The Best Camera is the One You Have
December 13, 2012 12:40 PM Subscribe
Is the camera in my Samsung Galaxy Nexus good enough for casual day-to-day use? (Do-I-really-need-another-camera-filter)
I've been waffling about buying a nice camera for a while now to supplement my Samsung Galaxy Nexus' on board camera (I'm running the newest version of Jellybean). I don't take a ton of pictures, and the pictures I do take mostly end up on the Internet anyway. Here's the rub: now and again I'd like to be able to take pictures that the pharmacy can print at 3x5 or 4x6 without looking terrible.
I've got the resolution pumped up to the max (5M pixels). At that resolution, it takes 72 DPI pictures at 2592 x 1944 that run about 1.6 MB each. I've been pretty happy with its performance in low light.
So, I know this isn't the world's greatest camera, but it also seems like I've got some low-ish standards. Is this camera going to get me by, or do I need something else? What do I need to look out for? If you've used the Nexus 4 camera, is the upgrade to 8M pixels and HDR going to be something I really notice day-to-day?
I've been waffling about buying a nice camera for a while now to supplement my Samsung Galaxy Nexus' on board camera (I'm running the newest version of Jellybean). I don't take a ton of pictures, and the pictures I do take mostly end up on the Internet anyway. Here's the rub: now and again I'd like to be able to take pictures that the pharmacy can print at 3x5 or 4x6 without looking terrible.
I've got the resolution pumped up to the max (5M pixels). At that resolution, it takes 72 DPI pictures at 2592 x 1944 that run about 1.6 MB each. I've been pretty happy with its performance in low light.
So, I know this isn't the world's greatest camera, but it also seems like I've got some low-ish standards. Is this camera going to get me by, or do I need something else? What do I need to look out for? If you've used the Nexus 4 camera, is the upgrade to 8M pixels and HDR going to be something I really notice day-to-day?
If the camera is getting you by, then by definition, it's getting you by. What is it that you're *not* getting out of the camera? I have an iPhone instead of a galaxy, and I use the camera *all the time* for all sorts of things, but I know exactly where it falls short for me - low light performance (try taking pictures of a 15-month-old indoors with your phone camera), slowness in every possible way, fixed wide-angle lens (sometimes this is nice, others it's not), lack of separate exposure/focus.
I also have an Olympus PEN E-P2. It resolves all these issues, but I rarely ever take it anywhere unless I explicitly expect to be taking photos, because my phone is 10x more convenient.
One thing to consider as well -- if your photos normally end up on Facebook, the process of getting them there from your phone is *far* easier than having to take your camera to your computer, take the memory card out, import photos, then upload them to Facebook. This alone makes phone cameras a lot more appealing.
Oh, and megapixels don't really matter at all (but usually, you want to keep any camera you have on it's best quality settings, unless you really need more speed).
posted by tylerkaraszewski at 12:47 PM on December 13, 2012
I also have an Olympus PEN E-P2. It resolves all these issues, but I rarely ever take it anywhere unless I explicitly expect to be taking photos, because my phone is 10x more convenient.
One thing to consider as well -- if your photos normally end up on Facebook, the process of getting them there from your phone is *far* easier than having to take your camera to your computer, take the memory card out, import photos, then upload them to Facebook. This alone makes phone cameras a lot more appealing.
Oh, and megapixels don't really matter at all (but usually, you want to keep any camera you have on it's best quality settings, unless you really need more speed).
posted by tylerkaraszewski at 12:47 PM on December 13, 2012
My first digital camera was a Canon Digital ELPH that was 2.1 megapixels. I've got credits in a few Pixar films, I know a little bit about image processing, I'm super sensitive to digital artifacts, and I've got some 8x10 print-outs from that camera on my wall.
A few years ago I bought a handful of Kodak EasyShare 6+ megapixel cameras 'cause they were cheap and I wanted something I didn't care if the kids around me destroyed. I hesitate to put pictures from those cameras on the web.
So megapixel count means very little. My ballpark is that if you have continuous tone printing and a decent source image, you'd be hard-pressed to see 300 pixels per inch, and for a lot of applications (pictures behind furniture that nobody's going to stare too intently at) 100 pixels per inch is just fine. So if the pixels out of the camera in your phone are relatively high quality, then you could print 'em at 8½"x6½" and they'd look just fine in a book.
