Samsung's Galaxy S23 Ultra With 200MP Camera Rumored to Launch Months After iPhone 14 Pro With 48MP Camera

[EugW]

More megapixels in such a tiny sensor means a crazy amount of noise in anything other than super bright settings. Yes, their software will apply noise reduction, but the likely result is a lacking exposure.

There's a reason that professional full frame sensors generally range from 20-60 megapixels.

For example, these are the megapixels in top-of-the-line professional mirrorless cameras:
Sony A1: 50 mp
Nikon Z9: 46 mp
Canon R3: 24 mp

Especially important to note that those are all full 35mm sensors (35mm x 24mm) versus a phone sensor (roughly 6.2mm x 4.5mm), which is roughly equivalent to 30x more sensor area to absorb light.

These three companies know a lot more about photography than Samsung, this 200 mp sensor is a gimmick.

Samsung and Apple cameras each outsell all of Sony, Nikon, and Canon cameras combined. No contest. So they know a thing or two about cameras.

Obviously, they're not going to be building a phone with a 35 mm sensor, so that's not really a meaningful discussion. The solution has to come from somewhere else. One possibility is that instead of using a camera with a 12 MP sensor, they would use a 48 MP sensor with a similar size, and incorporate pixel binning.

The incorporation of a 48 MP sensor in an iPhone, up from 12 MP, isn't about a megapixel race. It's about trying to improve image quality when there are sensor size restrictions.

And you'll need a 64GB micro SD card per photo. But really, a 12MP camera with a great sensor will take better photos than a 200MP with a marginal sensor.

The Samsung phone won't have a marginal sensor for a phone. It will be a top end phone camera sensor.

 

[steve09090]

Are cameras the biggest selling point for high end phones? I feel like its the majority of what’s talked about for these devices.

It’s all Samsung have to offer.

 

[Oscar_440]

More megapixels in such a tiny sensor means a crazy amount of noise in anything other than super bright settings. Yes, their software will apply noise reduction, but the likely result is a lacking exposure.

There's a reason that professional full frame sensors generally range from 20-60 megapixels.

For example, these are the megapixels in top-of-the-line professional mirrorless cameras:
Sony A1: 50 mp
Nikon Z9: 46 mp
Canon R3: 24 mp

Especially important to note that those are all full 35mm sensors (35mm x 24mm) versus a phone sensor (roughly 6.2mm x 4.5mm), which is roughly equivalent to 30x more sensor area to absorb light.

These three companies know a lot more about photography than Samsung, this 200 mp sensor is a gimmick.

More megapixels in such a tiny sensor means a crazy amount of noise in anything other than super bright settings. Yes, their software will apply noise reduction, but the likely result is a lacking exposure.

There's a reason that professional full frame sensors generally range from 20-60 megapixels.

For example, these are the megapixels in top-of-the-line professional mirrorless cameras:
Sony A1: 50 mp
Nikon Z9: 46 mp
Canon R3: 24 mp

Especially important to note that those are all full 35mm sensors (35mm x 24mm) versus a phone sensor (roughly 6.2mm x 4.5mm), which is roughly equivalent to 30x more sensor area to absorb light.

These three companies know a lot more about photography than Samsung, this 200 mp sensor is a gimmick.

Maybe they’ll increase the sensors size to a 1inch, as last Sony’s smartphone.
Apple should increase that in order to get better pictures.

 

[Jimmy_Banks]

Samsung and Apple cameras each outsell Sony, Nikon, and Canon cameras combined. No contest. So they know a thing or two about cameras.

Obviously, they're not going to be building a phone with a 35 mm sensor, so that's not really a meaningful argument. The solution has to come from somewhere else. One possibility is that instead of using a camera with a 12 MP sensor, they would use a 48 MP sensor with a similar size, and incorporate pixel binning.

The incorporation of a 48 MP sensor in an iPhone, up from 12 MP, isn't about a megapixel race. It's about trying to improve image quality when there are sensor size restrictions.


The Samsung phone won't have a marginal sensor for a phone. It will be a top end phone camera sensor.

It's amazing how the point went so far over your head.

 

[EugW]

It's amazing how the point went so far over your head.

So in other words, you're not willing to address the actual point made.

 

[Jimmy_Banks]

So in other words, you're not willing to address the actual point made.

Based on your argument GM and Ford are some of the worlds leading camera companies as well, not worth replying to your ridiculous straw man.

You made it clear that you lack understanding in physics and camera design, your problem, not mine.

 

[hagjohn]

Are cameras the biggest selling point for high end phones? I feel like its the majority of what’s talked about for these devices.

What do you always have on your body at all times? Most likely it is your phone! So yes, it is important to a lot of people to get good shots on the go.

