What is the point when the pictures will be all weird. To get 21x zoom on that sized camera, you need a horribly small sensor. The sensor on this is a bigger than iPhone's, but they also crammed in 16mp. Now, that screwed them to limit the fstop value to f/2.8 widest open. Note that widest open will happen at the time when you're zoomed out completely. You will most likely end up using the f/5.5+ fstop value on this camera on most images.
Any image this can produce would be way worse than an iPhone. Usually, you are shooting at f/2.4 on an iPhone. Notice that blurring smooth creaminess you get on off focus areas on iPhone? You will never get it from this camera. Things will either be focussed, or bluntly blurred.
They don't care about image quality at all with those specs. This is a marketing gig.
I don't think it's fair to compare the aperture of this lens when zoomed in to the aperture of an iPhone lens. Without using it, my first guess is that having an optical zoom is going to do more for general purpose image quality than what is lost by cramming 16mp into a small sensor. Obviously it depends on the use case, but in general, people like to zoom.
On a less speculative note, I disagree that image quality = narrow DOF. There's more than one style of picture in the world.
That said, I agree with the overall point of it being mostly a marketing gimmick (16MP on a tiny sensor? app store access? yawn). But then I'm a guy who's not happy without at least an APS-C size sensor, preferably with interchangeable lenses. And even then, it does drive me crazy that this can have GPS built in and my SLR requires an obtrusive, reportedly-very-slow add-on.
this page has a convenient calculator for diffraction limit of a sensor given it's MPix and dimensions. it shows that a 1/2" sensor with 16MPix becomes diffraction limited at f/2.7, so this slightly bigger one would be limited at around f/3. lens is specced at f/2.8-5.9. results out of anything more than the widest end might be less than spectacular...
>> I suspect it's going to produce extremely poor photos.
Relative to what? Compared to an SLR? Sony's RX100? The iPhone 4? Other 1/2.3" cameras?
Keep in mind that a 1/2.3" sensor is still significantly larger than something like, say the 1/3.2" sensor in the iPhone 4. Scaled to real-world image sizes (i.e. Facebook, etc.) the downsampled images will probably be good enough for most snapshots.
Yup, it's a real shame. Imagine if they made it 5 megapixels, with BSI and full well? You could still make 8x10 prints (if anyone still does that...), but you could also take photos of your friends in a dark bar with no flash at f4. It would be amazing. But no one is doing it, and I have no idea why. Even the SLRs are now up above 20 megapixels. Why? I'm really anxious to see if Apple has the balls to keep the next iPhone at 8, or if they bump it up to 13.
I'm not convinced that a point-and-shoot camera can be considered "pro". Thumbs-up for manual exposure settings and the inclusion of Android, but a single f/2.8-5.9 lens is not going to be suitable in a lot of situations. I also don't see a flash (or flash mount) anywhere, which would make it annoying to take photos in a dark bar or restaurant.
Alternatively, I think it would be neat to apply some of these features to Nikon/Canon's existing DSLR lineups, eg. having wifi/4G connectivity on a DSLR that didn't require an $800 attachment.
Completely Agreed - add to that an external mic, switchable lenses, high ISO (DSLRs can go as high as 8x higher) - some of the other things a "Pro" might want of the camera.
Though this product looks nice - what's the point? - that you can play Angry Birds on your P&S camera? Keep in mind P&S cameras are a shrinking market being cannibalized by smartphones and DSLRs.
I'd like to see this tech on Samsung's NX mirrorless line. If Samsung wants to compete with the big boys, they'll need to differentiate, and Android's one way to do it.
exactly. "Samsung Galaxy Camera is a pro camera" I practically stopped reading there. This is not even remotely close to what in camera land is considered pro.
Having a full 3G modem in a camera, and a flexible operating system to control it is certainly nice. Having a camera that just uploads everything to Dropbox (or whatever), that's awesome!
