2019

It's still an indication of sensor and image processing advancements.
Lowlight does matter a fuck of a lot
More photons captured is always better

>doubling down on low light capability is the only spec that matters
>implying a tiny virgin sensor can stand up to chad thunder cock's sensor
You really have no idea about the differences between small and large sensors do you?

This for

Pixel quantity does not equate to image quality dumbass

Smartphone cameras are 90% software nowadays

Sensor size does

We are talking about sensor size here brainlet. Try to keep up.

>software is what captures light to create a photograph
ok

He's right, It's all in the post processing.

>post processing can turn a shity picture into something great
Nope. Just because that is the sales pitch doesn't mean its true. If it was DLSRs would have tiny shitty senors like point and shoots. Large sensors are superior to little shitty ones. Not just for image quality but a myriad of other reasons.

All phone cameras use shitty little sensors and usually 2 element lenses. Processing makes a huge difference in the final output, take a raw picture on your phone and see the difference.

phone is not a camera, this meme needs to die

Yeah if your comparing apples to apples which your not.
FF DSLR sensors have been the same size forever yet APS-C from 2016 will produce better images than a FF sensor from 2006.

You can't solve the phone camera image quality problem by throwing a bigger sensor in it.

now THAT was a phone

Attached: 1547897410896.png (378x370, 120K)

Why would manufacturers use larger and more expensive sensors if they can just post process them the fuck out? Also social media fucks every photo quality with compression and people look at them on cellphone screens where downsizing hides a lot of imperfections

It's a p&s replacement even if p&s's has infinitely better image quality than a phone camera, normalfags just wants everything in one package(telephone, camera, computer etc.) and a phone gives it to them.
Can't blame them.
The problem with phonecameras is that you can't fit good glass on it, or rather it's really hard to produce good lenses for phones and I think you're wrong because slapping a larger sensor on a phone will reduce noise by a fuckton which is useful because noise is one of the things making phone pictures look like absolute shit thanks to having to apply shitton of post processing and denoise filters ontop.

Somewhat unrelated but I still find it funny that the effective megapixel count you get from the best phone cameras are around 1.5MP.
Phones are very far from reaching actual camera performance and it makes me wonder why they don't make a phone with a huge p&s lens on it, people would buy it.

>Lowlight doesn't matter
>One of the main advantages to larger sensors is lowlight performance

Noise grows exponentially with sensor size
Better sensors and post processing are key and that's exactly where the field has been advancing not mp and sensor size because those have proven to be dead ends.

Noise also becomes less noisy with larger sensors but I do agree with parts of your statement, sensor technology is way more important not MP count and DSLRs/MILCs are improving faster than smartphone cameras despite being in a smaller market now.
Post processing only matters for phones and point and shoots but even then you could put the raw photo you took into your raw editor of choice and get better results than what the camera offers, most people won't do that of course so yes post processing is important for most people.
Lenses are also extremely important, extremely so for phones since their sensors are so small and luckily they all have very wide open primes.

>All phone cameras use shitty little sensors
False. The Nokia 1020 used a 1/5" / 2/3" sensor. Yes I know that isn't as big as a full frame DSLR. That doesn't change the fact that the 1020's seonsor dwarfs all phone camera senors even today. OP's pic related

>I like shitty pictures that only look good displayed on social media using a 5" screen
ok

That's exactly what he's saying, phone photos only look good on phones, if you look at them trough your computer screen they'll look like shit, not even wallpaper worthy.

>mfw was actually excited for Windows phones
Why did it have to die the way it did? Fucking Pajeets didn't know what they had.

Attached: 1525810292073.png (997x781, 426K)

If you want good pictures, just use an actual camera. Smartphones are just p&s so you can share with your friends.

Attached: 1544642803490.jpg (563x651, 226K)

Better get crackin on that physics defying smartphone sized lens then.

how dare you tarnish the name of p&s's with phonecameras
points and shoots made after 2013 are actually good compared to phones, even the ones with microdick sensors perform well(looking at you rx100)

>$900 point and shoot
Yeah I'm taking the phone or DSLR instead

You really have no idea the benefit of a large sensor regardless of lens size do you?

In there defense a good lens can help with a shitty sensor but yah, you're better off having a larger sensor if possible no matter the lens.

I don't get people who are absolutely obsessed with smartphone cameras. The point of them is being able to snap an acceptable picture of something, or yourself. Some top tier phones have really good cameras with slo-mo capability, 4K recording, etc. WAY more than needed for 99% of people. If you're after some sincerely professional grade pictures, get a fucking camera. I have a note 9 and my $400 DSLR blows it out of the water using a $150 macro lens.

try $300 for a version without the bullshit lens, regardless though I wouldn't buy it because the sensor is as small as a phone sensor.
it still performs way better thanks to better glass and holds up as an example of why phone cameras are shit.