 

[hagjohn]

It’s all Samsung have to offer.

That is what everyone has to offer lately. We have reached the point of marginal updates in phone hardware, so yes, there is still a lot of easy improvements that can be made to cameras.

 

[TechRunner]

Yes. Unfortunately my buddy with a Pixel always gets the bragging rights and we have to source his pictures after family events. iPhone takes great pictures of static items or people outdoors.. 95% of what we do is indoor events in moderate lighting and Pixel really does a great job there.

It’s funny you mentioned that. Everyone at my daughter’s graduation had a better phone than my lowly Pixel 3aXL, but it was my money shot of the graduate that everyone wanted. Pixels just seem to excel in that “snapshot” style of shooting.

 

[steve09090]

Samsung and Apple cameras each outsell Sony, Nikon, and Canon cameras combined. No contest. So they know a thing or two about cameras.

Obviously, they're not going to be building a phone with a 35 mm sensor, so that's not really a meaningful argument. The solution has to come from somewhere else. One possibility is that instead of using a camera with a 12 MP sensor, they would use a 48 MP sensor with a similar size, and incorporate pixel binning.

The incorporation of a 48 MP sensor in an iPhone, up from 12 MP, isn't about a megapixel race. It's about trying to improve image quality when there are sensor size restrictions.


The Samsung phone won't have a marginal sensor for a phone. It will be a top end phone camera sensor.

There is a MASSIVE difference between the capability of a new mirrorless camera (Sony/Nikon/Canon) compared to a Phone. From colour filter arrays to dual pixel focussing. And don’t get me started on crappy lens comparison. The best phones can do is periscope lenses, and they don’t come close to genuine camera glass.

the latest iPhones have 62mm2 of sensor size to almost 900mm2 on a 35mm sensor.
samsung will NOT have a top end canera sensor. It may have a top end smart phone sensor. That’s it.

I don’t have a problem with iphoneography, but lets not pretend they’re the same as a proper camera, and there is no value comparing phone sales, pretending it has something to do with camera sales.

 

[DEMinSoCAL]

It’s all Samsung have to offer.

Except for better displays, more customization of the OS, better selection of apps, and cheaper price (if you make any effort whatsoever to find a deal on a Samsung phone). But, yeah, apart from those things, the camera is all Samsung has to offer.

 

[elvisimprsntr]

"It's not the size of the boat, it's the motion of the ocean."

Opps! Wrong size analogy.

 

[EugW]

Based on your argument GM and Ford are some of the worlds leading camera companies as well, not worth arguing against your ridiculous straw man.

You made it clear that you lack understanding in physics and camera design, your problem, not mine.

Again, you didn't address the point, which is outlined in the rest of the post, not the first part of my post. Instead you choose to just try to insult, but it isn't working, except in your own mind.

Here, I'll outline it again for you: It's pointless to talk about 35 mm sensors in the context of iPhones and Samsung phones, because they're not going to put any sensor even remotely comparable size-wise in of those. Given the limitations of sensor sizes in phones, they have to look to other solutions, and pixel binning is one such solution. It is not a magical solution, but it does have some real benefits.

There is a MASSIVE difference between the capability of a new mirrorless camera (Sony/Nikon/Canon) compared to a Phone. From colour filter arrays to dual pixel focussing. And don’t get me started on crappy lens comparison. The best phones can do is periscope lenses, and they don’t come close to genuine camera glass.

the latest iPhones have 62mm2 of sensor size to almost 900mm2 on a 35mm sensor.
samsung will NOT have a top end canera sensor. It may have a top end smart phone sensor. That’s it.

I don’t have a problem with iphoneography, but lets not pretend they’re the same as a proper camera.

See above. It seems you're completely missing the point too.

I never once claimed an iPhone camera is comparable to a new dedicated mirrorless camera. I'm saying that is an irrelevant comparison.

A 44x33 mm sensor in a Hasselblad is an order of magnitude better than the sensors in the current smaller Sony/Nikon/Canon mirrorless cameras, but they don't compete in the same market, partially because of basic physics.

 

[Black Magic]

iPhone 13 currently has a 12MP camera

iPhone 14 is rumoured to get a 48MP camera

Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra already has a 100MP camera

Samsung Galaxy S23 Ultra is rumoured to get a 200MP camera


If anyone is after anyone it's Apple being behind Samsung?

If you think a higher megapixel count equates to a better picture or camera, then you are mistaken.

 

[iamMacPerson]

Samsung and Apple cameras each outsell all of Sony, Nikon, and Canon cameras combined. No contest. So they know a thing or two about cameras.

Not saying Apple and Samsung don’t, however, they are consumer electronic device manufactures that sell devices that happen to take photos. Nikon and Canon’s only products are cameras and camera related equipment and Sony has a dedicated division to just high-end cameras. So yes, they still know more about cameras and hold more IP for cameras than Apple or Samsung.

