Are smart phones killing point-and-shoot cameras?

I think it’s fair to say that, for the most part, the smart phone has killed the MP3 player. Unless you need a device that can hold your entire music collection, sticking songs on your phone is infinitely more convenient. Are smart phones slowly killing point-and-shoot digital cameras, too? CNet blogger Harry McCracken thinks so, and his argument seems compelling.

As he points out, Apple’s upcoming iPhone 4S is supposed to have a vastly improved camera. The resolution has gone up from five to eight megapixels for stills and from 720p to 1080p for video. Apple has also implemented “all-new optics . . . an improved backside illumination sensor, excellent auto white balance, advanced color accuracy, face detection, and reduced motion blur.” Sample photos look surprisingly good:

I think we can reasonably expect other smart phone makers to follow suit. Sure, phones will always be handicapped by small sensors, a lack of zoom lenses, and ineffective flashes. However, they’re coming awfully close to the quality of cheaper point-and-shoot cameras—and as McCracken points out, consumers aren’t going to bother with a separate camera unless it’s a lot better than their phone. On top of that, phones make mobile photography awfully convenient: they let you edit photos right away and e-mail them to friends, put them up on Facebook, or even upload them to Flickr.

I personally haven’t bothered with a point-and-shoot in quite a while. I have a chunky Canon Digital Rebel XSi DSLR for serious photography, and I use my iPhone 4 for everything else, from vacation photos to random pictures of things I come across in everyday life. I’m not thrilled with the quality, especially under poor lighting conditions, but the sheer convenience factor has already pulled me away from the world of consumer cameras. I imagine I’m not the only one, either. If picture quality improves substantially with the next generation of phones, then I might even have to consider leaving my DSLR at home more often.

Comments closed
    • luisnhamue
    • 8 years ago

    Nokia phones always bet on their cameras. And the N8 is no exception. I own a NOKIA X6 with 5MP camera just, and it really amazes me, how photos look when took in environments with natural or fluorescent light.

    [url<]https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=292771607415506&set=a.162756583750343.35446.100000480071133&type=3&theater[/url<] [url<]https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.249152861777381.79801.100000480071133&type=1[/url<] sometimes people ask me if I put some Photoshop, but I dont even have time

    • ronch
    • 8 years ago

    [quote<]resolution has gone up from five to eight megapixels[/quote<] I think we all know that more megapixels doesn't necessarily mean better pictures, but that photo of a squirrel is pretty damn good for a smartphone camera. No surprise. All the other phone makers just let Apple do things first. I hope that with Steve gone, Apple doesn't become like them. [quote<]the smart phone has killed the MP3 player[/quote<] Agreed. No point in buying and lugging a separate MP3 player when your phone will happily play your tracks for you. But there's one survivor... iPod and/or iPod Touch, since these things can also do other things that stand-alone MP3 players can't, particularly, let you play games, surf the Internet, and watch movies while on the go.

      • Anonymous Coward
      • 8 years ago

      [quote<]All the other phone makers just let Apple do things first.[/quote<] Actually the Nokia N8 might have a better camera, though worse software, and its been on the market for quite some time. Nokia has made some pretty good camera phones.

    • Bensam123
    • 8 years ago

    You know, I don’t really care a whole lot about the frills and features on most cellphones. As long as it’s capable of sending and receiving calls the rest really doesn’t matter. It’s just a bunch of fluff tacked onto the device.

    However, there have been a couple times I really regret not having a camera. Not that the moments come up all that often, but when they do, it’s one of those moments you never get another chance to capture. That is something I place a very high value on.

    All the other bells and whistles aside, I would most definitely pay for a good camera integrated into my phone.

      • paulsz28
      • 8 years ago

      You’ve not played Angry Birds, have you? Haha, j/k. Anyway, modern smartphones really are a desirable all-in-one device.

      Have you used the cool GPS navigation features of a modern smartphone? If not, you need to ditch your Garmin/TomTom tout suite (I’m not kidding). Just pay only $5 for an outstanding app, and you also have a golf range finder (trust me, for this price, NO dedicated golf range finder is even worth me typing this sentence – the $5 app trumps all discrete range finders you’ll find at sporting goods stores).