However, I have some doubt. One thing is that I think all the regular "smartphone" features here are a distraction. No, I quite certainly do not want to check my e-mail on my camera. I'm all for having a flexible system there, so people can build new innovative image editing software to use right on the camera, and let me install this on the camera, but PLEASE keep in mind that a camera is still a special-purpose device.
The second doubt is, as others here have indicated, that this particular camera might just not be very good.
Interesting that camera get the latest jellybean before Galaxy phones. I guess next up will be a Galaxy TV. And Galaxy fridge that auto order to restock your pizza and beer.
Wow, so much negativity in these comments. To me this is the logical conclusion of the phone camera (a lot of people had this idea, I'm sure, but they seem to be the first to get it out). After bashing Samsung for their iPhone copying, I applaud them here for making something innovative. Camera phones (always available, and now internet connected) are a not-insignificant part of the social web revolution--people want to see and be seen (and apply some filters, too).
Front like a camera, back like a phone. Slick UI to control the camera instead of the usual confusing array of buttons. Image quality should be equivalent to other P&S, which is better than the usual camera phones. 16 MP is just a number to sell the thing into the target demographic: active camera phone users, not DSLR users.
And I think leapfrogs is not an exaggeration. If this takes off, Samsung will have the edge and can start branching out into other wireless-enabled cameras, camera OS's, and who knows what else they can think of. The pure camera manufacturers will be playing catch-up forever, just as the old cellular phone manufacturers were leapfrogged by Apple and never caught up.
Why on earth would I want my camera to be running a full phone OS? It's one thing to build a camera into a phone for convenience, but when will having an OS and touchscreen in the back of my camera make something more convenient?
That's what I told a guy I went to school with when he has shown me Snakes on his Nokia phone. Who'd ever want to play a game on a phone?
And then, around two years later, I asked him who'd ever want a color display on their phone when he was showing off his T68. Who'd ever need a color display on a phone...
I also remember laughing about the ridiculous camera add-on for that T68. I mean: who'd ever want a camera in their phone?
In this present case, being able to instantly upload to Dropbox or picture sharing sites certainly has some appeal, but I guess we'll have to see how this develops over time.
I certainly stopped asking "why on earth..." when talking about gadgets though :-)
Communication programs would make synchronizing and sharing photos (particularly one-offs) much easier.
Touch-to-focus, touch-to-set-white-balance are pretty awesome and far more user-friendly than comparable functions/processes on today's point-n-shoots (when they're even available).
Applications would be able to extend what are fairly difficult-to-kludgy with todays point-n-shoots (HDR, stitched panoramas, night shots, etc)
There are smartphones, tablets, netbooks, watches, ski goggles running Android. It is interesting to consider Android as a "phone OS".
Sure, your camera doesn't need apps. Neither does your phone. But just because it's not necessary, doesn't mean that it won't provide lots of benefits. You can, for instance install Dropbox and use Camera Upload to automatically sync all your photos to all your devices the moment you shoot them.
[+] [-] arihant|13 years ago|reply
Any image this can produce would be way worse than an iPhone. Usually, you are shooting at f/2.4 on an iPhone. Notice that blurring smooth creaminess you get on off focus areas on iPhone? You will never get it from this camera. Things will either be focussed, or bluntly blurred.
They don't care about image quality at all with those specs. This is a marketing gig.
[+] [-] majormajor|13 years ago|reply
On a less speculative note, I disagree that image quality = narrow DOF. There's more than one style of picture in the world.
That said, I agree with the overall point of it being mostly a marketing gimmick (16MP on a tiny sensor? app store access? yawn). But then I'm a guy who's not happy without at least an APS-C size sensor, preferably with interchangeable lenses. And even then, it does drive me crazy that this can have GPS built in and my SLR requires an obtrusive, reportedly-very-slow add-on.
[+] [-] kevingessner|13 years ago|reply
I hope DPReview does a review on this camera -- I suspect it's going to produce extremely poor photos.
[+] [-] baq|13 years ago|reply
this page has a convenient calculator for diffraction limit of a sensor given it's MPix and dimensions. it shows that a 1/2" sensor with 16MPix becomes diffraction limited at f/2.7, so this slightly bigger one would be limited at around f/3. lens is specced at f/2.8-5.9. results out of anything more than the widest end might be less than spectacular...
