Nokia trumps Nikon with a 41MP phone.

[AJSJones]

I expect the sound quality will be mediocre, but rated as "amazing, considering it is a 41 MP camera"

[BJL]

The problem I have is with the general concept of praising something on the basis of deliberate constraints. For example, "This image is pretty mediocre, a bit noisy in the sky and has rather poor shadow detail, but isn't it fantastic considering it was taken with a mobile phone."

I instead have a problem with the idea of making comparisons without terms of reference, or only to the absolute best that can be achieved in one aspect, disregarding any huge off-setting disadvantages in other respects (such as size, weight and cost.)

And so do you, actually, or you would be constantly bemoaning the resolution limits of images recorded by a mere 22MP or 38MP DSLR, once you remove "constraints" like "costing under $30,000" or "without stitching" or "also usable at high ISO speed" or "has a good select of lenses for my needs".

... in relation to my DSLR standard.

Oh, sorry, I understand now. Camera-phones _should_ in fact be judged by a "deliberate constraint", but not by the constraint of being a camera phones or a pocketable camera: they should be judged by the constraint of "Ray's DSLR (but not MFDB: why not?) standard". I will henceforth never compliment a friend's good cooking, or a nice affordable place for lunch, but always state how they fall short relative to the finest restaurant meals I have eaten.


Context matters, Ray.

[Ray]

I instead have a problem with the idea of making comparisons without terms of reference, or only to the absolute best that can be achieved in one aspect, disregarding any huge off-setting disadvantages in other respects (such as size, weight and cost.)

And so do you, actually, or you would be constantly bemoaning the resolution limits of images recorded by a mere 22MP or 38MP DSLR, once you remove "constraints" like "costing under $30,000" or "without stitching" or "also usable at high ISO speed" or "has a good select of lenses for my needs".
Oh, sorry, I understand now. Camera-phones _should_ in fact be judged by a "deliberate constraint", but not by the constraint of being a camera phones or a pocketable camera: they should be judged by the constraint of "Ray's DSLR (but not MFDB: why not?) standard". I will henceforth never compliment a friend's good cooking, or a nice affordable place for lunch, but always state how they fall short relative to the finest restaurant meals I have eaten.


Context matters, Ray.

BJL,
I never compare without reference to some standard. I mostly use just 3 cameras and 3 lenses which provide me with a continuous range of focal lengths from 14mm to 640mm. The oldest of these three systems is the Canon 50D with 100-400 zoom. The other two are the Nikon D700, D7000, and Nikkor 14-24/f2.8 and 24-120/F4.

The D700 and D7000 will soon be replaced with just one camera, the D800. Those are my standards. When I'm old and frail I may decide that the days of lugging around 35mm equipment are over, and I may just use a phone camera  .

[BJL]

I never compare without reference to some standard.

Glad to hear it; you just seem to be confused about which standard other people are using when they comment on a pocketable camera! Hint: Bernard's nice comments about the Nokia 808 probably do not mean that he is canceling his D800 order.

[Guillermo Luijk]

BJL, you don't seem to be properly grasping the Rayspective concept.

[Ray]

Glad to hear it; you just seem to be confused about which standard other people are using when they comment on a pocketable camera! Hint: Bernard's nice comments about the Nokia 808 probably do not mean that he is canceling his D800 order.

Not confused at all, BJL. There are as many standards are there are people. I can only speak confidently of my own standards which involve going forward with image quality, not backwards.

I have no neurotic compulsion to always carry a camera with me, whatever its quality, just in case I come across something interesting to photograph. But I might regret that if I get a visitation from aliens from outer space, and find myself with no camera to record the event. 

[Rob C]

Constraints, in this context, are but diversions. The reality is inescapable, as all realities unfortunately are.

The end of it's the file. Unless that's good enough for the user's best needs, known only to him from his own limits of experience, comments of evaluation are generally worthless.

I play with my cellphone now and again, and though it provides images that can be good as images, those images are forever doomed to remain within the very low end of the scale of what I know that I can accomplish. They have no useful afterlife that I can discover - they are what they are and can never be anything better. Something I knew when shooting some of my cellpix abstracts, but frustrating when the time comes that I fall in love with one or two and want to print them: then, I may as well have taken a real camera for a walk instead and suffered the inconvenience of weight and bulk as fair exchange for useful pictures, thus avoiding regret.

I think this is pretty much Ray's point of view too, meaning the 'toys' are rather daft things beyond their use as notepads, at which function, however, they can excel.

Rob C

[NikoJorj]

Not to put things into too much of a perspective, but I completely agree with Rob, and Ray for that matter : the standard to which images are to be technically considered is their destination, and indeed, that may be a bit too much for many cellphones. I'm also quite frustrated with images I can't print.

That said, these images taken by the 808 in good light might be printable...

[Ray]

I don't wish to downplay the technological innovation of the 808 Pure View. It's clearly a vast improvement on previous generations of phone cameras.

