Hi all, I'm noob in camera, so please pardon my ignorance.

I'd like to ask if anyone here using smart phone camera while travelling? I know that a proper camera is definitely better but if budget is an issue, should I buy a good smart phone (with a very good camera), or keep my old phone (Nokia 5800) and invest the money to get a decent cam like Canon S100 or Lumix LX5.

The all important question is: with the recent progress in smart phones, can it replace a mid-range camera mentioned above?

short answer no
basic thing like optical zoom also dont have how to replace a camera?
then wide angle also dont have how to take scenery?
limited ISO range, flash range, usually plastic optics...
still a far far way to go

Contrary to the poster above, I beg to differ. Comparison between smartphones and compacts(P&S) are still possible. Of course, larger cameras with interchangeable lenses and DLSRs are in a market of their own.

It will depend on your priorities whether a good camera phone will be able to replace a decent mid-range point-n-shoot such as the Canon S100 or Panasonic Lumix LX5. The short answer is yes. The Nokia Pureview 808 is capable of producing an image quality that is comparable or even superior than the S100 or LX5 in all shooting conditions. A comparison between the Lumix LX5 and Pureview 808 has been carried out in a review and the latter has come up favourable in some aspects, pulling away in low light shots with lower levels of noise and better detail.

In a recent comparison between the Lumia 920, a lesser smartphone and the Canon S100 shows that there is not much separating between the two in image quality.

Having that said, the quality of the built-in camera in smartphones is not the main feature or priority for everyone. The operating system, ease of use in text messaging and web browsing, other features such as larger touch screen for easier text messaging or higher resolution screen for richer colours and clarity when viewing photos or watching videos etc. All these features will be equally as important in the selection of a smartphone apart from the quality of the camera. As such, some compromises will have to be made, and that will be dependent on which feature is more important to the user.

At this current point of time, the Nokia Pureview 808 is the best camera phone in terms of image quality(some may not consider it smartphone due to the Symbian OS). If camera performance is top priority, the 808 has no rival in the camera phone market. The main downsides are the Symbian operating system and hump at the back of the phone which houses the largish 1/1.2" sensor which turn most people away apart from the small 4" low resolution screen. Since you are currently using a Nokia 5800, all these aspects may not be much of a concern to you.

Other disadvantages of using a phone as a camera(apart from image quality) is in the ergonomics in the grip and lack of manual controls, which may or may not be an issue to the user. The advantages of using a phone as a camera is the portability aspects of it and the fact that a phone will always be with the user all the time. The same can't be said with a compact P&S camera although some folks may carry them all the time too.

The Pureview 808 has been compared to mid-level cameras up to the top compacts, the Sony RX100, and the results have shown that the 808 is comparable or better than most mid-range P&S cameras curently available in the market but inferior to the RX100. The differences may not be as large as one would have expected at times, as the built-in camera in the 808 is quite excellent on its own.

There are other smartphones that will produce decent quality images in good light, though they will usually fail in low light producing a lot of noise, and they fail quite spectacularly in those conditions. The differences in IQ between good smartphones in good light are usually not too significant. The difference in image quality between these smartphones will be larger in low light, and this is where the better phones will produce better results, shots which show better clarity and detail with lower noise.

If you can still live with the 5800, you may want to consider a quality compact camera to complement the it. If you want to upgrade your phone to avoid carrying an additional device in a compact P&S camera, killing 2 birds with one stone, there are few models that will fit the criteria. As said earlier, it will depend on what you want in a smartphone and how much of an "improved" picture quality you are expecting from the shots you will be taking during trips or vacations.

In my view, if you can live with the Symbian OS and are considering mid-level cameras such as the S100 or LX5, it may be worthwhile to put the Pureview 808 in your shortlist. Image-quality wise it may be nit-picking between all these devices. If you want even better picture quality(particularly in low light), it will be the Sony RX100. If you prefer to have an additional device, a dedicated P&S that has more manual controls and other useful features of a compact, then consider a point-and-shoot.

short of budget for a camera? get Nikon V1 for RM11XX with basic multipurpose 3X zoom lens (but need to buy the highly useful flash separately) or J1 with slightly cheaper price (built in flash not very useful though).

still want a camera phone? the higher end phones are enough to satisfy most casual shooter. SIII, iPhone 5, Galaxy N1/N2, etc etc. i don't recommend Nokia 808, i have it and i can tell you the white balance sucks big time particularly indoor shots, on top of it, symbian isn't the most popular OS.

PS: symbian is smartphone OS, just maybe not as smart as other OS right now.

my opinion would be to upgrade your current phone to a good smart phone with a more than decent camera and you're good to go ! when you have the budget again in the future then can buy another camera for travelling. Mostly the smart phone is sufficient for taking nice pics during travelling.

