I don't think Apple plans to sell 40 - 45 million iPhones next year ? this could mean that the Touches will be getting the cameras too and maybe the iPad ?
#484095 - 12/23/0903:01 PMRe: Rumor 5 meg camera coming soon
[Re: carp]
Antonio
NArF!
Registered: 06/01/05
Posts: 401
Loc: San Francisco, CA
Wow. I've been thinking of updating to an iPhone 3GS recently... I know the 3G data network T-Mobile uses won't work with it, but Edge would still work fine, and I'd like a faster processor, more RAM, and more storage space than I currently I have on my 1st Gen iPhone. A 5MP camera would seal the deal, methinks.
_________________________ “Creative ability is best displayed with the most basic tools."
Meh... 5MP? Big deal. How big do we need our images to be when they basically suck in all but the best of lighting? I would think that by 2009, we all would have been over the whole megapixel myth. How about creating a phone with better optics?
On the other hand... if it sells more iPhones, then I'm all for it!
#484132 - 12/23/0904:51 PMRe: Rumor 5 meg camera coming soon
[Re: Antonio]
carp
Dino's are Babe magnets
Registered: 04/19/02
Posts: 27018
Loc: Hawaii
Heres what I think - just my opinion
Apple will announce that iPhone is no longer an AT&T exclusive , at the next WWDC
Show stoppers
1 - Intro Verizon top CEO 2 - Intro T-Moble top CEO 3 - Demo the new 5 mega pix camera 4 - Demo the new iTouch camera 5 - Demo and intro the new iPad tablet with camera 6 - Various software updates
7 - Various new forms of the Reality Distortion Field <- Jobs Exclusive
#484174 - 12/23/0906:07 PMRe: Rumor 5 meg camera coming soon
[Re: GAHeroine]
MacBozo
Nut Dood
Registered: 04/20/02
Posts: 16626
Loc: Pinellas Park, Florida
Verizon. LOL! They had an offer for where I work for 10% off their normal fees. Even with 10% off, Verizon was still more expensive than my current AT&T plan.
For two, 3.2MP is big enough for a full res 8x10 anyway. 99.999999999999999% of photos never get past 4x6.
The 5MP in my Samsung phone takes better pictures than our old 3.2MP sony point and shoot. Yeah, the optics suck but the software is great. Plus it's better to have the extra info to toss away, when you scale down to 3MP from the 5 the picture quality increases.
Samsung has put out some phones with real camera lenses in them, or is soon going to. Real 12mp point and shoot quality cameras.
_________________________ Hey I'm an F'n Jerk!® twitter.com/SgtBaxter facebook.com/Bryan.Eckert
True, but my point was practically no one gets 8x10, the large MP is just bragging rights for the consumer. Professionals may need more, but how many cameras sold are for pro use vs the masses taking pictures of Fluffy and kids. Can you really tell the difference between a 3.2 MP 4x6 and a 12? Try it and see.
Instead of consumer level cameras getting less expensive, they just keep raising the MPs and keep the same price range.
Can you really tell the difference between a 3.2 MP 4x6 and a 12? Try it and see.
Of course. Prints off our old Sony 3.2 MP camera have visible pixels. Prints off our daughter's 8MP Samsung don't.
Now the difference between an 8MP print at that size and a 12 are probably harder to distinguish.
I'm not sure about the price range, either. The Sony cost us almost $330 when we bought it. The Samsung cost about $50, and takes way better pictures. Both are consumer point and shoot cameras. Although I will say the Sony has been a real workhorse. It's been dropped and knocked around more than I can tell and keeps going. I think if the Samsung was dropped like the Sony has been, it'd smash open.
_________________________ Hey I'm an F'n Jerk!® twitter.com/SgtBaxter facebook.com/Bryan.Eckert
Granted the CCD technology has got better, that would be the difference between old and new, but try it off of the Samsung at 3.2 and at 8. I don't have one that goes that high to to try, I'd be curious to hear real life results from someone here. My opinion on it comes from doing the math, MP relating to DPI, and from the internet for what that is worth.
There's a big difference in the size of an 8MP file and a 3.2, is it worth it to have to store the bigger files if one will never use them to that extent?
#484321 - 12/24/0910:04 AMRe: Rumor 5 meg camera coming soon
[Re: Jim_]
Antonio
NArF!
Registered: 06/01/05
Posts: 401
Loc: San Francisco, CA
Originally Posted By: SgtBaxter
Originally Posted By: Reboot
For one the optics.
For two, 3.2MP is big enough for a full res 8x10 anyway. 99.999999999999999% of photos never get past 4x6.
The 5MP in my Samsung phone takes better pictures than our old 3.2MP sony point and shoot. Yeah, the optics suck but the software is great. Plus it's better to have the extra info to toss away, when you scale down to 3MP from the 5 the picture quality increases.
Samsung has put out some phones with real camera lenses in them, or is soon going to. Real 12mp point and shoot quality cameras.
Originally Posted By: NucleusG4
3.2? 300 DPI on a 8X10 is 7.2 MP. and even if you print at the bare minimum of 240 DPI then you still need 4.6 MP.
Sure.. you can make a 3.2 8X10.... but it's not going to be very nice.
