Why the P&S is dead

[Treven]

I couldn't believe the number of people on our recent Panama Canal cruise who were using their tablets to take photos - talk about unwieldy. I'll stick to my Sony, thanks.

I don't even use my iPhone to take pix, let alone my iPad; that's why I have my camera.

[fiedav]

I can't believe that people would dump a point-and-shoot for a phone camera.

 

Here's a description that you could well apply to a phone camera: handy, cheap, same sort of results every time, and so on.

 

This was actually taken from a description of McDonalds. If you think that McDonalds makes the best burgers in the world, then maybe a phone camera is for you.

 

I've seen plenty of pictures taken with a camera phone - often over-exposed, sometimes a bit fuzzy, but fine for "places and faces." But those pictures that are reasonable are those that are taken in the best of conditions - outdoors and sunny (though that's the way plenty of cruise pictures are, to be honest).

 

But move indoors, or take a picture of a far-off landscape, and the drawbacks of a camera phone are obvious. Point-and-shoots aren't perfect either, but they're a lot better. It isn't that you can adjust P&S cameras - most people never do - but the quality of pictures are better.

 

And if you're spending thousands on a cruise, I'm sure you'd prefer the best memories you can take. I had a friend who cruised and took an old film P&S, and the results were worse than digital. But that's what he has to live with.

 

Given that $75 will get you a decent P&S from a major maker, it doesn't seem worth it to rely on a phone camera. I wonder how many people would want camera phone quality for wedding pictures?

[havoc315]

I can't believe that people would dump a point-and-shoot for a phone camera.

 

Here's a description that you could well apply to a phone camera: handy, cheap, same sort of results every time, and so on.

 

This was actually taken from a description of McDonalds. If you think that McDonalds makes the best burgers in the world, then maybe a phone camera is for you.

 

I've seen plenty of pictures taken with a camera phone - often over-exposed, sometimes a bit fuzzy, but fine for "places and faces." But those pictures that are reasonable are those that are taken in the best of conditions - outdoors and sunny (though that's the way plenty of cruise pictures are, to be honest).

 

But move indoors, or take a picture of a far-off landscape, and the drawbacks of a camera phone are obvious. Point-and-shoots aren't perfect either, but they're a lot better. It isn't that you can adjust P&S cameras - most people never do - but the quality of pictures are better.

 

And if you're spending thousands on a cruise, I'm sure you'd prefer the best memories you can take. I had a friend who cruised and took an old film P&S, and the results were worse than digital. But that's what he has to live with.

 

Given that $75 will get you a decent P&S from a major maker, it doesn't seem worth it to rely on a phone camera. I wonder how many people would want camera phone quality for wedding pictures?

 

There are good P&S cameras and bad P&S cameras. There are restaurants that my not be "fast food" but serve worse food than McDonalds.

 

A good camera phone .. such as the iPhone 5, or the Samsung Galaxy S4, or the Nokia Lumia 920 or the HTC One, are all typically much better than any $75 P&S in most ways.

 

Starting with extra features --- How many $75 P&S cameras have high-definition touch screens? How many have WiFi access to allow to for instant uploading of pictures? How many allow in-camera advanced editing? How many have in-camera HDR? Look for example at a feature in the new Galaxy S4 -- it can remove moving objects from photos. No other camera on the market can do that without using significant post-processing on a computer.

 

Now you may say that all those extra features are nice, but it comes down to image quality. I do totally agree --- But the reality is, the good smart phones produce image quality right on par, or better than CHEAP point and shoots.

Image quality largely is determined by sensor size --- And smart phone sensors are typically just barely smaller than cheap P&S sensors. Very close in size. The next element is generally the processor -- and as smart phones are basically pretty advanced computers, smart phones have much better processors than cheap P&S cameras. Finally, IQ largely comes down to lenses. And good smart phones often have better lenses than cheap P&S cameras. The iPhone 5 has a 2.4 aperture ---- I've never seen a "cheap" P&S with an aperture wider than that. So often, a good smartphone can surpass the IQ of a cheap P&S.

 

Finally, need to be careful talking generalities as I haven't even mentioned the Nokia 808 Pureview phone. It features a 1/1.2 inch sensor --- that blows away almost every P&S on the market in sensor size. It features 40mp, for ultra high resolution. (Yes, it still lacks optical zoom, but with 40mp, you can use a digital 4x zoom and still end up with a high resolution 10mp image). It features a Carl Zeiss designed lens (the luxury brand in lenses.... far superior than anything you will find on a $75 point and shoot).

 

Nokia Pureview doesn't just surpass cheap P&S, it should match many high quality P&S cameras when it comes to IQ.

 

Some examples from the Nokia Pureview smartphone:

 

sunset3 by EliteOp, on Flickr

 

Azure Window by sheridan01, on Flickr

 

Cocks by nextnickzer, on Flickr

[fiedav]

Havoc315, you are obviously a talented photographer, and I applaud the examples with a camera phone. But I think you're not quite up-to-date with P&S.