Smart phones, at least the better ones can match low end point and shoot.
However they still fall pretty short from achieving S100 or LX5 standard which have significantly better optics and sensor.
An iphone 5 camera isn't as good as the S100 especially in dark conditions. Having said so, in proper lighting the difference in images isn't very prominent.
The camera on the iphone 5 is one of the best smartphone camera currently bar the 808. So if that can't match the S100, the rest wouldn't do much better at best.

Note that while the 808 may be able to match the S100 in some aspects, IMO as a phone it's more of a brick when compared to phones like the iphone5 or S3.

This post has been edited by LegendLee: Nov 20 2012, 06:32 PM

For sure camera is better than phone cam. But imho smart phone cam is good enough. I'm quite satisfied with SGS 2 pictures.

Me too have Nokia 5800, my experience of using using it: if bright light, the pictures are quite good, but not nice when light is low, worst at night scenes. also, phones don't have optical zoom and limited angle. if my travels are most day time, no problem for me :-)


This post has been edited by chopin: Nov 20 2012, 11:20 PM

Depends on how great photo quality you want. Smart Phone camera also can get decent photo base on situation. Smart Phone camera had more limit compare with camera.

In short answer - get at least a decent P&S Camera. (At least a mirrorless interchangeable camera preferable)

Higher range smart phone (also need around RM 1.9k to RM 2k) can get decent photo in bright area, ok in bright indoor. That it. Not really workable in low light situation - a lot of noise, not really for moving object and ....... most importantly no optical zoom. Digital zoom is a way to no, it can snap something you see in not details but the output is too bad for keeping in my opinion.

In all, it all depends, some people don't care on quality, a lot my colleagues never care and they can't even differentiate quality in between DVD & Blu-ray, for them all is same. They always told me as long can see is enough.

This post has been edited by Andrewtst: Nov 21 2012, 09:51 AM

ive been using my bold3 as camera for about 6 month because i left my camera at sabah.for me,depends on the person itself.
like me,i take picture using my bold 3 for my 'memories'.doesnt need a high quality as long i know there's story in my picture.

Simple

Phone = call
DSLR = Pictures and videos

Answer: Get a camera for ur trip.. u wont regret.

---

Added on November 23, 2012, 1:38 amAgree with you, some ppl just want superb ALL IN ONE phone...... take picture, games, call, SMS, videos, internet, etc....

This post has been edited by xjia: Nov 23 2012, 01:38 AM

best post so far.

it all depends on what quality of photos you want.

I prefer to use compact camera, or better yet the camera on my phone when it comes to travelling. It's a lot more convenient. If you're talking about travelling and hoping to get great photos then that's a different story all together, in that situation you'll put up with the weight and hassle to be rewarded by the results.

As you can see, either way it's all good.

Put it simple

- If you're travelling just to enjoy the journey and all, then carrying a bunch of camera stuff could just be a hassle, a burden to an otherwise enjoyable trip.
- If you're travelling to take photos, then going with just a phone camera would probably leave you with a whole lot of regret.



There's also a middle point between this, they are the ILC (eg Pentax K-01) and the high-end compacts (eg Canon Powershot G1 X).

good information to me
im make this as my future reference

thanks bro...

+1

My problem like TS is that even if I have DSLR, I am quite lazy to carry it around. Most of the time I end up using my camera. I have full confidence in SE cybershot range. Here are example photos I took with SE C510 (before I got a SGS2)



Compared to the SGS2, I say the SE cybershot better because it has a dedicated camera button- more stability. In fact, I was thinking of upgrading to a newer dSLR, but then the only features from dSLR which matter to me are:
low light performance-look at the picture.
speed
Optical zoom
IS-though some phones already have IS.

Also-if someone can tell me where to find smartphone camera app which can control shutter speed/aperture please let me know. I think can cure the low light performance if longer exposure.


I say in terms of performance, the C510 3.2 mp > SGS2. You don't need a lot of MP, only a steady hand.

No way a camera can be replace by a smart phone FOR NOW. We don't know about the future thing. But the zoom, picture clearness and ISO, you still need a camera.
A smart phone's camera can help you to take a picture, but not good/ excellent pictures. Thats it.

Not all people will like to have a dSLR as the weight and size of 1 would be a turn off for some. I agree that point and shoot do not have the capabilities to do all what dSLR can, but not all needs or understand them. There are people who bought a dSLR end up keeping them at home after a while and use a compact/mirrorless camera instead. Those high end compacts do give a pretty darn good picture output.

So, it boils down to your priority. If you're onto a photographic journey, learning the ins and outs of photography, then a dSLR would probably a good choice. If you just wanted a better image quality, I would say a high end compact or a mirrorless camera will do.

As per Chase Jarvis quote, "The best camera is the one that's with you". A big powerful awesome dSLR won't make it if you find it a hassle to bring out, keeping them at home instead.

And for phone cameras for travelling, under good lights, can give some decent output. Also, keep a power bank handy in hand

This post has been edited by zeipher: Mar 6 2013, 07:26 PM

This one true. Myself also like this. Also, see fb also like this. Profile pic with dslr, but then upload image all sent with sgs3

You cannot be more wrong. DSLR is not the be all and end all for everyone. You also have to consider portability and usability for many. I certainly don't want to carry around a big camera with me everywhere. At first sure it feels like an event to shoot but after a while, you just want to enjoy your holiday and travel. Most will find it a hassle to carry around and at the end of the day just flash up their smartphones to take photos.

Which comes to my next point - technological advancement. Don't underestimate the capability of camera sensors ins smarphone nowadays. Sure it cannot beat a high end camera mainly due to its small sensor but for the most part, the quality is certainly more than acceptable. Infact I'd say in the hands of very good photgraphers shooting in daylight, the quality of the pictures taken will be comparable to shooting with a DSLR.

And at the end of the day the camera that matters most is the one that you have with you everyday. No point having an expensive camera but 8 out of 10 times the camera stays at home. But if anyone were to invest in a point & shoot, I'd say buy a Sony RX100 or a Fuji X20, absolutely amazing cameras, or those M43 cameras such as an Olympus Pen EP-3 or Panasonic GF5. I have Sony NEX 3N and while it take great photos due to its huge sensor size but since the sensor size is hug, the lens is huge as well, which makes it not that portable. I'm currently using a Fuji X100 and cannot be more than happy with it, a great great camera.

the best camera is the camera that is always with you.


now choose.

This post has been edited by whyteaz: Mar 7 2013, 12:06 PM

My Nokia 920 is very satisfactory as the camera that is always with me. And the OS is Windows which is extremely fast but not much apps yet. Which is fine for me as I'm not into having 10,000 apps and games on my phone.

The camera in this phone are:
-Great low light pictures with no flash.
-Great close up photos, especially food.
-Good photos of people like the same quality of a PnS camera.
-Decent landscape
-Fast focus
-Got quick fix edit for the dark face bright background situation.
-Full HD 1080 video with LED light that can do video even at dark night clubs.

Honestly if you're not going to learn the art of photography a good phone camera has everything you need. Its a decent camera that is always in your pocket that takes photos that can be nicely put onto facebook.

The phone is always with you so having a picture is better than no picture.

I have a Canon S95 and a lot of the times I don't bring it out. Compact camera doesn't mean its always in your pocket.

A few months ago, a few of my friends got the iPhone 4 that came with the newer cameras. I can tell you that those and the 4s and 5 produces awesome photographs by any standard. Obviously there are limitations in low light and no zoom, but compared to any digital camera in more favorable lighting, they perform exceptionally well.

Be the judge



http://www.flickr.com/cameras/apple/iphone_4s/

This post has been edited by mumeichan: Mar 7 2013, 02:06 PM

Wow, thank you all sifus for your great input. The last post by mumeichan is very convincing. However, I wish to see more photos taken by smartphones in low light condition - maybe this is one are that smartphones has to chase.

I have an idea so far:

Forget about P&S --> a good smartphone can replace it.

Then get a Mirco 3/4 like Lumix GF2 (used, cheaper) for more challenging situation.

Any thought?

using nokia pureview 808...lighting provided by my lcd monitor



This post has been edited by Everdying: May 29 2013, 01:22 PM

Wow... that's stunning - both the low light shot and the watch!

Yeah i know 808 has a very good camera, but windows phone might not be my cut of tea. wonder if iphone or android got any phone that can come close for low light or not.

For travel its always best to use a PNS camera even if your smart phone can take pics just as good or better.

-There are situations you will ask a stranger to help take a pic of you and your friends. That can just stranger run away with your phone. Your phone (contacts, apps, lots and lots of personal stuff inside just gone!). Better give a PNS camera than a phone to stranger right?

-Flash! PNS cameras have a more powerful flash that can shoot those difficult lightnings. PNS flash shots usually are better than phone flash shots. That LED ain't bright enough sometimes especially for those bright background shady face.

-Battery. You know smart phone battery get used up quickly so why use it up even more. Take pics til you can't make a phone call, NOW THAT'S SMART! With PNS camera you don't worry about low batt because its job is to use that batt just for pics! When traveling you are going to shoot hundreds of pics right?

-Can be lent out. Friend/relative (A lot for people don't have smart phones) is going for a wedding/travel and wants to borrow a camera. Will you let them borrow your smart phone for the weekend? Will you give them your DSLR? Yeah that PNS can be useful to keep them occupied and not get your valuable stuff.

Plenty of situations can make a PNS camera be the better choice no matter how good a smart phone camera gets.

best smartphone Picture Quality

1. Nokia 808
2. Galaxy note (any)
3. Iphone 5
4. Galaxy s3
5. Iphone 4/s

actually if follow dx0mobile.
1. nokia 808
2 samsung s4
3. iphone 5
4. note 2
5. samsung s3

htc one not yet benchmark, so waiting.

recent smartphone/cameraphones already quite advanced, like 808 Pureview, HTC One, S4, and in fact some of those already started to threaten the sales of compact PnS camera.

but no matter how good they're, a camera is still a camera, just like how a dedicated mp3 player performs better than built-in music player on phones.

of course some may argue that many features inside smartphones already can replace those dedicated gadgets, however there will still be situations that u gonna need a dedicated gadget to perform dedicated task.

dont expect smartphone camera's digital zoom to be as good as optical zoom on camera, and fancy DSLR-style bokeh, or even color/shadow/contrast reproduction etc. (still, some might argue that there are thousands of apps which can do magic to ur photo taken with phones)

personally, i dont agree or disagree of having smartphone to replace a camera for casual shooting, because afterall, photography depends on our own skills and creativity, if anyone claim that smartphone produce crappy photo as compared with dedicated camera, i would say that is totally B*LLSH*T.

one without skill but using the most expensive full-frame DSLR versus one got skill but using a simple PnS, who is going to have great photos at the end?

2 cents opinions, cheers

808 is not Windows Phone.

Are u serious? C510 better than S2? Wat do u mean by performance? Sharpness or steady pics?

I agree with your idea.

By Lumia 800

In some situations, yeah it gets noisy but still usable for me.

Here are somemore from other people.
S.E xperia x10 and arc S (supposed to have better low light shots)
https://forum.lowyat.net/topic/1673882?author=mode893

But then again, skills matter also.

U all forgot the almighty nokia N8

This post has been edited by danielcmugen: May 30 2013, 02:19 AM

For me I would prefer to buy something that I can use all the time, that's why I choose phone camera, good enough. My way of zooming is cropping. Since I'm financially tight, I'm not willing to spend thousands on a DSLR and just use it a few times a year. I admit phone camera got limitations, but I'll tolerate with it till I become rich and got extra money for DSLR. Lol.

[quote=danielcmugen,May 30 2013, 02:02 AM]
Are u serious? C510 better than S2? Wat do u mean by performance? Sharpness or steady pics?
I agree with your idea.
Steady pic.
Yup. I went camping with the C510 and S2. You need a very steady hand for the S2, plus no shutter button makes it kind of a chore. BTW...this thread so old

thanks bro, you do have a point.

[quote=mystvearn,May 30 2013, 04:31 AM]
[quote=danielcmugen,May 30 2013, 02:02 AM]
BTW...this thread so old

[/quote]
not too old wat, the topic is still very relevant until now... so i hope the moderators will not stop this.

wow, looking at the low light outputs from these two phones, still wows...

"But then again, skills matter also." --> skills? what skills needed on phone cams? there's not much we can control right?

oh yeah, it's symbian - but too bad it's dying! seems nokia 808 is the king of phone cam, but for now and future, not much choice other than ios or android.

Any thought of buying a secondhand mirco 4/3 cam like the Lumix GF2 (~rm800)? the price is just a bit above p&s.
I think a micro p&s (for low light and serious shots) coupled with a good cam phone (for casual and impulsive shots) would be a good combo, no? Or, just put all my $ to get a real good high end smartphone with a real good cam? hmm... decision, decision...

Depends on what you want, TS. If you just want some snapshots for memories then I guess any camera will do, even a phone cam.

If you are particular about your pictures but don't want to be bogged down by weight and size and want something easy to carry around, then a compact camera will do.

If you don't want to compromise so much and want the best you can get out of what you have and do not mind lugging gears around, then by all means go for a DSLR with all the bells and whistles.

Skills will always help. It's not about the camera settings only. If you know about lighting, then you will know what's the optimal lighting conditions for your pics in a situation and even with a phone cam you can get better pictures than just clicking on the shutter and hoping the picture will turn out ok.

Knowing the limitations of the camera you are using will also help. You will know when you need to put your camera onto a stable, solid surface for a better picture than holding with your hands outstretched.

Skill is knowing what will get you a better pic and working out a solution based on the limitation of the equipment you are carrying. Even if you only have a phone cam but you know what to do, you can get very decent pictures.

I brought my DSLR for a trip to overseas last year. It is still my primary cam for the trip, worth the effort of bringing the bulky stuff after bringing home a lot of nice photos. But my Samsung Galaxy Note is a great compliment too - capture all of the dishes during meals (can't really bring out the big DSLR to shoot while everyone was staring at the delicious food). And it is quite a capable Full-HD video camera under bright daylight. Upgraded to Note II now and the responsiveness of the camera and video quality is even better.

The only gap left is a rugged camera - can't have either my DSLR and Note II in a pool with my kids. My next camera will be a rugged waterproof camera like the Olympus Tough TG-2. Btw, any good recommendation for rugged camera?