But muh one single device

You have no idea that a large sensor is not going to solve the diffraction issue with the tiny lenses in smartphones.

You do realize that that the larger the sensor, the more you get a DOF effect, right? So in most use cases of a smartphone camera, it would be effectively cropping the sensor to avoid that and make it completely fucking pointless, correct?
Have you ever used a proper DSLR?
anything that isn't 50 feet away from you gets blurry around the corners and edges, especially very close up things.

>2 element lenses
Didn't high-end Nokias use Carl Zeiss 4 element lenses?

Less elements are better so idk what he was even getting at

I got a huge disgusting DSLR with a 24-70 2.8 hanging under my jacket wherever I go.
I think the main problem with phone cameras is that the controls are just shit, I'm fine with the quality because you won't be using a phone for anything serious anyways but goddamn phone cameras are just shit to use, there's something about it that automatically makes you stop caring and take shitty photos instead of composing anything.

Pretty sure it's just you. Back in my Nokia N900 days I remeber threads (not on here) with pages upon pages of great looking photos taken with N900.
Then again, it had a two-step shutter button.

>You do realize that that the larger the sensor, the more you get a DOF effect, right?
This is negligible in the range of sensor sizes we are discussing,, 1/2.8”- 2/3”
>in most use cases of a smartphone camera, it would be effectively cropping the sensor to avoid that
The larger 2/3”sensor allows for a larger crop area.
That is the point of having a 2/3' sensor instead of 1/2.8”.
>Have you ever used a proper DSLR?
I started shooting 35mm film in 1979. What do you think? Have you?
>anything that isn't 50 feet away from you gets blurry around the corners and edges, especially very close up things.
That is why it is better to have a larger sensor.
The larger 2/3”sensor allows for a larger crop area.
That is why a 2/3' sensor is superior to 1/2.8”.

Attached: crop-factor-sensor-size.jpg (620x367, 53K)

Someone give this faggot a large sensor already

This thread is all kinds of funny.

one on the left has 5 of them though, which in terms of area is more than the 1020. And it's done without a gigantic hump.

those 5 cameras are for different focal lengths and calculating shitty looking fake bokeh.

it's called image stacking and focus stacking to get muh bokeh.

>different focal lengths
brainlet

Attached: .png (735x776, 337K)

and arguably with the monochrome sensors you're getting better overall resolution

Attached: .png (652x899, 637K)

I stand corrected

if you really wanted to stretch why not post the 808 Pureview or this with a 1" sensor?

Attached: .jpg (1280x960, 258K)

>I started shooting 35mm film in 1979.
What are you doing on Jow Forums, grandpa

>leica
I too like to throw away money.

>he doesn't know what Lumix is

Weren't the 1020's actually 5mp, or something like that? Iirc the cameras weren't that good.

effectively phone cameras only output 2MP pictures even if they have 40MP so if it's actually 5MP it's impressive.

If 5mp is impressive than you should get an old HTC one. The best thing about the 1020 iirc was the camera software, and the camera grip.

no I'm saying I really doubt it's able to output effective 5MP images.
I'm saying that extreme megapixel counts does not matter for phones because the lens has a limit to how sharp it can get, 5 megapixels for a phone is pretty darn impressive if you ask me.

My lg v30 has 1/3.0" small sensor, but f/1.6 lens
Photos from v30 are better then my previous HTC 10, which had 1/2.3" sensor + f/1.8 lens
So not only sensor matters, but also optics and software

mine outputs raw at 20mp

We had the x20 series, that was enough
>Lumia 620 still the best phone I ever had

Forgot about the 808, it shat over even the 1020, right?

I thought they snapped at 42MP and used a couple of those just for parity, and output 39MP or something.

your pictures are effectively 2MP because of your lens, your file might be 20MP but the picture sharpness itself isn't.

/thread

Windows Phone was pretty nice, sucks that chief-guy was fucking shit at being in charge.

But I think Nokia 9 is at the right path, well maybe a few sensors not 5, but in the sense of focusing on better image quality than ultra wide shit. They could implement a "native HDR" with that many cameras.

>I started shooting 35mm film in 1979
>What do you think?
Sad!

Exactly, they want a jack-of-all-trades device even though it's not going to be as good as focused ones.

QFT

Based. Never back down when proving smug zoomer retards wrong.

808 had a bigger sensor but 1020 had BSI and lens had OIS. 808 was better in good lighting.

That thing was very slow, though. The new phones can shoot much faster. A large aperture allows you to do that, I suppose. So, even if we didn't get better sensors, the lenses and the logarithm improved a lot. So, you can get great and better results with those phones.

>1:2.8
>1/5:2/3=3/10, which