:26 1
Maybe it wins to low end ones, but not against high end P&S I think. Can N8, 808 beat Canon S100, Lumix LX-7, Sony RX100? I doubt it.
28. Droid_X_Doug posted on 04 Feb 2013, 20:03 0
You nailed it, JWS. Sure, the iP5, L920 and GS III/Note II can be competitive with some P&S cameras, but NOT the high-end P&S cameras. There is the simple matter of the physics that are involved. For example, digital zoom will never compete with optical zoom.
31. -box- posted on 04 Feb 2013, 20:46 0
True, but those high-end P&S are around the same price as a new basic or last-gen midrange DSLR (granted with just the included lens with the body). With these smartphones one is getting a single device for almost all general occasions a normal consumer might encounter
34. JWS65 posted on 04 Feb 2013, 22:49 0
Well only Sony RX100 is the pricey one a little above 600. The other two I mentioned above can be had well below 500. I don't think any smart-phone camera can touch them in image quality, performance and they are much more compact than DSLR.
When it comes to low light, action photography, the physics of small sensor in the phone simply don't work for it.
38. cezarepc posted on 05 Feb 2013, 03:03 1
I agree 100%. No smartphone can compete with a full-pledged high-end DSLR/SLR. But you have to consider, these are smartphones were talking about. They're purpose is to serve as your PDA, phone, web-browser, GPS, and camera among others.
Going back to the article, have smartphones reached point-and-shoot quality? A solid yes. There are crappy camera phones and there are great camera phones much like how there are crappy point and shoots and great ones.
41. JWS65 posted on 05 Feb 2013, 12:48 1
I didn't even bring up DSLR to the image quality comparison, just some high end P&S. Actually I think even some decent $300 P&S wins Nokia phone cameras.
The problem with the article is that it's misleading people to believe top quality phone cameras beat or reach all P&S cameras in image quality. Reached low end P&S quality? Yes. But from 300 and above, it's leaning backing to P&S.
44. cezarepc posted on 06 Feb 2013, 03:46 0
Yup your right. Smartphone cams have already reached (only) low-end point and shoot quality. Though if we use $300 as the dividing line between good and bad point and shoots then it's a close fight since a lot of great camera phones are well below $300.
Also, since people who own high-end point and shoots are a minority among camera owners, IMO we can say that generally speaking top quality phones have indeed reached point and shoot quality.
36. haseebzahid posted on 05 Feb 2013, 01:04 0
if u want phones to beat a 400-600$ camera you got to be kidding for now
2. Nathan_ingx posted on 04 Feb 2013, 10:11 22
Excuse me sir...but isn't it already made clear that the phone in the thumbnail (up there in high resolution) has done that??
11. RaKithAPeiRiZ posted on 04 Feb 2013, 11:06 8
that phone right there can rival a mid range mirrorless camera
23. HDShatter posted on 04 Feb 2013, 17:32 1
No thanks, I buy cameras to use as cameras not phones. I don't care how many Megapixels it is this phone is destroyed by most actual cameras.
29. Nathan_ingx posted on 04 Feb 2013, 20:08 4
I agree...i want cameras to have a seperate feel...O, there are dedicated cameras for that, aren't there? Lol...
Jokes apart, cameraphones are mostly about accessibility and mobility. Imagine you're sitting in a car (not driving...please don't do this if you're driving :P) you have a phone in your hand with a capable sensor and a dedicated camera hanging by your neck. As you're passing through the highway 60mph, you see a girl standing at the roadside flashing (just an example) and you want to click it quick.
Would you use your phone to take the picture with the quick access it has with the shutter key?
Or would you fumble with your camera (open lens cover-turn it on-manual/auto adjust-she's about 15 feet gone)...?
But now you see, cameraphones have become more that just random clicking devices... Hence the article.
37. haseebzahid posted on 05 Feb 2013, 01:08 0
cams in phones are for portability for everyday use where u are not always taking ur cam with u unless ur pro photographer
30. Droid_X_Doug posted on 04 Feb 2013, 20:09 0
Yeah right. Sony RX100 runs away and hides while the Nokia is trying to produce a RAW image file with High Dynamic Range. It will be a cold day in Hell when the 808 lens can produce an image resolution in the 2,000 lines territory. LMFAO.
