That Camera Is Powerful

[NISHANTH]

That is a cool 41 megapixel camera, i wish linus did a review of this.

 

[FloRolf]

For Phone reviews, try MKBHD.

[Jvagle875]

Believe it or not, it's a phone. 

[Sharif]

cool i wish that picture there had more pixels too 

[helping]

Megapixels isn't necessarily indicative of quality

 

just sayin' 

[TheSLSAMG]

Megapixels isn't necessarily indicative of quality

 

just sayin' 

Correct.

 

For example, the HTC One's camera is not too shabby. How many megapixels is it? 4. What? 14? No. Four.

 

Heh, megapickles.

[Hodor]

You might wanna look at pocketnow yt channel for excelent phone reviews.

[ciprian97pop]

Believe it or not, it's a phone. 

no shit sherlock

 

jk

[FranktheDinosaur]

41 MP doesn't mean anything when you can't get the full rez files out of the phone   

[bob345]

a cannon 5d is a 22.3 megapixel camera. Does that mean that phone will take better pictures? HELL NO. There is absolutely no need for a 41 megapixel camera on a phone that will never make use of that level of detail. its just to get people to buy the damn thing.

[TheProfosist]

41 MP doesn't mean anything when you can't get the full rez files out of the phone

I think you can on that one since they have a special app for that camera.

Also that camera is leagues better than any other smartphone camera and the 41megapixels arent the only reason why.

[Ruostunut kokis]

It may be sharp for a phone camera, but due to small sensor size, everything else is crap.

Like compare a Lumia 1020's 41MP camera to something like an entry level DSLR (like 600D, D3200, or even older/worse DSLRs). You'll see that 1020's camera's only thing that is better, is the pixel density.

And why the f*** do people use only megapixels as the measurment unit for cameras? Megapixel count means almost nothing.

[TheProfosist]

It may be sharp for a phone camera, but due to small sensor size, everything else is crap.

Like compare a Lumia 1020's 41MP camera to something like an entry level DSLR (like 600D, D3200, or even older/worse DSLRs). You'll see that 1020's camera's only thing that is better, is the pixel density.

And why the f*** do people use only megapixels as the measurment unit for cameras? Megapixel count means almost nothing.

Dont compare a phone camera to a DSLR your just being stupid doing that and no one with a dslr would conside replacing their kit with a lumina 1020 or any other smartphone.

Also if you comparing sensor size compare the 1020 to any other smartphone and the sensor is considerably larger. I mean there is a reason for the bug bulge on the back...

[Ruostunut kokis]

Dont compare a phone camera to a DSLR your just being stupid doing that and no one with a dslr would conside replacing their kit with a lumina 1020 or any other smartphone.

Also if you comparing sensor size compare the 1020 to any other smartphone and the sensor is considerably larger. Iean there is a reason for the bug bulge on the back...

Okay. I made a dumb move and proved my ignorance. That came in mind because some people compare 1020, a phone, for something totally different. Had some bad experiences.

I did know the sensor size diference compared to other phones, though. And for a phone of that size the quality of pictures are impressive. Some people just have taken comparing 1020 further to dedicated cameras, which I just did, and proved that I'm a huge dumbass.

[TheProfosist]

Okay. I made a dumb move and proved my ignorance. That came in mind because some people compare 1020, a phone, for something totally different. Had some bad experiences.

I did know the sensor size diference compared to other phones, though. And for a phone of that size the quality of pictures are impressive. Some people just have taken comparing 1020 further to dedicated cameras, which I just did, and proved that I'm a huge dumbass.

you can actually compare it to dedicated cameras as it does blow some low end point and shoots out of the water. I personally think that how it should be though because no one in their right mind is going to carry a point and shoot if they have a smart phone now days. The reference to a DSLR that you may have seen may be some photographer buying it as a secondary which might make sense because of what I mentioned right above. It would however never replace their main camera and probably not even in relation to any real shoot but more possibly to document the shoot or something like that.

