

Samsung leapfrogs Nikon with Galaxy camera, 16mp 21x optical zoom and jellybean - tarandeep
http://geeknizer.com/samsung-galaxy-camera-16mp-android-jellybean/

======
arihant
What is the point when the pictures will be all weird. To get 21x zoom on that
sized camera, you need a horribly small sensor. The sensor on this is a bigger
than iPhone's, but they also crammed in 16mp. Now, that screwed them to limit
the fstop value to f/2.8 widest open. Note that widest open will happen at the
time when you're zoomed out completely. You will most likely end up using the
f/5.5+ fstop value on this camera on most images.

Any image this can produce would be way worse than an iPhone. Usually, you are
shooting at f/2.4 on an iPhone. Notice that blurring smooth creaminess you get
on off focus areas on iPhone? You will never get it from this camera. Things
will either be focussed, or bluntly blurred.

They don't care about image quality at all with those specs. This is a
marketing gig.

~~~
majormajor
I don't think it's fair to compare the aperture of this lens when zoomed in to
the aperture of an iPhone lens. Without using it, my first guess is that
having an optical zoom is going to do more for general purpose image quality
than what is lost by cramming 16mp into a small sensor. Obviously it depends
on the use case, but in general, people like to zoom.

On a less speculative note, I disagree that image quality = narrow DOF.
There's more than one style of picture in the world.

That said, I agree with the overall point of it being mostly a marketing
gimmick (16MP on a tiny sensor? app store access? yawn). But then I'm a guy
who's not happy without at least an APS-C size sensor, preferably with
interchangeable lenses. And even then, it does drive me crazy that this can
have GPS built in and my SLR requires an obtrusive, reportedly-very-slow add-
on.

~~~
arihant
People like to zoom, but I'm not entirely sure if a 480mm effective focal
length is what most people zoom to. When I used a point and shoot, 6x zoom
seemed enough, but that's only one man's opinion.

GPS and wireless access pisses me off too, just for the cost alone. GPS unit
for my DSLR is like $250. This is nuts.

------
kevingessner
16 megapixels packed into a 1/2.3" sensor? Ouch. That's the smallest sensor
size on this image:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sensor_sizes_overlaid_ins...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sensor_sizes_overlaid_inside_-
_updated.svg)

I hope DPReview does a review on this camera -- I suspect it's going to
produce extremely poor photos.

~~~
pkulak
Yup, it's a real shame. Imagine if they made it 5 megapixels, with BSI and
full well? You could still make 8x10 prints (if anyone still does that...),
but you could also take photos of your friends in a dark bar with no flash at
f4. It would be amazing. But no one is doing it, and I have no idea why. Even
the SLRs are now up above 20 megapixels. Why? I'm really anxious to see if
Apple has the balls to keep the next iPhone at 8, or if they bump it up to 13.

~~~
slantyyz
If you buy into the notion that the ideal sensor pixel size is around 6
microns, the megapixel count on a 1/2.3" sensor would only be around 0.8
megapixels.

On the other hand, I recall one of the leading sensor designers (Eric Fossum?)
stating that high megapixel counts don't necessarily sacrifice image quality
or sensitivity.

------
iharris
I'm not convinced that a point-and-shoot camera can be considered "pro".
Thumbs-up for manual exposure settings and the inclusion of Android, but a
single f/2.8-5.9 lens is not going to be suitable in a lot of situations. I
also don't see a flash (or flash mount) anywhere, which would make it annoying
to take photos in a dark bar or restaurant.

Alternatively, I think it would be neat to apply some of these features to
Nikon/Canon's existing DSLR lineups, eg. having wifi/4G connectivity on a DSLR
that didn't require an $800 attachment.

~~~
r00fus
Completely Agreed - add to that an external mic, switchable lenses, high ISO
(DSLRs can go as high as 8x higher) - some of the other things a "Pro" might
want of the camera.

Though this product looks nice - what's the point? - that you can play Angry
Birds on your P&S camera? Keep in mind P&S cameras are a shrinking market
being cannibalized by smartphones and DSLRs.

~~~
slantyyz
>> what's the point? - that you can play Angry Birds on your P&S camera?

Instagram? Snapseed? Hipstamatic? Direct upload to Facebook? Untethered
transfer of images to your other devices?

------
aristidb
Having a full 3G modem in a camera, and a flexible operating system to control
it is certainly nice. Having a camera that just uploads everything to Dropbox
(or whatever), that's awesome!

However, I have some doubt. One thing is that I think all the regular
"smartphone" features here are a distraction. No, I quite certainly do not
want to check my e-mail on my camera. I'm all for having a flexible system
there, so people can build new innovative image editing software to use right
on the camera, and let me install this on the camera, but PLEASE keep in mind
that a camera is still a special-purpose device.

The second doubt is, as others here have indicated, that this particular
camera might just not be very good.

------
jemeshsu
Interesting that camera get the latest jellybean before Galaxy phones. I guess
next up will be a Galaxy TV. And Galaxy fridge that auto order to restock your
pizza and beer.

~~~
w1ntermute
The camera's software isn't controlled by carriers, unlike smartphones.

------
dgudkov
It's a bit early to say that it _leapfrogs_. Any camera is as good as its lens
is good. And Nikon makes it better.

~~~
slantyyz
>> Any camera is as good as its lens is good.

That might have been true in the film days, but these days sensor quality is
just as important as the lens.

>> And Nikon makes it better

I don't know if this is particularly true about their lower end point and
shoots, and that's where I would categorize their Android camera.

------
205guy
Wow, so much negativity in these comments. To me this is the logical
conclusion of the phone camera (a lot of people had this idea, I'm sure, but
they seem to be the first to get it out). After bashing Samsung for their
iPhone copying, I applaud them here for making something innovative. Camera
phones (always available, and now internet connected) are a not-insignificant
part of the social web revolution--people want to see and be seen (and apply
some filters, too).

Front like a camera, back like a phone. Slick UI to control the camera instead
of the usual confusing array of buttons. Image quality should be equivalent to
other P&S, which is better than the usual camera phones. 16 MP is just a
number to sell the thing into the target demographic: active camera phone
users, not DSLR users.

And I think leapfrogs is not an exaggeration. If this takes off, Samsung will
have the edge and can start branching out into other wireless-enabled cameras,
camera OS's, and who knows what else they can think of. The pure camera
manufacturers will be playing catch-up forever, just as the old cellular phone
manufacturers were leapfrogged by Apple and never caught up.

~~~
TylerE
But how do you hold it comfortably with that big bump on the back?

~~~
jarek
Hold it like a point and shoot camera.

------
mrspandex
Why on earth would I want my camera to be running a full phone OS? It's one
thing to build a camera into a phone for convenience, but when will having an
OS and touchscreen in the back of my camera make something more convenient?

~~~
esolyt
There are smartphones, tablets, netbooks, watches, ski goggles running
Android. It is interesting to consider Android as a "phone OS".

Sure, your camera doesn't need apps. Neither does your phone. But just because
it's not necessary, doesn't mean that it won't provide lots of benefits. You
can, for instance install Dropbox and use Camera Upload to automatically sync
all your photos to all your devices the moment you shoot them.

~~~
slantyyz
>> Sure, your camera doesn't need apps.

A lot of people seem to like using apps on their phones for photography
though. This Samsung camera seems like a great Instagram camera.

~~~
esolyt
That's exactly what I meant. A camera doesn't NEED apps, but it would be
useful to have the ability. I would definitely use Instagram and Dropbox
Camera Upload with this device.

------
rocky1138
The price for the first phone: $1 billion

