Huawei phone has a pop-out camera lens, just like a point-and-shoot camera

Comments

• RobotToaster@mander.xyz ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  In the years before the smartphone took over all entry-level photography, there used to be a thing called a “point-and-shoot camera.” This was a purpose-built device that only took photos

  Don’t do this to me

  source
• lnxtx@feddit.nl ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  Back in 2012: Samsung Galaxy S4 Zoom.

  So we have come full circle.

  source
• happybadger@hexbear.net ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  I hope that catches on. I hate that my phone is 80% as good as my $500 DSLR but has absolutely no depth perception. Software fills in the background with a shitty bokeh effect that ruined my favourite wildflower photo I’ve taken. If we get a trend of actual lenses then maybe that will start to go away.

  source

  • huginn@feddit.it ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    The problem is fundamentally a physics issue.

    You’re going to struggle to get depth of field on any pancake stack, much less one that is as miniaturized as a mobile phone.

    Also your sensor isn’t actually nearly as good as a DSLR. A DSLR has a sensor about 5x the size of a phone and that makes a huge difference in the photos.

    Here’s a handy graphic:

    source

    • Aria@lemmygrad.ml ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      Responding to the comment on the sensor quality.

      By posting this image, the takeaway that I think most people will have is that the phone camera will be somewhere around 4.4 by 3.3mm, and that’s 1.5% of what you want. But this one, the one in the article’s sensor is 9.8 by 7.4mm, somewhere in the middle of this chart.

      It’s also not a direct apples to apples comparison, because phones are smaller and thus have smaller lenses and so smaller sensors make more sense. If bigger is always better, then big cinema cameras would be even bigger, but they’re usually full frame. A smaller sensor doesn’t have to be worse, it just has to be more compact, meaning it’s more expensive, and that would often translate to worse, but in phones, compactness is a valued feature.*

      *There are physical limitations to how much light will hit a surface.

      source

      • -> View More Comments
• Grownbravy@hexbear.net ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  oh cool, now your phone can suck in dust that lands on the sensor and you’d either have to do a lengthy cleaning operation or live with it.

  source

  • lud@lemm.ee ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    The phone is IP68 rated so dust should be any problem.

    source
• pete_the_cat@lemmy.world ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  Yes, just what everyone wants, an even bulkier camera bump!

  source

  • huginn@feddit.it ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Remove the bump: make the phone thicker for more battery 😉

    Unfortunately the average consumer consistently prefers thinner phones. Thicker offerings sell worse than their thinner counterparts.

    source

    • pete_the_cat@lemmy.world ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      I would definitely rather have a thicker phone and have the back be uniform rather than a huge camera bump. It makes holding the phone in landscape so awkward.

      source

      • -> View More Comments
• jqubed@lemmy.world ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  I’ve figured it’s only a matter of time before this comes. With flagship phones costing US$1,000+ there’s starting to be room for that kind of cost.

  source
• VelvetStorm@lemmy.world ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  Phones are not entry-level in photography.

  source
• nokturne213@sopuli.xyz ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  I used to have moto z4 and it had a camera attachment and while it took some great pictures it sucked when you opened the camera app in your pocket and the lens popped out.

  source