I think I’m on the same boat with TS, it will be pretty shocking if TS entered the world of real camera and found out it is so far behind the phone cam. Those common features in phone cam are not common in digital camera and it'll cost arm and leg if camera has them. Case-in-point:


1. Megapixels - Phonecam already has 12MP cam since 2009, while that time most DSLRs were just 6MP
2. 1080p - Full HD phone cam are so common, 5D Mark II which priced almost like 3 new born babies in china black market was the 1st DSLR to have this feature.
3. Display - when phone cam evolved up to retina display, most camera still stuck with low res with difficulty to see in sunlight.
4. Touch screen - not just phonecam already has touch to focus, today most cameras don’t even have touchscreen,
5. Video light LED is also common feature in cam phone, it almost non existence in real camera.
6. Image stabilization is not a buying factor in cam phone, but it is essential when buying a camera coz it is a rare feature.
7. GPS – Geolocation data on the Exif information – Phone cam people don’t even talk about this already coz it’s native.
8. Connectivity – Wireless connectivity like wifi and 3G is not even a handful number that we can call significant in real cam world.
9. Battery – while phone cam can just charge it on any usb ports, cameraman need to bring car battery around connected to some adapter and fake battery coupler.
10. Size – most photographers are still have the thinking that bigger is better when the evolution of technology proves otherwise. Until today most of them still think that it’s important to have mirror to reflect the image to another sensor to display on another smaller LCD display they call a viewfinder and this what DSLR is all about.

I can go on and on but lets get thing straight here when people like me looking for a camera to buy we expect most common features in our phone cam are already there and something can give more and not less. Image quality and effects are also arguable since most can be achieved in post processing.

1. your knowledge of DSLR is flawed very badly. in 2007 DSLR already sporting 8MP or higher. In 2009 DSLR were already 15MP or higher. 12 MP phone cam has laugeable quality. You need to understand that the image sensor is totally different. So your comparison on this point is flawed.

2. Related to point #1. Furthermore, most phone even today don't actually have Full HD. those that had before, were depending on small sensors and those with Full HD are often on the high end phones.

3. No relevance to quality of image captured. Cameras are focused on capturing images. LCD is less emphasized. This is very unlike mobile device where the screen is emphasized more than anything else.

4. Refer to point #3. Furthermore phones are touch enabled by default. Cameras don't have a need to go touch screen. So far all the touch screen are entry levels and various smaller cams.

5. er, that's because for cameras - we can mount dedicated video light. that puny 1 LED doesn't make things great either. I use them as my torchlight at most. LOL.

6. donno what you talking about. rare feature on camera? LOL. seriously, it goes back to point #1 - I really question your knowledge about cameras.

7/8. Cos photographers don't care? Again you must understand that GPS / connectivity technology is already part of phone. Brands just add on to it only because of marketing gimmick but in most cases, they don't even bother to use those things.

9. up to this point, what you say so far are just a lot of bull. FYI we just bring extra batteries for camera. Charger can use any wall point.

10. it's not about bigger the better, no matter how your phone camera will remain as it is, they're no way better than a dedicated camera.* (yes, we photographer are that some camera phone does better than some camera in the past, and perhaps some low entry camera)

---------------

Seriously man. Your comparison is flawed, and in many ways nonsensical.

You're like comparing a compact car vs a truck. Then you come say truck lousy because big, slow, not comfortable, whatever else when in actual fact they're 2 totally different devices made for different purpose.

i have both canon s100, olympus xz1 and panasonic lx3(sold) if mentioning s100 fit yours budget and photos or video are your priorities , go for it, NOTHING in any PHONE can beat either s100, lx5 nor xz1,
if u want to be a social media whore, snap and upload straight,don't bother on printing, smart phone is easier, for me i travel with my notebook, i shoot with my s100 or xz1, then copy into my notebook, and upload them if i want to or back it up.

Phone camera can never be substitute for an actual camera now around the same budget...maybe in the future where they cramp a phone into a proper compact camera like s100, those that stand by the theory of phone camera these days as superior than a dedicated camera, mostly are ignorance of how to tell a quality photos to badly taken one, or just plain too poor to afford a dedicated camera.

Man, you've got a lot to learn when it comes to cameras and photography so please refrain from misdirecting people who may not know all the details. Below I have pointed out some factors that you have left out in your argument..

So again it comes back to what you want to do with the camera. If you want to get good image quality and have control over things like external flashes, then there's nothing like a full specs DLSR.

If you just want to snap away and share on social media sites, then a smartphone will be the most straightforward solution.

go buy Pentax K-01. come with 18-55 and 55-200 or whatever 2 lenses.

price? RM 1.5k or so. still cheaper than all the high end smart phones where their camera couldn't even come close.

left over RM 700 - 800 can use to buy some decent smart phone.

