Shot By Adam wrote:
So not long ago every idiot with <$1000 could be a wedding photographer with a DSLR and a kit lens because, well, Nikon and Canon told them they could. Now it looks like that isn't even necessary because you can just do it on your phone. The best part is, while you are shooting your wedding this way, you can take calls on the same device and book your next wedding at the same time! Talk about multitasking!

Welp, I guess it's time for me to hang up all my gear and call it quits. Now everyone can shoot a wedding on their phone. Thanks Microsoft!

Get Busy Living or Get Busy Dying....

Mike Collins wrote:
They could make it a 100MP camera.  Still won't make a photographer out of someone who is not.  Let's not be so ignorant. 

Don't we always make the statement "It's not the camera , it's the person behind it"?  So it's a large MB camera...in a phone.  Big f'n deal.

I agree completely. The problem is, the camera companies keep making ads saying everything to the contrary.

Mike Collins wrote:
They could make it a 100MP camera.  Still won't make a photographer out of someone who is not.  Let's not be so ignorant. 

Don't we always make the statement "It's not the camera , it's the person behind it"?  So it's a large MB camera...in a phone.  Big f'n deal.

+1

same goes for an expensive camera and equipment,
doesn't make a photographer, but most of us already knew that. I really don't see someone showing up to an important shooting with a phone,  being taken seriously? Like the commercial said , she was hired by Nokia to shoot to advertise a product for a commercial, who else will do the same?

Phantasmal Images wrote:
Here's an article comparing the older version of the Nokia with the 41mp sensor against the iPhone, several DSLR's, and film.
http://connect.dpreview.com/post/553341 … ersus-film

My phone (Samsung Note 4) has a Sony 16mp, 0.5" sensor. It takes nice pictures... for a phone. I wouldn't choose it over a DSLR, but I'd probably take it over a P&S camera in many cases. Especially once Android 5 is available for it, which is supposed to add DNG raw image support.

I have a Note 4 also, and for what it is, I think the camera is great. Even at night, I've been able to get shots that I wouldn't have a problem displaying.

I'm not rushing out for a 50mp camera phone, but I wouldn't have a problem owning one either. It's not hurting me if others own one. I don't understand the outrage. If people think it makes them photographers, so what? Let them think what they want. If you know you're better, then you're better and your work will speak for itself.

GRMACK wrote:
Brought to you by Microsoft and Nokia, the Lumina 1030.  Sensor made by Toshiba.

http://www.slashgear.com/lumia-1030-lea … -01357919/

At the bottom there is a link about some pro shooting weddings with her cell camera.

Here: http://www.slashgear.com/nokia-lumia-10 … -06307954/

No one asks the important question.
What is the rate plan?

Robb Mann wrote:
So, it's unlikely to shoot RAW or have 14-bit dynamic range, but in a consumer camera having that many pixels lets you do some interesting things.

Camera commercials and advertising are often totally disconnected from reality. Remember that Canon commercial that showed you you could take awesome pictures if you set a tire on fire and rolled it down a hill?

I just hope Apple continues to push for higher image quality.

The 1020 has RAW. Don't see why the new camera wouldn't.

Mike Kelcher wrote:
How many mega-pixels does a person really need?

Have you ever seen photos from the Hubble telescope?

The Wide Field and Planetary Camera 2 (WFPC2), which was installed during the first servicing mission in 1993, and which has taken many of the signature images produced by the telescope, consists of 4 CCD chips, each 800 pixels by 800 pixels. This basically means it is a 1600 x 1600 pixel camera or about 2.5 mega-pixels.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wide_Field_...

The idea behind it is that you can take a picture, then crop (zoom) and not lose quality. Have you used the digital zoom on a regular smart phone before? It kills the picture quality. I have the 1020 and trust me it is way better than most smart phone cameras. Once the cropping is done it saves it to a manageable sized JPEG file.

analog light wrote:
The idea behind it is that you can take a picture, then crop (zoom) and not lose quality. Have you used the digital zoom on a regular smart phone before? It kills the picture quality. I have the 1020 and trust me it is way better than most smart phone cameras. Once the cropping is done it saves it to a manageable sized JPEG file.

I get that, but, despite all those mega-pixels, there's no control over the aperture or shutter speed and essentially it's a "snapshot" fully automatic camera.

Digital zooms do suck and are a horrible way to crop. However, cropping to a similar degree in PhotoShop produces a decent result from a camera of much less than 50 mega-pixels.

Mike Kelcher wrote:

I get that, but, despite all those mega-pixels, there's no control over the aperture or shutter speed and essentially it's a "snapshot" fully automatic camera.

Digital zooms do suck and are a horrible way to crop. However, cropping to a similar degree in PhotoShop produces a decent result from a camera of much less than 50 mega-pixels.

You actually do have control over shutter speed, iso, and exposure compensation on the 1020. There is even manual focus...No aperture control though.

Mike Kelcher wrote:
How many mega-pixels does a person really need?

Have you ever seen photos from the Hubble telescope?

The Wide Field and Planetary Camera 2 (WFPC2), which was installed during the first servicing mission in 1993, and which has taken many of the signature images produced by the telescope, consists of 4 CCD chips, each 800 pixels by 800 pixels. This basically means it is a 1600 x 1600 pixel camera or about 2.5 mega-pixels.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wide_Field_...

Yeah, but with an effective focal length of 57,600mm, those 2.5 megapixels kick the shit out of my D810 36 megapixels with a 600mm and 2x converter on it.