      Have you used a full-up browser on a modern smartphone over Wi-FI? It’s the same internet you see on your $2000 gaming rig. Connection speeds are like 40% of typical wireless network speeds, but this still friggin smokes 3G or 4G networks.

      Have you taken pictures with a modern smartphone? In low lighting, pictures suck. But, with even dusk-like lighting, pictures are comparable to <$200 point-and-shoots. Most pictures people take are not taken at night, so the vast, vast majority of your casual snapping could be done with a decent smart phone.

      Note, I have a Droid X, almost 2 years old. Other than my 400HP GTO, it’s the coolest thing I own (and there are even cooler smartphones our there).

        • BobbinThreadbare
        • 8 years ago

        GPS is free on Android

    • Suspenders
    • 8 years ago

    Basic physics will limit how much better cameraphones are going to get. Tiny lenses and microscopic sensors can only do so much. Dedicated point and shoots will always have the advantage there.

    Personally, I only ever really use a camera when I’m on a holiday someplace. I don’t see phones displacing that anytime soon for most people, and I think this particular usage scenario will ensure a healthy market for dedicated point and shoots for years to come.

      • Bensam123
      • 8 years ago

      I think you’re underestimating how much things can be miniaturized. Just because you’re used to holding a nice five pound telephoto lens in your hand doesn’t mean it can’t be done and weigh less.

        • cynan
        • 8 years ago

        Have you ever seen a cell phone cam with optical zoom?

        • Suspenders
        • 8 years ago

        I don’t think so. When I mean physical limits I mean quite literally limits of physics. You don’t get better quality images by increasing the pixel density (miniturizing) of imaging sensors; past a certain point your pixels are so tiny that they struggle to get light, leading to more noise and lousy low light performance. What you really want to do is increase the size of each pixel, so that each pixel can collect more light, but the only real way of doing that is increasing the image sensor size. That leads to bigger lenses and, well, you can see the conundrum with smartphones.

        Diffraction is another issue that crops up on the small sensors and lenses found on smartphone cameras. As diffraction is a physical property of light, the only real way to get around it is through bigger sensors and lenses, again a problem for smartphones where real estate is at a premium.

      • Voldenuit
      • 8 years ago

      While I agree with the physical basis of your argument (that physics and size limitations confound smartphone cameras), I have to point out that many compacts are still using 1/2.33″ and smaller sensors, which are smaller than the sensor in the N8 and within spitting distance of the iPhone4 and SGS2 sensors (1/2.7″).

      The issue is that market realities limit compacts as much as physics limit smartphones. Most camera makers* can’t afford to roll out new sensor technologies every year, because the volume is just not enough to recoup the R&D and manufacturing costs. Contrast that with smartphone makers, who sell in much larger volumes (until recently, Nokia sold more cameras by volume than any of the “traditional” camera makers). Whereas the pace of innovation in smartphones is much more rapid. For instance, there are flagship cameras like the Canon 5DMkII and Olympus E-5 that are using 3+ year old sensors.

      * Sony seems to be bucking that trend, though, with new sensors constantly being unveiled and incorporated or sold to its customers. Bravo to them.

        • BobbinThreadbare
        • 8 years ago

        Is there any reason that smart phone companies and stand alone camera companies have to both do R&D on the same things? It seems like they could easily work together on this.

          • Voldenuit
          • 8 years ago

          There’s a lot of overlap, but there are also areas which benefit one tier better than another. For instance, R&D into mirror box advancements will benefit DSLRs but not smartphones. Obviously that’s an extreme example, but smartphones do have significant differences from compacts.

          1. Processing power. Smartphones today have much more powerful CPUs (and often, much more modern OSes) than compact cameras. This opens them up to creative use of the data captured, from real-time effects to processing panoramas and low light shots (ironically, Sony already has these features on many of their cameras, but sometimes crippled due to insufficient CPU power – for instance, many of their compacts only do panorama stitching at HDTV resolutions). This also opens up smartphones to software enhanced photography, like the Lomo apps on smartphones, or whatever a creative app writer can come up with. Cue the last, while anyone can come up with a creative app to enhance the camera on a smartphone, compacts are usually saddled with whatever the manufacturer (who is usually behind the curve on trends) puts in it when it ships.