No matter how good your phone camera is, to me, equip yourself with just a phone camera instead of a decent camera for all your important photoshoot or vacation photo is no different than taking an Airsoft/ BB gun into a real war zone. Put it simple, you are NOT well equipped. Unless to you, quality does not matter, you just want some crap as memories, if no, phone camera to a decent camera (DSLR, mirrorless system etc) is like an Airsoft gun to a real gun. You can shoot, but you just cant kill.

Is Aspire banned or something? Usually when seeing topics like this he will spam his Nokia 808 pictures. LOL

TS just ask to get a smart phone or s100 or lx5 for his budget... DSLR just overkill for his travel use..imho

anyhoo... try snap these with a smart phone... and print em to 4R min.. u'll get shit...


Canon s100 test shots

low light/artificial light test





macro with bokeh (suck on this phone camera)

Hwoarang45 your signature blia mau update? gear upgrade liao siggy no upgrade yet. hehe.

anyway back to topic. they're different things all together.

sure, I like that I can USB charge my phone and being small but it's a phone. It's good enough for my FB / Instagram photos. Travelling and all, it's more than sufficient but being sufficient doesn't mean they're great.

Lumia users usually talk a lot only.

All post bugs and whatever.

my Galaxy Nexus i9250 photo manage to qualify as stock photo wor .......


http://www.goldfries.com/photography/a-gui...h-phone-camera/

Donno if any 808 / 920 on LYN have done that.

i just googled found that K-01 was discontinued.

Yeah u r right, i don't think i'm the kind of person who deserves a DSLR. My main purpose is to take nice photos during travel: landscape, and people shots, with some occasional indoor and low light scenes like at a dimly-lit ambient restaurant.

Looking at all the sample photos posted by sifus here so far, it seems Nokia 808 is up to the job but I don't like an old symbian phone. So looks like I'd get an S100 or LX5, or Lumix GF2 - I think that's the max i'll go, don't want anything bigger - prefer travel light.

I saw GF2 2nd hand available around rm800-900. Any comment? i think a micro 4/3 will take me a long way.

I've used my iPhone to cover one of my trips and it was PITA. I rather bring my old Sony digital camera to snap rather than any phone camera

that's why can get it cheap!

Mana 808 ?

will it have problems in maintenance/service next time? How will you compare it with Lumix GF2?

i just bought an s100 recently. it's really a nasty little cam(in a good way). 240fps high speed video is really fun to play with, especially with the kids. not many compact cam has the feature, let alone a phone.

What happen man?
I love statement no. 9. I guess my chubby photographer friend didn't bring along car battery for photo shot.

Mod, admin, sorry for spamming, but I can't help it man.

QUOTE

9. Battery – while phone cam can just charge it on any usb ports, cameraman need to bring car battery around connected to some adapter and fake battery coupler.

LMAO!

i just love people's reaction, maybe they misread the word "I think" or "most" in that post.

But if both pics are steady, sure C510 still lose to S2 right?

I've never really handled a proper camera so I dunno how much they can control. But for phone, adjusting scenes, exposure value, ISO and white balance according to situations can help in low light.

This post has been edited by danielcmugen: May 30 2013, 03:46 PM

well....obviously a camera has more controls for those things. within the same age of course.

In terms of size, of course the S2 wins. However, setting both on 3 mp or there about, I see the S3 pics being more "flat", compared to the C510, which can give the depth of field. Of course, when comparing to a direct SLR, both no where near, especially if images are enlarged-full scale. I was shocked as well. My friend brought a Canon DSLR.

Also, I noticed that since the stock JB update for S2, the pic quality is definitely better.

Also, the best camera is the one you have with you, not the one that is left at home, like my current Canon S3 IS

Tech companies should put the phone in the camera, not the camera in the phone. There is a difference there. I don't mind the "phone-camera" to be slightly thicker to accommodate that zoom lens. A Canon Powershot S100 that can make calls is way more useful than a S4 at legoland. The big touchscreen, SD card is there, the camera is there. In fact, cameras now come with BT and wifi. Only thing not there is a sim slot and wireless capability. They should have made the samsung galaxy camera with call capabilities. Though you will look like a dork holding a phone-camera while taking calls.

http://www.lowyat.net/2013/05/30/8542/leak...oom-and-active/
I think my next phone will be a this S4 zoom, or whatever it is called. I will take 10x optical zoom, IS anytime over some 16 mp camera. That is, if it can provide good image quality, and dedicated camera button. Only other thing I wished for is a xenon flash, though I can live without that. That is, after my S2 breaks.