 

You say that the P&S is at a disadvantage compared to the Nokia. You say about the Nokia:

 

It features a 1/1.2 inch sensor --- that blows away almost every P&S on the market in sensor size. It features 40mp, for ultra high resolution. (Yes, it still lacks optical zoom, but with 40mp, you can use a digital 4x zoom and still end up with a high resolution 10mp image). It features a Carl Zeiss designed lens

And in the other corner, I present the Sony DSC-W560. It has a 1 2/3 inch sensor, a 5X optical zoom, a 16MP resolution at all zoom lengths, and a Carl Zeiss designed lens.

 

And if you're willing to settle for refurbished, it's not $75, not $65, but $55 (at Newegg.com). That's less than a month's data plan, much less the cost of a camera phone.

 

Yeah, I know, it's not an exact match, but I think that pics from it would certainly not be bested by a camera phone. It looks from your pictures that you have an understanding of composition and presumably general picture taking, so I'm not surprised you feel the way you do.

 

However, I saw a picture today which was taken by an iPhone. It features four women, two close the camera and two at the rear. The whole picture is out of focus. The color? Well I wasn't there, but it looks wrong. There's a whole section that is completely black, which is detail lost in shadow. The image is grainy and under-exposed, probably because there's a thin strip of daylight at the top. I found this on Flickr, and her other photos seem to be out of focus as well.

 

Here's the URL:

 

https://secure.flickr.com/photos/sproutgirl74/8754642085/in/photostream/

 

I guess I don't want to argue P&S versus camera phone - I just want people to know that as yet, one hasn't outclassed the other.

[havoc315]

Havoc315, you are obviously a talented photographer, and I applaud the examples with a camera phone. But I think you're not quite up-to-date with P&S.

 

You say that the P&S is at a disadvantage compared to the Nokia. You say about the Nokia:

 

And in the other corner, I present the Sony DSC-W560. It has a 1 2/3 inch sensor, a 5X optical zoom, a 16MP resolution at all zoom lengths, and a Carl Zeiss designed lens.

 

 

Those weren't my pictures. But you have a misunderstanding of the sensor in the Sony W560. It is not 1 2/3 of an inch ---- which would make it bigger than dSLRs!!

It is 1/2.3'.... The Nokia sensor is MUCH larger. Than is only 1 point and shoot on the market with a sensor larger than the Nokia -- The RX100, with a 1 inch sensor, and goes for $650. The Nokia sensor comes out to just barely under an inch.

 

Here is a helpful illustration:

 

http://4.static.img-dpreview.com/files/articles/8083837371/NokiaSensor.jpeg?v=2175

 

As you can see, the Nokia sensor is MASSIVE compared to the Sony W560. Image quality is FAR superior to the W560.

 

I've also posted my own side by side IQ studies of iPhone 5 versus a cheap Sony. (It may have actually been the W560, I forget the model).

 

Here are examples, of the identical picture taken with each camera:

 

bottle1 without flash by Havoc315, on Flickr

 

bottle2 without flash by Havoc315, on Flickr

 

tennisball1 by Havoc315, on Flickr

 

tennisball2 by Havoc315, on Flickr

 

Not even close -- the iPhone 5 produced far superior shots, even better low light shots than the cheap Sony P&S.

[smalltownmomwa]

I take a fair number of photos with my phone for the simple fact that it is with me. If i have the option to use my p&s, i will every time though as the photos are so superior. And, this is comparing a 5 year old p&s with a 1 year old android phone.

 

Phone pictures are fine for facebook and if you have nothing else available. But, camera pictures are much better quality for printing, photo books, etc.

 

Not to mention that i dropped my phone, breaking the screen, and have now lost all my photos as i can not unlock the phone. That would not happen with a camera.

 

Sent from my XT897 using Tapatalk 2

[havoc315]

I take a fair number of photos with my phone for the simple fact that it is with me. If i have the option to use my p&s, i will every time though as the photos are so superior. And, this is comparing a 5 year old p&s with a 1 year old android phone.

 

Phone pictures are fine for facebook and if you have nothing else available. But, camera pictures are much better quality for printing, photo books, etc.

 

Not to mention that i dropped my phone, breaking the screen, and have now lost all my photos as i can not unlock the phone. That would not happen with a camera.

 

Sent from my XT897 using Tapatalk 2

 

Really depends which camera phone and which p&s. For example, there are many cheap android phones with horrible cameras. The iPhone 4, and prior, had horrible cameras. But the higher end camera phones have iq superior to cheap old generic p&s cameras. It's all a question of whether the manufacturer invested in putting in a good camera.

 

If you took a Canon 5d mark III, and added a phone to it, it wouldn't suddenly be a bad camera.

 

If you build a camera with a good sized sensor, fast aperture lens, advanced processor -- then it's a good camera. Whether in a phone or not.

[Cruisin'Allie]

I would cry if I only had my iPhone on a cruise. My best friend spent 10 days in hawaii with only an iphone 4 and I couldn't have done that! I have an Olympus TG-1 for excursions, etc. and a Canon t4i for everything else. The phone is just for quick snapshots.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk