Dying for an Android phone with a REALLY good camera (think 808...)

[Atomic Playboy]

This opinion is oft expressed when this issue is raised, but it doesn't make sense to me. We don't accept compromises on the other things a smartphone can do - why the camera? It is expected to replace your PMP - we don't accept a sub par experience there. It is your new mobile PDA - that needs to be better than any dedicated device used to be. So why is when it comes to the camera, people say "well, if you care about the camera, get a standalone camera"?

Smartphones are supposed to be the end-all, be-all portable all-in-one device. So why accept such sub-standard quality when it comes to the camera? I, for one, commend companies like Nokia, and to a lesser extent Apple and HTC, for attempting to push the envelope here.

The main problem isn't that the average consumer doesn't want a better camera - its that they don't know any better. They are trained to think high megapixels = better. They think "Oh wow, an 8 MP camera! That's even better than the 4 MP Canon I bought for $400 a few years ago! Awesome!" What they don't realize is that megapixel rating is largely meaningless when paired with a crappy, small sensor/lens.

I get what you're saying, but the thing is, a smartphone CAN'T be better at everything than a dedicated device. For example, I can watch movies on my phone; it's got a decent screen resolution, apps that can connect me to movies from anywhere and 4G speeds for rapid file transfer. But why on Earth would I want to watch movies on my phone when I can watch them on my HDTV? I'm not going to carry a 50+" screen around with me, that would just be absurd, but that means my phone is never going to be able to replicate the experience of watching movies on a big screen. That's a limitation, but a necessary one to maintain a basic level of portability.

Similarly, there are some things that a phone can't do when it comes to being a camera. Above all else, a phone needs to be portable. The Nokia 808, by having a very effective camera, also has a large bulge on one end of the phone that impacts portability; it makes it inconvenient to put in your pocket compared to the typical slim design of the iPhone or Galaxy phones. The best cameras aren't built around the idea of portability, they're built to have the best lenses, and those aren't going to fit comfortably in your pocket, which is why professional photographers are often draped in camera bags with a myriad array of lenses and cameras for different situations. But your average phone user doesn't want to attach and detach the lens from their phone to use it. The 8MP cameras on the top cell phones right now are good enough for the demands of 99% of users. People who want better quality are probably going to be investing in DSLRs with various lenses already. There's no need to marry the two devices just because you theoretically could; dedicated photographers will already have thousands invested in cameras and the average cell phone user will consider it an inconvenice at best.

Don't get me wrong; I think it would be awesome to have a 41 MP camera on my phone. But I'd much rather have an inferior camera if it means I get a phone that is slimmer and easier to use. If the camera impacts portability in any way, I don't want it, and most smartphone users are going to feel the same way. And, hell, most everyone is going to feel that way if people start posting 41 megapixel shots on Facebook. "Let me scroll around a bit here... oh, it's a cat. Groovy."

 

[Deeko]

I get what you're saying, but the thing is, a smartphone CAN'T be better at everything than a dedicated device. For example, I can watch movies on my phone; it's got a decent screen resolution, apps that can connect me to movies from anywhere and 4G speeds for rapid file transfer. But why on Earth would I want to watch movies on my phone when I can watch them on my HDTV? I'm not going to carry a 50+" screen around with me, that would just be absurd, but that means my phone is never going to be able to replicate the experience of watching movies on a big screen. That's a limitation, but a necessary one to maintain a basic level of portability.

Similarly, there are some things that a phone can't do when it comes to being a camera. Above all else, a phone needs to be portable. The Nokia 808, by having a very effective camera, also has a large bulge on one end of the phone that impacts portability; it makes it inconvenient to put in your pocket compared to the typical slim design of the iPhone or Galaxy phones. The best cameras aren't built around the idea of portability, they're built to have the best lenses, and those aren't going to fit comfortably in your pocket, which is why professional photographers are often draped in camera bags with a myriad array of lenses and cameras for different situations. But your average phone user doesn't want to attach and detach the lens from their phone to use it. The 8MP cameras on the top cell phones right now are good enough for the demands of 99% of users. People who want better quality are probably going to be investing in DSLRs with various lenses already. There's no need to marry the two devices just because you theoretically could; dedicated photographers will already have thousands invested in cameras and the average cell phone user will consider it an inconvenice at best.

