Droid camera review - WIN

[tktouch12]

honestly, its reassuring to know the droid 'won', but in most of those the env touch and imagio easily looked better, i dont see how the droid won that

 

[Johnly]

honestly, its reassuring to know the droid 'won', but in most of those the env touch and imagio easily looked better, i dont see how the droid won that

They cropped, re sized, and they put 3.2 in with 5.0 mega pixels. The review was armature for sure. A real review would leave the 3.2 at home, avoid cropping and resizing the pictures. leaving them in there natural state. Then they would list the settings, I mean everything, right next to the photo. That I think would be better...but I am just a humanoid, what do I know...

 

[1linuxfreak]

honestly, its reassuring to know the droid 'won', but in most of those the env touch and imagio easily looked better, i dont see how the droid won that

I agree , my old LG VX8700 would take far better pictures than the Driod does and it was 3.2mp , even this article or review does not sway me into thinking the Droid does good quality pictures .
True , mega-pixels are just part of the factor but the imaging processing chip is not the greatest in the Driod .
If you use "white balance>Cloudy" it works great and has good detail and color saturation .

 

[shpen]

To me, it seemed that the Rogue had the best shots. I know that it didn't have the highest resolution, but one thing that really bugs me about the Droid camera is that there is a lot of ISO grain. The Rogue's photos didn't seemed plagued by this, and they came out crisp in most cases.

Also, I think 3 megapixels is enough for almost anyone.

 

[skrump]

The size of a digital camera's sensor, the part that records the image, is expressed in megapixels. The greater the number of megapixels, the more information this sensor can capture and the more an image can be enlarged.

Bottom line, The more MP's the more information the camera can capture. That directly affects quality. If you are the type that thinks a thumbnail and a movie theater screen sized picture are the same quality, then that explains the naivety.

Do some research before hand, then making statements like "mega-pixels have nothing do do with quality" won't slip out he he....j/k But do research the subject...I got the information that I posted from Kodak and HP.






:icon_ banana:

Although it is fairly impressive that you can regurgitate information you stumbled across, do you have any real photography background?

The quote above is the basis of your argument, and it's where you're completely inaccurate.

"The size of a digital camera's sensor, the part that records the image, is expressed in megapixels."

Umm, No it's not. The size of the image that the sensor captures is measured in megapixels, not the size of the sensor. Perhaps you've heard of the APS-C sensor format? Probably not. It's a standard size of sensor used commonly in the entry level DSLR class. Ever wonder why one camera with an APS-C CMOS sensor would only produce a 12 megapixel image (Sony Alpha A500) while another camera, with that same sized APS-C CMOS class of sensor (Canon EOS 50D)would produce a 15 megapixel image? It's because of a thing called pixel density. Obviously, the physical size of a cell phone camera sensor has to be very small to fit into the case of the phone itself. In order to cram 5 megapixel's worth of pixels onto that tiny sensor, the manufacturer has to more densely pack each individual pixel. The smaller and more packed in the individual pixels are, the less light that reaches each one of them. This quickly begins to degrade image quality. As the pixel density rises, colors wash out and noise increases. These are all fairly basic concepts, if you'd like to read up more about them check out these links:


Sensor Sizes: Camera System: Glossary: Learn: Digital Photography Review

Pixel Density: Camera System: Glossary: Learn: Digital Photography Review

Maybe if you "Do some research before hand", instead of skimming the sales brochures of Kodak and HP (HP?!?!), you won't come off sounding like a pompous jackass.

 

[Johnly]

The size of a digital camera's sensor, the part that records the image, is expressed in megapixels. The greater the number of megapixels, the more information this sensor can capture and the more an image can be enlarged.

Bottom line, The more MP's the more information the camera can capture. That directly affects quality. If you are the type that thinks a thumbnail and a movie theater screen sized picture are the same quality, then that explains the naivety.

