«

Notice most of these "innovations" like back-lit sensors end up in
camera phones and crappy P&S's?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-16690236

Not surprised if bumbling Kodak passed it up though.

In article <>, Mxsmanic
<> wrote:

> > Notice most of these "innovations" like back-lit sensors end up in
> > camera phones and crappy P&S's?
>
> If they aren't reliable or performant enough to be used in pro equipment, they
> might be used in consumer equipment first, in order to get the bugs out.

the reason is that cameras with tiny sensors such as cellphones have
significantly more limitations than pro cameras with larger sensors,
therefore, these innovations are needed a whole lot more with the
smaller sensor. eventually, they'll migrate to other systems. there's
no conspiracy here.

On Jan 23, 5:03*pm, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <1jjrh7150r8m74lu3o8cb83flsgd8tk...@4ax.com>, Mxsmanic
>
> <mxsma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Notice most of these "innovations" like back-lit sensors end up in
> > > camera phones and crappy P&S's?
>
> > If they aren't reliable or performant enough to be used in pro equipment, they
> > might be used in consumer equipment first, in order to get the bugs out..
>
> the reason is that cameras with tiny sensors such as cellphones have
> significantly more limitations than pro cameras with larger sensors,
> therefore, these innovations are needed a whole lot more with the
> smaller sensor. eventually, they'll migrate to other systems. there's
> no conspiracy here.

Think those new technologies will compensate for noise now that
they've gone in three years from 1-2 megapixels to 8 in cellphones?

In article
<2b2fba9b-a5bf-45a9-acd6->,
RichA <> wrote:

> > > > Notice most of these "innovations" like back-lit sensors end up in
> > > > camera phones and crappy P&S's?
> >
> > > If they aren't reliable or performant enough to be used in pro equipment,
> > > they might be used in consumer equipment first, in order to get the bugs out.
> >
> > the reason is that cameras with tiny sensors such as cellphones have
> > significantly more limitations than pro cameras with larger sensors,
> > therefore, these innovations are needed a whole lot more with the
> > smaller sensor. eventually, they'll migrate to other systems. there's
> > no conspiracy here.
>
> Think those new technologies will compensate for noise now that
> they've gone in three years from 1-2 megapixels to 8 in cellphones?

have you even looked at images coming out of modern cellphone cameras?

many of them are actually quite good, so good that in many cases, the
images are better than from point & shoots from not that long ago.

"nospam" <> wrote in message
news:230120121646252323%...
> In article
> <2b2fba9b-a5bf-45a9-acd6->,
> RichA <> wrote:
> have you even looked at images coming out of modern cellphone cameras?
> many of them are actually quite good, so good that in many cases, the
> images are better than from point & shoots from not that long ago.

That's sometimes true if you are happy with the usual limited lens range and
speed, flash range, (if any) and a whole lot of other serious limitations in
anything other than *ideal* conditions. But why only compare with stuff from
"not that long ago" rather than like with like, and dollar for dollar! I
even know someone who bought a Nokia for it's camera and then complained
about the Symbian OS. I did warn them!

Trevor.

In article <jfl0nq$beb$>, Trevor <>
wrote:

> > have you even looked at images coming out of modern cellphone cameras?
> > many of them are actually quite good, so good that in many cases, the
> > images are better than from point & shoots from not that long ago.
>
> That's sometimes true if you are happy with the usual limited lens range and
> speed, flash range, (if any) and a whole lot of other serious limitations in
> anything other than *ideal* conditions. But why only compare with stuff from
> "not that long ago" rather than like with like, and dollar for dollar!

what about the limitation of what fits into your pocket? the best
camera is the one you have with you.

my cellphone slips into my pocket. my dslr does not, which means i'm
not going to take the dslr most of the time, and certainly not with
multiple lenses.

nobody is claiming that a cellphone camera is the best or most flexible
camera in all situations. the point is that cellphone cameras are now
quite capable and always available and produce better quality than what
was considered very good a few years ago.

> I even know someone who bought a Nokia for it's camera and then complained
> about the Symbian OS. I did warn them!

like everything, there are both good and bad products. he picked a bad
one.

