90% of all consumer pics snapped with cameraphones
By Peter Rojas 
posted June 25th 2005 4:13PM
posted June 25th 2005 4:13PM
As if you needed any more evidence that cameraphones are slowly but surely supplanting digital cameras, the editor
of the Future Image Mobile Imaging Report claims that nine out of ten digital images taken by consumers this year will
be captured by cameraphones. Obviously standalone digicams are never going to go away, since it'll be impossible to
duplicate the quality of a really good prosumer camera or digital SLR in something as compact as a handset, but once
most phones have three or four or five megapixels in 'em it's hard to imagine a lot of casual users deciding to spend
another extra couple hundred bucks for a dedicated camera. Well, except for the battery life thing, that's still a huge
issue.
[Via picturephoning.com]
this is true... camera phones are getting better and better...
take for example the Sony Ericsson K750i that i have.
I haven't seen a decent quality picture from a camera phone yet.
I wouldn't use a toothbrush to paint a mural the same as I wouldn't use a cameraphone to take decent art.
I'm sorry but this is dumb. What has the frequency got to do with anything? The only reason that the consumer takes most pictures with a camera phone is because he or she always has it with them.
I don't record taking silly pictures with my digi cam, or just getting bored and taking pictures of myself in the attempt to get a picture worthy of a myspace profile picture.
For the casual shooter, cellphone cameras may be just fine, especially when we see 4 to 5-megapixel sensors in them. The nice thing about modern sensors is that they are tiny, and won't really impact the overall size of cellphones. However, size will still be an issue, especially if a nice lens with optical zoom is used. That can bulk up a cell phone very quickly.
Also, because of the cellular technology in the camera phone, the images will never perform well with regards to noise/grain. Electronic interference plays a large role in noise production in digital cameras, and it will play an even larger role when involving cellular circuitry.
So, camera phones have an image quality limit far greater than those in even the most compact of digital cameras. If people want to take pictures, the cell phone will work just fine, eventually. If people want to take NICE pictures worth printing, a stand-alone digital camera is the best bet.
HaHaHaHaHAH!
Wait till they find out they have to jump through hoops, and pay the nice man on the right to get their pictures off the phone.
If you ever take a picture on a camera phone that you want to keep, you'll wish you hadn't - Unless your phone is frome korea:)
5 (locknroll) Most high-end camera phones these days either have bluetooth, a memory card slot, or both. If your phone doesn't have either of these, i promise you that the pictures taken with it will not be worth transferring off your phone due to the low quality of them.
The Sony Ericson S710a is the best camera phone I've seen with regards to quality. Plus you can get your pictures off the thing with a memory stick reader and bluetooth.
Here's a review with examples and comparisons.
http://www.mobileburn.com/story.jsp?Id=940&source=RELATED
5 (locknroll) Most high-end camera phones these days either have bluetooth, a memory card slot, or both. If your phone doesn't have either of these, i promise you that the pictures taken with it will not be worth transferring off your phone due to the low quality of them.
At least I know that my cybershot isn't going to give me a brain tumor..........
"digicams are never going to go away, since it’ll be impossible to duplicate the quality of a really good prosumer camera or digital SLR in something as compact as a handset"
Never? I'd like to make a wager on that ;)
I am a comment spammer: webmaster@moreinfohere.info
I'll take that bet.
don't worry Samsung phones rock for camera
Which means 90% of all consumer picts are blurry, too dark or too light, low resolution and generally sucks. Joy.
Jim Stone, could you please leave? It's people like you that make Engadget shut down comments. You ruin it for everyone. Please go get a life away from spam...
That is just stupid. Of course 90% are taken by a cameraphone.... the real number is how many are saved/archived/printed. Any idiot can snap a picture on his cameraphone.
I've had the same Olympus Digital Camera for 3 years and it still outshoots any cameraphone today.
The digital cameras of today are getting smaller, cheaper and better. No way they'll be replaced, unless the technology doesnt keep up with them.
I've lost two phones in the past year, I couldn't imagine losing my camera. Phones are a throwaway commodity. I don't see how they will supplant a good ipod (or any other hd mp3 player), good camera, or good anything.