          2. Packaging. Space is at a premium on smartphones, and technologies like pizeoelectric AF and flat lenses aren’t suitable or desirable for compacts. This also means that smartphone sensors are likely to stay small, whereas the main limitation for compacts is cost and market segmentation (e.g. the Leica X1 and Fuji X100 have APS-C sized sensors in compact bodies).

          3. Cost. Smartphones sell in volume but at low unit cost. Even with $600 phones, the camera unit is just a fraction of the cost of the entire phone. This means that there are different economic pressures driving the industry – there have been many boutique camera phones in the past, but they have usually failed for various reasons (the N8 probably counts, at least in the US). Most smartphones have plastic instead of glass lenses for this reason.

          4. Anonymity. Smartphone makers usually source more than one manufacturer to make their camera units, and the end-user doesn’t know or care. E.g. the SGS2 can come with either a sony or samsung made camera module. Smartphone makers probably want broadly similar characteristics across all their ODMs so that a lower performing unit is not perceived as defective.

          5. Competition. Sometimes, the supplier who makes your smartphone camera is also your competitor in the camera space, or vice versa. Example, both sony and samsung make (or made) camera modules for Apple but also sell their own tablets and phones. This may complicate the process of cooperation, both from pure competitive pressure and also from legal and contractual requirements.

          Having said that, I do think there are lots of areas where progress in one field proves beneficial to the other, but it’s not always that simple. Supplier A might come up with a revolutionary sensor, but their customer might demand that they open up the technology to a competing supplier so that they can ensure supply (similar to how IBM forced intel to license x86 to AMD back in the early 80s so they had a second supplier for the PC XT).

          Of course, this is all conjecture on my part. I’m not employed in the camera or smartphone industry, but I have been observing general trends.

        • Suspenders
        • 8 years ago

        True, but compacts can more easily adjust their imaging sensor/lens sizes upwards to compete with better quality cellphone cameras because they have more physical space to do so. Smartphones don’t have the luxury of devoting the entirety of their cases to cameras, after all.

        The market size issues you point out are important but debateable. The digital camera market is a few billion dollars in size, and as long as it is I think there will be enough r&d to keep the technology improving where it can. Also, I’d imagine a lot of the research companies like Nikon and Canon do with imaging are applicable to a wide range of markets as well, not just to point and shoots specifically, which would help with spreading r&d costs.

    • Welch
    • 8 years ago

    I’ve got a Sony a230 DSLR and to be honest I haven’t used it all that much (like i thought I would). I don’t feel like I would have ever bothered to have a point and shoot camera, so yes my Moto Atrix replaces a point and shoot. However, if im going to be serious about photos a DSLR is a must.

    A better question is when will phones begin to infringe on the beginner DSLR territory. Seems like everyone and their mother has one these days due to how inexpensive they’ve gotten, at least with a kit lens. And the iPhone4s having 1080p brings it on par (to consumers who only look at certain numbers) with some of the DSLR 1080p Still/Motion cameras. Of course like you said, low light situations especially are where a DSLR is absolutely king thanks to all of that glass. It would take nothing short of a software miracle to get close to the same effect with a stationary lens like on a phone.

    • LoneWolf15
    • 8 years ago

    I think smartphones replace cameras for the type that were once fine with Kodak Disc, 110, and basic point-and-shoot 35mms. But they still need a lot of polish.

    I have a laundry list of issues with the smartphone cameras I’ve used. Shutter lag. Poor low-light performance. Lousy controls which often mean I can’t hold the camera in a comfortable, steady, point-n-shoot position. My obsolete Fuji S5600 superzoom is only 5.1MP, but it makes smartphone pictures look pretty lousy by comparison, because controls, interface, and flash are better.