I'd go as far to say that traditional camera makers like Canon/Nikon are going to be bust if they do not change their strategies. As more people own smartphones, no one buys compact cameras. People who then want SLR like quality but don't want to bring a dedicated bag, will buy the Sony NEX-range, which is already eating into the SLR market. If you have a canon 5d Mk III, going on overseas trip, then you need to take into account hand carry luggage. With that 7kg weight an issue. Np in malaysia, but overseas, this is a problem. There is no way to fit a generic 2.4kg laptop with cords and 5d mkIII in the same standard hand carry bag (the one with wheels). Dilemma, which one to put in check in bag. Laptop or Camera. This situation I kena with Emirates. Also, I have a dozen friends with dslr, weirdly when we go camping/beach, only one person goes to the effort of bringing the entire gear. In fact, the rest just use their smartphone. I'm not sure that people become complacent that he is the dedicated photographer or not

There are actually very good used dSLR on Ebay UK. Good to the point that like new. Just need to wait about a year. Very common to get "not used too much", "got a smartphone" etc.

funny to read all these comment, Smart phone never can replace mine 5d Mark III lolz. I was wonder how do i capture a milky way with a smart phone hahaha

not sure about Nikon but Canon can still sell calculators.

your information and comparison so flawed, even those "i think" and "most" won't save it.

Nikon, Olympus are giants in optical field, they are main supplier for low power scope and high power scopes in industrial field. ohh... not to mention, Leica also have same product (i nvr see Canon scope b4, so not sure canon have similar products or not)

Canon, Nikon, Ricoh produce photocopy machine as well (my company using Ricoh photocopier)

oh.. ya, Nikon also produce x-ray machine

since they in to imaging/optical field, they not going to produce only camera, they may involve in others field related to optical

so if someone think of, without camera, Nikon, Canon... will not survive, that's not true


be in mind their top range of line up do not target to hobbyist like us, they targeting to professional photographers, that still need the big gun for extreme condition, those camera size are big due to bigger electrical circuit board in camera, to accommodate more components/chips, that not as simple as 'SLR quality'

exactly.

in fact at most lose out compact range, no big deal.

the big spenders are not from those who target compact.

1. Megapixels - Phonecam already has 12MP cam since 2009, while that time most DSLRs were just 6MP

5D2 was released in 2008 with 21 megapixels. Most DSLR at that time has a range 12-15 megapixels. Learn to count.

2. 1080p - Full HD phone cam are so common, 5D Mark II which priced almost like 3 new born babies in china black market was the 1st DSLR to have this feature.

5D2 was released in 2008. Name me one full HD phone cam released in 2008.

3. Display - when phone cam evolved up to retina display, most camera still stuck with low res with difficulty to see in sunlight.

Better display =/= better photos. Retina macbook pro webcam is worse than a RM 500 camera.

4. Touch screen - not just phonecam already has touch to focus, today most cameras don’t even have touchscreen,

Phone cam touch to focus takes about 10x longer than DSLR.

5. Video light LED is also common feature in cam phone, it almost non existence in real camera.

You mean torch light ? That's cute.... but why would I need one on a real camera ?

6. Image stabilization is not a buying factor in cam phone, but it is essential when buying a camera coz it is a rare feature.

So ?

7. GPS – Geolocation data on the Exif information – Phone cam people don’t even talk about this already coz it’s native.

How many check out the geolocation data on FB, flickr or printed photos ? Oh... no one either cares or they don't exist.

8. Connectivity – Wireless connectivity like wifi and 3G is not even a handful number that we can call significant in real cam world.

Not planning to whatsapp on my camera. I've a phone for that.
If I really need it, there's eye-fi, wifi attachments or some even have it built in.

9. Battery – while phone cam can just charge it on any usb ports, cameraman need to bring car battery around connected to some adapter and fake battery coupler.

That's cause camera can last more than a day... unlike phones.

10. Size – most photographers are still have the thinking that bigger is better when the evolution of technology proves otherwise. Until today most of them still think that it’s important to have mirror to reflect the image to another sensor to display on another smaller LCD display they call a viewfinder and this what DSLR is all about.

What ? Mirror to reflect image to another sensor ? LCD display called a viewfinder ? Do you even know how a DSLR works ? Stop spouting nonsense


Edit: Oh, to make sure you see the reply
chokia

This post has been edited by LegendLee: May 30 2013, 07:04 PM

Canon products are more of a consumer end than industrial end.
Nikon does not produce photocopy machine. They do produce X-rays but the market isn't exactly large.

All these companies may have diverge into different fields, but camera market is still contributing a large part of their revenues

I am confusing about this also previously. At last, I choose to buy Samsung S3 rather than buying a camera. Since a smart phone can be used in many way instead of just taking a photo...

Wow! that is something......

anyway, dear all sifus - let's get back to my original question:

"The all important question is: with the recent progress in smart phones, can it replace a mid-range camera mentioned above?"

I never have any question about the power of dSLRs, and i'd agree that anyone who wants to produce first class photos should get the best gear possible - this is beyond argument.

so, back to my question: can a smartphone replace a mid-ranged camera? Especially in low light condition which is always the weakest point of phone cams. I've narrowed down to cameras like Canon S100, Lumix LX-5, and Lumix GF-2.

so from now on, please no more debating on dSLRs.

