[tvdtvdtvd]

I'm still wondering why DSLR makers don't put phones in their cameras. Yes, it would be gimmicky,
but then again, it would prove the concept that a device that is camera first still has merit. And you
just know someone would actually buy it.

[aaacb]

Nokia 808 from 2012 has a 41 mp sensor

[iheiramo]

I used to think that IQ from my Nokia 808 pureview with it's 41Mpix was really good in good conditions, but couple of years active shooting and hanging on the forum has raised the bar
It's handy in the pocket on the slopes to catch few memories and providing emergency phone just in case, but it ain't no DSLR.

Downsampled:


Full size:

[Aberrator]

I'm still wondering why DSLR makers don't put phones in their cameras.

I'd love one with integrated rotary dial and a handset attached to a curly wire.

[Jim Dandy]

I'd love one with integrated rotary dial and a handset attached to a curly wire.

But only if there is a long strip of plastic-y stuff jammed inside that the pictures are kept on. You can view them after making magic motions in an unlit room and sloshing a bunch of smelly chemicals about for a precise amount of time. Someday...

[MossyRocks]

I used to think that IQ from my Nokia 808 pureview with it's 41Mpix was really good in good conditions, but couple of years active shooting and hanging on the forum has raised the bar

I always try to differentiate between image quality (quantifiable measurable technical aspects) and picture quality (is it a good picture) as they are completely different things. Getting a good quality picture can be done with any reasonable camera, cellphone up to large format camera and is mostly dependent on the photographer's ability to take and frame the scene.

Image quality wise these high MP phones are lacking in image quality even if when used correctly produce nice pictures. In your case down sampling to 5MP you are probably getting most if not all of the usable image data that can be had from that sensor and f/2.2 lens.

[roberrl]

Classic feature selling - yay look how many pixels my phone has !!!

Can it take decent pictures? well depends on the operator not the pixels but who cares when my phone has more than yours!

[quant2325]

Many of the most iconic photos ever taken used film and cameras/lenses that were worse than what can optically be produced by the best smartphones today. This is a big deal and it also means nothing to those who need a DSLR. Certainly, most people are happy with just a smartphone for their snapshots.

Sensors are going through a Moore's Law type of thing and they keep getting better every year. There is no reason not to expect a 100mp FF smartphone sensor at some point in time.

[donpjt]

48 MP just an eye catcher, most photographers know there's way more about photography that just mere Megapixels. For Example D810 and D750 are 36 MP and 24 MP respectively, but most portrait crowd still prefer 24 MP because its optimal for portrait photography. Higher MP is better for landscape, however I can't imagine with the storage limitations on cellphones, how someone will be able to shoot raw and keep all their images on their cellphone especially when it has a 48 mp camera.

---------- Post added 08-31-18 at 04:26 PM ----------

Many of the most iconic photos ever taken used film and cameras/lenses that were worse than what can optically be produced by the best smartphones today. This is a big deal and it also means nothing to those who need a DSLR. Certainly, most people are happy with just a smartphone for their snapshots.

Sensors are going through a Moore's Law type of thing and they keep getting better every year. There is no reason not to expect a 100mp FF smartphone sensor at some point in time.

I honestly think we've hit the bar for Megapixels. I don't see any need for higher Megapixels. Monitors already can't resolve the high resolution provided by 36 - 48 MP. And also for raw processing greater than 24 MP affects the image processing flow and makes it slower. Even with 45 MP cameras out still 24 MP cameras sell more, showing that we have indeed probably hit the sweet spot for resolution at least for a while.

[Not a Number]

Just think of the data bandwidth all the images will consume. I bet the wireless providers are licking their chops.

[DeadJohn]

"All the pixels, all the time!" shouted the uninformed photographers using their phones. "All the noise, none of the dynamic range!" shouted the photographers who look at photos on any display larger than a cellphone.

48mp is hype on a tiny sensor, at least until major breakthroughs in sensors and processing.

[MossyRocks]

There is no reason not to expect a 100mp FF smartphone sensor at some point in time.

Not likely unless they go to a much larger sensor. When the pixel size is smaller than the wavelength of light you run into all sorts of issues that can't be worked around except by have larger pixels.

[BigMackCam]

I used to think that IQ from my Nokia 808 pureview with it's 41Mpix was really good in good conditions, but couple of years active shooting and hanging on the forum has raised the bar
It's handy in the pocket on the slopes to catch few memories and providing emergency phone just in case, but it ain't no DSLR.

I have to say, that's very nice image quality from a phone camera. I'm not sure it's 41MP nice, but it's very good indeed. And not dreadfully over-sharpened like so many phone camera photos. I'm impressed!

[08amczb]

If phones become as good as DSLRs/MILC is that a problem? A flexible company should shift their buisness strategies according to the market. If my phone is good enough and comfortable enough why would I buy anything else?

[victormeldrew]

48mp is hype on a tiny sensor, at least until major breakthroughs in sensors and processing.

There would also need to be an major alteration to the laws of physics.