    Truth be told though, I think those issues will eventually be fixed in smartphones. As for digital cameras, I really wish mine just had wifi so I could send some of my shots straight to Photobucket or email.

    • Pancake
    • 8 years ago

    *looks at its Canon S95*… no.

      • continuum
      • 8 years ago

      heh. I do the same, only I look at my LX5…

      But yeah for a lot of my friends… they just carry a phone now. The killer is, well, anything beyond a quick landscape shot or a social snapshot… sucks. And even the social snapshot doesn’t look so good.

      Key thing is that it’s good enough for them, tho. I personally will stick to my real cameras. =P

      • crose
      • 8 years ago

      yupp, love the convenience of the camera in my SGS2 and quality is fair but for vacation photos etc I would miss my S90. I doubt iPhone 4S is that big a step forward for phone cameras.

    • JohnC
    • 8 years ago

    I have always used “dedicated” point-and-shoot cameras for many years but ever since switching to smartphones I don’t really remember last time I’ve used one and I have no urge to buy one in any near future. My iPhone 4’s camera takes decent enough snapshots and is much more convenient to use (since it is built into device I need to carry everyday and since I can immediately upload photos to anywhere and anyone as long as I have WiFi or cellphone network coverage available) and I’m not really interested in “serious photography”. The only thing I really miss from “dedicated” cameras is an optical image stabilization.

    • njsutorius
    • 8 years ago

    I lost my point and shoot and didnt even realize it for like a few months.. when i do take pics i use my phone and its just fine. The only complaint is that it doesn’t take good night photos, but of course next phone in a bout year will be able to do that.. i see no point for point and shoot unless you are a photographer.

    • Malphas
    • 8 years ago

    They’re absolutely going to kill off the low end point and shoots that people would previously have used just for snapshots without any real concerns for quality. On the other end of the spectrum though, you have the Micro Four Thirds and similar EVIL systems that are eating into the DSLR market and obviously will never be matched in quality and versatility by a smartphone.

    • hiro_pro
    • 8 years ago

    i cant wait for the day nikon makes a decent point and shoot that has wi-fi and can let me post my pics to facebook or flickr.

    • maxxcool
    • 8 years ago

    When a phone cam can turn on and take a fully 5 point focused photo that requires auto zoom (5x-10x optical) to shift and do it in under 2 seconds … then i would worry.

    • Rza79
    • 8 years ago

    I’ve been using a Nokia N8 for a year now. Incredible camera. It still amazes me everyday. But N8’s camera is the best smartphone camera on the market so i don’t know if i would be as satisfied with something else. Anyway, past year i’ve barely used my point-and-shoot camera. I only use it if i need a zoom.

    • Spotpuff
    • 8 years ago

    Yes, they are, mainly because of connectivity. For how most people use cameras (take a few quick snaps and then share on twitter/facebook) phones are the superior option.

    I don’t have a smart phone, I use a DSLR/compact, but for sharing photos (and not for “art” per se) phones are vastly superior. Art becomes subjective in terms of which camera is superior; as others have mentioned the best one is the one you have with you. If you want to do other specific forms of photography (low light, sports, wildlife) DSLRs give you more options, but for quick snaps (which is what 99% of people do) phones are superior.

    Camera makers need to get their heads in the game.

    • Voldenuit
    • 8 years ago

    CNet is a bit behind the game. The nokia N8 came out a year ago with a bigger sensor (1/1.8″ vs (?)1/2.7″ on the iP4) and has been the smartphone of choice for photo enthusiasts for a while. It was even used to film two stop motion videos at Aardman studios – the smallest and largest stop motion videos filmed respectively.

    Smartphones are definitely eating into the compact camera space, but I wouldn’t call the battle won. For one thing, some players make both. Panasonic is making a lumix phone with a decent camera, for starters. Also, compact cameras are not standing still – the Fuji X10 has a 2/3″ sensor and a f/2.0 lens, making it the compact camera to beat (giving it similar if not better light gathering and DOF control as a Nikon V1 with kit lens that costs $900). Lastly, the way the phone industry works in the US, you’re stuck on a contract for 2 years, so users end up being saddled with obsolete equipment for a while before being able to upgrade (at least cost effectively).

