Yes, folks, that day you've been so eagerly awaiting is nearly here. Soon you won't have to suffer the agony of pixel envy on your cellphones thanks to Samsung's M8910 Pixon12 and its whopping 12 megapixel sensor, capturing light through a 28mm wide-angle lens like that in the
Nokia N86 (which has a miserly eight megapixels on tap). Sammy's handset has been put through its paces ahead of release, stacked up against the likes of a Canon
A620 and a
350D SLR. The phone does quite well, producing images as good or better than its compact competition, but we're not quite sure we agree with the assessment that it "can reach the detail resolved by a true DSLR" -- at least, not in this batch of images. We want to believe, though, we really do; those SLRs are heavy, and we're not a particularly strong bunch.
posted Jun 26th 2009 6:58AM
I'm going into the "NO CELL PHONE CAMERAS" sign business.
I just don't see it happening.
It already does.
And as long as carriers going to subsidize cellphone prices, they are going to be stuffed with more and more nice-to-have type of things.
The images look relatively good, but what happens in low light conditions?
People party.
The Xenon flash kicks in, that's what happens.
It'll look horrible, even with the flash. If you look at the size of the flash its minuscule, smaller then even point&shoots, which means unless your subject is a meter in front of your camera expect it to look like crap. Combine that with sensor with too much pixel density and you have images that are in general going to be noisy and ugly.
Nobody needs 12MP in a cellphone cam, no one is going to take a crappy cellphone photo and blow it up to a 300dpi A4 sized print. Even the ~$4k Canon 1D MarkIII which is a professional action/sports camera is only 10MP. More megapixels is only more resolution, not better image quality.
@Temple - I don't believe anyone will try to take a DSLR quality picture with a phone camera. 12 mpx does make a difference unless you are a novice.
I am usually a fan of megapixels, but 12 MP is starting to look like a bit of overkill to me.
5 MP is enough
Also higher MP does not mean better image quality. In fact the sensor quality, digital processor quality and lens quality are far, far more important. When I bought a compact camera to supplement my slr I looked at a few cameras and ended up with the lowest MP one of the bunch due to the image quality being much better. In fact it is 5MP and was far better than the 8MP ones that I was also looking at at the time. It is also in a different league to this 12MP camera phone.
i usually would not agree with anyone claiming lower mpx is better, but you are right, lens and sensors make a hell lot of difference. but do remember Samsung also make good compacts. I would not discount their lens and sensor quality like I would with Nokia or Sony Ericsson.
Maybe higher MP does not improve quality in any way, but i have never seen a phone in which the quality would decrease because of more megapixels.
The only thing that bothers me about 12 MP photos is that they are 4000 pixels wide, who the hell needs that?
There's a very important use for a photo that's over 4k pixels- cropping. Also, you get better digital zoom at a reasonable size (3.2M size on a 12M sensor gives you quite a bit of room in that regard).
seriously, the same level of detail as a DSLR!! Oh come on, I want some of what ever the GSM reviewer was on that day! Seriously, lay of those funny looking mushrooms man. Yay, everyone don't buy a DSLR, no, buy a phone it's ssssooooooo much better!
So you have the lens the size of a pea on the phone, an any lens you want at big sizes on a DSLR!
DSLR's and regular SLR's are losing the battle, slowly.
I wouldn't doubt for a second that this could take pictures that are just as clear and crisp to the naked eye as any high level DSLR.
Most times, we cant tell the difference between our shots, using our Oly EVolt500, or the cybershot. And as soon as low light is added, the cybershot wins.
@Agent
Seriously, you couldn't be more wrong. dSLRs, or perhaps more properly, interchangeable lens cameras, which would include the micro four thirds cameras which are not SLRs, are not losing any ground to compact camera. If anything, the falling prices on the entry level dSLRs is attracting new photographers. Yes, today's compact cameras can take some very good pictures in the right circumstances. But if you want to do anything beyond casual snapshots, then a higher end camera is required. Try taking good photos at any sporting event with a compact camera vs a dSLR with a good lens, or a long exposure picture at twilight and you'll understand. There is a lot more than megapixels to good photography.
But I can see decent phone cameras squeezing out low end compacts for the always in your pocket crowd.
What file size would those be. Good luck sending that over a standard cell connection to someone. Probably at least 5 or 6mb in size. I'll stick with my iPhone 32gb 3gs 3mp cam and video and Sony 12mp t900 point and shoot thanks.
