Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

iPhone Uses 10 Year Old Camera Technology

I didn't buy my iPhone for the camera. It just happens to be there.

If I want to take a picture, I'll use my DSLR.

No technology I'm aware of can get around the limitation of having a tiny light sensor in something like an iPhone. A lot of compact cameras have this problem too.
 
The iPhone is not being plugged for its camera abilities, so I dont see what the problem is. Generally if you want a good camera you buy one that isnt inside a phone.

People pointed out that it isnt called iCamera, so what's the big deal, to which people replied "it isn't called iPod or PDA etc so why discuss that?".

The iPhone is being advertised for "Phone, iPod and Internet", and if you check out the features page you will see a small camera mention (1 paragraph, the picture below is all it says about the camera).

I dont see what the big deal is here.
 

Attachments

  • Picture 2.png
    Picture 2.png
    41.7 KB · Views: 82
  • Picture 3.png
    Picture 3.png
    20.1 KB · Views: 238
The iPhone is not being plugged for its camera abilities, so I dont see what the problem is.
Click to expand...

The problem is that the iPhone does the other things really well, and you can only fake so much outrage over the lack of copy & paste -- so eventually you have to find new material for vitriolic screeds...
 
I wholeheartedly agree that Apple should increase the megapixel count. That way, when the pictures are a 3mb+ and take a while to send, people can complain about that. Or maybe Apple should add a lens with auto focus. But wait, that would make the phone slightly bigger, and cause even more complaints. Perhaps Apple should market it as a "camera with phone capabilities" instead, although then people would complain about not having any features.

I think the camera is fine for what it's for. It's not for taking ultra-mega-high quality photos, it's for taking quick snapshots. Although a flash might be nice, flash also drastically ruins most pictures, washing out the subjects and generally giving a loss of color. I hate looking at photos, and all I see is an ultra-bright person with a pure black background.
 
akacaj said:
With a built in flash you get red eyes, black bacground, overexposed shiny oily faces. I agree that its better than what you would get with iphone camera but its still crap.
Click to expand...

this makes absolutely no sense and is the dumbest argument i've ever heard from an apple fan boy. arguing AGAINST having a flash? wow ok.

the point is at least i would be able to SEE the subject matter in the photo and not just a blank and blurry photo. like i said, i wouldn't mind the iphone to be able to take CASUAL pics which is supposed to be what its for right?

i dont care about the MP count. 2mp is fine for casual usage and i think DURING THE DAY the iphones pics look great (albeit a bit desaturated but meh).
 
I'm sick of the 'If I want to take photos I'd buy a DSLR" arguement!

Is there no middle ground? Are the only two choices for cameras either the iPhone's rubbish 2MP and a 24MP DSLR? The arguement is not over wanting Apple to bring SLR quality to the iPhone, it's over being able to take quick point and shoot shots that are of an average quality. At the moment it takes low quality shots if there is any movement or you're not in excellent lighting conditions. I honestly don't care if they keep it at 2MP, although I wouldn't complain about a jump to 3.2. What I want is a better quality shot at the end of the day.

From memory, over the years I've owned (with cameras) the Sony Ericsson T68i, Orange SPV E100, SPV E200, Nokia 6600, SE K700i, Nokia 6230, SE K750i, HTC TYTN, SE K800i, SE P990i, Nokia N91, HTC Arthemis, Nokia N95 and the iPhone 3G. There may have been a few more, but I can't remember them all. Anyway, I can honestly say that the iPhone takes the worst pictures out of all of those phones except for the T68i, but even that had some options in the camera app for scene setup, lighting, etc. The E100 ran WinMo 2002, so that tells you how old some of those cameras were and WinMo are renowned for rubbish cameras.
 
I am really not a fan of cameras in phones in general and I'm certainly no fan of the iPhone in particular, as anyone who have read my posts will notice.
However, I do find this not just a tad over the top, but outright ridiculous to compare a camera in a phone with a dedicated stand-alone camera. There is no way in hell any do-all set up will ever do better than a dedicated system. Therein lies the compromise: Under many circumstances it's much better having at least a mediocre camera with you than having your excellent stand-alone camera at home.

But really, it's not the MP that makes the cameras in phones so much worse than dedicated cameras, it's the lens.

Compare it to an audio recorder: No matter how much you spend on a stand alone recorder, if your microphone is something snitched from a pda (or phone, dictaphone or whatever) it will be no better than that microphone. In reverse (playing audio back) it's the speakers which really matters (all within reason, of course).
There is no way in hell it will ever be possible for an allround phone to match the quality of good stand-alone camera. This goes for any brand.

LOL, rereading my post, this is so unlike me – actually defending the iPhone - hell has just frozen over. :eek:
 
I agree completely that a phone, no phone, will ever rival a dedicated camera. However, if you buy a phone with a camera built in, you have to expect a certain minimum level of quality, which I think the iPhone falls below.