[+] [-] slantyyz|13 years ago|reply
Relative to what? Compared to an SLR? Sony's RX100? The iPhone 4? Other 1/2.3" cameras?
Keep in mind that a 1/2.3" sensor is still significantly larger than something like, say the 1/3.2" sensor in the iPhone 4. Scaled to real-world image sizes (i.e. Facebook, etc.) the downsampled images will probably be good enough for most snapshots.
[+] [-] pkulak|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] iharris|13 years ago|reply
Alternatively, I think it would be neat to apply some of these features to Nikon/Canon's existing DSLR lineups, eg. having wifi/4G connectivity on a DSLR that didn't require an $800 attachment.
[+] [-] r00fus|13 years ago|reply
Though this product looks nice - what's the point? - that you can play Angry Birds on your P&S camera? Keep in mind P&S cameras are a shrinking market being cannibalized by smartphones and DSLRs.
[+] [-] slantyyz|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] petesalty|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] stinos|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] aristidb|13 years ago|reply
However, I have some doubt. One thing is that I think all the regular "smartphone" features here are a distraction. No, I quite certainly do not want to check my e-mail on my camera. I'm all for having a flexible system there, so people can build new innovative image editing software to use right on the camera, and let me install this on the camera, but PLEASE keep in mind that a camera is still a special-purpose device.
The second doubt is, as others here have indicated, that this particular camera might just not be very good.
[+] [-] jemeshsu|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] w1ntermute|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dgudkov|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] slantyyz|13 years ago|reply
That might have been true in the film days, but these days sensor quality is just as important as the lens.
>> And Nikon makes it better
I don't know if this is particularly true about their lower end point and shoots, and that's where I would categorize their Android camera.
[+] [-] VikingCoder|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 205guy|13 years ago|reply
Front like a camera, back like a phone. Slick UI to control the camera instead of the usual confusing array of buttons. Image quality should be equivalent to other P&S, which is better than the usual camera phones. 16 MP is just a number to sell the thing into the target demographic: active camera phone users, not DSLR users.
And I think leapfrogs is not an exaggeration. If this takes off, Samsung will have the edge and can start branching out into other wireless-enabled cameras, camera OS's, and who knows what else they can think of. The pure camera manufacturers will be playing catch-up forever, just as the old cellular phone manufacturers were leapfrogged by Apple and never caught up.
[+] [-] esolyt|13 years ago|reply
Why? Nothing stops other camera manufacturers from using Android in their products.
[+] [-] TylerE|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mrspandex|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pilif|13 years ago|reply
And then, around two years later, I asked him who'd ever want a color display on their phone when he was showing off his T68. Who'd ever need a color display on a phone...
I also remember laughing about the ridiculous camera add-on for that T68. I mean: who'd ever want a camera in their phone?
In this present case, being able to instantly upload to Dropbox or picture sharing sites certainly has some appeal, but I guess we'll have to see how this develops over time.
I certainly stopped asking "why on earth..." when talking about gadgets though :-)
[+] [-] roc|13 years ago|reply
Touch-to-focus, touch-to-set-white-balance are pretty awesome and far more user-friendly than comparable functions/processes on today's point-n-shoots (when they're even available).
Applications would be able to extend what are fairly difficult-to-kludgy with todays point-n-shoots (HDR, stitched panoramas, night shots, etc)
etc.
[+] [-] esolyt|13 years ago|reply
Sure, your camera doesn't need apps. Neither does your phone. But just because it's not necessary, doesn't mean that it won't provide lots of benefits. You can, for instance install Dropbox and use Camera Upload to automatically sync all your photos to all your devices the moment you shoot them.
[+] [-] blinkingled|13 years ago|reply
(NEX5 user - great camera but every time I use the interface it always feels less than friendly/sophisticated)
[+] [-] goggles99|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|13 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] rocky1138|13 years ago|reply