That's because you're a luddite.
@BarryL, Unlike Apple trash you have the Samsung uses memory cards so if it´s full just change your card as you would with digital cameras.
The stupidity and plain ignorance of apple fanatics continues to amaze...
Here's a news flash... You can take 3mp pixels with a 12mp camera (and most likely they will look better than 3mp pictures from a 3mp camera).
This camera will literally do the duty of both of your devices, and yet you choose to argue against it based on a problem that you pulled out of your rear.
http://pic.gsmarena.com/vv/reviewsimg/samsung-m8910-pixon12-first-shot/camera/street/crop1.jpg
Looks like they smeared vaseline over the lens for the 350D shot.
Indeed, my 350D does not produce images anywhere near as poor as that! Have they used the blur filter in photoshop?
They said it was a crap lens for the 350D, which I guess would explain the blur.
Even so, just with a single glance you can tell that the 350D looks hugely better in that shot, soft or not. Just look at the sky, for instance - the Samsung shot has a horrific halo and no colour detail. The Canon has a reasonable edge and you can see the clouds.
Then, just look at the noise on the Samsung image (buildings on left)! Wow, that's awful.
Basically there is lots of fake postprocessing making the Samsung image look sharper, but in general (maybe excepting the edges like this one, but I'm not sure about that) the 350D image probably contains more detail. The one with a sign is pretty clear on that. If there are options to reduce sharpening on the Samsung, this might improve image appearance, but won't increase detail.
Don't get me wrong I'm sure this is great for a small camera that has a mobile phone stuck on (and it is pretty stupid to compare it to a DSLR in the first place), but, um, yes, a cheap five-year-old DSLR remains hugely better. Then again, it won't fit in your pocket or take calls - you win some, you lose some.
The Sigma 18-200 will suck in terms of quality. Almost anything with that level of zoom (11x) will.
OBSOLETE I love this word.
So Much for the 3Gs's 3.2mp
Hmmm...to me the images look a bit green, and a bit artificially sharpened...hence grainy. Still I prefer to keep photography to dedicated cameras and the camera on my phone is for those silly happy snaps.
Is this phone better than non-fat yogurt or will you have to send it to the lab?
THIS is the reason why there is no more Kodachrome. What will you do?
the main problem with having a camera like that is you probably would want it in a case all the time, like a real camera.
Nokia N86's "miserly 8mp"? Jeez, might have less mp's but the quality is far superior.
Far superior? Lol, you poor, blind fanboy.
I see the irony of your comment is lost on you "iLoveApple"...
The stupidity of a Nokia fanboy rears its head once again. If you're trying to make a point, why argue about my USERNAME? Is it because you already know how stupid you are?
Fanbois flaming other fanbois will be an official event in the 2012 Special Olympics.
I see none of you have tried Sharp. The 903SH may only have 3.2 megapixels, but the quality is even better and it has 2x optical zoom to boot. Or a later model, the SH1810C. 8MP but with a reasonably-sized sensor to match. Pity there's no flash to speak of.
Im an avid picture quality critic and totally against the MP war but I must confes Im quite impressed by the picture quality of this cellphone, sensor wise at least. Of course a DSLR Williams always hace better PQ as it has a more versatil lens while undoubtly the pixon is using hevy image post processing (very good implemented though) especilly noticiable on close ups when the DSLR delivers softer and more natural images
*will (hate iPhones auto correction ways)
By the way seems like the 350 is set to it's lower quality no in camera image enhancements and very likely lowest jpg settings. This camera delivers sharper images when properly set than what the reviewers are showing up. Still for it's size that sensor rocks
If you take into consideration the OS that this phone is running, will you trade it with your cash? I most likely won't.
Megapixels are nice but even for 12 megapixels I'll try to look at the bigger picture. Software is what makes a phone these days because the thats what makes it usable. Look at the iPhone, crappy camera but sells like hell. The Pre is my favourite for its web integration. Other than taking photos, can this phone do much with the pics?
Big deal. Until cellphones start getting lens and sensor assemblies that match the size of normal P&S cameras, it doesn't matter how many megapixels the thing has.
