Why?
Why do you need a dozen cameras in your smartphone?

Why not just have one pretty good camera, and understand that any photography hound with fifty grands worth of DSLR and twice that in swappable lenses will always take snaps that'd make your Smartphone piddle in it's Otterbox?
Or are we transitioning away from Smartphones and back to Camerphones, now?

Also, if there is, somehow, an actual valid reason for all these cameras, why can no phone salesperson come up with an explanation?

I guess the reason is that the aggregated/composite result from a number of tailored lenses vs a single, albeit good quality, lens is going to be better across a variable range of photography scenarios.

I don't think anyone is arguing that this will be better than a £50,000 DSLR - but if the DSLR user sees fit to have specific lenses for specific scenarios, why shouldn't a smartphone user?

The difference here is that the smartphone user doesn't have to worry about changing lenses to suit the scenario, the software (hopefully) make all the decision to get the best shot whatever the circumstances.

One good lens might be great, but there's no way it can do the best job in all circumstances (zoom/macro/low-light/landscapes/sports/portraits/HDR/video), whereas a multi-lens system has a better shot at it.

Ttaskmaster
Also, if there is, somehow, an actual valid reason for all these cameras, why can no phone salesperson come up with an explanation?

If my understanding of this is correct it's kind of similar to lytro. From what I can tell each lens is a different focal length and it can retroactively adjust focus etc after you've taken the picture.

Considering the lack of adjustment on a smartphone this is actually quite a good thing if it's implemented well.

Actually I suspect we'll be able to find out more when the Nokia 9 is released because rumours seem to suggest that it's going to have 5 lenses in a similar arrangement to the top image in the article and I wouldn't be surprised if this is what's powering it.

Salazaar
I guess the reason is that the aggregated/composite result from a number of tailored lenses vs a single, albeit good quality, lens is going to be better across a variable range of photography scenarios.

OK, sort-of understand that part… although half the scenarios I can think of still require the photographer to hump around a load of lighting kit and tripods and the like.

Salazaar
The difference here is that the smartphone user doesn't have to worry about changing lenses to suit the scenario, the software (hopefully) make all the decision to get the best shot whatever the circumstances.

So this is designed to be a smartphone with £50k DSLR capability, basically?
Sort of like a Leatherman Micra that incorporates a complete set of Marples chisels, a bandsaw, a thicknesser-planer, a tablesaw, and a pillar drill… but still requires the user to carry their own mains power source and workshop?

Ttaskmaster
OK, sort-of understand that part… although half the scenarios I can think of still require the photographer to hump around a load of lighting kit and tripods and the like.
So this is designed to be a smartphone with £50k DSLR capability, basically?
Sort of like a Leatherman Micra that incorporates a complete set of Marples chisels, a bandsaw, a thicknesser-planer, a tablesaw, and a pillar drill… but still requires the user to carry their own mains power source and workshop?

Not exactly in either case… I'm not trying to say that a cluster of lenses like this is ever going to replicate a DSLR, even a cheap one. But with a DSLR, the photographer typically does carry around a bunch of lenses to suit different circumstances (and tripods, lights etc.) and so a cluster of of lenses on a phone can be more adaptable to varying conditions than a single lens ever could (especially in the compact factor that a phone necessitates).

The Leatherman analogy is a good one, though I'd use it differently. The single lens is a good quality screwdriver (great at driving screws, okay at opening paint tins, not so good at much else) but the multilens smartphone is a Leatherman, it can do most jobs pretty well and slips in the pocket. And in this analogy the DSLR is a white van loaded with pro-tools, brilliant, but I'm sure not driving that to work ever day!

Ttaskmaster
Why?
Why do you need a dozen cameras in your smartphone?

Why not just have one pretty good camera, and understand that any photography hound with fifty grands worth of DSLR and twice that in swappable lenses will always take snaps that'd make your Smartphone piddle in it's Otterbox?
Or are we transitioning away from Smartphones and back to Camerphones, now?

Also, if there is, somehow, an actual valid reason for all these cameras, why can no phone salesperson come up with an explanation?

well I think where technology (in regards to smartphone) is going is that they eventually want to be as good as DSLR that they might even replace them

Ttaskmaster
Why?
Why do you need a dozen cameras in your smartphone?

Flexibility of photography, with a device that can fix it your pocket, compared to lugging around loads of bulky equipment :)

Ttaskmaster
Why?
Why do you need a dozen cameras in your smartphone?

Why not just have one pretty good camera, and understand that any photography hound with fifty grands worth of DSLR and twice that in swappable lenses will always take snaps that'd make your Smartphone piddle in it's Otterbox?
Or are we transitioning away from Smartphones and back to Camerphones, now?

Also, if there is, somehow, an actual valid reason for all these cameras, why can no phone salesperson come up with an explanation?

WTF. That's what the whole article was about!every single one of your inane questions. read mate!

Could it be that ALL of these cameras have the same focal length and overlapping fields of view. One limitation of the smartphone camera is the sensor size and the potential for noise as well as a reduced dynamic range. If you take 6 pictures simultaneously, you can have two or three cameras shooting at different exposure settings to improve the dynamic range without the temporal element you get with a single camera amalgamating 3 sucessive exposures and then on top of that you can use the data from all of the cameras to identify and eliminate noise. Thus you get HDR and noise reduction without loss of detail. In theory.

It'll be rubbish. Just imagine the effect of a slight lens imperfection due to a pocket mishap with your keys?

Smaller lens - worse quality, it is a rule, it does not matter how much small lenses this smartphone has.

Sixiepoo
well I think where technology (in regards to smartphone) is going is that they eventually want to be as good as DSLR that they might even replace them

Laws of physics make small lenses and small sensors worse than bigger ones. Now using lots of cameras will catch different photons so can get you an effective larger sensor area, so that's a win specially in lower light or fast shutter conditions.

But the lenses? Lots of small lenses will all have the same diffraction problems, and unlike the sensors I don't see how lots of them helps. It's like having lots of partial sensors so you can add them together, but lots of lenses conveying the same faults in their output so I'm fascinated if there is any maths that can cancel those lens limits out. It feels like the old saying that 9 pregnant women can't make a baby in a month.

Most people just want to take snaps for Facebook, and single camera phones are pretty good at that. I guess the real market for these fancy phone cameras is for people like me with no photography talent to try and compensate for that with technology. Personally, I just shrug and hand the camera to someone who knows how to use it :)

Salazaar
The Leatherman analogy is a good one, though I'd use it differently. The single lens is a good quality screwdriver (great at driving screws, okay at opening paint tins, not so good at much else) but the multilens smartphone is a Leatherman, it can do most jobs pretty well and slips in the pocket. And in this analogy the DSLR is a white van loaded with pro-tools, brilliant, but I'm sure not driving that to work ever day!

I also liked the Leatherman™ analogy because, while having one is better than having nothing, every task for which there's a tool on that Leatherman™ would be done better by its dedicated tool equivalent.

johnnyringo
WTF. That's what the whole article was about!every single one of your inane questions. read mate!

I did. Questions weren't answered, hence asking them here. Other posters had to answer instead. Some remain unanswered. Think you got what it takes?

Will be dificult not to close one of them with your hand)

sinhaomar
Will be dificult not to close one of them with your hand)

I imagine you'd be using it with a micro tripod anyway, to eliminate camera shake…?