No.
As of now, it cannot.
Simple physics.
Camera has more space to house larger sensors and better optics since it does not need to bother with excess "phone" features.
Until a phone can accomodate a large sensor and a large aperture zoom lens, the difference is clear.

I'm talking about a smartphone that has it's other smartphone features polished as well.

Of course things may change in the future with invention of sensors or lens technology.
Eg : Lytro, Foveon, Cheap EMCCD, liquid lens technology.
But until a revolutionary technology is widely implemented, there's no way phones will beat regular camera.

That depends on the application of your pictures. If you just snap pictures for blogging purposes or facebook at 500 x 335 or 640 x 480 then the pictures are actually quite decent. If you intend to keep for long term memories and upload to sites like flickr, please do some justice and get a proper camera la. My Panasonic Lx-3 announced in 2008 still can eat those high ends Htc One for breakfast.

@t1231 save yourself the trouble, get a used s100, s95, lx3, lx4 or lx5 , with extra budget left get a mid end smart phone...

i recently brought a unused s100 for rm700 only.. and no shity phone camera can come close to what it can do... not a single one can if u wanna use a camera...everything else.. cam whoring, instagraming ,i use my sony mini pro,

for work and pro shoot, i use my MKIII...

Come a time.. maybe but not now haha, even Samsung is trying to bridge the gap by releasing their smart-camera but IMHO DSLR will be my first choice if taking pictures. RAW images are so much more detailed compared to compressed image files on smartphones.

This is my personal experience and opinion: Though its true that the phone is always with me but if you wanna use only that to take memorable pictures, somewhere down the line you would wish you had a better camera. Yes if I have no choice, a picture is better than none, but if I have the DSLR at hand? no way I'm gonna whip it out for a pict

BTW nice photo there

If you're not enthusiast and don't really bother the quality then smart phone will be a great choice.

Or get a point and shoot camera and around rm1k is good enough too

Smartphone camera can take decent pictures with good lighting; but can they replace a proper camera? No. Not even a P&S.

This was taken by an iPhone:


But I'd easily pick a S100 or GF2 over an iPhone any time of the day.

This post has been edited by r3kahsttub: May 31 2013, 10:46 PM

Aiya simple la. If you get an iPhone and The VSCO cam app, all yours pics will get instant likes on Facebook. That's the in thing now and people like it.

You're implying that the quality of a smartphone produced image is not good. This myth has been long debunked

It all depends on user need & requirement.
Not all thing are created equally. All have pros & cons. If say a company create a "PERFECT" gadget, what will they sell in future, where will all their engineers, developers go ?

When u get composition and exposure right even phone camera can produce wonderful result.

IF u cant dslr also can't help and will just make u like a fool.

are you seriously using the term retina display for a high resolution display?
you my friend is a victim of marketing gimmick

not saying that the outcome is not good, but not as good as digital camera. for outdoor trip it'll be always better using a digital camera

For night shots or dimly lit indoor shots ?
Nope, the images produced is still horrible.

I'm quite sure my 5 year old DSLR can still perform better in low light compared to any smartphones.

Yes I agree that even a 7 year old DSLR will perform better than a phone camera, but today a phone camera produces very good pictures and sometimes indistinguishable from a DLSR as shown in the video I posted. And for the iPhone, even in low light. I believe that if there was a double blind test of images taken during anytime between 7am and 6pm, people will have a hard time differentiating a DSLR image and an iPhone image.

Having a fixed focal lenght, small aperture and small sensor, there is a lot the iPhone can't do. But can it produce stunning images?

http://www.flickr.com/groups/1101937@N23/pool/

This post has been edited by mumeichan: Jun 1 2013, 09:57 PM

It's not hard to differentiate a photo taken with DSLR and a phone camera.
You just have to post a photo at 1024 x 720 and the details will tell you.

This post has been edited by Icehart: Jun 2 2013, 12:58 AM

A camera phone can take stunning images, as with a 2 megapixel 10 year old camera.
Doesn't mean that the 10 year old camera is an amazing camera by today's standard.

This post has been edited by LegendLee: Jun 2 2013, 02:07 AM

Umm, no offence but I kinds disagree with that. A 10 yr old digicam sucks. It can take a good photograph in a skilled hand, but it still sucks in terms on the IQ. The iPhone 4/5 doesn't.

Exactly my point.
Just because it can take a good photograph doesn't mean the camera has amazing IQ.
Apply that to smartphones camera.

hehe. you guys who are praising smartphones should also be more detailed.

smartphone can range from as low as RM 599 to insane prices like Samsung Galaxy S4 which is about RM 2499 or so.

And the praises so far for good smartphone photos - they're all limited to those high-end smartphones that cost above RM 2k.

i disagree. going around Facebook, forums and various other places.

many people use DSLR and snap it same or worse than a phone camera.

there was a website that had such test before.

of course if you are comparing same scene, same lighting taken by same person then comparison is very straight forward.

Then that is definitely user problem.