Do some research before hand, then making statements like "mega-pixels have nothing do do with quality" won't slip out he he....j/k But do research the subject...I got the information that I posted from Kodak and HP.






:icon_ banana:

Although it is fairly impressive that you can regurgitate information you stumbled across, do you have any real photography background?

The quote above is the basis of your argument, and it's where you're completely inaccurate.

"The size of a digital camera's sensor, the part that records the image, is expressed in megapixels."

Umm, No it's not. The size of the image that the sensor captures is measured in megapixels, not the size of the sensor. Perhaps you've heard of the APS-C sensor format? Probably not. It's a standard size of sensor used commonly in the entry level DSLR class. Ever wonder why one camera with an APS-C CMOS sensor would only produce a 12 megapixel image (Sony Alpha A500) while another camera, with that same sized APS-C CMOS class of sensor (Canon EOS 50D)would produce a 15 megapixel image? It's because of a thing called pixel density. Obviously, the physical size of a cell phone camera sensor has to be very small to fit into the case of the phone itself. In order to cram 5 megapixel's worth of pixels onto that tiny sensor, the manufacturer has to more densely pack each individual pixel. The smaller and more packed in the individual pixels are, the less light that reaches each one of them. This quickly begins to degrade image quality. As the pixel density rises, colors wash out and noise increases. These are all fairly basic concepts, if you'd like to read up more about them check out these links:


Sensor Sizes: Camera System: Glossary: Learn: Digital Photography Review

Pixel Density: Camera System: Glossary: Learn: Digital Photography Review

Maybe if you "Do some research before hand", instead of skimming the sales brochures of Kodak and HP (HP?!?!), you won't come off sounding like a pompous jackass.

You sir, you are a moron!!! you are trying to disprove technology from HP and Kodak? ALL of that information was regurgitated from their website as I said in my ORIGINAL post. You sound empty with experience? Don't you know that different manufactures have their own specific ways they parallel their imaging hardware and software? Oh please, take it up with Kodak And HP!!! LMFAO!!!!! Yup, I regurgitated some info directly from a couple of digital imaging creators for the purpose of explaining Mega Pixels, you said it, why are you coming at me!? LOL! Ah, you just made my night, I haven't laughed that hard all day. Pathetic, sir...

 

[shpen]

And so the internet battle begins.

 

[wil318466]

I don't know about you guys but the pictures I take come out fine for me. I always hated taking pictures and no one could ever convince me of carrying a camera... but I sure take a lot more pictures now than I ever did. And they come out great (well, they do for a guy like me, who has no experience with digital camers).

Take a pic, email it to myself, and when I get home its there waiting for me on my computer. Awesome.


Also - It seems to me the limitation on the pictures is the software... I think the hardware is pretty capable (I say this because it seems that 3rd party camera software makes improvements). Maybe Google will fix it.


-Wil

 

[GadgetRick]

Pixels are the little individual squares that make up a digital photo--each with its own color and brightness. A megapixel is equal to one million pixels. The more pixels there are in a square inch, the higher the resolution of the photo. A 1 MP camera is capable of a maximum of one million pixels per square inch. A 2MP camera can capture two million pixels per square inch... and so on.

The size of the photo you can print is most closely related to the MP setting on your camera. (Some cameras refer to the megapixel setting as "resolution.") The more megapixels you capture when you shoot a picture, the bigger the print you can make without getting that "blocky" look.

It's a good idea to have your camera set at a much higher MP setting than you think you need. For instance, even if you are a person who always prints 4" x 6" photos, you might shoot a picture with a detail you especially love. If your camera is set for more than the minimum number of megapixels necessary for a 4" x 6", you can crop and enlarge the photo to make a new photo of the detail without noticing any loss of quality in your print.

Does that teach you a little bit buddy?

Understanding picture quality settings
Pixel is shorthand for "picture element." It is the smallest part of a digital camera's sensor. The word "mega" means "million." So megapixel means the picture is made up of one million pixels, or picture elements.

