By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
kowenicki said:
Of course it is and this is better than most compact digital cameras.

Most people use their phones for taking pics now. The end of dedicated compact cameras is nigh.

I will always still have a decent SLR (I'm a Nikon man myself) but for snaps I use my phone all the time. This is merely a way of replicating decent zoom.

This phone is awesome.

anything greater than 15-20mp is a waste unless you're building wallsize photos.  Putting even large in a phone with no real long or wide lense is just stupidity inmo.  Seriously....41mp with that lense?  It's a joke camera for people who look at base stats and get all horny.  A 41mp base 

Result

File size
TYPEFILESIZEDESCRIPTION
RAW12 61,4 MB (uncompressed 12 bits/pixel - Bayer mask)
RAW10 51,2 MB (uncompressed 10 bits/pixel - Bayer mask)
RAW8 41,0 MB (uncompressed 8 bits/pixel - Bayer mask)
BMP 122,9 MB (uncompressed RGB 24bit/pixel)
TIFF 245,8 MB (uncompressed CMYK 48bit/pixel)
OPENEXR 327,7 MB (uncompressed RGBA 4 * 16bit float/pixel)
 FILE COMPRESSION ESTIMATIONS
JPG100 4,4 MB (100% quality - 24bit/pixel)
JPG90 2,2 MB (90% quality - 24bit/pixel)
GIF 11,1 MB (compressed - 8bit/pixel)
PNG 16,0 MB (lossless compressed - 24bit/pixel)
  
Memory card
TYPEFILESIZE32MB256MB512MB1GB
RAW12 61,4 MB 1 4 8 16
JPG100 4,4 MB 7 59 117 229
  
Video
TYPE15fps24fps25fps30fps
RAW8 614,4 MB/s 983,0 MB/s 1,0 GB/s 1,2 GB/s
RAW10 768,0 MB/s 1,2 GB/s 1,3 GB/s 1,5 GB/s
RAW12 921,6 MB/s 1,5 GB/s 1,5 GB/s 1,8 GB/s
RGB24 1,8 GB/s 2,9 GB/s 3,1 GB/s 3,7 GB/s
JPG90 32,8 MB/s 52,4 MB/s 54,6 MB/s 65,5 MB/s
  
Print size
typemax widthmax heightdescription
72dpi 88,9" (225,8cm) 88,9" (225,8cm) screen resolution
photo 42,7" (108,4cm) 42,7" (108,4cm) normal photo print
300dpi 21,3" (54,2cm) 21,3" (54,2cm) hi-res print

yes, up to 90"x 90" which is the size of a wall.  LOADS of use for that size photo besides the fact you'd need to take it to a printing house to get it printed.  God only knows what the cost would be but I bet more than $100 per photo...

Couple that with a lense that is about 5cm deep and you have yourself some real good quality pfffft.