Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
At some point we'll have smartphones with cameras that take frame-quality photos. We aren't there yet.
Larger sensors and better lenses would be required to improve image quality much. There is a limit to how big a phone can be and still be successful. Since most phone pics are posted on websites or emailed to friends, they really don't have to be too good.
Larger sensors and better lenses would be required to improve image quality much. There is a limit to how big a phone can be and still be successful. Since most phone pics are posted on websites or emailed to friends, they really don't have to be too good.
I disagree. Better sensors and better lenses would be needed. Not necessarily larger sensors. The current need for larger sensors is a technological barrier... not a scientific limit. We will overcome this barrier at some point and will be able to produce smaller, yet sufficient sensors.
I've had consumer digital cameras since the 90s. Not one has broken.
Good for you. My kids break them all. I'm not talking little kids either. I gave up paying $200 for a camera that would be dead in three months. I tried teaching them, but despite that it still happened. Only once has a phone been broken and needed replacement. It just doesn't make economic sense for me. Maybe when they're all gone on their own, and if the cameras are still available, then I might get another one.
First I want to clarify something. When I said this earlier:
Quote:
I don't consider my Canon A2200 P&S to be of low quality just because it isn't a DSLR.
.....I was actually referring to the Canon's physical build quality. It's rather heavy for its size, none of its controls exhibit excess movement or slop etc. And while I think its image quality is quite good for an P&S, I do realize it is not comparable to a DSLR's. Actually I was very close to buying one of those P&S models that are 99% of a DSLR but without interchangeable lenses like this Nikon, but decided I wanted the small size of the Canon, and would later buy a "real" SLR.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zembonez
Since most phone pics are posted on websites or emailed to friends, they really don't have to be too good.
+1
And I'll add: LOTS of pics posted there, usually boring as heck so I'm scratching my head and thinking "why is that here?". I think this is happening because a lot of people think that since they have access to a camera at (nearly) all times, they feel the need to photograph something, even it it's not necessarily interesting or intended to be kept for posterity.
And lastly, watches vs. cellphones. This is one comparison with little gray area for me: NO WAY will I not wear a watch and then have to fumble around reaching into my pocket, flipping the phone around in the right direction and then finally reading the time, when I can just move my arm slightly and see the time, in literally about half a second. Wearing a watch also doesn't bother me physically, even while wearing one of Casio's chunky G-Shock models. Plus a watch can tell others a little about who you are and on the materialistic side of things , can add some style to your personal "look" out in public.
Forgot to add this to the above: I've heard that historians are becoming worried about the effects of digital photography. That's because so many people never convert their image files to physical form i.e. paper+ink, and end up deleting many or all of them when newer images are captured (the issue with taking multiple pics of irrelevant situations exacerbates this situation). Not to mention crashing hard drives etc. This could lead to what those historians believe will be a future where people will not know as much about us as we did about *our* ancestors, well, at least as far back as around 1840.
So if you've got something important to remember, grab some quality paper & ink and start printing!
Some phones take very nice pictures. I am not thinking they will replace real cameras - those are still equipment for professionals and those who want to take professional quality pictures. But for every, day use? They are good, small and very handy.
I used to carry with me my photo gear, but many times I missed a really great shot only because I didn't had it with me. Now, with my great phone cam ( N8 ) that I carry with me mostly everywhere - I can shoot a picture or take a short video any time, any place.
BTW: I still wear my watch. Somehow, I don't think the phone can substitute it.
Even if Leica was still in the business of making cameras I highly doubt they would stoop to the level of smartphone cameras.
It's just one more step from where they are now. I don't see why it wouldn't happen.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
, can add some style to your personal "look" out in public.
