| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/21/2004 07:54:52 PM · #1 |
Anyone know about camera phone lenses? I'm curious to know specs like focal length, 35mm-equivalent length, aperture range, etc.
Also, what fundamentally makes camera phone lenses so bad? Is it the cheap materials and construction? Is it the tiny space they have to work with?
I'm having a tough time finding info on the web about this, through the nightmarish world of cell phone ads and reviews out there.
-Will
|
|
|
|
10/21/2004 08:02:23 PM · #2 |
| I'd think the sensor is a bigger problem in most cell phones today. I think most of them have a fixed focal length (probably somewhere around 50mm 35mm eq.) I read today that Samsung just launched a 5 megapixel cameraphone, wouldn't think that it would match the quality of the most popular consumer cameras today (3-5 mp ones). It's like with most other things, when the manifacturers start making one unit to do lots of things, no feature works out perfectly and you end up with a gismo that does a lot of things badly rather then one thing really well... |
|
|
|
10/21/2004 08:31:04 PM · #3 |
Speaking of cell phone cams :P
 |
|
|
|
10/21/2004 09:36:54 PM · #4 |
i just got a Motorolla V220 and the camera in it is extreamly poor quality.
only reason I have a camera phone is because thats what my company gave me when my other phone died 2 weeks ago, other wise I would never want/or get a camera phone.
James
|
|
|
|
10/21/2004 09:45:21 PM · #5 |
I think the reason they're not of great quality is that they're not *meant* to be of great quality. I don't think you'll ever see a day where a serious journalist is shooting an event with a phone.
They're really marketed to be more of a toy, in all honesty. I got one a few months ago, and that's definitely what it is to me. It's a fun novelty to shoot a picture and e-mail it to someone right on the spot, but I certainly wouldn't count on it for anything that needs to look good.
Having said all that, I've actually been pretty surprised at how good the quality can be in the right light. I've gotten a few shots from it that kinda surprised me! |
|
|
|
10/21/2004 10:20:49 PM · #6 |
|
|
|
10/21/2004 11:15:56 PM · #7 |
I work for a National Wireless Provider. They provide the Motorola V220 and V400 camera phones. I have the most recently released Samsung Camera Phone. The reason I like the Samsung phones is because their displays cannot be beat! I am sure that I can get more specs about the camera lens.
|
|
|
|
10/21/2004 11:55:31 PM · #8 |
| sony ericsson t610 claims to have a 33/2.8 lens. It may be that, but their sensor still sucks, so the phone is still not really useful for pretty much anything as a camera. |
|
|
|
10/22/2004 12:08:16 AM · #9 |
my camera claims to be a 3.3mm 2.8
|
|
|
|
10/22/2004 02:54:40 AM · #10 |
Originally posted by yurasocolov:
so the phone is still not really useful for pretty much anything as a camera. |
Being the pizza guy on a major university campus, I have to deal with friggin' cell phones all day. I've come to the conclusion that camera phones aren't really very usefull as phones either. My cell has NO BELLS OR WHISTLES and I LOVE to walk around people with new phones going 'Can ya hear me now? Good! Can ya hear me now? Good!' while they can't even get a signal! |
|
|
|
10/22/2004 04:25:30 AM · #11 |
| I guess its all in the small sensor size and small lens. Using such small optics and electronics one can never expect to get sharp photos (optical physics in action there). Also using a small sensor size will increase its noise ratio dramatically when decreasing light levels. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/25/2024 04:02:21 PM EDT.
