Anonymous, 02 Dec 2020Now I want statistics on how many of those multiple cameras are actually usable.
Dedicated ... moreDepth could be used for a lot more than Portrait, but not with a 2Mp resolution, it would require an equal depth resolution as the final (binned) output picture (which is often 12Mp).
But indeed a camera able to shorten his depth of field can easily do real Portrait.
And Macro camera can't be really replicated with an Ultra-Wide, the issue isn't even that it is a dedicated camera, the issue is the stupid low resolution used for such sensors, 2Mp or 5Mp, when quite cheap and good quality 12Mp sensors are available.
2Mp camera, Macro or not, aren't acceptable in 2020 for anything other than ultra cheap smartphones, 5Mp give acceptable quality (we are still really far from good or excellent).
Having autofocus isn't enough, so far only the Ultra-Wide have been used to have a Macro mode, but between Telephoto, Ultra-Wide and Wide/Standard, the Ultra-Wide is the least adapted for that.
In short, it require to get even closer to take the same pic while having a really bad focus area making the working focus area quite far from the objective, all pictures taken with them are barely real Macro.
The Telephoto is all designated for the job, but it would require manufacturers to do a little R&D to make a good focus capable of getting quite close and change the depth of field.
But indeed, most sensors are quite Meh in what they offer.
There are solutions, like my single sensor omnirole periscope for exemple :
Thanks to having a single sensor and a deep focus control, you can do all those with a single sensor, reducing the cost and allowing to pick a top quality sensor.
As a bonus you can even use the main sensor for the front camera.
Other solutions probably exist, I haven't checked.
Anonymous, 02 Dec 2020Now I want statistics on how many of those multiple cameras are actually usable. Dedicated ... moreI'd argue for telephoto over ultrawide personally. Ultrawide is great if people have a use for it, but a lot of people just don't use it. A telephoto has many more use cases.
It has nothing to do with the fact that there are almost no new phones being made without "quad" cameras.
Now I want statistics on how many of those multiple cameras are actually usable.
Dedicated depth is trash, portrait photos can be done with a single sensor.
Dedicated macro is trash, since any camera with good autofocus can do just that.
Dedicated 2x telephoto is usually trash, since most of the times there's a trashy sensor behind it, so you're better off with digital zoom from the main sensor. 3x or higher zoom does actually make a difference, even if the sensor is not that good.
Dedicated ultrawide is mostly usable, if you really need it.
Every phone almost comes with quad cam...do consumers have choice anyway?
Anonymous, 01 Dec 2020Rather have 2 very good cameras than 1 good one and 3 mediocre ones.Careful, "Sage NB" might read that.
O S, 02 Dec 2020Prime lenses are more compact compared to zoom lenses.
Prime lenses are much faster compared ... moreI would agree if we could have a single sensor that could fit multiple lenses, either through manually changing like regular DSLR, or with a rotating mechanism as it was rumored the Nokia 9 Pureview would have.
But smartphones camera sensors can quickly become expensive, a "good" 12Mp sensor is cheap, but the monster sensors can quickly become a big part of the phone's cost.
This is for this reason that Camera today are mainly single lens, because of the cost of the sensor (and also to allow to choose what lens you want).
But a Smartphone isn't the same thing, the lenses are extremely compact, too much, there isn't any lens as compact as those in Cameras for that reason, even Pancake lens are thicker than the whole smartphone.
This is why Periscope arrangement made its way in smartphones in the first place, as flat lenses arrangement is way too small for many things.
And because smartphones have such small components, it is actually fast on a Smartphone's Periscope.
If you talk about aperture related fast, the Periscope can actually allow to have a bigger front element than the sensor's size using a parabolic concave mirror to act as a lens that will easily convert this big front element image that a wide aperture have to a smaller lens size in the periscope.
If you talk about mechanical speed, the small size make everything act considerably faster also we are coming toward tech like liquid lenses but also flexible mirrors who have advantages over lenses and are also incredibly fast and make a lot of senses in a periscope setup.
On a camera, you can have multiple prime lenses, you can change as you want, it isn't a big deal, but on a Smartphone, it become an issue with you only have so much options, also the quantity of light the sensor receive doesn't make everything as ton of computation come after that, meaning that fast or slow lens won't really change much.
But the most important part is that smartphones aren't for pro and amateurs only, the vast majority of users don't know much about photography, and they rather have a continuous zoom than having to crop, that's the same reason why editing is also automated, most users simply want to aim, press a button and have an uploadable picture.
But having multiple Prime Lenses with different focal length can be great for a smartphone really aimed at photography amateurs (enthusiasts) and pros.
But for not having a too high cost, you would rather have a single sensor and a rotating lens :
one big sensor is always better than 4, 5 or even 6 tiny sensors
i don't know why OEMs don't understand this simple fact.
Anonymous, 01 Dec 2020Stop with the fetish 689 is the best hardware.
Not even Vivo wants to use it.
Same as I said to "P-CHM".
Gosh this website could really use a group answer feature...
