iPhone 3GS camera

[JustinStacey.x]

First off, no, this is not a joke.

While I would love to have one of those fancy DSLR cameras that takes amazing photos, wakes you up in the morning and serves you breakfast, I don't have that kind of money. I also could do with a new phone, I love my iPod touch, and need a new camera. An iPhone will essentially roll those items into one.

I tried the camera on the 3GS yesterday and while the stills shot mode is still a bit wobbly (likely lacking image stabilisation), I was rather impressed by the video mode. It looked smooth and of a respectable quality for a phone. I am not looking for something that is earth shattering but it at least has to be fairly clear, able to produce a stable image even over relatively quick movements (moving trains) and have reasonable sound quality. For those of you who have the iPhone 3GS, is the camera up to these standards?

Ideally I'd be looking to better this (by a large margin if possible) which is my old camera... >>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=55KXkrPy4ZE

If the iPhone 3GS provides better audio and video quality than that, I am sold.

 

[rww100]

While I would love to have one of those fancy DSLR cameras that takes amazing photos, wakes you up in the morning and serves you breakfast, I don't have that kind of money.

There are actually quite a few half-decent DSLR's available on the market for less than the £440.40 RRP stated on the apple website for the starter 16GB iPhone 3GS. Take the Sony Alpha A230L for example which is £395. Now to be honest, I havn't got a clue what that camera is like but based on brand quality and reliability it seems like a good deal seeing that you 'would love to have one of those fancy DSLR cameras'. You can also still have a reasonable low-mid range mobile phone on top of that and still be within the budget required for an iPhone 3GS (I'm assuming the iPod Touch doesn't need replacing).

Although not trying one out yet, the iPhone 3GS seems like a good attempt at an all-rounder, but I'm sure it won't be near the top for each specific function it can fulfill, eg. the camera doesn't appear to be much better than that of a standard phone without all of the eye candy which you could have for a couple of hundred pounds less.

Personally in terms of a camera, I have a Sony CyberShot DSC-HX1 which although not being an SLR, is not too expensive (£337.93) and has plenty of advanced features such as auto-stitching panoramas, the ability to shoot Full HD video, and being able to shoot up to 10 full resolution frames per second is surely good for a rail enthusiast. For phone calls, music and video, I'm happy just to use my bog standard Nokia mobile.

 

[JustinStacey.x]

Well, the reason I am biased towards the iPhone is because of the fact that it will roll my three main gadgets into one.

Although the iPod touch is fine, I like what it does so much that I basically want something like it that can do internet, email, IM, anywhere. And then add the fact that I could do with a new phone and a camera, it seemed like a decent choice, if I go contract for 2 years, say.

Can many modern SLR cameras record video with good quality sound also?

 

[mumrar]

Can many modern SLR cameras record video with good quality sound also?

That's now the latest must have on the new batch and some do full HD so I'd class that as good quality. The question of rolling the three in to one comes down to choice. Jack of all trades, master of none. A phone only requires you hear the person at the other end and has good battery life in my opinion. I'd sooner have good photos, no video, no sound and a basic phone (that I can post this from and read email). Apart from anything else, if you can do stills and video, how do you choose between the two??

 

[JustinStacey.x]

As long as the video quality is clear enough and not the size of a postage stamp with reasonable sound that's all I ask for. I'm the kind of person who'd rather a jack of all trades than carry around in my pocket than a phone, an MP3 player, and a camera.

That said, if I did get an SLR camera I'd be able to do so much with it, such as being able to photograph the stars at night with long exposure shots, for instance.

Decisions, decisions...

 

[mumrar]

As long as the video quality is clear enough and not the size of a postage stamp with reasonable sound that's all I ask for. I'm the kind of person who'd rather a jack of all trades than carry around in my pocket than a phone, an MP3 player, and a camera.

That said, if I did get an SLR camera I'd be able to do so much with it, such as being able to photograph the stars at night with long exposure shots, for instance.

Decisions, decisions...

If you're a creative type it's the best thing you'll ever do I'm on to my third (and fourth) and since Dec 2004 I've took nearly 100k shots. Granted lot's don't see light of day, but it's the freedom to experiment and create that I love the most

 

[JustinStacey.x]

I am a creative type but having said that I have taken some amazing shots with point and click camera, I am almost used to it, having to do the hard work yourself to make the shot good...

 

[mumrar]

I am a creative type but having said that I have taken some amazing shots with point and click camera, I am almost used to it, having to do the hard work yourself to make the shot good...

Yes but on a point and click you don't have to set the shutter speed and aperture and understand what can be achieved with the different values.

 

[JustinStacey.x]

Oh I know exactly what SLRs are capable of... I am just trying to work out whether I am really 'bovvered' about the extra benefits of one and having to lug it round or whether I can settle for 'less' and only carry one item around in my pocket.

Really what I was aiming for in this thread was for folks who have the 3GS to let me know how its camera performs.

 

[LondonLarry]

The iPhone 3GS is only a 2MP camera, has no flash and no zoom. If you want decent pics, you can pick up a 10MP camera for under £100 from somewhere like Argos.

 

[37401]

I use a Vivitar Vivicam 7330, 7 mega Pixles, can take great shots at 70mph and beyond cost me next to nothing! (£80-£85)
Its got cracking auto focus and does video too (however I dont use it for video so I cant say what thats like)

Just a few (resized) moving pics ive taken with it to give you an idea

60011:http://victorialine67.locos.fpic.co.uk/p59626655.html

A good example af the detail it pics up:http://victorialine67.locos.fpic.co.uk/p59935776.html

66301 (50mph): http://victorialine67.locos.fpic.co.uk/p59910320.html

It can do good shots and it is not £400

 

[JustinStacey.x]

Well, I think I've decided against the iPhone after some thought. Thanks all for your input.

 

[25322]

I used to have a nokia n95 as my phone. Great 5mpix camera for taking landscapes,slow moving or staionary trains. and was handy to have about when I was least expexting a shot

http://colinburgess.fotopic.net/p52498760.html

Took reasonaable video too at 640x480 (NTSC) quality


but god help you if you tried to taking anything moving at speed. this is the result

http://colinburgess.fotopic.net/p53817746.html.

Invest in a decent camera and a less flashy phone

 

[JustinStacey.x]

Lol, thats caused by a lack of digital image stabilisation

 

[asylumxl]

Nothing to do with stabilisation.

It's called rolling shutter error. The sensor registers the image top to bottom, hence the top is closer to the camera than the bottom.

It's a feature of most phone cameras and cheap digital cameras.

 

[JustinStacey.x]

Ahh, ok, thanks for clarifying, what does image stabilisation do then?

 

[asylumxl]

Reduces motion blur when taking photos of static objects. Say you're shooting at night, you need the shutter to stay open longer to basically gather more light. As you do this, your hands will move slightly/alot, resulting in blur to the image. Image stabilisation attempts to counteract your movement resulting in a sharper picture.

 

[25322]

Nothing to do with stabilisation.

It's called rolling shutter error. The sensor registers the image top to bottom, hence the top is closer to the camera than the bottom.

It's a feature of most phone cameras and cheap digital cameras.

other way round I would guess or it would have been leaning backwards if the shutter started at the top and finished at the bottom.

Personally I just think its the magnetic atraction of Rugeley (hahahahahahahahahahahahaha)

 

[asylumxl]

other way round I would guess or it would have been leaning backwards if the shutter started at the top and finished at the bottom.

Personally I just think its the magnetic atraction of Rugeley (hahahahahahahahahahahahaha)

Pedantic much .

Depends on if it's traveling forward or backwards really. I assumed forward.