What's the point...
...of a 12MP sensor when there's such a rubbish lens?
As digital camera manufacturers start to concentrate on quality rather than megapixels – reducing the count of the latter while enhancing the former – mobile phone makers still appear caught in the vortex of more-means-better. A case in point is the Samsung GT-M8910 Pixon 12, the first handset with a 12Mp camera – should we be …
...of a 12MP sensor when there's such a rubbish lens?
Really? Are they serious??
(Yes, I know it's 'free with a £50/mth 2 year contract', but even so ...)
FFS any photographer with half a brain knows that megapixels are not what counts to get good photos these days. Witness the drop to 10 megapixels on Canons' newest line of cameras the G11 and S90. A small sensor as used on these small phones/cameras means that adding more pixels means more noise and less light absorption.
Unless oyu are printing photos onto A3 or larger you don't need such high resolutions.
A good 5 meg sensor (Probably less actually) in a camera phone with a decent lens and processing is more than enough.
Stupid megapickle wars and stupid people buying into this crap.
wtf are they thinking ? crap lense!! Divx playback ‘certified’ to a max of 320x240 ? Multishot at 640x480?? - This is clearly aimed directly at only people stupid enough to buy it !!
More pixels=more bandwidth consumed=more money
12mp camera, except half of the pixels will be chroma and luma noise.
Once you've scaled the image down to SVGA resolution for Facebook you'll probably wonder why you even bothered with 12mp.
and most phones actually go DOWN in price... I think the high price shows that there is a LOT of interest! OF COURSE you wont see anyone talking about it, they are too busy getting people into contracts, or trying to sell off old 'back stock' ...
and quit moaning - you wont find a better camphone, unless you are near to Korea...
I'm still waiting for them to deliver a really decent 3.2MP/lens setup. Once the world of digicams hit the 3.2MP point then 90% of the worlds 'snappers' were catered for really.
However, I feel the world has left me behind in that wish. It seems the 50c lens to $5 sensor ratio rules.
Why don't u think before u start typing ? The camera has a nice wide angle lens. Divx at 320x240 on a 3 inch screen is fine, in fact the pixels will be much smaller than the ones on a 1080P TV with a 32 inch screen. And as for the phone only being aimed at the people who are going to buy it.......well who else would they aim it at ?????
@Dick Emery Yes so many mugs are spouting bull about pixel density that a few companies are using a reduction in mega pixels as a marketing gimmick and your falling for it.
What are you smoking? Or have people stopped looking at actual photos, so now they think that noise-reduced, interpolated, smudged crap looks good?
How about this: Here's what a mid-level DSLR setup will do, from a friend of mine in the Czech republic. It doesn't cost a whole lot more than this phone, I suspect:
THAT is "clear and of good quality" - not the tripe sample shots you posted. And they're barely 1 megapixel as displayed. Huhh...
If the main reason for that phone to exist is the camera, then the lot of them would do well to pop out of existence immediately.
This phone camera is not meant to replace your digital camera. Of course the pictures from even a decent 5Mp camera can be better, they have bigger sensors and lenses etc. But this is on a phone that you carry everywhere with you and will take a picture when you otherwise would have had nothing. No-one is expecting to get DSLR or even good 5Mp camera quality pictures, but this phone camera will do when there is nothing better.
Obviously most people/consumers/sheep think that 12Mp phone cameras are going to be better than the ones on the last phone model so that reason along with ITS THE LATEST PHONE LOOK AT ME I AM COOL will be the main reason people buy this model and ones like it.
I dont expect wedding photographers are going to be pulling this out and taking snaps when the groom puts the ring on the brides finger. So can the camera snobs please gtfo and get a life.
My K800i produced some awsome photos, 3.2mp is all the normal person needs PERIOD
if the dam thing had not kept breaking down I would still be using it.
My beef is with the credulous reviewer failing to have any perspective - yes, I am well aware that people who don't know better will buy the thing because of the megapixel number. But reviews are supposed to reflect reality, not parrot marketing material, and thus HELP people NOT make those mistakes. The sample photos posted here are not in any way shape or form "clear and of good quality", by any objective measure.
The best you could possibly say is that they're marginally better than the 5mp camera on a $100 phone. But the reviewer just lets the hype skate. That's the problem. The reviewer explicitly said that the phone existed to be a camera - so your argument is that we shouldn't complain about the camera quality because it's obviously not going to be good? Huh?
If the thing is meant mainly to be a camera, then the only reason to choose it over a DSLR is size - and there's no reason at all to choose it over a pocket point-and-shoot of similar size and far better glass quality - and then put the difference toward buying a really nice phone. The job of a review is to point this stuff out, and that wasn't done.
fscked by SHA-1 collision? Not so fast, says Linus Torvalds