AnonD-558092, 01 Dec 2020Why would a specific sensor be inaccessible for a single, specific branch of BBK when the othe... moreBecause it doesn't work that way it is more complicated than that, not only there is a difference between Oppo and Oppo Mobile, but also the biggest link between Oppo and OnePlus is the investors, related compagnies don't necessarily share the same stuff, which is exactly why Sony Smartphones don't use Sony sensors, the popular IMX686 or any IMX5xx and IMX6xx not even the newest IMX7xx aren't in any Sony Smartphones.
Your logic also work on the other way, why would both brand adopt this sensor if it was that bad ?
But also, one thing we can all agree about is that the IMX689 is better than the IMX686, after all it is a modified and improved variant of it, so why would Vivo took the 686 for the Vivo X30 and X30 Pro if the Find X2 Pro with the 689 just would come 1 month latter, if it wasn't known yet that it was a bad sensor, it would have make senses for Vivo to also use it on what is their high range at the time, or even for the Flagship Vivo Nex 3s.
Same with Realme who recently released the X7 Pro with an IMX686.
Regardless, the 689 is still among the top, along with IMX700, Samsung 108Mp and now the Omnivision OV48C, which by the way, why no more use when we know that the Mi 10 Ultra is one of the best camera phone still ?
It isn't because something is the best that everyone will use it, look at google who made the Pixel 5 with a Snapdragon 765G rather than putting the 865 as many expected and despite having a Pixel 4a which is basically the same as the Pixel 5 already.
Or Samsung who still use the old Qualcomm 3D Sonic and refuse to switch to the way better 3D Sonic Max despite many complains about the old sensor and the massive upgrade the newer one offer.
And this is the same thing about 2Mp sensor, as much as one can like Macro, no one will ever agree that 2Mp sensors are good, mainly considering that something like the main sensor of the Meizu 16 series is a couple Sony, the 13Mp IMX380 and the 20Mp IMX360, you can find BOTH (they are fitted together) on spare parts for the Meizu at 12$, the 2Mp sensors aren't free, so just putting a 12Mp sensor for the Macro or for the Ultrawide rather than a 8Mp one would make senses.
But yet, despite everyone either wanting no more Macro camera or a better camera for this lens, they still insist to put 2Mp Macro sensors, even a year after 5Mp Macro are used by other brands and the Poco F2 Pro received praise for its nice TeleMacro with 2x optical zoom 5Mp Macro.
See, it isn't as simple as "it is the best so we put it".
I didn't say the IMX689 is THE best by the way, it is just among the bests.
AnonD-909757, 01 Dec 2020TL;DR :
It doesn't work like that, peoples are tired of many camera.
Only two camera wo... morePrime lenses are more compact compared to zoom lenses.
Prime lenses are much faster compared to zoom lenses.
I would rather have multiple prime lenses than a pair of zoom lenses.
Ideally a prime lens from each of the six categories of focal lengths
Yes ALL the lenses no matter the focal length should be Macro capable as Macro lenses of different focal lengths find different uses
Are we even left with a choice? 🤣
Rather have 2 very good cameras than 1 good one and 3 mediocre ones.
This is as dumb as the big screens. If market is full of them and only these features then where is the choice for the customers ? Even the most low end phones are coming with quad cams these days like with the 6.4-6.9 inch screens with every class level. It's not cause everyone want to have 4 cameras or 7 inch screen when customers have no other choice left on the table.
AnonD-909757, 01 Dec 2020Lol, first, on ANY camera test it is always among the top. Second, it is an exclusivity to On... moreWhy would a specific sensor be inaccessible for a single, specific branch of BBK when the other branches can access it? Doesn't make sense.
Of course, as the usual consumer will buy everything hyped by their marketing teams. The AI craze is a prime example, where the undefined term AI was slapped everywhere it could possibly be. Now that it has become "ubiquitous", you have this explosion of useless sensors. As noted previously in the comments, these extra sensors are only there for show. You are already able to get depth information without a dedicated 2MP sensor (or some added even lower res ones). Then, these exact same depth sensors are used as macro lenses. Why not combine them? They're both highly noticeable when a prospective buyer examines a phone, and they're both inexpensive. It basically costs nothing to add them.
And finally, we only see those sensors on lower-end devices. Anyone knows why? Could it be because they're useless? I wish the tech press didn't give such behaviour a free pass.
(Waiting for the return of Intel RealSense, for when they need a reason for even more sensors. Easy two extra sensors)
I mean, if the only phones being released are with 3 and 4 cameras with most having the latter, its logical theyd be more popular as there is no other choice.
One good camera with OIS is more than enough compared to trash quad or penta camera setups.these days adding more useless cameras is a trend settled by Chinese brands
Anonymous, 01 Dec 2020Stop with the fetish 689 is the best hardware.
Not even Vivo wants to use it.
Lol, first, on ANY camera test it is always among the top.
Second, it is an exclusivity to OnePlus/Oppo, normal that Vivo can't use it, duh.
Aside from flagships, most phones that have quad-cam setups have only 2 useable sensors anyway (normal+ultrawide), the "macro", "depth", etc cameras are basically just for show.
So in reality, dual-cameras is currently the most common standard among phones...