    To be fair, I’ve never much liked compact cameras, relying on my Canon DSLR until I switched over to the more portable Micro Four Thirds system, but my N8 is a great backup camera. Still, there’s one space where compacts definitely win over smartphones and DSLRs/system cameras, and that’s with waterproof cameras. I recently went snorkeling and used the wife’s Olympus mju Tough to take some underwater photos. A waterproof housing for my m43 camera would have cost me $900, so the mju was definitely more attractive. For a fun day at the beach or water park, it’s hard to beat a waterproof compact.

    If smartphones are pushing compact camera makers to up their game, that’s good news for everyone.

      • Voldenuit
      • 8 years ago

      “Compact” camera update: it seems Fuji just announced the X-S1, a bridge camera with a 26x zoom using the same 2/3″ sensor as the X-10. Now this baby is not going to fit in your pocket, but as most bridge cameras use 1/2.3″ sensors, this will be a huge leap over the existing competition and might even give m43 and CX users a run for their money, assuming the IQ of the lens holds up (one of the traditional weaknesses of bridge and superzoom cameras).

      EDIT: Added [url=http://www.dpreview.com/news/1110/11100510fujifilm.asp<]link[/url<].

    • kamikaziechameleon
    • 8 years ago

    short answer… YES!!! I don’t have a point and shoot just a DSLR and 1 mp smartphone. I only wish that my phone has more battery.

    • derFunkenstein
    • 8 years ago

    There won’t ever be (I don’t think, anyhow) a camera good enough to replace the dSLR cameras for sure, but I think the P&S digital camera is going away slowly but surely. I mean, I quit carrying mine around because it’s old and it doesn’t fit in my pocket well and my phone’s camera isn’t THAT much worse. Plus it’s always on me – that makes it totally convenient.

    • odizzido
    • 8 years ago

    Yes they are. We have been combining functions into a single device or piece of silicon for quite some time now. GPUs are part of CPUs now, and are only becoming better just as cameras on phones are becoming better.

    Eventually phones will be able to take the place of a desktop for a large number of people and there will be a post on TR asking “Are smart phones killing desktop PCs?” with responses saying no, gaming and serious computing will remain on the desktop, just as serious photography will remain with dedicated cameras.

    Mainstream everything is heading to your smartphone.

      • Game_boy
      • 8 years ago

      The phone form factor is not suitable for the majority of ‘computing’ that goes on, including office work, games, and watching longer videos. That can’t be fixed by newer technology.

      Why do consoles still exist when a PC is clearly better technologically for games and has been since the mid-1980s?

        • codedivine
        • 8 years ago

        Umm, docks can fix the form factor problem? All you need is a HDMI connector and a couple of USB ports and you can connect a monitor, keyboard and mouse?

          • Game_boy
          • 8 years ago

          It’s not a phone when the peripherals cost as much as and weigh 10x more than the phone.

            • Johnny5
            • 8 years ago

            At some point performance and storage vs. mobility of chips may no longer be an issue with the most mobile chips being able to handle everything a significant portion of people will need. Then you can just have one device with the computing power you need that you can connect to different input/output systems (and if necessary additional storage) at will.

        • odizzido
        • 8 years ago

        Consoles are easier and more comfortable to use, simple as. This is important for the mainstream, which is why consoles are where they are today despite them being crap.

        Smart phones are the same, and while you may be correct that as of right now smart phones cannot take the place of a desktop computer for even mainstream use, in the future who knows what kind of projection technology or whatever will exist that will allow mainsteam people to use a smartphone as a proper computing device.

      • LaChupacabra
      • 8 years ago

      Agreed. It will be interesting to see if a phone based on Windows 8 will activate the Windows 7 UI when plugged into a dock.

    • RickyTick
    • 8 years ago

    I’ve heard this before, and I tend to agree. If you have even a moderately advanced smartphone, you can take very nice pictures and video. If you want to go out with the express intent of taking pictures, then you’ll take a much nicer camera with you for that exact purpose. It’s the $100-$200 point/shoot that’s on the endangered species list, not the serious cameras.