The size of a digital camera's sensor, the part that records the image, is expressed in megapixels. The greater the number of megapixels, the more information this sensor can capture and the more an image can be enlarged.

Bottom line, The more MP's the more information the camera can capture. That directly affects quality. If you are the type that thinks a thumbnail and a movie theater screen sized picture are the same quality, then that explains the naivety.

Do some research before hand, then making statements like "mega-pixels have nothing do do with quality" won't slip out he he....j/k But do research the subject...I got the information that I posted from Kodak and HP.






:icon_ banana:

Mostly correct but a few corrections (I used to teach this stuff and I'm a photography buff...).

The MP designation is not a description of physical size of a sensor. You can have a 5MP sensor (like in the Droid) and that is MUCH (physically) smaller than a 5MP sensor in a point and shoot camera. In essence, although both cameras are 5MP they do NOT collect the same amount of information. The point and shoot camera collects MORE (much more actually) information than the Droid's sensor.

Because of this, looking at a camera and deciding which is better based on how many MP the sensor is capable of capturing isn't a very good way to go. My DSLR has only a 6MP sensor yet takes pictures MUCH better than many of the point and shoot cameras with 10+MP sensors. Why? The sensor in my DSLR is WAY better, is larger and captures WAY more information (more accurately) than the other cameras I'm talking about.

Now, you are (sort of) correct in stating, "Bottom line, The more MP's the more information the camera can capture. That directly affects quality." However, it is not the ONLY thing which affects quality nor the most important thing.

Certain sensors also are better at things like color reproduction, contrast, etc. So, even among 5MP sensors of the same size--if they're made by different companies--the pictures can be different. Add to that digital cameras tend to do some type of processing after taking the picture, and that throws another set of variables into the equation. This is why so many hardcore photography buffs shoot in RAW when they can (I do). It keeps the camera from doing much on the back end. We do all of that in software (like Lightroom or Photoshop).

What I've found with the Droid camera--like all camera phones--good lighting is essential. The sensors in these phones are way too small to get anything resembling a good picture in low-light situations.

I also agree the pics tend to be under-saturated although sharp--almost too sharp at times. But, for a camera phone, it does better than good enough for what I use it for--quick snaps of interesting things when I don't have one of my good cameras on me.

Didn't mean to come off as a jerk, just trying to help the discussion you're having with the other person.

 

[Johnly]

Pixels are the little individual squares that make up a digital photo--each with its own color and brightness. A megapixel is equal to one million pixels. The more pixels there are in a square inch, the higher the resolution of the photo. A 1 MP camera is capable of a maximum of one million pixels per square inch. A 2MP camera can capture two million pixels per square inch... and so on.

The size of the photo you can print is most closely related to the MP setting on your camera. (Some cameras refer to the megapixel setting as "resolution.") The more megapixels you capture when you shoot a picture, the bigger the print you can make without getting that "blocky" look.

It's a good idea to have your camera set at a much higher MP setting than you think you need. For instance, even if you are a person who always prints 4" x 6" photos, you might shoot a picture with a detail you especially love. If your camera is set for more than the minimum number of megapixels necessary for a 4" x 6", you can crop and enlarge the photo to make a new photo of the detail without noticing any loss of quality in your print.

Does that teach you a little bit buddy?

Understanding picture quality settings
Pixel is shorthand for "picture element." It is the smallest part of a digital camera's sensor. The word "mega" means "million." So megapixel means the picture is made up of one million pixels, or picture elements.

The size of a digital camera's sensor, the part that records the image, is expressed in megapixels. The greater the number of megapixels, the more information this sensor can capture and the more an image can be enlarged.

Bottom line, The more MP's the more information the camera can capture. That directly affects quality. If you are the type that thinks a thumbnail and a movie theater screen sized picture are the same quality, then that explains the naivety.