32. -box- posted on 04 Feb 2013, 20:49 3
Oh look, there's the point! You missed it.
3. N-fanboy posted on 04 Feb 2013, 10:13 1
The question is now that its clear that we dont nead point and shoot cameras any more, what else will slowly become accomodated in to smartphones? I say laptops! Who needs 'em?
5. No_Nonsense posted on 04 Feb 2013, 10:20 0
Ubuntu and the QNX based BB10 are a step in that direction.
9. Muhannad posted on 04 Feb 2013, 10:55 2
You're looking at laptops from a certain angle, I'm telling you that there are a lot of PC gamers, myself included, who aren't willing to game on a tiny touch screen compared to desktops and laptops.
22. Zero0 posted on 04 Feb 2013, 16:48 0
So then something like the Asus Padphone, where the phone would dock into a larger screen? It's a ways off before phone processors will hold a candle to even a half-decent laptop, but maybe in the distant future it could be realistic.
42. HDShatter posted on 05 Feb 2013, 21:45 0
Phones will never be better than a desktop/laptop, good luck encoding 1080p video on a phone/tablet or playing any games released in last 5 years.
4. No_Nonsense posted on 04 Feb 2013, 10:17 10
Depends on the phone you are talking about. The 808 does it and sometimes even bests the P&Ses and if GSMArena's comparison is anything to go by, it performs well against an SLR as well. The N8 does it too. OIS in the 920 is a great step forward, but otherwise the 920 doesn't better or equal P&S cameras. Although, I'd say any other manufacturer bar Nokia is not doing this.
6. Cyan3boN posted on 04 Feb 2013, 10:21 10
Nokia, god of all camera phones. If only they made point and shoots. maybe it's their backup plan!!
43. HDShatter posted on 05 Feb 2013, 21:47 0
If they made normal cameras that had improved versions of pureview and they cost like $50-$100 they would be rich.
7. Deaconclgi posted on 04 Feb 2013, 10:33 13
No mention of the Nokia N8 in the atticle which STILL has a larger sensor than ALL other smartphones besides the 808. The N8 is entering it's third calendar year and the sensor is still larger than most point and shoot cameras.
Also saying that no one would like a phone as thick as the 808 is complete personal bias and if it is really about the camera then the picture quality is what matters the most in this discussion.
Cell phone cameras won't replace point and shoots until their hardware equals or exceeds them in sensor/optics and xenon flash which both the Nokia N8 and 808 have done.
Even the Nokia N82 was closing the gap back in 2008 but the level of optical and software in the N8 and 808 far exceeds that milestone and the 808 clearly trumps the competition and is a suitable replacement to a point an shoot.
10. Deaconclgi posted on 04 Feb 2013, 11:00 6
The person thumbing down the comments about Nokia products must have some sad insecurity. An unbiased person just states what is factually correct. It is a fact that currently, Nokia makes the best camera phones with the largest sensors, best optics, larger than the sensors from all competitors and most point and shoot cameras. Why would you down vote that? Really, examine yourself and see what is your problem or bias? If another manufacturer makes better and larger sensors and cameras than Nokia then great! Are you going to down vote them as well.
I own a N8, iPhone 4S and various android devices and Nokia is the only manufacturer that have provided a complete camera package which includes the necessity of a powerful Xenon flash JUST LIKE point and shoots.
I'd like to have more options when it comes to having a point and shoot replacement in my cell phone so I hope other manufacturers do more in the area of optics, sensors and xenon capacitors and not have Nokia go at it alone.
Down voting facts is childish and if you got satisfaction from doing that then that says a lot about your personality.
24. Edmund posted on 04 Feb 2013, 17:53 6
and that person is most likely darac, the undisputed android queen of phone arena.
12. jaabubut posted on 04 Feb 2013, 11:14 2
I own nokia n82 and it quality is on par with nokia n8
21. jiezel91 posted on 04 Feb 2013, 16:25 4
I own the N82 too. And my sister has the N8. I must honestly say, the N8 is the absolute winner. The colors are very impressively natural-looking and very detailed too. But the N82 has a stronger flash though. But somehow, I have observed that in the output pictures, I don't see the difference in strength (based on the illumination of the scene) of the xenon flashes of both the N82 and N8.
