Camera on the Icon compared to a stand alone camera

[Jonathan Dotson]

I recently got an Icon and love it. And the camera is AWESOME!

I was just curious how the camera on this phone compares to a stand alone camera. I'm not a photographer and for the most part phones are my primary camera so I don't really have anything to compare it to (besides other phones).

Is it better than the cheap point and shoots? What about the sub $300 cameras?

 

[onlysublime]

I think the Icon's camera is pretty great... for a phone. I still don't think phones look as good as a decent point and shoot. I think people get conditioned to think smartphone pictures are good pictures. like some friends with iPhone 4 and 5... they think their pictures are terrific. until they see their photos side-by-side with other cameras.

plus, the speed of the Icon for taking pictures is still too slow. That's why I use ProShot because the picture taking is faster. But ProShot doesn't support RAW which is very important to me. The upcoming Denim firmware is to help out a lot in terms of photo taking and speed especially.

 

[DavidinCT]

I compared this about a month ago. We have 2-3 year old Sony camera (12 MP, was like $350)....I took pictures with both of them. The ICON's pictures had better color and detail. And when I did a lower light picture (just a small lamp on in a room), the ICON blew away the Sony camera.

So my Sony camera just sits around collecting dust...

I guess if you were talking a modern sub $200 point and shoot, it would be close if not better in some cases on the ICON but, if you were talking about a high end SLR, nah, not even close.

....
plus, the speed of the Icon for taking pictures is still too slow. That's why I use ProShot because the picture taking is faster. But ProShot doesn't support RAW which is very important to me. The upcoming Denim firmware is to help out a lot in terms of photo taking and speed especially.

Yea, the ICON is VERY slow but, this is a common thing with Nokia cameras (same on my old 928) with that being said, the Denim update is claimed to take pictures as fast if not faster than the iPhone (my wife has one(5s), so yea, it is fast but, pictures are far better on the ICON).

Now if Verizon will actually release Cyan, never mind Denim....we can have it..

 

[Neil Hinkle]

It depends on the Camera/Lens you're comparing it to. I use my Icon more as a point and shoot when I'm at events and conventions but I have a Canon Rebel T3i that I use for work and, although it is lower megapixels, the quality of the actual lens is much higher than what you would see on a smartphone. Nevermind the fact that phones are typically going in and out of pockets and are much more prone to abuse than an actual camera, so that lens might have small scratches or other damage that can impact the quality of a photo. Plus the LED flash on my icon doesn't hold a candle to a properly used external flash.

Love my Icon but it's not really fair to compare to a decent camera. It's probably a solid replacement for something like a Cybershot though.

 

[awilliams1701]

I've actually seen the 1020 compared to a point and shoot. The 1020 has a similar camera but more mega pixels. I don't recall if it has xenon flash or not. The point and shoot was better, but not by much. It was a super marginal improvement. With that said neither will compare to a real camera like a DLSR.

 

[psiu_glen]

The 1020 was in a comparison (along with an iPhone, 5 maybe?) with some DSLR's (and a film SLR). The end result was, they figured phones like the 1020 might be 5-6 years behind at this point, which is exceptionally good. Will have to see if I can dig that link up. Also, check out the National Geographic Nokia 7 Wonders Challenge.

For my usage, yes. We bought a basic Canon ELPH model around Chrostmas 2011 to replace our aging Canon S2. We had our first son in 2010 and the older camera couldn't handle him, especially indoors.

When I got my 928 last summer though...pretty much the end of my using the little Canon. I can shoot, and then later do any reviewing, quick fixes, and immediately post or send the pics.

The Icon takes amazing outdoor (daytime) shots and indoor isn't too bad either.

I actually still use both, the 928 is leaps and bounds better in *very* low light situations, and the xenon flash is handy with 2 boys 4 and under.

 

[psiu_glen]

Ah, here's the article I mentioned: http://m.connect.dpreview.com/post/5533410947/smartphones-versus-dslr-versus-film

It was the 5S and 1020 versus a raft of DSLR's dating back to 2003.

One last thing.

Went on vacation in September, got to see family, blah blah. Spectacular photos, all on the 928/9. Sent out a mass group of photos, plus a couple sets tailored for a few different groups.

One thing my dad said in response kind of applies here: "Hard to believe the quality of cell
phone cameras. 15 years ago there was still talk that film would never be replaced by digital cameras."

While I think film still has its advantages especially in the more extreme areas...crazy that we are now talking about whether cell phone camera measure up.

 

[Jonathan Dotson]

Thanks for the replies.

I'll definitely check out the link.

 

[awilliams1701]

Nah a good DLSR + the convince of digital negates the need for film.

Ah, here's the article I mentioned: Smartphones versus DSLRs versus film: Smartphones versus DSLRs versus film: A look at how far we've come: Connect

It was the 5S and 1020 versus a raft of DSLR's dating back to 2003.

One last thing.

Went on vacation in September, got to see family, blah blah. Spectacular photos, all on the 928/9. Sent out a mass group of photos, plus a couple sets tailored for a few different groups.

One thing my dad said in response kind of applies here: "Hard to believe the quality of cell
phone cameras. 15 years ago there was still talk that film would never be replaced by digital cameras."

While I think film still has its advantages especially in the more extreme areas...crazy that we are now talking about whether cell phone camera measure up.

 

[psiu_glen]

Nah a good DLSR + the convince of digital negates the need for film.

Shooting medium or large format (like 6x6 for example) with transparency is ideal for landscapes. Better, even.