“Jack of a all trades, master of none.”

 

[Jimmy_Banks]

Again, you didn't address the point, which is outlined in the rest of the post, not the first part of my post. Instead you choose to just try to insult, but it isn't working, except in your own mind.

Here, I'll outline it again for you: It's pointless to talk about 35 mm sensors in the context of iPhones and Samsung phones, because they're not going to put any sensor even remotely comparable size-wise in of those. Given the limitations of sensor sizes in phones, they have to look to other solutions, and pixel binning is one such solution. It is not a magical solution, but it does have some real benefits.


See above. It seems you're completely missing the point too.

I never once claimed an iPhone camera is comparable to a new mirrorless camera. I'm saying that is an irrelevant comparison.

A 44x33 mm sensor in a Hasselblad is an order of magnitude better than the sensors in the curren Sony/Nikon/Canon mirrorless cameras, but they don't compete in the same market, partially because of basic physics.

You seem to think you have a point, but my initial post is still flying way over your head.

Here, I'll spell it out really easily for you:
1. Nikon, Canon, and Sony are three leaders in photography, amongst other photography companies.
2. Their top of the line cameras use full frame sensors
3. Even though those sensors are 30x larger than phone sensors, their megapixel count ranges between only 20-60. These are all cameras that cost $5000usd+.
4. Phone sensors are much smaller, huge megapixel counts will result in increased noise, resulting in a worse photo. This is due to the laws of physics.

Given the fact that photography companies use full frame sensors, which are significantly larger than phone sensors, and their engineers limit the megapixel count to lower levels to maximize the quality of the composition, it is 100% a valid discussion point and relevant comparison.

You clearly lack understanding in how the physics of photography work. Like I said, your problem, not mine, you can go educate yourself or leave the discussion to the people who understand the topic.

 

[neuropsychguy]

On a 1TB microSD card which costs a fraction of what Apple would charge for storage?

Which of these phones has an SD slot?

 

[steve09090]

I never once claimed an iPhone camera is comparable to a new dedicated mirrorless camera. I'm saying that is an irrelevant comparison.

yet you
1) made the direct comparison between phones and real cameras.
2) said that these phone companies know so much about cameras
3) said that Samsung will make a "top end phone camera sensor."

be that as it may. Maybe you’re not explaining your point well.

it is definitely a pointless comparison, so we can agree on that. Probably closer on video than stills though, providing its well lit.

 

[jz0309]

Well, you got to do something with the new SOCs: pixel binning. More and more computational photography, looking at results from what a computer program or “AI” thinks a photo should look like…
And, isn’t this for the ultra wide lens vs the “normal”?

 

[nvmls]

Typical Samsung, highest number on paper, worthless to make a difference in daily usage.

 

[EugW]

You seem to think you have a point, but my initial post is still flying way over your head.

Here, I'll spell it out really easily for you:
1. Nikon, Canon, and Sony are three leaders in photography, amongst other photography companies.
2. Their top of the line cameras use full frame sensors
3. Even though those sensors are 30x larger than phone sensors, their megapixel count ranges between only 20-60. These are all cameras that cost $5000usd+.
4. Phone sensors are much smaller, huge megapixel counts will result in increased noise, resulting in a worse photo.

Given the fact that real photography companies use full frame sensors, and their engineers limit the megapixel count to lower levels, it is 100% a valid discussion point and relevant comparison.

You clearly lack understanding in how the physics of photography work. Like I said, your problem, not mine, you can go educate yourself or leave the discussion to the people who understand the topic.

You still haven't even once discussed the point about pixel binning. The whole point of the rumoured 48 MP sensor in the iPhone 14 is for pixel binning to a 12 MP image, NOT to have 48 MP images. While it may be able to output 48 MP images, that's not the main reason for it.

It seems you are incapable of discussing the actual points, so let's just leave it at that then.

Not saying Apple and Samsung don’t, however, they are consumer electronic device manufactures that sell devices that happen to take photos.

That statement has stirred things up.

Nikon and Canon’s only products are cameras and camera related equipment

That is not really correct.

and Sony has a dedicated division to just high-end cameras. So yes, they still know more about cameras and hold more IP for cameras than Apple or Samsung.

“Jack of a all trades, master of none.”

I will point out that Apple actually uses Sony sensors. They are amongst the best... for the size... for that market.

yet you
1) made the direct comparison between phones and real cameras.
2) said that these phone companies know so much about cameras
3) said that Samsung will make a "top end phone camera sensor."

be that as it may. Maybe you’re not explaining your point well.

it is definitely a pointless comparison, so we can agree on that. Probably closer on video than stills though, providing its well lit.