Do they look just fine? I dunno, take a few pictures and get 'em printed and see. The camera you carry is way better than the camera you don't. I had a Canon G9 that I carried with me everywhere, and recently, shortly after I got an HTC MyTouch phone, it broke. The phone has good enough image quality that I haven't bothered looking for a replacement. Sure, it's got substantial shutter lag, and no zoom, but 99.44% of what I use the camera for is "I was here, this happened", and the phone is always in my pocket.
If I were looking to make art more often it might be different, and next time I go on a serious vacation I might swing for a recent DSLR body, but for 4x6s in the photo album, it's quite possible that your phone is the best camera for your purposes. And only you can tell that: Spend a few bucks, get a few pictures printed, and see how you like 'em!
posted by straw at 12:55 PM on December 13, 2012 [1 favorite]
A few years ago I bought a handful of Kodak EasyShare 6+ megapixel cameras 'cause they were cheap and I wanted something I didn't care if the kids around me destroyed. I hesitate to put pictures from those cameras on the web.
So megapixel count means very little. My ballpark is that if you have continuous tone printing and a decent source image, you'd be hard-pressed to see 300 pixels per inch, and for a lot of applications (pictures behind furniture that nobody's going to stare too intently at) 100 pixels per inch is just fine. So if the pixels out of the camera in your phone are relatively high quality, then you could print 'em at 8½"x6½" and they'd look just fine in a book.
Do they look just fine? I dunno, take a few pictures and get 'em printed and see. The camera you carry is way better than the camera you don't. I had a Canon G9 that I carried with me everywhere, and recently, shortly after I got an HTC MyTouch phone, it broke. The phone has good enough image quality that I haven't bothered looking for a replacement. Sure, it's got substantial shutter lag, and no zoom, but 99.44% of what I use the camera for is "I was here, this happened", and the phone is always in my pocket.
If I were looking to make art more often it might be different, and next time I go on a serious vacation I might swing for a recent DSLR body, but for 4x6s in the photo album, it's quite possible that your phone is the best camera for your purposes. And only you can tell that: Spend a few bucks, get a few pictures printed, and see how you like 'em!
posted by straw at 12:55 PM on December 13, 2012 [1 favorite]
If the pictures you are taking with your phone are satisfying then they're satisfying. It totally depends on what you actually want to do, you know? If you just want to take pictures of random little things that you happen to run into during your day and that you think you might want to put online to remember or share with your friends, then a phone is almost the best camera you could have because you already have it with you and it makes sharing photos super easy through instragram and facebook et al.
If you're frustrated by the limitations (mediocre image quality, poor low-light performance, and long shutter delay are the main ones I can think of off the top of my head) but want to do basically the same thing, then you might get some mileage from picking up a relatively inexpensive ultracompact camera. I just got my fiance this one for her birthday and she loves it. It's very small and simple to use which is nice if you want something that you can keep with you and which isn't like a big production to actually take a picture with, and it's got a neat secondary screen on the front for taking self portraits or for taking pictures of like you and some friends when you're having a night out. It's a lot of fun and it's approximately the same size as a phone so if you carry a bag or purse of some kind normally then you probably wouldn't notice it. And it can automatically synch to your computer over Wi-Fi which makes sharing pictures easier.
Now of course there are a ton of other possibilities for an every-day-carry camera, and there's a good case to be made that a phone is just about ideal in a lot of ways. I'd love it if someone came out with a smartphone that had a slightly more serious camera built into it, and I'm sure someone will do that once digital cameras get just a little bit more compact (there's been kind of a race in this area for a while, though stand-alone cameras can't get much smaller without being a pain to use). But honestly if your phone is doing everything that you want to it to do (or is doing everything you want it to do 99% of the time) then you probably wouldn't really benefit from the added expense and trouble of a stand-alone camera.
posted by Scientist at 2:26 PM on December 13, 2012
If you're frustrated by the limitations (mediocre image quality, poor low-light performance, and long shutter delay are the main ones I can think of off the top of my head) but want to do basically the same thing, then you might get some mileage from picking up a relatively inexpensive ultracompact camera. I just got my fiance this one for her birthday and she loves it. It's very small and simple to use which is nice if you want something that you can keep with you and which isn't like a big production to actually take a picture with, and it's got a neat secondary screen on the front for taking self portraits or for taking pictures of like you and some friends when you're having a night out. It's a lot of fun and it's approximately the same size as a phone so if you carry a bag or purse of some kind normally then you probably wouldn't notice it. And it can automatically synch to your computer over Wi-Fi which makes sharing pictures easier.
