Take camera , or use smartphone? Megapixels?

[Obsession 571]

Just for basic pics.

I read a few articles, that said you don't need more than a megapixel as your computer screen doesn't have a good enough resolution or whatever. And even if you were to print the photos, you'd only need a 3 megapixel camera. So it sounds like I could just use my phone.

[Parkwahn 61]

Yes you can, the mega pixel stuff is only needed if you are going to blow the picture up...

 

3 million is more then enough, even then when mailing you will reduce it most times...

 

It's fanny saying most people need a 10 million pixel all it does is make a great big file".....

[CheshireTom 1,377]

Just for basic pics.

I read a few articles, that said you don't need more than a megapixel as your computer screen doesn't have a good enough resolution or whatever. And even if you were to print the photos, you'd only need a 3 megapixel camera. So it sounds like I could just use my phone.

 

If you're just after "snaps", a smart phone is ideal. That said, a decent camera isn't just about pixels ... the processor and optics are equally important. What lots of pixels does do is let you crop your image and still be left with a decent quality pic. Do gogos still ban cameras?

Edited November 1, 2013 by CheshireTom

[js007 795]

Just for basic pics.

I read a few articles, that said you don't need more than a megapixel as your computer screen doesn't have a good enough resolution or whatever. And even if you were to print the photos, you'd only need a 3 megapixel camera. So it sounds like I could just use my phone.

 

The thing about a phone camera is that you usually have it with you. On the other hand, if you have a larger bulky camera, it might be better, but will you have it with you? Or will it be back in the hotel safe?

[Mick2 11]

It depends what you are after, but if it is just a few snaps a phone camera could be just fine…… easy to use and probably always with you.

 

I seldom carry a phone, and when I do it is a basic model without a camera, however do have two cameras.

 

One is my first digital camera, an Olympus Tough TG310, which I picked up on sale for 3,500 baht. With a small sensor and basic optics the quality of the photos is probably not much better than what you can get from a half decent camera phone, but in the right situation the result can be quite pleasing. It is more adjustable for different conditions, but the big plus it its toughness. I can just put it in my pocket or a bag and take it anywhere, including in the sea, so i often carry it with me.

 

To get better photos (some of which are used in newspaper reports) I needed better optics and a bigger sensor, but with that comes bulk, price, and fragility. I bit the bullet and bought a better camera. It takes a little more skill to use well, but the results are much better. However it is not something I can take everywhere.

 

In the end it is a compromise. Make a choice based on you needs, use, expectations and budget. Having done that, getting a decent photo is about making the most of the equipment you have.

[Obsession 571]

... the processor and optics are equally important.

 

How so? What's your recommendation for a bad photographer, wanting pics of his tilacs?

[jacko 8,813]

Every time I get my camera out I struggle to remember how to use it.

With the one on my phone I am at a complete loss.

[CheshireTom 1,377]

How so? What's your recommendation for a bad photographer, wanting pics of his tilacs?

 

I asked the same question a few months ago - inspired by Patna's pics. Basically, the two cameras I had (Panasonic FZ50 and Canon SX100) were/are great for landscapes and daylight shots but the trade off was that both struggled in bad lighting conditions (indoors and outdoors) - the normal conditions when we are trying to grab a pic of our girls and where the processor and glass are significant. After much fretting I ended up buying an Olympus XZ-2 ... several cameras are comparable, but I also wanted a flip-screen to get some upskirts variation in the angles of the shots I took.

 

Oh, and if you're going for portraits, look for something with a better wide angle (26/28^o) rather than long zoom. IMHO only.

Edited November 2, 2013 by CheshireTom

[VPI78 11,494]

Small electronic cameras are almost disposable these days, many priced well under $100. Contrast that with many smart phones that cost well over $500 (not counting those insane subsidized phone contracts). So I always carry a small camera when walking about and don't often risk taking out the expensive smart phone for typical touristy snaps, especially when there are crowds/I could drop it, or during something like Songkran when water is all about.

[Grandpollo 366]

Just for basic pics.

I read a few articles, that said you don't need more than a megapixel as your computer screen doesn't have a good enough resolution or whatever. And even if you were to print the photos, you'd only need a 3 megapixel camera. So it sounds like I could just use my phone.

Not very big prints, but 4X6 would be OK with 3 MP if you could even find a camera that old and that low resolution today.

 

I travel with a Nikon D800 36 MP and a smaller Canon 12 MP for in the pocket when I don't want to lug the DSLR, like on Pattaya streets.

 

If you want to crop a picture much or print 8X10 or larger you'd do poorly with a 3 MP camera.

[papillon 695]

Think about the future.

 

Always go for the best quality you can afford now.

 

Example.... Just look at the crappy quality of photos that are posted from years ago.

 

One day you might want to project your photo onto the Moon.

[spike 236]

Hi O...I took both in September and got some decent shots with each...smartphone was a unlocked LG GT550 I bought through amazon.com for $55.00 USD and the camera was a point and shoot the old trusty Panasonic Lumix DMC-LZ8 that I purchased years ago off ebay for under $100 USD... Looking at the quality of the photos...I think the cheap smartphone wins....

 

smartphone...

 

and Panasonic....

[BeerBelly 1,026]

Most camera, especially smartphone camera, sensors are much higher resolution than their lenses can support. Do a search on Airy Disk if you want to understand the physics behind it. Basically with the higher resolution, you just get a very large blurry picture.

 

Regarding which type of camera is the best to have, it depends on what you want to do with it. I have all three, a smartphone, a Canon s90 point and shoot, and a Nikon D5100 SLR. The Canon is the most versatile, but the smartphone is the most used simply because It's with me all the time.