    I’ve also read that smart phones will make the wrist watch obsolete. I can see that happening too, over time.

      • Corrado
      • 8 years ago

      I haven’t worn a watch in YEARS. I just look at my phone to see what time and date it is, and set alarms on the phone. I’d LOVE to make my wallet obsolete, personally.

    • sonofsanta
    • 8 years ago

    It’ll make digital compacts much more specialised. My 5 year old Ixus 50 is due for replacement due to a broken battery cover, and where I originally bought that model to complement my DSLR with its small size and convenience, my phone does that now. Quick snapshots of nights out or animals sleeping in cute positions are fine from myphone because, as others say, my phone is always in my pocket, whereas I have to make a deliberate effort to pick up my camera.

    So I’m still replacing the Ixus, but I’m replacing it with something that has a monster optical zoom on it – it will be much better quality than my phone camera, and the zoom will differentiate it enough to justify taking it out on family days out etc.

    • dpaus
    • 8 years ago

    [quote<]phones will always be handicapped by small sensors, a lack of zoom lenses, and ineffective flashes[/quote<] Why? They don't need to be. Take a look at some of the aggressively small point-and-click cameras, and ask yourself why that technology cannot be [i<]added[/i<] to smartphones. The zoom lens in the smallest of them is thin enough to be included in a slightly thicker smartphone (except for sliders), and I'd rather have a smartphone that's 2 - 3mm thicker and includes a real, optical zoom lens and a real flash. Then I wouldn't have to compromise, and the question wouldn't need to be posed.

      • ModernPrimitive
      • 8 years ago

      Getting 99% of consumers to believe you need a bigger sensor on a bulkier phone would be the biggest challenge. Most people have bought into the “more MP = better pictures”. I would be on the fence a little myself and would have to weigh a few things – no pun intended – on a bulky phone vs thin vs price vs picture quality etc.

        • dpaus
        • 8 years ago

        I agree, but…. wouldn’t it be nice to have the choice?

          • YellaChicken
          • 8 years ago

          Choice is always nice to have and I very much agree that those features and hardware would be nice to have too, but like MP says, getting enough consumers to buy it is a challenge and no tech company is going to spend time developing something that they think won’t net them enough return on their investment.

            • dpaus
            • 8 years ago

            Product development dictated solely by committee-driven focus groups and ROI projections…. Seems I’m going to miss Steve Jobs more than I thought.

      • Anomymous Gerbil
      • 8 years ago

      Bigger sensors need commensurately bigger lenses. There’s a limit to how big you can make a lens on a phone before it’s no longer pocketable. Hence for things like low light photography, or larger zoom ranges, or ultimate picture quality (which isn’t really necessary for web-posted photos), a bigger sensor won’t help as you can’t fit the lens into the phone.

      • Malphas
      • 8 years ago

      The problem with that scenario is the aggressively small point-and-shoots you’re talking about are rubbish, it’s those types of cameras that will get rendered obsolete by cameraphones. If we put aside sensor size (which could potentially be gotten around by improvements in CMOS/CCD technology) and just look at how much size and weight is taken up by the glass, the flash, the controls, etc. on a prosumer point-and-shot like the LX4 and it’s obvious you’ll never manage to fit it into a smartphone that people would accept.

      • NeelyCam
      • 8 years ago

      Optical zoom would be nice, but to me the #1 feature I’d like in a smartphone camera is image stabilization. I saw an article about such a prototype on EETimes a while back – I thought it looked very interesting:

      [url<]http://www.eetimes.com/electronics-news/4215712/Firm-claims-anti-shake-camera-breakthrough[/url<] I don't know what this "reduced motion blur" on the 4S camera means, but if it's ISO based, I'll pass.

    • PeterD
    • 8 years ago

    Can you put big lenses on a phone?

