No, but then again, I've never printed a digital photo at all.
No, but I may in future if they were decent
I've heard numour people bitch and complain about camera resolutions in mobile phones. Yes, the iPhone isn't up there but then again, with the piddle little plastic lens on every mobile phone, are any of us realistically going to print those people or will they forever remain on our computers where they will realistically never be viewed higher than 1600x1200.
I will forever maintain, if you want a camera, buy a camera, if you want a video camera, buy a video camera, if you want a phone buy a phone.
Noone should expect that a phone can take good photos or video just as we don't expect a DSLR or Video Camera to make phone calls.
2008 Macbook 13" 2.1GHz, 4GB RAM Late 2008 iMac 20" 2GHz 4GB RAM Early 2008 iMac 20" 2Ghz 2GB RAM TV - Summer 2001 iMac 1GB RAM - Late 2005 Power Macintosh 2.3 GHz 16GB RAM 2 32GB Black iPhones 160GB iPod Classic.
I have a D700 for real photos. I was going to buy a small point and shoot to keep in my bag but I'm really happy with the 3GS quality. Video is really quite good for those spur of the moment times with the kids and the photos are great, a little over exposed but a quick enhance and they are fine.
I don't carry to Nikon in my pocket everyday but the iPhone is always there when I need it.
I have never printed a phone pic. I have a D40X and a D90 for real images, and since I usually have them handy, the phone is only used for capturing faces for things like contact images.
I did do a small video and up it to youtube yesterday, and was really really impressed. Alas the Mrs was not so impressed at the daughters language, so it's limited to Youtube friends.
I have always had a decent digital camera so use that for my photo taking needs. Although I have printed a photo from a phone before...
Back in my Nokia 6600 days when the camera was VGA I though I would see what one of those turned out like. Suprisingly it wasn't half bad all things considered, nothing to write home about of course, but not terrible. I can only assume new camera phones are that much better now, even the 2MP on the 3G
Many Shiny Toys with Apple Logos | Some Microsoft Toys too
If it has an engine or a heartbeat it's going to cost you.
Drive a VW?
I used the N82 before the 3GS. N82 pictures win hands down compared to the 3GS. The next iPhone better have a much better camera. 3GS pictures look ugly when uploaded to the comp or facebook.
Why print it out? I'm trying to scan all my old printed photo into my phone and put the paper photo into the store room!
You are right again, as pictures realistically can not be viewed higher than 1600X1200, except that people crop them all the time.
It's not really about the megapixel of the phone camera, but more about the quality of the lens and sensor.
I agree that if you want REAL pictures, use a REAL camera. How often do you bring along a REAL camera as compared to your iphone? If your iphone takes REAL pictures, won't it make your REAL camera redundant? Isn't that what technology convergence is all about?
All I'm hoping for is that the next iphone will have a decent camera, enough for me to junk my other mobile phone with a better camera.
No I havent, i just flip my phone into landscape and swipe my finger and show my friends, I used to print photos untill I bought a digital photo frame.
iPad 32 Gb WiFi/3G iMac 27" i7. iPhone 4 Black 32 GB.
Just can't remember the last digital photo I had to print out... A few passport photos? Digital photos are for digital display and even photo frames are turning digital.
I think the 3MP sensor on the iPhone is justified. I compared some pics from my 5MP n95 to some comparable pics from my friends iPhone, and found the iPhone is superior.
The lower pixel count on the iphone means each pixel is bigger, so they will collect more light, meaning quicker exposure times and/or less image noise. Images on the n95 are scattered with artifacts created by noise reduction algorithms, resulting in a blotchy image with poorly defined edges and speckles of discolouration. The iPhone on the other hand, has well defined edges, with only natural looking motion blur being an issue. In low light, the iPhone will still produce red noise in dark areas, but the n95 will do this even in well lit scenes.
In short, increases in resolution are negated by the artifacts created by the software algorithms required to compensate for the flaws inherent in doing so. This conundrum doesn't really matter though, because the majority of people don't know shit from mince meat, which is why they will continue to judge a camera based purely on the number of pixels it will capture, because 'more is better'.
pie and sauce with no remorse
Then again I cant see Apple easily fitting a full-frame 35mm sensor in the back of the iPhone in the near future
However, my whole theory has been thrown out the window, from my research it seems that the iPhone uses a sensor with smaller pixels than the n95, so I guess it comes down to construction and efficiency. I guess the iPhone just has a better sensor!
Last edited by RustySpanner; 7th July 2009 at 12:46 PM. Reason: grammar
pie and sauce with no remorse
Then again the N95 was released in early 2007, and back in 2007 I bought my Nikon D40x. The Nikon D90 was released late last year & the image sensor resolution & quality is much better in the 18 months between the launches. Given the 2 year gap between the N95 and the iPhone 3GS, I can see there would probably be a change in sensor technology & quality
I've helped my mother who prints her iPhone's shots on her little HP photo printer constantly.
I'm consistently surprised at how good it can look with a few minutes in iPhoto and then printed.
at 6x4" I guess almost anything can look good.
I am the tech savvy at-risk youth.