1 & 2) I am just saying that it's foolish to claim Apple & Samsung know little about cameras. Indeed, in the past they provided superior image quality to even Sony's smartphones. However, they are competing in a different market. They are not at all trying to compete for image quality vs. 35 mm sensors in dedicated cameras, and they simply can't anyway.

3) Top end camera sensor for that market, for phones. A top end camera sensor for that market cannot compete against 35 mm sensors in dedicated cameras, but I would have thought that is completely obvious.

 

[itsboi]

Reminds me of the days of Samsung's 16 MP cameras looking grainy and terrible in comparison to Apple's standard 8 MP cameras for so long. They eventually learned their lesson and backtracked to 12 MP.

I guess they're running out of ideas and resorting to their old ways, boasting hardware because their software and processing can't keep up with Apple's supposed "outdated" specs.

 

[InuNacho]

PSA From a photographer: Megapixels mean next to nothing.

Very misleading.
Megapixels do matter, but hey if you're only looking at pictures on a screen it doesn't matter. Guess we should go back to the early 2000s with 2MP cameras and live with 5x7 printouts huh?

 

[headlessmike]

More megapixels in such a tiny sensor means a crazy amount of noise in anything other than super bright settings. Yes, their software will apply noise reduction, but the likely result is a lacking exposure.

There's a reason that professional full frame sensors generally range from 20-60 megapixels.

For example, these are the megapixels in top-of-the-line professional mirrorless cameras:
Sony A1: 50 mp
Nikon Z9: 46 mp
Canon R3: 24 mp

Especially important to note that those are all full 35mm sensors (35mm x 24mm) versus a phone sensor (roughly 6.2mm x 4.5mm), which is roughly equivalent to 30x more sensor area to absorb light.

These three companies know a lot more about photography than Samsung, this 200 mp sensor is a gimmick.

There are some benefits to higher pixel counts when it comes to noise. More pixels means more individual data samples which can used to give a better signal-to-noise ration when rescaling the image to a smaller size. One good example of this type of supersampling was the Nikon D800. It's 36 MP sensor produced less random noise when the images were downscaled to 12 MP than the previous D700 did with its native 12 MP sensor.

The 200 MP sensor in the Samsung phone will likely never be used to actually produce 200 MP files, but when outputting 12 MP photos it's not unthinkable that the images will be cleaner than from a 12 MP imaging sensor. In the end it's all down to statistics.

 

[RalfTheDog]

More megapixels in such a tiny sensor means a crazy amount of noise in anything other than super bright settings. Yes, their software will apply noise reduction, but the likely result is a lacking exposure.

There's a reason that professional full frame sensors generally range from 20-60 megapixels.

For example, these are the megapixels in top-of-the-line professional mirrorless cameras:
Sony A1: 50 mp
Nikon Z9: 46 mp
Canon R3: 24 mp

Especially important to note that those are all full 35mm sensors (35mm x 24mm) versus a phone sensor (roughly 6.2mm x 4.5mm), which is roughly equivalent to 30x more sensor area to absorb light.

These three companies know a lot more about photography than Samsung, this 200 mp sensor is a gimmick.

In addition, a physically larger sensor in relation to your lens size gives you far more control of depth of field. You can choose to have things in the background in full focus or you can have them blurred. With a small sensor, everything is always in focus. Yes, you can do tricks with software if you have range data. The end result looks like you used software tricks.

I assume the main purpose is for Zoom? I don't think 8K is something many need/want. If it's the main sensor, I struggle to understand how it doesn't make the telephoto lens partially or totally redundant.

Optical zoom looks much better.

Again, you didn't address the point, which is outlined in the rest of the post, not the first part of my post. Instead you choose to just try to insult, but it isn't working, except in your own mind.

Here, I'll outline it again for you: It's pointless to talk about 35 mm sensors in the context of iPhones and Samsung phones, because they're not going to put any sensor even remotely comparable size-wise in of those. Given the limitations of sensor sizes in phones, they have to look to other solutions, and pixel binning is one such solution. It is not a magical solution, but it does have some real benefits.


See above. It seems you're completely missing the point too.

I never once claimed an iPhone camera is comparable to a new dedicated mirrorless camera. I'm saying that is an irrelevant comparison.

A 44x33 mm sensor in a Hasselblad is an order of magnitude better than the sensors in the current smaller Sony/Nikon/Canon mirrorless cameras, but they don't compete in the same market, partially because of basic physics.

If you take a sensor with too many pixels, then bin it down to 1/4th the number, you get results almost as good as if you started with a sensor that only had 1/4th the number of pixels.

Which of these phones has an SD slot?

To be fair, unless you are shooting raw, image compression greatly reduces the amount of space needed for an image.