 

The SLR is only used for going out with the intent of taking pictures. It is not something I would take with me just in case I want to take pictures.

[biggles 509]

Dont rely on an Ipad2.. it has less than 1meg camera in low light mine takes crap pictures. I usually slip my small pocket camera, 12megapixel, into my pocket if I know I will be taking shots.

[Gary 4,118]

I have two digital cameras, both Sony models. My i9300 Samsung phone takes better pictures than either camera. I no longer even use the cameras. The Samsung phone camera is 8MP and it amazes me.

[keyman 1,413]

Hi O...I took both in September and got some decent shots with each...smartphone was a unlocked LG GT550 I bought through amazon.com for $55.00 USD and the camera was a point and shoot the old trusty Panasonic Lumix DMC-LZ8 that I purchased years ago off ebay for under $100 USD... Looking at the quality of the photos...I think the cheap smartphone wins....

 

smartphone...

 

and Panasonic....

 

 

.........with the Panasonic, not enough exposure, I'm afraid!

 

 

KM

[jacko 8,813]

Dont rely on an Ipad2.. it has less than 1meg camera in low light mine takes crap pictures. I usually slip my small pocket camera, 12megapixel, into my pocket if I know I will be taking shots.

Somewhat easier to do with the little camera than the Ipad.

And to me that is the important thing......

[Gary 4,118]

Jacko, I'm not much of a techie either. With my smartphone, I touch the camera icon, point the camera and touch the shutter icon. DONE. Touch the simple icon settings once and they will stay the way you have them set unless you want to change something. Nothing complicated for sure.

 

 

 

[Gary 4,118]

You see. I even have problems posting. I don't know why I got a double post.

Edited November 3, 2013 by Gary

[ttk 236]

My camera of choice is a canon D10 that is several years old. Small enough to fit in my pocket but large enough to hold comfortably.

It is waterproof for swimming and has a flash for fill lighting photos if shooting backlit shots. The SD card comes out and plugs straight into my computer for editing the pics. They then go back on the card to take to a printer to get phots made. I have used the camera every day for over a week now and the battery is charged up. Recharge is a simple pop out the dead in with the new and charge the old one.

 

I see no point in carrying around a phone that costs much more and is far more fragile and less capable.

[Obsession 571]

Hi O...I took both in September and got some decent shots with each...smartphone was a unlocked LG GT550 I bought through amazon.com for $55.00 USD and the camera was a point and shoot the old trusty Panasonic Lumix DMC-LZ8 that I purchased years ago off ebay for under $100 USD... Looking at the quality of the photos...I think the cheap smartphone wins....

 

smartphone...

 

and Panasonic....

 

That's an amazing building. Where is that? And shapely legs on the milf

Yours and Gary's smartphone photos are excellent quality. To my eye anyway.

 

Somewhat easier to do with the little camera than the Ipad.

I saw people in an audience on TV this week, holding up an ipad / tablet , to film the band on stage! It was annoying enough, when people in front of you were holding up their phones. But imagine a wall of ipads.

[Patna 3,802]

Just for basic pics.

I read a few articles, that said you don't need more than a megapixel as your computer screen doesn't have a good enough resolution or whatever. And even if you were to print the photos, you'd only need a 3 megapixel camera. So it sounds like I could just use my phone.

 

It's not just about getting a larger file, with a camera you get a picture that is far superior that of a cell phone. Although I was able to get a few good shots with my smartphone, I would never chance taking pics only with a phone. It is of course sufficient to take snaps that look OK on the phone screen but as soon as you put them on the big screen, you'll be able to see the faults. I'd say in my personal experience the success rate of pictures taken with a phone is about 1 out of 5. As Tom said, the processor and the optics are the important thing to great pics, not the pixels. I carry an expensive compact and using it more and more on just about any occasion but it would never take the same quality pictures as my dslr does. That said, if I go on a trip to take serious pics I carry my dslr but always carry my compact when I go out at night, it's hardly bigger than my smartphone, in fact it is shorter in length. Mind you, I'm a bit more obsessed about photography than an average person is...

[Patna 3,802]

Hi O...I took both in September and got some decent shots with each...smartphone was a unlocked LG GT550 I bought through amazon.com for $55.00 USD and the camera was a point and shoot the old trusty Panasonic Lumix DMC-LZ8 that I purchased years ago off ebay for under $100 USD... Looking at the quality of the photos...I think the cheap smartphone wins....

 

smartphone...

 

and Panasonic....

 

That's cheating I bet if you'd put Miss Apple in front of the Sanctuary instead of a reflective white wall with low light, the result would be different.

Edited November 5, 2013 by Patna

[jaxxon55 252]

I have a Samsung EK-GC110 camera. It is 16 Megapixels and 21x optical and 23mm wide lens. On a recent trip to Hong Kong and Macau I got some fantastic shots. When I returned home I sent them to the lady I was with and the lady I kept telling not to hold her Samsung s3 with just one hand because she would never get a good shot. Her shots were superior to mine.

Jack

[Samsonite 181]

....Oh, and if you're going for portraits, look for something with a better wide angle (26/28^o) rather than long zoom. IMHO only.

 

That is completely ass backwards.

A wide angle wide lens will distort facial feature, e.g., make the nose appear wider than it really is, etc.

Using the 35mm film equivalent (or full frame DSLR sensor) the proper focal length for head and shoulder shots

would be 105mm, but one could get away with an 85mm, especially if shooting from the chest or waist up. For

three quarter length shots, just just above the knees up, the "normal" 50mm will do nicely. For full length portraits

I wouldn't go wider than 35mm , but you will get better results with the 50mm if you have the room to move back

from the subject. Anything else will result in distortation, but some people like that.

Back on ignore you go.

Edited November 6, 2013 by Samsonite