Tech | May 23, 2011 | 11 comments

Camera Phones vs. Point-Shoot Cameras: It's Not About Size (infographic)

source: http://www.become.com/resource-center/infographic/cameraphone-comparison-infographic.html

Image
02yamahaR1
We took a smart phone with a camera and two point and shoot cameras and compared them with each other. From lens size to digital zoom quality and filters to see how each camera performs. Check out the examples and compare the quality of each image taken with a different camera in terms of speed and details in the image.

Take a closer look and let us know what your experience with camera phones vs. point and shoot cameras is in Facebook comments on the infograph.
  1. groups:
    Tech,   Culture,   Science,   Technology,   2 more
  2. tags:
    Tech,  Photos,  Mobile,  Camera,  3 more
  3.     
    |

11 comments // Camera Phones vs. Point-Shoot Cameras: It's Not About Size (infographic)

  • 14_Crusaders
  • Jake_Leonard
    • +2
      Jake_Leonard  

    • The biggest differences will be in the lens size (and quality) as the infograph suggests, but also the size of the image sensor. In order for more light to come in, one must have a relatively large size lens with a very wide open aperture; then the light must be transferred onto the image sensor--and the larger this is, there will be less of a need to raise the ISO. The ISO acts essentially like the "gain" knob on a guitar amp. It raises the light sensitivity of the sensor (allowing a faster shutter speed and thus less blur), but at the cost of grain/noise distortion (randomly colored pixels manifested by computer interpretation due to a lack of light). This also relates to a more independent shutter speed, too.

      RAW image files preserve a larger portion of data in order to allow adjustments in post-processing, for the most part; they are, however, often ten times larger in file size compared to .jpeg. There is a little bit more color depth, clarity, and overall vibrancy as well when compared to a compressed .jpeg (RAW is essentially lossless; like comparing a 128 kbps .mp3 music file to a lossless .wav master file.

      Megapixels aren't everything. After a certain point, they're more or less needed for those who want humongous photo prints (an 8mp, for example will give reasonable 8x10's); but I find the higher megapixels really handy for cropping photos while still preserving sharpness.

    • 1 year ago
  • 02yamahaR1
  • Jake_Leonard
    • 0
      Jake_Leonard  
    • 02yamahaR1:

      I have seen some fantastic photos taken from that of a smartphone; and as ArchDruid said, the hands with which the camera remains matters more than the camera, itself. Practice is key, but I cannot deny the heuristics of having a really nice DSLR with a few different lenses. For example, no point and click camera or smart phone is going to match a 55-250mm f/4.0 - 5.6 (starter lens) or 70-200mm f/2.8 (professional) lens on a 7D at a zoo taking close-up shots of tigers. Nor can the former come close to the macro capabilities of a DSLR with the appropriate lens; only in wide-angle situations are they sometimes comparable.

      So after a certain point, the lenses are actually what are more important than the DSLR body. They're what give you the versatility and capability. Convenient? In some aspects, no. For general photo-snapping with a few general creative shots here and there, a point & shoot/smart phone will do the job. So I'd just take a smart phone camera unless I was willing to commit entirely to photography as at least an amateur hobby--then I'd go to an entry level DSLR with a telephoto lens to start (which is what I did, and do not regret it in the slightest).

      Regarding high-end point & shoot cameras, you're still far better off saving another hundred or two and getting a DSLR based camera.

    • 1 year ago
  • ArchDruid
  • bailey78
  • 02yamahaR1
    • +2
      02yamahaR1  
    • ArchDruid:

      yeah but if an old camera phone doesnt have flash or is too grainy, digital cameras would then be my pick of choice...

      i do agree though, its the person taking the photo who can make the image turn out good or not..

    • 1 year ago
  • UtopianSky
    • +1
      UtopianSky  

    • Yep.
      There is no need for point-and-shoot cameras anymore- cell phones are just as good.

      Only a pro (or dedicated amateur) needs a camera, and they would need a nicer camera than a point-and-shoot.

      Small cameras, and all single-use small hand-held consumer electronics like GPS, MP3 players, game systems, etc will all die off.

    • 1 year ago
  • 02yamahaR1
    • +1
      02yamahaR1  
    • UtopianSky:

      another upside of havin a digital camera though is that the memory card can easily transfer pictures onto a computer rather than sending them all through e-mail...

      but then i can see MILLIONS of moms/dads and grandparents who cant figure out a smartphone, maybe digis are teh way to go..

    • 1 year ago
  • UtopianSky
  • 02yamahaR1
    • +1
      02yamahaR1  

    • my HD2 takes great quality pictures, i wouldnt even need to get a digital camera. though it is nice to download them directly onto a computer instead of sending one picture by itself to an e-mail address..

    • 1 year ago
more from Tech:
from the community

top videos