In article <Rc-dneuIS-->, David J.
Littleboy <> wrote:

> > what about the limitation of what fits into your pocket? the best
> > camera is the one you have with you.
>
> My 5D2 with the Voigtlander 40/2.0 goes in my briefcase, and goes everywhere
> said briefcase goes.

do you take your briefcase with you everywhere you go, including places
like a grocery store or going out to eat?

> > nobody is claiming that a cellphone camera is the best or most flexible
> > camera in all situations. the point is that cellphone cameras are now
> > quite capable and always available and produce better quality than what
> > was considered very good a few years ago.
>
> I wonder about that. Your generic, but high end, 3MP digicam (e.g. Olympus
> 3040) 10 years ago took seriously great, sharp at the pixel level, 3 MP
> photos. How do cell phone cameras really compare? Five years ago, there was
> the 10MP Canon G7. Cell phones will never reach that level unless the laws
> of physics change.

the iphone 4s, for example, uses a 5mp backlit sensor with a 5 element
f/2.4 lens. look at iphone 4s samples on flickr. they're quite good,
even if you ignore the fact that it's from a camera that slips into a
pants pocket.

On Jan 24, 4:43*am, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <Rc-dneuIS--q6oPSnZ2dnVY3goSdn...@giganews.com>, David J.

> the iphone 4s, for example, uses a 5mp backlit sensor with a 5 element
> f/2.4 lens. look at iphone 4s samples on flickr. they're quite good,
> even if you ignore the fact that it's from a camera that slips into a
> pants pocket.

Carry a smaller camera, but you should never feel you are treading on
toes by carrying a real camera. People are too concerned over what
others might "think" or of deviating from the "norm." I never thought
I'd see the day when photography might be characterized by people
doing the "Hitler salute" with a cellphone to capture an image. To me,
THAT is embarrassing.

"RichA" <> wrote in message
news:0647d2e6-7298-4816-9614-...
> On Jan 24, 4:43 am, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>> In article <Rc-dneuIS--q6oPSnZ2dnVY3goSdn...@giganews.com>, David J.
>
>> the iphone 4s, for example, uses a 5mp backlit sensor with a 5 element
>> f/2.4 lens. look at iphone 4s samples on flickr. they're quite good,
>> even if you ignore the fact that it's from a camera that slips into a
>> pants pocket.
>
> Carry a smaller camera, but you should never feel you are treading on
> toes by carrying a real camera. People are too concerned over what
> others might "think" or of deviating from the "norm." I never thought
> I'd see the day when photography might be characterized by people
> doing the "Hitler salute" with a cellphone to capture an image. To me,
> THAT is embarrassing.

Small cameras or using the one in your phone are simply a matter of
convenience - size and weight.

David

"David J Taylor" <david-> wrote:
>"RichA" <> wrote in message
>news:0647d2e6-7298-4816-9614-...
>> On Jan 24, 4:43 am, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>> In article <Rc-dneuIS--q6oPSnZ2dnVY3goSdn...@giganews.com>, David J.
>>
>>> the iphone 4s, for example, uses a 5mp backlit sensor with a 5 element
>>> f/2.4 lens. look at iphone 4s samples on flickr. they're quite good,
>>> even if you ignore the fact that it's from a camera that slips into a
>>> pants pocket.
>>
>> Carry a smaller camera, but you should never feel you are treading on
>> toes by carrying a real camera. People are too concerned over what
>> others might "think" or of deviating from the "norm." I never thought
>> I'd see the day when photography might be characterized by people
>> doing the "Hitler salute" with a cellphone to capture an image. To me,
>> THAT is embarrassing.
>
>Small cameras or using the one in your phone are simply a matter of
>convenience - size and weight.


A cameraphone offers the ultimate in convenience by not having to
carry a camera ...

While noting people's comments here about improved sensors in the
latest smartphones, I was more impressed with the quality of the 2 MP
images from my old iPhone 3G than those from my 8 MP HTC Sensation or
my partner's 5 MP iPhone 4. Cramming ever more pixels on a miniscule
sensor plays havoc, with a huge loss in dynamic range. And who needs
more than 2 or 3 MP for the sort of images they take with a phone?

Polaroid's new camera looks interesting, being based on a smartphone
that didn't reach the market, but with the phone feature removed.