Do some research before hand, then making statements like "mega-pixels have nothing do do with quality" won't slip out he he....j/k But do research the subject...I got the information that I posted from Kodak and HP.






:icon_ banana:

Mostly correct but a few corrections (I used to teach this stuff and I'm a photography buff...).

The MP designation is not a description of physical size of a sensor. You can have a 5MP sensor (like in the Droid) and that is MUCH (physically) smaller than a 5MP sensor in a point and shoot camera. In essence, although both cameras are 5MP they do NOT collect the same amount of information. The point and shoot camera collects MORE (much more actually) information than the Droid's sensor.

Because of this, looking at a camera and deciding which is better based on how many MP the sensor is capable of capturing isn't a very good way to go. My DSLR has only a 6MP sensor yet takes pictures MUCH better than many of the point and shoot cameras with 10+MP sensors. Why? The sensor in my DSLR is WAY better, is larger and captures WAY more information (more accurately) than the other cameras I'm talking about.

Now, you are (sort of) correct in stating, "Bottom line, The more MP's the more information the camera can capture. That directly affects quality." However, it is not the ONLY thing which affects quality nor the most important thing.

Certain sensors also are better at things like color reproduction, contrast, etc. So, even among 5MP sensors of the same size--if they're made by different companies--the pictures can be different. Add to that digital cameras tend to do some type of processing after taking the picture, and that throws another set of variables into the equation. This is why so many hardcore photography buffs shoot in RAW when they can (I do). It keeps the camera from doing much on the back end. We do all of that in software (like Lightroom or Photoshop).

What I've found with the Droid camera--like all camera phones--good lighting is essential. The sensors in these phones are way too small to get anything resembling a good picture in low-light situations.

I also agree the pics tend to be under-saturated although sharp--almost too sharp at times. But, for a camera phone, it does better than good enough for what I use it for--quick snaps of interesting things when I don't have one of my good cameras on me.

Didn't mean to come off as a jerk, just trying to help the discussion you're having with the other person.

It's no problem, I am not trying to be a jerk either. I know a thing or two about photography, and I understand there are MANY more elements that equal picture quality. I was trying to help someone expand their knowledge on Mega Pixels, because they said (in response to me) that Mega Pixels have nothing to do with picture quality. You, being a buff, know that is not the case. I think what seems confusing to you and others, is that I am using printers AND cameras to explain how Mega Pixels affect quality.

Sorry bud, but the information that I posted is DIRECT from Kodak and HP, there again, if you think that their technology is incorrect, take it to them, as I just regurgitated some paragraphs DIRECTLY from their website.

Remember, one paragraph is from HP and explains Mega Pixels theory in their PRINTER technology...not camera technology...lol, you should know that...j/k

I hope you, and all, have a most awesome new years, and may the next year bring you the most joy!!!!

 

[Johnly]

Pretty good thread...thanks OP. I hope that people understand that good pictures require more that a good camera. Imaging equipment, reproduction, and printers ALSO affect the quality of the photograph. I have done EXTENSIVE research in college on one of the best photographers IMO, Ansel Adams. That man is a genius, but he also understood the quality of a picture went beyond the camera itself, and translated into the imaging, and reproduction of the photograph. Food for thought as; a picture is still unfinished on a computer screen in my honest opinion.

 

[GadgetRick]

Pretty good thread...thanks OP. I hope that people understand that good pictures require more that a good camera. Imaging equipment, reproduction, and printers ALSO affect the quality of the photograph. I have done EXTENSIVE research in college on one of the best photographers IMO, Ansel Adams. That man is a genius, but he also understood the quality of a picture went beyond the camera itself, and translated into the imaging, and reproduction of the photograph. Food for thought as; a picture is still unfinished on a computer screen in my honest opinion.

Absolutely correct. I still do a lot of post-processing even though many of my friends think the initial pic is pretty good. Lots of people in the digital world pooh pooh this but they've been doing post-processing on pics for as long as they took pics. People would be amazed at what they do (have done for years actually) to all of those pics of models and other things in those nice magazines.

