this post was submitted on 19 Apr 2024
36 points (90.9% liked)

Technology

4163 readers
537 users here now

Which posts fit here?

Anything that is at least tangentially connected to the technology, social media platforms, informational technologies and tech policy.


Post guidelines

[Opinion] prefixOpinion (op-ed) articles must use [Opinion] prefix before the title.


Rules

1. English onlyTitle and associated content has to be in English.
2. Use original linkPost URL should be the original link to the article (even if paywalled) and archived copies left in the body. It allows avoiding duplicate posts when cross-posting.
3. Respectful communicationAll communication has to be respectful of differing opinions, viewpoints, and experiences.
4. InclusivityEveryone is welcome here regardless of age, body size, visible or invisible disability, ethnicity, sex characteristics, gender identity and expression, education, socio-economic status, nationality, personal appearance, race, caste, color, religion, or sexual identity and orientation.
5. Ad hominem attacksAny kind of personal attacks are expressly forbidden. If you can't argue your position without attacking a person's character, you already lost the argument.
6. Off-topic tangentsStay on topic. Keep it relevant.
7. Instance rules may applyIf something is not covered by community rules, but are against lemmy.zip instance rules, they will be enforced.


Companion communities

!globalnews@lemmy.zip
!interestingshare@lemmy.zip


Icon attribution | Banner attribution


If someone is interested in moderating this community, message @brikox@lemmy.zip.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

The retractable camera lens works like a mini point-and-shoot!

all 17 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] RobotToaster@mander.xyz 48 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

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

[–] lnxtx@feddit.nl 10 points 1 year ago

Back in 2012: Samsung Galaxy S4 Zoom.

So we have come full circle.

[–] happybadger@hexbear.net 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] huginn@feddit.it 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year 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:

[–] jqubed@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year 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.

[–] pete_the_cat@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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

[–] huginn@feddit.it 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] pete_the_cat@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] huginn@feddit.it 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Congrats: you just proved you're not the average consumer.

[–] pete_the_cat@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'm pretty sure a lot of people agree with me, I remember seeing a poll a while ago where people said that they would rather have a thicker phone with more battery life than a thinner one.

[–] huginn@feddit.it 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's not what actual consumers prefer though.

People can say that all they want but the marketing facts are that the thinner phones have consistently won out.

[–] pete_the_cat@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Most users don't have a choice between thick or thin, especially if you've bought into the Apple ecosystem. Either you take their increasingly thin phones (remember the one that was so thin that it would start to deform from being in the front pocket of Skinny Jeans?) or you're "left behind".

The Android world isn't much better. Same thing goes for "tall vs short" phones. Try and find a top-tier phone that's 5" or smaller.

[–] huginn@feddit.it 0 points 1 year ago

When Apple offers small phones nobody buys them (see iPhone 13 mini)

When Android companies offer thick phones they lose out to the latest thin Samsung.

The phone manufacturers aren't idiots - they do a lot of research into what will sell the most phones.

Battery life and thick < thin.

[–] Grownbravy@hexbear.net 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] VelvetStorm@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Phones are not entry-level in photography.

[–] nokturne213@sopuli.xyz 1 points 1 year 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.