# Could a camera phone compare to a camera?



## daveatcake (Nov 17, 2008)

I'm working with Motorola on a new handset they've brought out, the ZN5. It's the first camera phone to feature Kodak Image Technology, but how do images from a phone compare with images taken by a camera?

ZN5 pictures on flickr


----------



## Big Mike (Nov 17, 2008)

A camera phone is still technically a 'camera'...so when you say "compare with images taken by a camera" what do you mean?

Do you want to compare a camera phone to a 'point & shoot' digital camera?  Something in the $100-$300 range?  Or a more advanced digital camera in the $300-$500 range?  Or to a digital SLR camera (with a sensor that is much larger than most other digital cameras)?  Or maybe to a medium format digital camera costing tens of thousands of dollars?  

I've heard that camera phones are getting better and better.  I'm curious as to the quality of the lenses used.


----------



## PhilGarber (Nov 17, 2008)

Big Mike said:


> A camera phone is still technically a 'camera'...so when you say "compare with images taken by a camera" what do you mean?
> 
> Do you want to compare a camera phone to a 'point & shoot' digital camera?  Something in the $100-$300 range?  Or a more advanced digital camera in the $300-$500 range?  Or to a digital SLR camera (with a sensor that is much larger than most other digital cameras)?  Or maybe to a medium format digital camera costing tens of thousands of dollars?
> 
> I've heard that camera phones are getting better and better.  I'm curious as to the quality of the lenses used.



I'll second that. By looking at the Flikr page, the photos look really nice! (Nicer then mine:blushing. IMO, it's the artist, not the camera the makes a nice photo. There are some really, really good artists out there making their art with $150.00 Point and Shoots.


----------



## PhilGarber (Nov 17, 2008)

BTW, it's nice to see a mega company like Motorola looking for opinions from artists. :thumbsup:


----------



## Garbz (Nov 17, 2008)

Yeah as said above the type of camera does not impair the artistic ability. However camera phones have their limit. They won't ever match the quality of even point and shoot because of their tiny sensors and often plastic lenses, and they will impair your ability to get a shot you envision somewhat as I have never seen a camera phone with an aperture adjustment or any of those other features man of us can't live without.


----------



## PhilGarber (Nov 17, 2008)

Garbz said:


> Yeah as said above the type of camera does not impair the artistic ability. However camera phones have their limit. They won't ever match the quality of even point and shoot because of their tiny sensors and often plastic lenses, and they will impair your ability to get a shot you envision somewhat as I have never seen a camera phone with an aperture adjustment or any of those other features man of us can't live without.



Ditto.:thumbup:


----------



## iflynething (Nov 30, 2008)

I dunno........

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=145542

~Michael~


----------



## roadkill (Nov 30, 2008)

That's crap...


----------



## Garbz (Dec 1, 2008)

iflynething said:


> I dunno........



Then try setting the camera phone to f/2.8 and you will.


----------



## prodigy2k7 (Dec 1, 2008)

What he did is different, he switched photos together to create on one normal image. So the megapixels of that image is like 4x of the megapixels of his phone. So yes, they are going to be of better quality due to higher reso. =\


----------



## Orgnoi1 (Dec 1, 2008)

LOL I find it even more interesting that someone "working with Motorola" has to use Flikr as a way of displaying images...LOL not that theres anything wrong with that... =)

To answer the OP... the image quality of a camera phone in regards to a current camera (for now) will probably not live up to the technical quality of image... thats not to say down the road as micro technology gets better and better that it doesnt get to a discernable difference... sensor sizes and pixel density have a lot to do with image quality and the sensor in a camera phone at this point may do well... but not as well as a full blown dslr... except maybe under ideal conditions and VERY small print sizes...


----------



## PatrickHMS (Dec 1, 2008)

They need to make a cellphone with interchangeable lenses...


----------



## ksmattfish (Dec 1, 2008)

Big Mike said:


> A camera phone is still technically a 'camera'...so when you say "compare with images taken by a camera" what do you mean?



And beyond that what are we comparing?  Low res MySpace pics?  4x6 prints?  20x30 prints?


