Camera Phones Outpace Digital Cameras

[Jerry Raia]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://www.mobileburn.com/news.jsp?Id=1451' target='_blank'>http://www.mobileburn.com/news.jsp?Id=1451</a><br /><br /></div><i>"Cover your ears, camera manufacturers - according to a newly published Mobile Imaging Report (published by Future Image), sales of camera phones will dwarf sales of digital cameras in 2005. Tony Henning, managing editor of the Mobile Imaging Report, told the Sydney Morning Herald, 'More than 300 million camera-phones will be sold during 2005, compared to about 85 million digital cameras.'"</i><br /><br />I would think this would only affect the sale of lower end cameras as we are approaching 2 megapixel phones. So at what point would you give up a digital camera for a camera phone? I'm not talking high end cameras but just the pocket models.

[Stinger]

I don't really think it's a matter of how many megapixels the camera has, but of the quality of the resulting photos and features that the cameraphone has.

My main digital camera is a Nikon taking pictures of "only" 2.1MP resolution. The pictures are of an adequete size to fill my entire computer screen and that's good enough for me. However, where it really sets itself apart from cameraphones is that has an optical zoom, proper flash, macro mode and I'm able to manually adjust the settings. Without these kinds of features, a cameraphone is never going to take pictures of a high standard in all conditions.

Having said that, I do find that I'm using it less and less. Certainly for applications like photo blogging, I use my 1.3MP cameraphone and it does the job well.

[Jerry Raia]

Excellent points :)

[Mike Temporale]

Assuming quality improves along with the increase in Mega Pixels, then I think I would start to focus on using the phones camera around the 3+ megapixel mark. I would still have another camera - at least until the camera phone has proven to be good and reliable. :)

[leslietroyer]

While pixels are important. I sure lust after the 12x optical zooms and image stabilization on the newer cameras -- I doubt that the phones can match either of these two specs any time soon.

Les

[sojourner753]

that statistic seems Kind of worthless.

its harder to actually find a decent phone ( let alone smart phone) without a camera these days. :roll:

its not like the choices are equal,

[Jonathon Watkins]

Never.

The optics on phones won't ever be anywhere near the quality of real cameras.

Like Sojourner753 I simply want a great phone without an inferior camera attached.

[Mike Temporale]

Never.

The optics on phones won't ever be anywhere near the quality of real cameras.

Never? Ever? I don't know about that.

Take the Canon SD110, it's a nice small compact 3.x mega pixel camera with great optics (not amazing, but way better than many larger cameras), now take a look at the Audiovox SMT5600, the smallest Smartphone on the market. If you combined those two devices today, the result would be a large cumbersome device. (Not anywhere near as big as the ipaq with a sleeve attached ;) ) Inside of 3 years, I would expect these devices to be at least half the size they are today. (I think that's a conservative estimate) Which means combining them would produce something smaller than the camera is today. It's going to happen, it's just a matter of time. :D

[Jonathon Watkins]

.... Which means combining them would produce something smaller than the camera is today. It's going to happen, it's just a matter of time. :D

I disagree. :) The physics dictates that the optics need to be a certain size. Combine that with the sensor sizes and you're simple not going to get a good optical path. Sure, flexible liquid lenses etc are coming, but personally I will always stick with a real camera and not a toy.

Are you going to take a cameraphone to record a graduation, your kid's birthday or another important event? Of course not, if you value the images. :wink:

I would prefer a great small phone, without camera (to decrease cost, improve battery life and enable me to carry it everywhere) and a great camera (small such as my Canon Ixus 40 or larger like my Canon Pro1).

The ergonomics and handling of a real camera will also always beat that on a compromise/convergence device, so for me, it is indeed never.

[Jason Lee]

I had to vote 1mp. I basically quit using my digital camera after i got my first camera phone. It was only 0.3mp. 8O

Since then i've upgraded to the sx66 and a 1.3mp SD camera. It is nowhere near as nice as an internal camera but it's not too much of a pain.

When i would take my cannon digital camera on trips and such i wouldn't take any pictures.. it was a pain to carry, get out, power up, take picutres... It is much easier to just flip open my phone, which i carry anyway, and snap a pic.
I'm rather mad that cingular took the internal camera out of the sx66 but from the pics i've seen from the pda2ks it was worse than my moto's 0.3mp so i guess i am better off with the SD camera.

My next pocket pc phone has to have a camera in it. No matter what.

If i can get desent quality 640x480 pics that is enough for me. That is the rez i have my cannon set to all the time anyway! :)

[sojourner753]

Never.

The optics on phones won't ever be anywhere near the quality of real cameras.

Like Sojourner753 I simply want a great phone without an inferior camera attached.

I prefer them without as well. But the truth of the matter is that there is a bias in the market.

If you had never even heard of a camera phone and when shopping, I'd say there is a 90% chance that the phone you pickup has a camera.

So its not really about consumer preference, but vendor saturation. :roll:

Camera phone sales don't have as much to do with what costumer's whant is it does about what carriers want to push to get data revenue.