[Ruostunut kokis]

you can actually compare it to dedicated cameras as it does blow some low end point and shoots out of the water. I personally think that how it should be though because no one in their right mind is going to carry a point and shoot if they have a smart phone now days. The reference to a DSLR that you may have seen may be some photographer buying it as a secondary which might make sense because of what I mentioned right above. It would however never replace their main camera and probably not even in relation to any real shoot but more possibly to document the shoot or something like that.

As I said that "some people" compare 1020 to DSLRs, I wasn't meaning any professional photographers, only an insane person would think of that. By "other people" I meant non tech-savvy people who are just casual shooters. Sure, professionals might have use for 1020 as a secondary camera, but primary? Nope.

[FranktheDinosaur]

I think you can on that one since they have a special app for that camera.

Also that camera is leagues better than any other smartphone camera and the 41megapixels arent the only reason why.

 

Huh, I was under the impression the Nokia app down sampled to ~5MP when exporting.

While it is arguably the best phone camera, all people talk about is the MP count usually, not sensor size, glass, manual control (the stuff that counts). 

[TheProfosist]

Huh, I was under the impression the Nokia app down sampled to ~5MP when exporting.

While it is arguably the best phone camera, all people talk about is the MP count usually, not sensor size, glass, manual control (the stuff that counts).

Dont know i guess it might but I dont see why you would want to really. if it does someone should have or might have already come up with a app that allows full size.

[Blade of Grass]

Mega pixel count is irrelevant, the person behind the camera is much more important.

[antiquoob]

the 41 megapixel thingy-

The photo shot with the phone-cam is an oversampled composite. The deal is the photos aren't 41 megapixels- file sizes would be stupid large, plus 41 "standard" megapixels on a 1/1.2 sensor would be a disaster. Why? each pixel<->photodiode (aka light/data collector) would be so small- 1.x micron/size per pix, the only way for each pixel to gather sufficient light for a useable photo would be to have a portable star to use as a flash. Larger pixels=More data/light collected=take up more space=less # of megapixels.

Hmmm. Think of a 12x12ft or m wall divided into 16 equally sized square windows, like a checkerboard. The entire wall is the sensor with 16 (unmega) pixels. After sunset, the view outside is nice- street lights, moonlights, cars etc...your eyes can resolve detail despite less information (light) reaching the human-megapixels (rods).

Now imagine the wall being 12x12" or cm with 25 mini square windows (pixels). How good is that evening view looking thru that combo? Can't see much, much less info/light going thru the "mini-sensor-wall".

I chose dumb sizes for the analog but anyways- Wall=sensor size/windows which make the wall=pixels. A "wall" with 4 windows will gather more light-data at the cost of detail, same sized wall with 100 windows will gather less light because of physical-limitations of how the window/pixels are constructed (think of the frame on a window). Details can't be rendered in absence of light. On a bright super sunny day the 100 pixels would however segment/parse the light-data with finer detail. 96 more "windows" to see thru- in 1 and 0 land each window collects a certain (algo/codec/compression dependent) amount of bits...

The file size of a 100 pixel pic obviously larger then a 4 pixel pic. There are sweet spots when it comes to megapixel/sensor size ratio but things have been changing due to tech advancements of recent, one disruptive one being the Nokia-41 megapixel stuff:

Sensor tech has improved a lot- most known example is the proliferation of the micro 4/3s "Ashton That seventies show dude" camera. It's a small sensor compared to the standard "pro" sensor size (full-frame, approximately the size of 1 frame of 35mm film) which can take great pix. Everyone likes smaller- the micro 4/3 "mirrorless" cameras are able to be shrinky-sized 'cause they don't need a pentaprism/mirror mechanism which has been essentially the same for half a century.

Mirrorless (which includes phone cams) cameras do away with mechanical parts SLRS use making small cameras possible. It's taken a long time to get to this point because of the viewfinder issue. LCD/OLED viewfinders are finally beginning to get to SLR viewfinder level. Photographers hate taking photos (for many reasons, many valid) looking at an led screen. Movie peeps are different, articulating screen allowing for handheld shots etc. are important. Not so for stills.

anyway, back to the "41"...