Those who are in the habit of using their phones for photographic purposes, perhaps bemoaning the relatively poor image quality and wishing it was better, will be delighted at this significant improvement.

Those who frequently use a  P&S camera, but are reluctant to use a phone camera because of the clearly reduced image quality compared with their P&S, may begin to use the camera in the new Nokia 808 in place of their P&S, or in addition to it.

However, those who just can't be bothered wasting their time deliberately taking technically substandard images simply because it's so easy and convenient, will not be so excited.

Nevertheless, when I feel the need to replace my Samsung Wave GT-S8500, which has still-photo and HD video capability which I've never used, I would definitely consider the Nokia 808. 

[BJL]

Ray, Mostly I agree, but at this point

However, those who just can't be bothered wasting their time deliberately taking technically substandard images simply because it's so easy and convenient, will not be so excited.

Does that description apply to anyone who accepts less than the image quality of an 80MP DMF system on a heavy tripod when it is possible to shoot at low ISO speeds?
After all, not buying that more expensive gear is just for the convenience of not having to live on beans and rice for a few years.

Does it apply to any of us who ever uses a zoom lens when a prime exists offering better IQ  if we had not chosen the convenience of not carrying multiple prime lenses?

Does it apply to any of us who ever shoots hand-held when it would be possible to use a tripod if we had not chosen the convenience of not carrying one?


In the real world (as opposed to the alternate universe of forum talk) we almost all make some trade-offs between absolute image quality and convenience; we just vary as to where we draw the line. Many good photographers, owners and competent users of good camera systems, would _also_ like the opportunity to photograph interesting sights encountered while going about other affairs (like commuting, or at the beach with family, or kayaking, or rock-climbing as in the Nokia promos) without always carrying a complete 35mm format DLSR kit with a good selection of top quality prime lens and a tripod. Perhaps your lifestyle allows 24/7 DLSR readiness, or willingness to accept 0 image quality (no photo at all) when the DSLR kit is not available, but clearly that is not true for everyone.

[PierreVandevenne]

However, those who just can't be bothered wasting their time deliberately taking technically substandard images simply because it's so easy and convenient, will not be so excited.

It's all relative. You consider it sub-standard because you assume you are taking technically superior pictures with your current hardware. In other words, you are satisfied by your processes and your results. Fine. But that also means that a lot of people will consider your hardware, processes and results substandard compared to theirs.  AFAIC, I am 100% sure that a lot of people will take better pictures with their Nokia than I do with my collection of bodies and L-lenses. Just because they have a better eye than mine and because they can take the shot.

[Ray]

Ray, Mostly I agree, but at this point does that description apply to anyone who accepts less than the image quality of an 80MP DMF system on a heavy tripod when it is possible to shoot at low ISO speeds?

Of course not, BJL. Where's your sense of logic? Everyone has a standard with which they are comfortable. What is technically substandard to an IQ180 user may appear superb to a P&S shooter.

For me, 35mm DSLRs fit the bill. The quality is sufficient for my 24" wide, Epson 7600 printer. The price, bulk and weight of the cameras and lenses are not excessively burdensome. For example, I recently trekked in Nepal to the Annapurna Base Camp at 4,200 metres, over a period of a couple of weeks, there and back. I carried my two Nikon cameras around my neck all the time, with 14-24 & 20-120 lenses attached. No problem. Total weight about 4Kg.

If I attempt to repeat this exercise in 20 year's time at the age of 90, I may well carry no more than the latest Nokia phone. (My porter will carry the 360mp Nikon mirrorless FX with lenses  )

After all, not buying that more expensive gear is just for the convenience of not having to live on beans and rice for a few years

.

Don't be silly! You must be aware that in economics there's the concept of 'utility', or 'maximising one's satisfaction', as well as the concept of 'opportunity cost'. Only a Van Gogh would live on beans in order to afford artistic materials.

Does it apply to any of us who ever uses a zoom lens when a prime exists offering better IQ if we had not chosen the convenience of not carrying multiple prime lenses?

It certainly would apply if all zooms were so much worse than all primes. However, my Nikkor 14-24/F2.8 has the reputation of being the equal of many primes in that range.

Does it apply to any of us who ever shoots hand-held when it would be possible to use a tripod if we had not chosen the convenience of not carrying one?

Only in circumstances when a slow shutter speed will inevitably result in a blurry image. I would never bother to take a shot in such circumstances without tripod, unless I can find a stable base, such as a wall, to substitute for a tripod, as in the attached recent shot at Maehongson near the Burmese border in Thailand. Exposure 1 full second. No image stabilisation in the 14-24 lens and no tripod used.