----------



## iflynething (Dec 2, 2008)

Garbz said:


> Then try setting the camera phone to f/2.8 and you will.


 
ha ha  I was being sarcastic. I've been following the poster to the Beginner thread with a camera phone. If someone can set their phone to f/2.8, then my D80 can make long distance calls!

~Michael~


----------



## Garbz (Dec 2, 2008)

Oh sorry. I thought you were being totally serious. :hug::


----------



## stsinner (Dec 2, 2008)

daveatcake said:


> I'm working with Motorola on a new handset they've brought out, the ZN5. It's the first camera phone to feature Kodak Image Technology, but how do images from a phone compare with images taken by a camera?
> 
> ZN5 pictures on flickr



Kodak isn't actually _good_ Image Technology.  Does Kodak even make a serious camera?


----------



## skieur (Dec 2, 2008)

Has anyone looked at the Samsung 10 megapixel cel phone?  It certainly looks like any point and shoot camera on one side and a phone on the other side.

skieur


----------



## stsinner (Dec 2, 2008)

skieur said:


> Has anyone looked at the Samsung 10 megapixel cel phone?  It certainly looks like any point and shoot camera on one side and a phone on the other side.
> 
> skieur



Wow-that is neat.  From the article:  " It's never gonna come anywhere close to the US or Europe so nuzzle up to your monitor real close-like and take in this beauty.

http://www.engadget.com/2006/03/09/live-from-cebit-samsungs-sch-b600-10-megapixel-cameraphone/


----------



## Village Idiot (Dec 2, 2008)

Orgnoi1 said:


> LOL I find it even more interesting that


 
The OP has posted this on multiple forum, with the exact same post, and has only posted one message.

Spam spa spam spam spaaaaaaaaaaaaam.


----------



## Village Idiot (Dec 3, 2008)

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=601300


----------



## ann (Dec 3, 2008)

interesting, which takes us back to the old saying, "who is firing the shutter".

it is amazing that a cell phones have come so far. Wonder how these images would look at larger sizes?

i am not trying to flame anything , but it would never cross my mind to use a cell phone for a photo, too many years of traditional work i suppose!


----------



## Garbz (Dec 3, 2008)

Village Idiot said:


> Spam spa spam spam spaaaaaaaaaaaaam.



Not good spam mind you. The people who are now searching for that model camera phone are going to hit threads like this with a resounding THEY'RE CRAP. :lmao:


----------



## Dubious Drewski (Dec 3, 2008)

PhilGarber said:


> IMO, it's the artist, not the camera the makes a nice photo.


I take issue with people who say that.  It's only partly true.  Yes, the artist is necessary to make a good photo, but you do need a capable machine to capture it too. It's 50/50.

I've seen many debates on the photoshop forums along the same lines "It's the artist, not the tools".  I then say to them "Alright, do the post work on your photos in MsPaint.  Tell me how that goes"

It's 50/50. Artist/tools.

EDIT: Now, with that said, I'd like to give you all this disclaimer: There are 'pointnshoots' out there that do a fine job at capturing tones and resolution; I'm not necessarily saying that they are garbage and the SLR is the only way to go.  I still like my little old Minolta Dimage A2.


----------



## jbushee (Dec 3, 2008)

Dubious Drewski said:


> I take issue with people who say that. It's only partly true. Yes, the artist is necessary to make a good photo, but you do need a capable machine to capture it too. It's 50/50.
> 
> I've seen many debates on the photoshop forums along the same lines "It's the artist, not the tools". I then say to them "Alright, do the post work on your photos in MsPaint. Tell me how that goes"
> 
> ...


 
Exactly. Best chef in the world can't make chicken soup out of chicken ... well ... you get it.


----------



## ann (Dec 3, 2008)

specific tools allow the creative eye to accomplish certain feats of skill.

having the most expensive tool on the market doesn't take the place of creative ability. 

I know some folks who have incrediable technical knowledge and their photos suck.


sorry about the underline, this just started and i am cluess as to why


----------



## andrew99 (Dec 4, 2008)

PatrickHMS said:


> They need to make a cellphone with interchangeable lenses...



Yes, preferably with a Nikon mount so I can use all my lenses!   Like this:


----------

