In article <Xns998CD533C65CCD5E712@127.0.0.1>, Lemmo <mail@mail.com>
writes
>How well does the picture quality on a modern 2MP cellular phone compare
>to 2 MP compact cameras (when they were available)?
>
>I never got to see what 2MP compact cameras were like when they were
>around but the pictures from a modern 2MP cellular phone are shown
>below.
I have an old Nikon 2Mp digital Camera and a 2Mp auto-focus camera on my
K750i. If I have the Nikon and its batteries are charged (which is often
not the case because they run down extremely quickly) I would use it in
preference to the phone. It has a 2x optical zoom, the lens is much
better, it has a built-in flash and I get better exposure control
(including fill-in flash). If I'm outside, the light is good and I don't
need to zoom, the phone is pretty much as good. But the phone has the
merit that I always have it, it's almost invariably charged and it
weighs (guessing) about 30% of the camera.
So no, I don't reckon they're as good (particularly if they're not
auto-focus) but I take more photos with the phone than I do with the
camera.
--
Peter
Lemmo wrote:
> How well does the picture quality on a modern 2MP cellular phone compare
> to 2 MP compact cameras (when they were available)?
>
> I never got to see what 2MP compact cameras were like when they were
> around but the pictures from a modern 2MP cellular phone are shown
> below.
The sensor is probably better quality than that in most old 2MP cameras,
but lenses on these things are typically just plastic, and since they're
usually kicked around in a purse or pocket, the lenses tend to get
damaged fairly regularly... and at the end of the day, the final
determining factor in a camera's image quality is, after all, the lens.
Lemmo wrote:
> How well does the picture quality on a modern 2MP cellular phone compare
> to 2 MP compact cameras (when they were available)?
>
> I never got to see what 2MP compact cameras were like when they were
> around but the pictures from a modern 2MP cellular phone are shown
> below.
>
>
> ---------------
>
> Pictures taken by Nokia 6300 (2MP cellular phone) ...
>
> (1) Two-thirds of the way down the page.
> http://www.mobile-review.com/review/nokia-6300-en.shtml
>
> (2) Near beginning of page.
> http://www.imobile.com.au/phonerevie...reviewsapr0702
A 2mp image is usually quite good. I took a couple of thousand of them
with my original digital camera, and was moderately pleased with most of
them. That said, the lenses in most camera phones are very small, and
they don't do will in low light situations, and are subject to more
distortion than most digital cameras. I have, however, seen some very
good images from camera phones.
On Aug 14, 12:57 pm, Lemmo <m...@mail.com> wrote:
> How well does the picture quality on a modern 2MP cellular phone compare
> to 2 MP compact cameras (when they were available)?
Our KRZR phone's 2MP is horrible compared to our old 2-MP
Nikon 950 camera of yesteryear. Not even close.
> Our KRZR phone's 2MP is horrible compared to our old 2-MP
> Nikon 950 camera of yesteryear. Not even close.
>
Concur - Nokia 6300 2MP pretty garbage compared with a Kodak 2MP I
have. But when you consider that the wretched phone does phots,
vidoes, radio, calendar, calculator and MP3 etc etc - Oh and you can
use it to make calls!!!! - it is not bad for a quick snap. At 800x600
may be acceptable for web publishing - have not yet tried it.
Lemmo wrote:
> How well does the picture quality on a modern 2MP cellular phone compare
> to 2 MP compact cameras (when they were available)?
>
> I never got to see what 2MP compact cameras were like when they were
> around but the pictures from a modern 2MP cellular phone are shown
> below.
In general, the sensors (in the phones) are OK,
but the lenses are poor, compared to a (old!)
2Mp camera.
Quality of 2MP camera in cellular phone 
Linear Mode