To #6 Chuck and #8 Chuck, I guess after further consideration, you are right.
However, the memory card formats for mobile phones, are really annoying, like mini SD, or trans flash, or some other crap. It would be nice if they would all use SD, or Memory stick Duo like the Sony Ericssons. Bluetooth on the other hand works pretty well, unless the carrier manages to cripple it. Thank God for unlocked phones!
I'm going to call bullshit on this article. I would guess that less than 10% of digi photos are done by phone. Anywhere you go, people are using actual digi cams, not phones. Sure there is always one dolt who thinks they are cool snaping 1 pixel shots on their phone, but it is the exception and not the norm as this article says. Most people don't own (in the US) high end phones with mediocre cameras. They own the crappy free phones with sub-mediocre cameras. Plus the jackass thinks that because they sold more camera phones than digi cams, it obviously means that more pictures were taken with them. Bullshit. I've had a camera phone for a year and have taken 10 pictures on it...it sucks.
Well, I hope they don't friggin replace digital cameras. Because I don't want a cell-phone.
Also, I agree with #10. You can't just underestimate the progress of technology. We may end up with cellphones that can outmaneuver the digital camera that's sitting in front of me, and the PC it's next to.
Wow, #18. You might want to put a note at the end of your comment saying "This is all completely speculation, and brief observations taken at the city I live in" because it doesn't seem clear that you realize that.
I'd say #3 is on the right track.
3, 4 and 5 megapixel cameras? Show me one camera phone that I can go out and buy right now in the states with anything better than 1 megapixel. I have HEARD about these great cameraphones but where the hell are they?!
Also, cameraphones suck right now and most of my girlfriends are the ones that take those stupid photos. I friggin hate when i see three people pull out cameras and one idiot joins in to take a pic with a phone.
This is a sad day for photography.
unfortunately, none of you have even started to experience the SE k750i - takes fantastic daylight pics, and with my 1GB card carries upto 200 mp3 songs - no need for a pro cam or a shuffle for me. cheers
i don't want 2, 3 or 5 megapixels of a crap blurry image. i'm super fine with 2mp, as long as the optics of the camera are actually good. i hope it doesn't take long for this marketing crap about megapixels to die. the only thing 5 megapixels would be good for is making that image look as it should when i have to tweak it in photoshop and scale it down to 2mp to make it look sharp.
also, i'd really like to have a nice microphone positioned where the camera is looking so i can actually take nice quick video's - video is low res already, that's what they should really concentrate on.
anyway, i'm in a ranting mood at the moment, but i'd really really like this. i hope those engineers figure this out soon, and marketing gets out of their way when they do.
What difference does it make if a cameraphone has a 4, 5, or 10 MP sensor if the optical system on it sucks? Plus there's no depth of field, no manual controls, no way at all to affect anything with a camera on a phone, there just simply isn't enough physical room.
This is just silliness. Yes, morons will continue taking blurry overly contrasty and super saturated pictures of their kids with their cameraphone, but normal cameras obviously aren't going anywhere ANY time soon.
As someone already said, my ancient 1.3mp Olympus that has something odd going on with its sensor (mild cross-hash pattern in most shots) still kicks the pants off any cameraphone picture I've seen.
There are bigger differences between the sensors in cameraphones and those in digital cameras than just the number of imaging elements. Cameraphones use CMOS sensors whereas most digital cameras used CCD arrays which are far superior. So the image from a 2MP cameraphone will not compare well with a similar shot from a 2MP digital camera. This is unlikely to change as CCD arrays are more expensive in terms of cost, real estate and also power. Also the lens quality is usually very different with digital cameras using well machined compound lens and cameraphones using cheap plastic lenses.
as sorta already touched on...its not just about megapixels...sheesh. megapixels is not the only defining quality of a camerapicture.
unfortunately, none of you have even started to experience the SE k750i - takes fantastic daylight pics, and with my 1GB card carries upto 200 mp3 songs - no need for a pro cam or a shuffle for me. cheers