For a phone, it has a much larger sensor then any others, hence the bulge. Mentioned earlier, it's a 1/1.7 sized sensor. Here's the novel-cool part: those 41 megapixels result in 8 megapixel photos (other sizes can be choosen)

"Buuuut"

Each megapixel is "stacked" with more. Combined is better descriptor- multiple megapixels are combined into a super-megapixel...I think for an 8 mp photo, which is the highest quality-option, there are 7 super-imposed pixels "on top" of 1. I don't know the compression/Algo tech, but it probably works like any codec, say an mp3- dropping audio data our ears aren't interested in hearing.

So it's a significant step- 7 (or 5, pick any number) times the data collected per pixel but using the "footprint" of 1 pixel. The tech solves many of the problems caused by the limited space of small form factors.

Small sensor phonecams take horrible pictures in lower light, suck for larger prints (sadly, prints are kinda going the way of the dodo) and are super limited for cropping and zoom-stuffs.

This "41" tech should take much better pics in low light. One thing that I can say "I saw it IRL" is that by far the the zoom/crop-ability for the phones' pix=stupid retarded wtf WOW!

It doesn't zoom in the read sense- no optical lens telescoping. Neither does it zoom in the trad digital sense- you know when you're zooming in with a digital fixed lens and after a second the image goes from 4k lookin' to 320x200 cga? Well, the phone-cam has a most un lossy zoom- BUT the magic is in post; after the image has been taken.

You can keep tapping the + button and holy crap, just keep going while keeping digital noise and detail loss at a minimum...for a dumb amount of + tapping.

Example: photo of your friend from 15m away. They'll look like a tiny bean.

Standard phone-cam

Hmm..."I'll zoom in. (Tap tap) aww shit. Looks like static. And I didn't zoom in much (crop).

Weird "41"/8 megapixel-stacking nu tech phone-cam thing:

"Hmm...looks like a bean. Must zoom (crop) photo. (Tap tap + +) Cool. (tap tap tap zoom zoom zoom) whoa! (tap x9) Ugh! Why are there 2 (two) packets of fire sauce atop his head?"

I wonder how much horse power all that takes.

Last blurb. The replace an SLR thing is crap. What they mean is "replace your point and shoot".

SLRs are desktop builds.

The super high end gaming laptops with 10x sli are the high end Mirrorless cameras of now.

Everything else=consoles/tablets

there are physic involved which will make it impossible for a phone camera to be able to ever, ever, ever do what an SLR or near future big sensor mirrorless camera can do. The tech needed for that is along the lines of quantum-nano stuff. If we don't nuke ourselves in a hot second, I'm 100% sure we'd see the tech in our lifetimez.

but hey, it's today and the "it's what is behind the camera, not the camera" thing is 100%

There was an article a few years ago. A pro fashion photographer was given an iPhone 4 or 3G to prove that it was his knowledge of light, composition blah blah and very Nice light-gear-stuffs, not the camera itself which made the pro-photo.

On a monitor it looked as good as anything. When it comes to physical prints, megapixels start to matter when when printing in sizes 11x14" and larger*

*some say 8x10, A3.

the ultimate "megapixel" camera is older then your mom. Medium format, large format field cameras- a well exposed chemical-negative from one of those suckers would be some unholy # of megapixel equivalent.

Dumb idea:

"Petapixel"

[Foxxer]

$10 says a DSLR 12 MP shoots better.

[TheProfosist]

$10 says a DSLR 12 MP shoots better.

Ill put $100 on that since its a fact. The phone isnt trying to compete against a DSLR but other phones and even point and shoot cameras.

[the pokemon kid]

Hopefully this phone has finally ended this whole one upping each other with more pixels which manufacturers have been doing and they finally add better sensors, image stabilization, Low light noise reduction software etc into the phones.