      • Corrado
      • 8 years ago

      The high resolution and tiny sensor size of cheap point and shoots makes it a waste of glass, actually. Low light performance on low end point and shoots is garbage. And actually, you can’t put a “big lens” on a < $150 new point and shoot anyways.

    • bhtooefr
    • 8 years ago

    There is a saying, the best camera is the one that’s with you.

    Odds are, I’m not carrying a point and shoot. I’ve got one, but I never use it.

    But, I can unlock my phone, hold down the shutter button until it vibrates, and I’ve got a camera in about 5-10 seconds. And, I’m pretty much always carrying it.

      • rxc6
      • 8 years ago

      This is so true that is painful. Before the iphone4 was out, people would post the pictures from their iphones 3gs and 3g . Those pictures were horrendous. However people kept taking pictures with those POS.

    • Grigory
    • 8 years ago

    The only use for a camera in my private life would be to take a picture of my phone without using any mirrors. 😉

      • Grigory
      • 8 years ago

      Really? -2? People here have issues. 😀

        • Corrado
        • 8 years ago

        I know, right? I get -2 for saying I’d like to make my wallet obsolete and that I haven’t worn a watch in years…

        • JohnC
        • 8 years ago

        Why do you care about cosmetic-effect “votes”? You don’t get enough positive approval outside of this site?

          • Grigory
          • 8 years ago

          Thank you for proving my point! :)))

          • Bensam123
          • 8 years ago

          Like, why do you care about anything in your life? What does this voting system mean? Who are we? Where are we?!?! I don’t understand?!?!?!

          Ignoring the problem isn’t a solution. There is a point to the voting system and it can be easily abused. Don’t prop up your poor argument with a straw-man. Do you not get enough positive approval in your life to appreciate criticism of a system that is already in place?

    • dragmor
    • 8 years ago

    One of the reasons my wife got an iphone 4 was the camera, its always in reach and enables you to get shots of the kids easily. It takes decent stills and has better video than our old sony high 8 video camera.

    • codedivine
    • 8 years ago

    I use a Nokia N8 and with its 12MP resolution, xenon flash, a sensor almost 3 times larger than the iPhone 4S etc., its a great point-and-shoot replacement. However, I do miss optical zoom.

    edit: Also, gerbils consider contributing to this smartphone camera specs thread in the forums: [url<]https://techreport.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=37&t=78174[/url<]

      • rxc6
      • 8 years ago

      This is so far the only smartphone that I would consider to replace a P&S camera. After that the Galaxy SII is decent. The iphone4 is just horrible in terms of white balance and color reproduction.

      • Anonymous Coward
      • 8 years ago

      I also have an N8. The lens and sensor are better than the software.

      My only complaints about the physical aspects of the camera are: (1) it has a real problem with stray light on the flat front glass and (2) it could really use some sort of image stabilization like good P&S can be expected to have.

      The lens is certainly better than my Canon P&S’s, especially the corners.

    • yogibbear
    • 8 years ago

    My nokia n86 has had an 8MP camera for YEARS. And yes it takes photos as good as a point + shoot.

    • Firestarter
    • 8 years ago

    The bottom end of the market is already being killed by smartphones, just because of how ubiquitous these ‘phones’ have become. For many of us, the main purpose a < $100 camera would have is taking pics to post on Facebook, and a smartphone takes that use-case and makes it a prime selling point.

    Anyone looking to record their vacation or any other more serious application will still be using dedicated cameras for a long time, as the form factor of a smartphone just does not allow for a sensor + lens that meets the requirements for that.

      • ModernPrimitive
      • 8 years ago

      Completely agree. I would for sure never buy a sub $200 p&s cam now. A few smartphones take pictures that are comparable in most situations now. I will however probably buy the new Canon S100 for $429 after reviews surface because NO smartphone will take pics in low light as well. Eventually I’ll get a decent dSLR setup because low light is what interests me.

      At the same time, I get completely annoyed by the fanatics that glow and spout about an iPhone takes “the best pictures you can take!!! they are amazing !!!”… yep folks thats exactly why NASA uses an iPhone strapped to the bottom of the shuttle and not a Hassleblad….

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This