Although I still want to see someone somewhere explain why cellphones need cameras in the first place.
great. 2009 will be remembered as the year of the pixel penis wars
http://gizmodo.com/5155942/giz-explains-why-more-megapixels-isnt-always-more-better
FFS isn't 8mp enough?
Maybe instead if turning cellphones into cameras they should just turn cameras into cell phones
Having used its predecessor - the 8 megapixel Samsung Memoir - extensively for several months, and considering how good the Memoir's pictures are for a cameraphone, I think this 12 megapixel model is going to impress.
Some pictures form the memoir (click on "All sizes" for original):
- http://www.flickr.com/photos/tnkgrl/3342037647/
- http://www.flickr.com/photos/tnkgrl/3431322738/
- http://www.flickr.com/photos/tnkgrl/3487212469/
@John, it's time to start chewing: http://www.flickr.com/photos/tnkgrl/3342037647/sizes/l/
They are nice pictures.
But they do show the the idiocy of Megapixel war. If you look at the apple(?) flower picture at biggest magnification you should see tiny hairs on the flowers but tere isn't any. In fact with max magnification the picture looks a bit out of focus. That is because the lens in the camera isn't good enough, and you can't make very good tiny lens.
Poked around flicr for a comparison and found these taken with a low end dslr:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/stuntbear/3135591344/
Notice the hairs on plant? Or
http://www.flickr.com/photos/stuntbear/3125375914/sizes/o/
you can see even some of the pollen.
The 12MP camera on phone is only bamboozling the customer. No way a lens that small can give sharp enough picture for 12MP.
"can reach the detail resolved by a true DSLR"....AHAHAHAHA
the day a cell phone can take pictures like this
http://www.flickr.com/photos/risingsunset7890/3566038928/sizes/l/in/set-72157618806947422/
i will eat my own D80
that said, i still think cell phone cameras should be used for quick snap opportunities, fast to capture, small enough image files for easy transfer. Really if they can make the clarity of the picture better, thats worth more then a 100 megapixels
@John, it's time to start chewing: http://www.flickr.com/photos/tnkgrl/3342037647/sizes/l/
Damn comment system :)
haha while i do admit, the camera does take pictures far beyond what i would normally see, its not something i would invest in. If im going out to do some photography i bring a DLSR (still learning btw so, my pictures are far from great). Otherwise, built in cameras or if someone brings along a point and shoot are good enough for random friend gatherings
@Robin Jacobs: That's not the point, the point is sending pictures to someone. Standard MMS size is 600KB. My 2MP LG Xenon occasionally produces pics larger than 600KB, and they have to be resized before I can send them. A 12MP camera on a cellphone will easily produce 3-5MB images, which will either have to be cut way down in size to send (negating the point of 12MP), or you'll have to wait until you get home to offload the pictures like any other camera (negating the ability to immediately share).
Not to be picky peter, but I hope the camera apps on all serious camera phones start to improve much more - that is to say, they should launch nearly instanteously, like a Canon digicam bootup. Can't tell you how many moments I've missed due to the eternal lag of doing _anything_ on my 1st gen iPhone I got about 2 years (1 year? Don't remember). If I had money I'd get another phone by now.
I looked at the pictures. While they're certainly good, I'm still puzzled as to why they're not quite "there" yet. And unfortunately this isn't what I've been "waiting for." Still doesn't match the quality given by those SLRs or really even a simple point and shoot.
I've wondered. For years they've tried stuffing a camera into a cellphone; what about the other way around? There are plenty of slim point and shoots on the market right now. How about putting a cellphone into that? That way you can get a "real" camera in there and take decently focused and noise-free images, at least at the level of a simple but quality point and shoot.
Is it a durability issue? If so, there must be some way of thinning out the newer "ruggedized" digicams on the market and still getting a phone in there. I'd be willing to get a phone a few MMs thicker if it meant having a camera with good quality. Maybe it's a battery issue? Not sure what the main hangup is in doing phone --> camera rather than the normal other way around.
Also, it could mean far better boot up times for the camera apps, as I mentioned in the previous posts.
"can reach the detail resolved by a true DSLR" "
That is total bullshit. The sensor, lens, and processing hardware are far from a good DSLR. Similarly, with a sensor that size and 12 Mpixels on it, the low light performance will be horrendous.
The Canon D mark 3 SLR has a CMOS Sensor the Pixon is A CCD and that makes a difference when comparing the MP of a sensor.