In the real world (as opposed to the alternate universe of forum talk) we almost all make some trade-offs between absolute image quality and convenience; we just vary as to where we draw the line. Many good photographers, owners and competent users of good camera systems, would _also_ like the opportunity to photograph interesting sights encountered while going about other affairs, like commuting or at the beck with family or kayaking or rock-climbing as in the Nokia promos, without always carrying a complete 35mm format DLSR kit with a good selection of top quality prime lens. Perhaps your lifestyle allows 24/7 DLSR readiness, or willingness to accept 0 image quality (no photo at all) when the DSLR kit is not available, but clearly that is not true for everyone

Of course. We're all different with respect to our standards and interests. If I were to engage in some interesting activity that precluded the carrying of 35mm gear, such as rock climbing, I would carry the lightest and best quality miniature camera I could afford. It would probably be an NEX-7. However, I'm really too old for rock climbing. 


Cheers!

[Ray]

AFAIC, I am 100% sure that a lot of people will take better pictures with their Nokia than I do with my collection of bodies and L-lenses. Just because they have a better eye than mine and because they can take the shot.

Good point, Pierre. But that's a completyely different issue. There is an argument to be made that the camera doesn't matter. Ken Rockwell made that point a few years ago and a very long thread ensued on LL as a result.

If you truly believe that the camera doesn't matter, then the Nokia 808 is all you need  .

[BJL]

Everyone has a standard with which they are comfortable.

Exactly! My point is simply that by some standards (such as those of DMF users like Anders_HK) you also "[waste your] time deliberately taking technically substandard images", and I rather imagine that you would object at length if a post here described your photography in those disparaging terms. One absurdity in your words is your self-confident judgment as to what is a waste of anyone else's time.

I will only add that some of us use different standards in different circumstances.

[Ray]

Exactly! My point is simply that by some standards (such as those of DMF users like Anders_HK) you also "[waste your] time deliberately taking technically substandard images", and I rather imagine that you would object at length if a post here described your photography in those disparaging terms. One absurdity in your words is your self-confident judgment as to what is a waste of anyone else's time.

I will only add that some of us use different standards in different circumstances.

Ah! Now I see what you mean. When I wrote, "However, those who just can't be bothered wasting their time deliberately taking technically substandard images simply because it's so easy and convenient, will not be so excited", you actually got the impression that I might be referring to the highest possible technical standard known to mankind. Is that right? 

However, I really can't understand how you could arrive at such an interpretation. Knowing that I'm a fairly logical and rational sort of guy, and knowing from my past history that I support the view that larger sensors in general tend to have a quality advantage, and knowing that I don't use the latest MFDB equipment, then surely it must have been obvious from the context that my phrase 'technically substandard' referred to a personal standard of what is acceptable quality to me.

Such a personal standard will be influenced by the size of prints I make or intend to make, as well as my history of what I've considered in the past to be acceptable quality. My printer is the 24" wide Epson 7600. An IQ180 DB is unnecessary for such modest size prints of, say, 24"x30", in my view.

If one can't tell the difference between A3+ size prints from a P45 and the Canon  G10, as Michael demonstrated a while back, I suspect one will not be able to tell the difference between an IQ180 shot and a D800 shot when both are printed at a 24"x 30" size.

I rather imagine that you would object at length if a post here described your photography in those disparaging terms

Not at all, BJL. Technically substandard is not a disparaging term. It's merely a statement of fact, assuming of course that we agree as to the definition of such standards; for example, using the standards that are addressed by DXOMark, plus the resolution standard not addressed by DXOMark.

One would have to assume that anyone who spends $100,000 or more on MFDB equipment does so because he sees that the technical quality of the images can be superior to those from the smaller 35mm format. I have no objection at all to any user of MFDB equipment asserting that image quality is, or at least can be at certain ISOs, superior to the best quality that 35mm can offer. If it wasn't the case, one could assume that such a person had been seriously misguided in spending so much on MFDB equipment.

Such issues of choice of equipment, at least for the amateur and hobbyist, can be clarified with reference to a couple of basic economic principles that I've mentioned before, namely, 'utility' and 'opportunity cost'.

In very basic terms, the sort of choices we face when we don't have unlimited funds, or don't have more money than we are ever likely to spend, might be as follows:

(1) The latest MFDB including a few of the best current MF lenses, but no new car, and perhaps not even a car at all. Perhaps just a bicycle.

(2) A modestly priced small car plus the latest 35mm system with a few good lenses, instead of the much more expensive MFDB system.

(3) A more luxurious and spacious car but instead of the latest 35mm system, a good, cheap, compact P&S camera suitable for prints up to A3+ size when lighting was good, or perhaps just a phone camera like the Nokia 808.

When making such choices, an individual should not only consider what he can afford, but the amount of satisfaction he expects to gain from the use of such products.

If one were truly fanatic about image quality, one might get more satisfaction riding around on a bicycle, or catching a bus, carrying and using one's MFDB. The satisfaction and convenience of driving one's own car may be less than the additional satisfaction gained through using MFDB equipment, compared with substandard 35mm. Got it? 

Of course, you can substitute the car with any number of alternative products in this sort of example.