I used to take pictures regularly with my previous phones and post them to facebook, etc. Not on occassions when something was planned, such as a wedding or another event, but just when out and about and come across something or something funny happens. I used to just reach in my pocket and snap away. Of course the photos weren't brilliant, but for a phone they were good. I don't even bother reaching for my iPhone because I know that if there's any movement involved in what I plan to photograph, or it's past 4pm there really isn't any point.

To me, that falls below the acceptable level which would qualify the phone as a casual 'point and shoot' device.
 
Aurial said:
I agree completely that a phone, no phone, will ever rival a dedicated camera. However, if you buy a phone with a camera built in, you have to expect a certain minimum level of quality, which I think the iPhone falls below.

I used to take pictures regularly with my previous phones and post them to facebook, etc. Not on occassions when something was planned, such as a wedding or another event, but just when out and about and come across something or something funny happens. I used to just reach in my pocket and snap away. Of course the photos weren't brilliant, but for a phone they were good. I don't even bother reaching for my iPhone because I know that if there's any movement involved in what I plan to photograph, or it's past 4pm there really isn't any point.

To me, that falls below the acceptable level which would qualify the phone as a casual 'point and shoot' device.
Click to expand...

Fair enough – but I reckon that's because of the lens, not the "technology" per se. There's also a physic(-al?) problem when the "camera" is as thin as the iPhone.

My i780 doesn't really take good pictures (I don't care - I wish it wasn't there at all), but when I compare it to my x820 it takes excellent pictures, so I do recognise that there are different qualities even at that low camera-level. The X820 was thin, though, very thin.
 
Tosser said:
Fair enough – but I reckon that's because of the lens, not the "technology" per se. There's also a physic(-al?) problem when the "camera" is as thin as the iPhone.

My i780 doesn't really take good pictures (I don't care - I wish it wasn't there at all), but when I compare it to my x820 it takes excellent pictures, so I do recognise that there are different qualities even at that low camera-level. The X820 was thin, though, very thin.
Click to expand...

I'm not overly concerned with how many megapixels they cram into it, because unlike some I don't fall into the trap of believing it necessarily equals better quality images. I will say though that the new LG KC910 Renoir manages to fit an 8MP autofocus camera and xenon flash into its 15mm shell, only 2.7mm thicker than the iPhone 3G. I've read a comparison written by a professional photographer (Pete Gardner) between the Renoir, Samsung i8510 innov8 and the Sony Ericsson C905 and all three received excellent reviews. The Renoir came second to the C905.

Stuff magazine (the best selling gadget magazine in the world) says of the iPhone 3G camera "...the 2MP camera is disappointing...", and "The iPhone's lack of video capture capabilities and flash, and barebones 2MP snapper is criminal."

GSM Arena's iPhone review had the heading "Camera still not up to scratch"

T3 Magazine said "Still a paltry 2MP camera"

These are coming from people who review phones and phone cameras for a living. The 3G's camera is a major turn off for a lot of people. I know quite a few people who haven't bought it because of the camera quality.

One last point of note. Although people are right in saying that the number of megapixels isn't necessarily an indication of the image quality, it is rare that phone manufacturers release a phone with a new higher MP count without increasing the lens quality at the same time. It's therefore quite reasonable to assume that with an increase in megapixels, at least in the phone industry, other changes will have been made which will increase the image quality. This has certainly been true of SE and Nokia phones. It seems the megapixel count has become the measurement of it's quality somehow.
 
Aurial said:
I'm not overly concerned with how many megapixels they cram into it, because unlike some I don't fall into the trap of believing it necessarily equals better quality images. I will say though that the new LG KC910 Renoir manages to fit an 8MP autofocus camera and xenon flash into its 15mm shell, only 2.7mm thicker than the iPhone 3G. I've read a comparison written by a professional photographer (Pete Gardner) between the Renoir, Samsung i8510 innov8 and the Sony Ericsson C905 and all three received excellent reviews. The Renoir came second to the C905.

Stuff magazine (the best selling gadget magazine in the world) says of the iPhone 3G camera "...the 2MP camera is disappointing...", and "The iPhone's lack of video capture capabilities and flash, and barebones 2MP snapper is criminal."

GSM Arena's iPhone review had the heading "Camera still not up to scratch"

T3 Magazine said "Still a paltry 2MP camera"

These are coming from people who review phones and phone cameras for a living. The 3G's camera is a major turn off for a lot of people. I know quite a few people who haven't bought it because of the camera quality.

One last point of note. Although people are right in saying that the number of megapixels isn't necessarily an indication of the image quality, it is rare that phone manufacturers release a phone with a new higher MP count without increasing the lens quality at the same time. It's therefore quite reasonable to assume that with an increase in megapixels, at least in the phone industry, other changes will have been made which will increase the image quality. This has certainly been true of SE and Nokia phones. It seems the megapixel count has become the measurement of it's quality somehow.
Click to expand...

