Why do I need a camera when I’ve got a cameraphone?

I’ve got the lumia 1020 and I realise now how poor cameraphones usually are. The clarity and detail are amazing, and the shots are incredible compared to any other cameraphone I have used. It is a good replacement for a mainstream digital camera too.

I think this is an easy but relatively comprehensive list
Low level light outdoor and indoor, outdoors will show the distance the flash is capable of easily.
Static and fast moving objects, to see how much they blur.
Details under zoom in good light. This needs good light as you are testing the zoom functionality not the light functionality.
Closeup shots

But to “futureproof” your tests, set up a fixed display for one of the tests such as attaching a couple of non-degradable items to the inside of a box. Preferably with a lightsource.
Then you can test future phones to the same setup over years for a true comparison.

It depends whether you want to take snaps (still or video) and send them instantly, for which camera phones are pretty good, or whether you want to take higher-quality photographs and video, for which cameras are much better. I’ve just replaced our 10 year old Pentax (5X zoom, 5Mp) with a Panasonic bridge FZ72 – 16Mp, 60X zoom – I don’t think a camera phone will touch its performance – unless someone knows better?! Still fairly inexpensive. Horses for courses.

If I go out for the day I usually have a compact camera on my belt. It takes much better photos than my cheap phone. If phones become cheaper and compact cameras increase in price due to lack of demand I may switch to using a phone instead of a camera.

We sacrificed sound quality in moving from CD to MP3, FM to DAB and CRT TV to flat-screen TV, but gained in other ways. I can see that the same applies in replacing compact cameras with phone cameras.

I wonder if there is a market for a DSLR that makes phone calls. 🙂

The laws of physics dictate that mobile phone cameras will always be playing catch-up with dedicated digital cameras.

I won’t pretend I’m a great photographer, but I’m interested enough in photography to have a separate DSLR camera with a viewfinder. Exaggerating a little to make a point, cameraphones to me are like the old polaroids. You can sometimes take very good snapshots with them, but that’s about it.

Agree with all that’s been said. In film days you’d never have compared instamatics or disposables with SLRs. They were meant for different jobs and its the same with camera phones now.

To answer the original question. It all depends on what you want to do with the photo.

If it’s for on the spur snapshots, todays phone cameras, when properly used, can take surprisingly good pictures. These are ideal for viewing on the phone or emailing etc. However, if it is intended to print the result with any degree of enlargement (anything over 6in x 4in) a good quality DSLR just cannot be beaten.

I have a ‘phone with camera, a compact digital camera and a DSLR. Which one I use depends on the sort of photographs that I want. If quality and/or flexibility are required then it’s the DLSR every time. The compact is the next choice with the ‘phone just for quick snaps. Both the ‘phone and the compact suffer the same problem: actually framing the photograph in bright sunlight – many the occasion when it has been a case of point and hope!

I should have also commented that I have not entered a vote in the survey above because it is meaningless. Which of my cameras I prefer depends on what I am doing, as mentioned in my previous post. It is simply not possible to give a single answer as required.

I don’t think that shooting test charts indoors will reveal the full difference in performance between a DSLR and a good camera phone. The most telling comparison between cameras occurs with high scene contrast – for example outdoors in bright sunlight. And shooting into the light will show very different levels of flare, which you wouldn’t see indoors in controlled lighting.

The main trade off is between convenience and quality. I would always prefer to use my DSLR if I have it with me, but it is a hassle to lug it around. Second best is a quality compact, which I’m more likely to be carrying. If I leave that at home, at least I have my phone. I will be getting a better phone soon, (with a much better camera than I have at the moment) but it’s unlikely to obsolete my serious cameras.

“It’s a synch to text and email pictures to friends”

Either this was a pun or the word “cinch” has disappeared!

As for cameras I now use compact ultrazooms originally a Olympus with the equivalent of an 850mm SLR range , at under £200. An excellent performer apart from no viewfinder meaning glare can sometimes render the back screen tricky to use. We had hoped to rely on a small compact and a smart phone on a trip to Brazil rather than lug kilos of 35mm kit around but a lack of a serious zoom is crippling and we bought the Olympus in Portugal on the way out.

Astonishing value for what the camera can do. I showed some photos from our trip to a young friend back from a months holiday in Borneo and he and his girlfriend were kicking themselves for the shots they could have had compared to what their phones and compact had allowed them to take.

Will be taking a Canon 50x zoom, equivalent to a 1200mm SLR lense, on our next holiday together with the Olympus. The Canon does have a viewfinder and some useful abilities with the zoom process but it does cost just over £300. To some it may sound expensive but if you realise a 35mm lense at1200mm is tens of thousands of pounds …….
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-1200mm-f-5.6-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

If you are trying to relate binocular magnification to these zoom lengths my research found no direct answer on the Web but I have deduced that the 1200mm is roughly 24 magnification – with built in stabilisation!