13. wando77 posted on 04 Feb 2013, 11:37 2
I'd happily buy a phone as thick as the 808 providing they put it on android with at least nexus 4 processor and ram
14. aco96 posted on 04 Feb 2013, 12:02 2
There is one thing I don't understand: Why compaines avoid xenon flash? Only Nokia includes them. I remember phone like SE c901, c905, satio, LG Renoir etc. they all had xenon flash. But now only phone in 2012 which included it was 808 PW. How can a phone without xenon flash replace point-and-shoot camera?
15. ThePhenomenalOne posted on 04 Feb 2013, 12:38 5
Proud owner of the Nokia N8 and 808 PureView.
16. tusshharish posted on 04 Feb 2013, 13:40 4
nokia puts a best example of this competition by giving us pureveiw.....
17. darac posted on 04 Feb 2013, 14:19 2
I am really pleased with my S3' camera.
Took some HDR shots at night yesterday, they turned out amazing
18. surethom posted on 04 Feb 2013, 14:58 2
Without a Xenon flash & without at least 3 x Optical zoom, then no.
Low light is a major fail on virtual all camera phones released today. (Nokia is the closest)
19. hrvoj15 posted on 04 Feb 2013, 15:37 7
Never had a better camera or a camcorder than on my 808..don't care about a bulkiness..It's a Man's phone!...
20. ZiadMohamed posted on 04 Feb 2013, 15:54 5
Without reading I just see the subject and...Definitely yes
I compared 808 pureview 38 mpx photo with 18 mpx Canon 550d (landscape photo) and asked my mother to tell me what picture is better at 100% crops and I really amazed when she tell me : this picture (808) is more pure!!! Hahaa and btw she didn't know any thing about the two devices.
but sure the canon 550d still better cause it's more professional ... it's DSLR!
25. jroc74 posted on 04 Feb 2013, 18:02 1
Thanks to Nokia and the iPhone...I would say yea. The hardware and software they used over the last few years has been great. HTC and Samsung have decent cameras too. Sony phones....dont really know.. They should...it is Sony after all....lol
33. -box- posted on 04 Feb 2013, 21:06 0
Not so much the iphone. It uses the same Sony camera module as many other phones in the market.
26. JWS65 posted on 04 Feb 2013, 19:20 1
It came close or on par with to low end point& shoot but not high end ones above $300. The big flaw in this article is that Galaxy Camera is not representative of what decent point & shoot camera can do. It's more geared toward to wireless sharing than camera performance. But as camera Galaxy Camera is no contender to likes of say Canon SX260HS, Sony HX20V, Panasonic ZS20. I bet that those P&S cams blow away even Nokia, iPhone cameras easily.
39. jsdechavez posted on 05 Feb 2013, 04:55 0
Agree. Just because the Galaxy camera uses Android doesn't mean it's the best and proper representative of point and shoots.. haha
35. nvrhde posted on 04 Feb 2013, 23:13 0
Up to some level,
But for optical zoom PS Cam is the choice at the moment in my opinion.
But Smart phone definitely got a future.
40. tntwit posted on 05 Feb 2013, 11:46 0
As noted, smart phones typically have a weak flash. Indoor pictures of anything that moves produces blurry photos because the shutter speed is way too slow. My G3 is typically at 1/15 of a second indoors and you typically need at least 1/60 to prevent blurs of anything that moves. You need much faster if it is moving quick.
So, if you can get people to pose, and you are right in front of them, you can usually get good photos, but for anything else, forget it. Kids and pets indoors are difficult to impossible with a smartphone indoors.
However, they are decent outdoors, and for static objects they can take some impressive photos given what they are, but they are far from a proper replacement at this point. That doesn't mean they won't, and haven't already, taken a chunk out of the P&S market, but that's because the average person (read - not a photo geek like myself) is perfectly happy with the limitations of current smart phones.
Also, as noted, Samsung isn't the best representative in the P&S market. While they are decent enough, they typically do not produce the best pictures. Even their mirrorless camera looked awful noisey from the images I have seen on DPReview, when compared to Panasonic and Olympus.