Don't get me wrong; I think it would be awesome to have a 41 MP camera on my phone. But I'd much rather have an inferior camera if it means I get a phone that is slimmer and easier to use. If the camera impacts portability in any way, I don't want it, and most smartphone users are going to feel the same way. And, hell, most everyone is going to feel that way if people start posting 41 megapixel shots on Facebook. "Let me scroll around a bit here... oh, it's a cat. Groovy."

Sure, I don't think anyone expects the quality of a $2000 DSLR in a smartphone, its a matter of trade offs - but the current incarnation is just pretty terrible. And when it comes to portability...I mean, lets be serious, smartphones are quickly becoming less and less portable. The Galaxy S3 and Galaxy Note are gigantic. People are under this notion that the only way we measure portability is thinness - it wasn't that long ago that the world fawned over the original Droid for how thin it was - which was the same thinness of the PureView.

At any rate, you don't necessarily need the full PureView 808 experience. Keep in mind that it is light years ahead of the competition. I'm sure there is a happy medium - something that's still acceptably thin by today's standards, but has a camera that can at least take a better picture than this.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Sure, I don't think anyone expects the quality of a $2000 DSLR in a smartphone, its a matter of trade offs - but the current incarnation is just pretty terrible. And when it comes to portability...I mean, lets be serious, smartphones are quickly becoming less and less portable. The Galaxy S3 and Galaxy Note are gigantic. People are under this notion that the only way we measure portability is thinness - it wasn't that long ago that the world fawned over the original Droid for how thin it was - which was the same thinness of the PureView.

At any rate, you don't necessarily need the full PureView 808 experience. Keep in mind that it is light years ahead of the competition. I'm sure there is a happy medium - something that's still acceptably thin by today's standards, but has a camera that can at least take a better picture than this.

True, and as others have mentioned, I think we're starting to move that direction with devices like the iPhone, HTC One X and the Samsung Galaxy S3. I have to disagree with you on the portability of the Galaxy S3; I have one, and it fits comfortably in my pocket in every pair of pants I own. I haven't tried out the Galaxy Note, apart from viewing it in a store, but it's definitely a very large device; that one is probably pushing the limits of pocket-size. But the nice thing about the iPhone, One X and GS3 is the distinct lack of major bulges to house their improved cameras, and that was the thing I noticed about the 808; I can't imagine carrying that around with me without a holster. It would stab me in the thigh if it's facing the wrong way, it would make a really awkward lump facing the other way and it could get caught on my pocket if I tried to pull it out in a hurry to, say, answer a phone call (I did this with an old phone which I managed to fling across a bar and smash in half; yes I'm somewhat clumsy with small things, which may be why the Galaxy S3 works for me). The average consumer doesn't need 41 megapixels. Not yet. Not with the current cost and size restrictions. When lenses improve and come down in price, sure. But most people still aren't basing their choice of phone on the quality of the camera.

 

[notposting]

I care...but since I am on Verizon and stuck with 1 whole model as my choice, I don't feel too bad for you.

<--HTC Trophy, absolutely blows...outside pics are mediocre at best, slow shutter release, slow shutter speed, and indoor isn't even worth mentioning.

That being said, I would appreciate iPhone 4/4S level of quality in my cellphone. If we can do better (like the scaled back to 5mp 808 pics) even better. But good outside, decent inside photos would be all I need.

And the guy whining about cell phone photos not looking good on his Retina display...lol.

 

[ErnestMaxx]

I was hoping that Droid Razr HD would feature a decent camera... at least 12MP.. but now it seems that's also going to have a 8MP cam.. :/ :/ http://www.motoask.com/lounge-off-t...oid-razr-hd-feature-an-8-mp-camera-t5745.html