Now of course there are a ton of other possibilities for an every-day-carry camera, and there's a good case to be made that a phone is just about ideal in a lot of ways. I'd love it if someone came out with a smartphone that had a slightly more serious camera built into it, and I'm sure someone will do that once digital cameras get just a little bit more compact (there's been kind of a race in this area for a while, though stand-alone cameras can't get much smaller without being a pain to use). But honestly if your phone is doing everything that you want to it to do (or is doing everything you want it to do 99% of the time) then you probably wouldn't really benefit from the added expense and trouble of a stand-alone camera.
posted by Scientist at 2:26 PM on December 13, 2012
So I've taken a bunch of pictures on my Galaxy Nexus. The resolution is fine, not exceptional. The major issue is the optics.
In poor lighting the GN boosts the heck out of the camera gain. You get a picture but it's extremely noisy. A real camera may have better low-light performance.
The GN flash is pretty good for a phone, not so great for a real camera. Again if you're taking indoor or dark shots.
There's digital zoom on the GN but a real camera will have anywhere from 3x to 10x optical zoom which allows you to zoom in without getting a lower resolution shot.
The other thing I like in a camera is weatherproofness - the various waterproof cameras out there are actually pretty great cameras and are only slightly more expensive from a generic digital P&S. And they'll take much more abuse than your phone will.
posted by GuyZero at 3:06 PM on December 13, 2012 [1 favorite]
In poor lighting the GN boosts the heck out of the camera gain. You get a picture but it's extremely noisy. A real camera may have better low-light performance.
The GN flash is pretty good for a phone, not so great for a real camera. Again if you're taking indoor or dark shots.
There's digital zoom on the GN but a real camera will have anywhere from 3x to 10x optical zoom which allows you to zoom in without getting a lower resolution shot.
The other thing I like in a camera is weatherproofness - the various waterproof cameras out there are actually pretty great cameras and are only slightly more expensive from a generic digital P&S. And they'll take much more abuse than your phone will.
posted by GuyZero at 3:06 PM on December 13, 2012 [1 favorite]
On one hand, if it works for you, who is anyone else to say it's not good enough? On the other hand, while the Galaxy Nexus is decent as a mobile phone camera, I don't think it's so great when compared to a real point-and-shoot. In addition to the things mentioned by GuyZero, it's also awkward to hold it as a camera and press the touch screen to take a picture. This can make low-light or zoom shots blurrier as well.
posted by grouse at 5:18 PM on December 13, 2012
posted by grouse at 5:18 PM on December 13, 2012
I used to carry a Galaxy Nexus 100% of the time and a Canon Powershot S90 for when things mattered. The latter is the first camera I bought that allowed me to stop using an SLR on vacation. I now have a Nexus 4 and it's not much better than the GN, and the iPhone 5 (generally considered the best camera phone, more or less) is just a bit better than the N4 in turn.
The GN worked in daytime for the easy shots but failed for anything else as above. If you want an easy to carry, small, tough, quality camera with great low-light performance, get the newer version of my S90 - the S100.
posted by kcm at 6:02 PM on December 13, 2012
The GN worked in daytime for the easy shots but failed for anything else as above. If you want an easy to carry, small, tough, quality camera with great low-light performance, get the newer version of my S90 - the S100.
posted by kcm at 6:02 PM on December 13, 2012
On the plus side I should mention the panoramas and photospheres on the galaxy nexus are AWESOME provided you have a somewhat still scene and a lot of light. that's the one place a cameraphone completely beats a camera.
posted by GuyZero at 6:04 PM on December 13, 2012
posted by GuyZero at 6:04 PM on December 13, 2012
« Older How can I buy or rent "Ratatouille" to watch on an... | Looking for a painting I once borrowed from a... Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by empath at 12:47 PM on December 13, 2012 [1 favorite]