Die Camera trägt auf

CARBON 1 MK II Carbon 1 MK II: Product Latest
#1

Wenn ich mich recht erinnere, war im Vorläuferforum eine Ansage, dass Ihr daran arbeitet die Kamera in das Gehäuse zu integrieren, weil dies durch die flache Bauform zusätzlicher Bemühumgen bedurfte. Nun ist es jetzt ja nicht mehr ganz so flach, dennoch trägt die Kamera auf wenn ich die Bilder richtig interpretiere. Waren Eure Arbeiten demnach nicht erfolgreich oder ist die vollständige Integration nur verschoben um erstmal in den Markt zu kommen?

If I remember correctly, there was an announcement in the previous forum that you were working on integrating the camera into the housing, as this required additional effort due to the flat design. Now it’s not quite as flat anymore, but the camera is still drooping when I interpret the images correctly.
So was your work not successful or is the full integration just postponed to get to the market earlier?

1 Like
#2

I am using a Huawei P30 Lite at the moment. Before i had Sonys Z5 and X compact. The cameras werde not bad, but not comparable to the unit in the Huawei. Which is my first smartphone that makes a digital camera useless for me because of its good zoom. I guess that Carbon had to react to the trend for much better cameras. And if Apple and Huawei are Not able to fit them into a 7mm case, how could Carbon be?

#3

I could live with worse camera performance, if the camera would be flush with the rear case. I feel that a “camera bump” spoils every device that they exist on.

My Smartisan U2 Nut Pro has a flush twin rear camera design and it is only 6.98 mm deep. The carbon is classed as 6.3 mm deep although that does not specify if that includes the extra depth of the camera. The newer Smartisan models are slimmer, but have that camera bump again. That’s why I chose the U2. I bought my Essential PH-1 as it had no bump, the camera wasn’t goo, but then I didn’t care about that as much as I did the lack of signal everywhere I went. I thought the Samsung SGH-X820 had a better approach, the camera bump on that ran across the full width along the top of the 'phone. Much more pleasing to my quest for symmetry. That Samsung was slim too. 6.9 mm at it’s widest.

The Smartisan takes good pictures. Good enough for me if I’ve forgotten my real camera. My Canon camera takes much better pictures, but then so it should. As someone who adores taking photographs, for me, a 'phone camera is the modern equivalent of an Instamatix or a Polaroid instant camera. Great if you have left your camera at home. Great for capturing a moment. Not a replacement for a dedicated camera. So as far as I am concerned the camera is a bonus. If it’s alright, that’s all I ask for. If it’s great or superb, I wouldn’t use it any more or any less. Slimming it down to improve the aesthetics at cost of some pixels? Yes please!

1 Like
#4

I agree with MkStevo: I could very well live with a camera that is somewhat less spectacular if it was flush with the body.
Volker

#5

@MkStevo less spectacular is fine. But it shouldn’t be embarrassing! Andy phone should be able to take at least decent photos, don’t you think?

#6

That’s a difficult question for me to answer. I use my 'phone camera only for two things. I use it at work to take pictures to send to customers to illustrate how to do something, where a plug might fit on one of our products or where a particular part might be located in a cabinet, that sort of thing. Or I use it if I’m out, need to take a picture of something and I’ve forgotten my “real” camera. If the camera captures an adequate image for both situations, I’m happy. If it doesn’t I’m only annoyed that I didn’t have my real camera with me, not particularly annoyed with my 'phone for not being good enough. The tiny sensors and lenses in a 'phone cannot realistically hope to better a sensor that is many times larger, with a lens that is also rather better optically. I realise that 'phones, given the right conditions can take wonderful pictures, but in those same situations, a real camera would always (in my opinion) take a better picture. Very clever software can perform miracles, no doubt, but I wouldn’t be likely to consider replacing my camera in favour of any 'phone camera.

I had a Peugeot RCZ car. That was a 2+2, two seats in the front, two seats in the back. When we needed to give a lift to someone we did use the two rear seats, they were good enough. But the journey for those in the rear would have been more comfortable in a Peugeot 308 (the platform on which the RCZ was based) which had four “real” seats. The 308 was designed to seat four, and was better for four people. The RCZ was designed to make you gasp and stare at its beauty. Which I did every time I looked at it!

#7

The cook is frying the steak, not the pan. The photographer takes the picture, not the camera. Of course, the best camera is always the one you have with you. Today it’s the smartphone and unfortunately that doesn’t lead to more good pictures. And this is not due to the lack of quality of smartphone cameras.

Der Koch brät das Steak, nicht die Pfanne. Der Photograph macht das Bild nicht die Camera. Die beste Camera ist natürlich immer die, die man gerade dabei hat. Heute ist das das Smartphone und leider führt das eher nicht dazu, dass es mehr gute Bilder gibt. Und das liegt nicht an mangelnder Qualität der Smartphone Cameras.

2 Likes
#8

Having a camera with you all the time allows moments to be captured that would otherwise be lost. I use my 'phone camera to capture those moments. If I have my “real” camera, I would always use that. So, for me, a 'phone camera needs only to be capable of capturing those moments. My camera should strive for optical excellence, my 'phone should strive for communication excellence.

2 Likes
#9

I think that the last posts say it all:
Yes it is good to have a (any) Camera with you all the time, for snapshots; they can enliven for example a fotobook.
But: for good quality pictures, you still need a proper camera with a top lens!
Look at the pics that you made at less than optimal lighting conditions! That is where a quality lens will shine, where you do not need flash…

So, I am happy to have a camera with me all the time, but I will not expect artistic or top-quality photos.
Therefore, I can live with a smartphone that offers snapshots and does not strive to rival a Leica lens (or similar). That is why I still have a small-footprint camera with powerful objectives that I can still carry around easily.
Volker

#10

I totally agree with @Achim! It’s you that takes the picture not the camera!
And while I understand that only a proper camera can take proper pictures, I personally don’t want to carry that extra pice of hardware around. We always carry our phones with us. So their photos should at least be decent enough that you don’t wince every time when you show some spontaneous snapshot to your friends on your TV.
With that, I’m perfectly happy! For more you have to take a camera and not an phone.

1 Like
#11

Which thickness will the device have with the camera that sticks out ?