What are some of the best camera phones? Or maybe I should ask, what are some of the best cameras that just happen to be on phones?

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>Here is one site that addressed this question:</p>

<p>http://www.cnet.com/8301-17918_1-20088755-85/best-cell-phones-for-shutterbugs/</p>

<p>Any guidance would be appreciated.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[leslie_cheung]

<p>It's not so much the phone itself but the apps and connectivity of the mobiles. The nokia N8, for example, has a better (bigger) sensor and lens. But the IPhone has much better OS and many, many more apps...</p>

[sarah_fox]

<p>Is there such a thing as an app for any phone that will save raw output and allow the user to do the raw conversion in the computer?</p>

<p>How about noise issues? My Moto Droid (original) phone has a pretty noisy image.</p>

[leslie_cheung]

<p>Jpeg isn't the worst thing in the photo world, Sarah. Thousands use it day in, day out. Like <a href="http://lightbox.time.com/2012/02/10/the-2012-world-press-photo-of-the-year/#1">these</a>...</p>

[pcnilssen]

<p>I find that the phone images improve when you get time to work on them. I have an iPhone 4 - and are never happy with them out of the "box". I know there are many very good images made with this phone, so either it is my phone og it is me. I guess it is me - and I don't have the stamina to work with them - I rather use a compact or a dSLR.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>I'm quite happy with what my current phone produces (Nokia Lumia 800). It's not far off from what my compact P&S does, except for the lack of zoom. But yes, the phone I always have with me...the P&S often not. So, it's nice that it works well enough for the occassional moments. But in the end, I have it because it is a good phone. Would it have had a lousy camera, I'd still have bought it.</p>

<p>The Nokia N8 is a better camera, though. Whether it has an inferior OS, as Leslie suggests, now that's is a matter of taste, and not fact.</p>

[tom_mann1]

<p>@LC - <em>"Thousands use it day in, day out. Like <a rel="nofollow" href="http://lightbox.time.com/2012/02/10/the-2012-world-press-photo-of-the-year/#1" target="_blank">these</a>..."</em></p>

<p>I'm not disagreeing with you, but exactly how do you know those photos were JPG only. Maybe I missed it, but I didn't see anything in the text that said that. With sat phones and/or USB thumb drives, they could easily have done JPG+raw and transmitted both file formats back to their editors for processing.</p>

<p>Tom M</p>

[leslie_cheung]

<blockquote>

<p>I'm not disagreeing with you, but exactly how do you know those photos were JPG only.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Tom, exactly my point. Can you tell if the photos were shot from raw or jpeg originally? Would these otherwise sucks if they were only jpegs? </p>

[tom_mann1]

<p>Leslie, unfortunately, your logic is flawed. Of course, looking at the final output, one can't tell the difference, and of course, the standard format for the web is JPG, so, of course "thousands use it day in and day out."</p>

<p>However, that's not Sarah's point, nor the point under discussion. Sarah is saying that having raw output increases the versatility of the camera. </p>

<p>If you showed me both the final version of the image and the JPG that came out of the camera, in many cases, I could tell if the JPG had been corrected or if the corresponding raw file had been used for correction. For example, if there was detail in deep shadow areas that needed to be considerably lightened, or areas that needed a large color correction, and you showed me both the "in-camera" version and the "after processing" version of the image, I could make a very good guess as to whether the correction was done on a raw or a jpg. </p>

<p>Tom M</p>

[leslie_cheung]

<blockquote>

<p>Sarah is saying that having raw output increases the versatility of the camera.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, I understand, RAW is more versatile, I'm not disputing that at all. I'm just saying thousands use jpegs everyday still. It isn't the worst thing in the world. The photojournalist world, at least in 2008, predominately used jpegs. Maybe the PJ landscape has, this past three years, changed because HD/cards/flash drives are so much more affordable and smaller. But my point is still the same, jpegs aren't that bad. And no offense, Tom, but just because you *could* guess correctly, that doesn't lessen the value of those photographs.</p>

[sarah_fox]

<p>Leslie, as Tom suggests, I do like the versatility of raw files. I'm really not interested in apps to create this style or that. All I would want is control over the gain (ISO) and shutter speed and the ability to save a raw file. (I presume a variable aperture is out of the question -- and probably pointless even if it were variable.) I guess I'm a control freak. ;-)</p>

[leslie_cheung]

<p>Okay, control freak;>)</p>

[rdm]

<p>I would get the iPhone if i had the money. Plus i would get the iPro lens system, from Schnider optics, for it. http://www.iprolens.com/</p>

<p>My second choice would be <a title=" POLAROID ANNOUNCES THE SC1630 SMART CAMERA POWERED BY ANDROID™ " href="http://www.polaroid.com/en/press/2012/1/10/polaroid-announces-sc1630-smart-camera">THE</a><a title=" POLAROID ANNOUNCES THE SC1630 SMART CAMERA POWERED BY ANDROID™ " href="http://www.polaroid.com/en/press/2012/1/10/polaroid-announces-sc1630-smart-camera"> POLAROID SC1630 SMART CAMERA POWERED BY ANDROID™ </a><br>

http://www.polaroid.com/en/sc1630#/module-1525</p>

[murphy_kins]

<p>You may want to check into the Samsung galaxy S4 the <a href="http://reviews.cnet.com/smartphones/samsung-galaxy-s4/4505-6452_7-35627724-2.html">reviews</a> are looking pretty good.</p>