So we could have a phone with a normal camera 40MP ,a high definition camera of 200MP. Both at reasonable price… OR A 200MP high end phone with a shitty battery for the price of a car.
We certainly live in a weird timeline
Does anyone see where the 200MP came from? The nothing phone they talk about in the article and all the other flagships have 40-60 megapixel. In was just recently looking at a bunch of new phones because I needed a new one and the highest I think I saw was like 60mp
I believe it’s the Samsung s23 ultra. As others have said though, the number is largely nonsense. My 20Mp mirrorless slr takes far better pictures and it simply comes down to sensor size.
Day-um! A 200MP camera!? That’s pretty awesome IMHO.
no, it’s pretty terrible. The 200MP number is basically a marketing gimmick. Each individual pixel is so tiny and receives so little light it’s a useless noisy mess. It needs to combine 16 pixels into 1 just to make a decent 12.5MP photo.
I guess I shoulda read the article, huh? Sounds pretty terrible.
It’s neat, but unless your making a billboard, that ain’t gonna matter.
It’s not gonna matter anyway since it’s 200M shitty tiny pixels. At best they could be used for pixel-binning, but you wouldn’t need that if you just had less, but bigger, pixels.
Most phone cameras exceed the needs of most people, and the better phones take really good pictures. They aren’t DSLR quality, but they do plenty well. No need for 20 lens that take up the entire back of the phone. When I travel, I use my Pixel to take my pictures because it does well, uploads them to the cloud, automatically stitches pictures into panoramas, and I always have it on me. I’m not trying to win any awards and to my untrained eye, the pictures look great. They are at the very least good enough for me to look at and revisit my experiences, which at the end of the day is all that matters to me.
Yeah, I feel like one decent 16MP chip with OIS would be the best option.
each image would take up about 55 megabytes of space.