So much more goes into a picture than just the camera. That's for sure. I've seen people spend lots of bucks on nice dslr equipment only to shoot full auto and have no idea of what they were doing. Then they look at my stuff (I shoot with an older Nikon the D50) and wonder why their camera doesn't take better pics. If I try to explain things like exposure, etc. to them, their eyes glaze over. They'll never get good pics until they learn how to use the camera then learn some composition then learn post-processing.

As far as camera phones, they're a convenience to me. I have two kids and I don't carry my dslr (or my point and shoot) around all of the time. But I do carry my phone everywhere. So I still get shots. As they say, the best camera is the one you have on hand at the time of the shot....

 

[Johnly]

Pretty good thread...thanks OP. I hope that people understand that good pictures require more that a good camera. Imaging equipment, reproduction, and printers ALSO affect the quality of the photograph. I have done EXTENSIVE research in college on one of the best photographers IMO, Ansel Adams. That man is a genius, but he also understood the quality of a picture went beyond the camera itself, and translated into the imaging, and reproduction of the photograph. Food for thought as; a picture is still unfinished on a computer screen in my honest opinion.

Absolutely correct. I still do a lot of post-processing even though many of my friends think the initial pic is pretty good. Lots of people in the digital world pooh pooh this but they've been doing post-processing on pics for as long as they took pics. People would be amazed at what they do (have done for years actually) to all of those pics of models and other things in those nice magazines.

So much more goes into a picture than just the camera. That's for sure. I've seen people spend lots of bucks on nice dslr equipment only to shoot full auto and have no idea of what they were doing. Then they look at my stuff (I shoot with an older Nikon the D50) and wonder why their camera doesn't take better pics. If I try to explain things like exposure, etc. to them, their eyes glaze over. They'll never get good pics until they learn how to use the camera then learn some composition then learn post-processing.

As far as camera phones, they're a convenience to me. I have two kids and I don't carry my dslr (or my point and shoot) around all of the time. But I do carry my phone everywhere. So I still get shots. As they say, the best camera is the one you have on hand at the time of the shot....

I do not touch up photographs of nature unless I am purposely distorting its conception. (I think that's where a quality manual shoot comes in best). I also think you are right on the money, i.e: when people use auto settings they are taking themselves out of the equation. I rarely see digital cameras set to auto, out-do a little knowledge of light and exposure with a manual setup.

I use an older Cannon Power-Shot, and trust me, it is a pretty decent camera, but without understanding some of its own tools, it can take some crappy photos.

A cell phone camera is definitely NOT a soccer game camera, though if you forget your point and shoot, it is better than nothing he he.

I love touching up photos of pets and people. (lets face it, who doesn't mind being brushed up a little in a picture) Lightroom is awesome, and I have created some very ***-kicking pictures by bending spectrums beyond comfortable. In fact, I am headed there now to play, thank you for engaging me in some good net-talk....good day sir.

 

[1linuxfreak]

We do Fossil hunting and sometimes the point and shoot gets left behind , but always have the Cell , so taking a shot of a find is always at hand .
I started out with a Manual 35mm camera , aperture and ISO film speed , using a light meter to judge shutter speed and aperture settings , bumping up one or the other depending on effects and lighting , doing double exposures to place a object where it was not , things Photoshop does now .
So not a rookie with cameras , our Nikon D40x is the main repository picture taker , detail is astounding with it .
But for a 5mp the Droid camera is not up to snuff , like I said the old 3.2mp LG camera was much better for our purpose than the Droid's
Love the phone but the camera sucks !

 

[jcardona1]

the camera on the droid is the worst and slowest ive used in a long time. i would rather not take a picture at all. if the subject has motion to it, dont even bother.

my 2yr old samsung flipshot takes much better pictures