Excellent arguments.
So, if I'm allowed to sum up it's not only crap (since it's on a phone and not on a camera), but it really is crap – even when compared to other camera phones. Well, and here I was defending the iPhone for what is propably the first time ever – and I got it wrong. Excellent :D
 
Aurial said:
...into its 15mm shell, only 2.7mm thicker than the iPhone 3G.
Click to expand...

Consider that a 20% thicker (and heavier) shell might decrease iPhone sales by more than a better camera would increase them. Plus a camera with a better lens would almost certainly reduce profits. So why would Apple want to do this?

.
 
firewood said:
Consider that a 20% thicker (and heavier) shell might decrease iPhone sales by more than a better camera would increase them. Plus a camera with a better lens would almost certainly reduce profits. So why would Apple want to do this?

.
Click to expand...

Because to many consumers a "good" (relatively) camera on a phone is a somewhat important parameter when buying a phone? And because Apple as a whole has one of the highest profits margins of them all?

Come to think of it, if it weren't an important parameter, why do you think they a) put a 2MP chip in it, and b) tout the camera in the phone? Because it sells, and they know that most consumers think of MP-count as a quality-parameter. In this context, Auriel and Co – the people saying or implying that Apple cuts corners are right: On one hand they try to give the impression of them having put a quality camera in the phone, on the other hand they put in a poor lens, negating the benefits. Of course, it's easier for them to do so with something as intangible (to most consumers) as the lens.
 
How are they giving the impression that its a high quality lens?
 
NT1440 said:
How are they giving the impression that its a high quality lens?
Click to expand...

Of course they're not saying the lens in particular is great –*I never said they were. I said they were touting the camera.



But here is a quotes concerning "the camera" in general:

With a built-in camera and an advanced photo application, iPhone is the most photo-friendly phone ever.
Click to expand...

Also, when I say "tout", they do mention it is 2MP instead of mentioning, say, resolution. This to me is playing on the ignorance of the "ordinary" consumer.
(those were from Apple.com).

Now, will something as simple as mentioning "2MP" impress anyone?

Well, here's another quote:

The Apple iPhone camera features are impressive for a camera phone, including 2 megapixels,
Click to expand...

So, Auriel was right. People do expect that when they up the MP-count, people assume that the lens quality increases accordingly.
 
Tosser said:
Of course they're not saying the lens in particular is great –*I never said they were. I said they were touting the camera.



But here is a quotes concerning "the camera" in general:
Other than the last quip in there, it seems pretty standard for cell phone marketing. I've never seen resolutions listed, instead its always the MP count for the cameras.


Also, when I say "tout", they do mention it is 2MP instead of mentioning, say, resolution. This to me is playing on the ignorance of the "ordinary" consumer.
(those were from Apple.com).

Now, will something as simple as mentioning "2MP" impress anyone?

Well, here's another quote:



So, Auriel was right. People do expect that when they up the MP-count, people assume that the lens quality increases accordingly.
Click to expand...
This seems pretty standard for cell phone marketing. I've never seen resolutions listed, instead its always the MP count for the cameras.
 
NT1440 said:
This seems pretty standard for cell phone marketing. I've never seen resolutions listed, instead its always the MP count for the cameras.
Click to expand...

That's true to some extent I believe. But from what little I have researched on this matter it does indeed look like they didn't up the lens quality at the same time. Unlike the competitors.

However, I have to say, that I, for one, would have never noticed as I really do expect really crappy quality from any phone. I have very low expectations in this regard, so have I been in the market for an iPhone, this wouldn't have mattered at all. I'd prefer it wasn't there at all.
 
this is just another thread where a newbie posts a stupid unqualified comment and quotes a stupid website (maybe to get hits?) and then never responds.

speaks for the newbies IQ and intentions.

Wasteland IMHO.
 
andiwm2003 said:
this is just another thread where a newbie posts a stupid unqualified comment and quotes a stupid website (maybe to get hits?) and then never responds.

speaks for the newbies IQ and intentions.

Wasteland IMHO.
Click to expand...

agreed. even if this OP isnt looking for website hits...has anyone taken a look at the OP's other posts? ridiculous all around.
 
He has prompted some conversation on the topic though. I guess if people didn't want to discuss the subject then we wouldn't be on the third page now.
 
I am actually pretty satisfied with the camera. My town had fireworks last night/early this morning and I used the SteadyCam App and got some really amazing pictures of fireworks!

I am actually pleased. I do have to say that I never claimed to be a professional. I just find it extremely convenient to snap a photo and upload a decent picture to Facebook or email it to someone seconds later...
 
Isn't it a bad tradesman who blames his tools......
I have an nikon D70 a mere 6 mp and have successfully enlarged up to 46inches no worries

My iphones meesly 2 mp camera is far superior to my ex nokia 6121 classic total crud...and on a par with my nokia 6280

Bottom line it a phone it gives you adequate photos as an extra me thinks too many people want more for nothing why buy the dam thing if the camera is lousy go get one of those dam N95/96 things or others....
My 5 cents worth
Cheers:D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back