I agree about the crappy lens. I'll be the first to tell you the iPhone camera is deficient.
I just couldn't figure out this phrase... when they basically suck in all but the best of lighting?
Yes. There are times I'd like a slightly larger image without having to carry around a normal digital camera. And sometimes, I need the size more than I need the quality (though I absolutely loved the assumption that I was simply a MP freak :o/). For a simple point-and-shoot, I'm not certain there would be any difference.
_________________________ “Creative ability is best displayed with the most basic tools."
I've seen it sell for as low as $430, which will be the most I've spent on a camera. It's 10.1MP and has a really nice Leica lens, which, for what I'm doing, is more important. The MP size is about perfect for the size of illustrations and such that I do. IIRC, it does have threads for an adapter and macro lenses, etc. I did some research before deciding on this model, but I've owned two other Panasonics, and they've both performed really well.
_________________________ “Creative ability is best displayed with the most basic tools."
Well when you scale down, the picture softens unless you sharpen. An 8MP sensor only takes pictures at that resolution, it's the software in the camera scaling the image down, which would help hide jaggies a little bit.
As for file size, I agree when you're talking raw uncompressed, but the pictures the Samsung takes are only about 2.5 megs at full resolution JPEG, where the Sony's are about 1.7. That's not a whole lot of difference, unless you're talking hundreds of thousands of pics.
_________________________ Hey I'm an F'n Jerk!® twitter.com/SgtBaxter facebook.com/Bryan.Eckert
That's a good price for that. I got this when they came out for about the same price. I like it for its size, the optics are pretty good, the 10x optical zoom, its many exposure modes, macro etc,pretty much what the Maxxum series had, and the ability to do manual exposures. For its time it was a really good consumer camera, and still takes great pics, good enough for my 4x6 prints, if I do print any. The optical zoom comes in handy, I use it for more than just close up in home pics, outdoors a lot. It's lasted 6+ years too.
But it's not a DSLR of course, so now that they are reasonable I'm thinking about a Minolta or Sony DSLR body though to go with the lenses from my old Maxxum 7000 SLR.
Ahhh... a tear in my eye. I used to the own a Maxxum 7000 and I believe a 9000? too. I loved those cameras.
Another consideration for MPs is cropping. If you have a 3.2 MP camera then you better make sure your composition is spot on... or else when you trim some away to perfect the pose/straighten photo/whatever then alla sudden you have a 2.8 MP file. Hmmm...
With more MPs you can pull back a bit... get more background and trim away later to your satisfaction. Not to mention that different prints require different crops so you are helping yourself to have a bit more background so you can alter crops for 4x6/5X7/8X10s....
Another consideration for MPs is cropping. If you have a 3.2 MP camera then you better make sure your composition is spot on... or else when you trim some away to perfect the pose/straighten photo/whatever then alla sudden you have a 2.8 MP file. Hmmm...
But you're thinking farther outside of the box than 99.9999999% of users do that take their prints to Walmart to be processed.
It's oversell for the casual consumer. But the manufacturers have to make a profit too I guess.
#484492 - 12/24/0906:28 PMRe: Rumor 5 meg camera coming soon
[Re: Jim_]
Antonio
NArF!
Registered: 06/01/05
Posts: 401
Loc: San Francisco, CA
Originally Posted By: Reboot
That's a good price for that. I got this when they came out for about the same price. I like it for its size, the optics are pretty good, the 10x optical zoom, its many exposure modes, macro etc,pretty much what the Maxxum series had, and the ability to do manual exposures. For its time it was a really good consumer camera, and still takes great pics, good enough for my 4x6 prints, if I do print any. The optical zoom comes in handy, I use it for more than just close up in home pics, outdoors a lot. It's lasted 6+ years too.
But it's not a DSLR of course, so now that they are reasonable I'm thinking about a Minolta or Sony DSLR body though to go with the lenses from my old Maxxum 7000 SLR.
Yeah, a good optical zoom, a full-sensor are important, aside from the lens, all three of which are why I'm opting for the Panansonic. I took a look at it in a store, and I like the way it feels, too. It has some heft to it, and feels more like a 'real' camera than others I've used.
I think DSLRs are still priced somewhat insanely ;oP
_________________________ “Creative ability is best displayed with the most basic tools."
I think DSLRs are still priced somewhat insanely ;oP
Yes they are indeed, but I have the auto lenses I need so it won't be so bad. I have a nice 300 mm lens that I miss. I can get a decent Minolta body for a little over $300, 500 or so max, all depending my pixel envy. Either is plenty of camera for me.
It's oversell for the casual consumer. But the manufacturers have to make a profit too I guess.
You can get a halfway decent 12MP point and shoot camera from Wal Mart for $70. I'm not sure there's a terribly insane amount of profit there. Good point and shoot film cameras cost more when you could buy them.
That's just the way electronics are, 10 and 12 MP sensors are dirt cheap from when they first started being manufactured. It's not really the sensors that add to the cost, it's the motors, lenses, etc. Of course you could also spend $300 for a 12MP point and shoot, but then it'll have way better lenses, 10x optical zoom instead of 3x, probably better software too.
_________________________ Hey I'm an F'n Jerk!® twitter.com/SgtBaxter facebook.com/Bryan.Eckert
Previous Topic
Index
