A 48 or 64 MP camera on a phone seems kinda stupid in most cases. In order to really take advantage of that level of quality, the file sizes are going to be absurdly huge. Considering the limited resources on phones, really gets me to wonder what the point of this is. Seems like a good sensor for a standalone camera, but not for a phone. On the note of standalone cameras, I was thinking "why doesn't Samsung make DSLR or mirrorless full-body cameras?" and to my surprise: they do. Sure gets me to wonder though if their sensors are as good as they claim, seeing as I've never once heard of a professional photographer mention them.

They left the mirrorless ilc market (Samsung NX) awhile ago. Those new sensors are probably quad bayer sensors so 4 pixels are merged together (the photosites are so small the noise levels are probably pretty nuts) e.g 48mp produces 12 and 64 to 16.

"Flagship" phones will ship with 1TB of storage by the end of the year, or beginning of 2020, so storage of large 64/48MP images won't be an issue for high-end phones.

schmidtbag:

A 48 or 64 MP camera on a phone seems kinda stupid in most cases. In order to really take advantage of that level of quality, the file sizes are going to be absurdly huge. Considering the limited resources on phones and Samsung not typically including SD slots in flagship models (which these cameras are obviously going to be used on), really gets me to wonder what the point of this is. Seems like a good sensor for a standalone camera, but not for a phone. On the note of standalone cameras, I was thinking "why doesn't Samsung make DSLR or mirrorless full-body cameras?" and to my surprise: they do. Sure gets me to wonder though if their sensors are as good as they claim, seeing as I've never once heard of a professional photographer mention them.

Samsung get a lot wrong, but they do include Micro SD card slots on their phones, flagships included. And I doubt they'll use the 64 MP sensor to take crappy 64 MP photos. It'll probably combine information from multiple pixels and take a much lower res photo, at higher quality than what's available now.

You know what would be awesome: if a 64MP would take 4 16MP(or 16x4MP) images at the same time and stack them(like in photoshop->smart object->stacking). This would result in images that look VERY clean. Right now cameras do it by taking mutiple successive images which introduce artifacts due to movement. (if each pixel is defined by a number and the number shows the image number it belongs to (out of 4)) 12341234... 34123412... 12341234... 34123412... . . . . . . . . ...

labidas:

You know what would be awesome: if a 64MP would take 4 16MP(or 16x4MP) images at the same time and stack them(like in photoshop->smart object->stacking). This would result in images that look VERY clean. Right now cameras do it by taking mutiple successive images which introduce artifacts due to movement. (if each pixel is defined by a number and the number shows the image number it belongs to (out of 4)) 12341234... 34123412... 12341234... 34123412... . . . . . . . . ...

I think they'd be better off just finding a way to do a global shutter, or, to increase the speed at which the shutter sweeps. A global shutter is obviously the preferred option since frankly that's the right way to take photos and videos, but it is a lot more demanding of the hardware so I can see why they wouldn't do this in a phone.

I'm sure diminishing returns will affect this really badly. For image quality you want large pixels, to collect lots of light. Some professional cameras already boost over 40MP but either lenses can't take full advantage, or its hard to do so. Very few cases were more than 24MP are really needed. Thats why most video cameras are "low resolution", they use all the sensor and its enough. To record 4k you need 8.3MP, most cameras have 12 or 16. Oh, I know: next phone will record 8K, you need 33.2MP for that... Very useful, not. Rather have low light performance tbh.

Silva:

I'm sure diminishing returns will affect this really badly. For image quality you want large pixels, to collect lots of light. Some professional cameras already boost over 40MP but either lenses can't take full advantage, or its hard to do so. Very few cases were more than 24MP are really needed. Thats why most video cameras are "low resolution", they use all the sensor and its enough. To record 4k you need 8.3MP, most cameras have 12 or 16. Oh, I know: next phone will record 8K, you need 33.2MP for that... Very useful, not. Rather have low light performance tbh.

yep except if they start putting lenses about the size of the one the humble telescope has .... so many megapixels are just so they can advertise a bigger number than the last one ! ((obviously not the same lenses as telescopes and obviously i am over-blowing the size i am aware :P ))

So... nobody wondering if such a sensor even makes sense on a smartphone camera, when the real trouble with a smartphone probably is blurry images due to not using a tripod? 😀

Sensors are too small to take really advantage. I love the Mate 20 X camera as well as P30 Pro, but it's still a phone, especially compared to my trusty D850.

it wont be too bad for low light, if they switch pixel size, e. g. drop to 16MP which increases amount of light per pixel. and even if the phone has lots of storage, i doubt this will offer raw. processing that much data is already getting hard for dedicated cams. not even talking about the lens being the biggest limitation. one reason we saw an uptick in l sales for mirror less and compact cameras, even that all customers had a relatively new phone with +12MP. they do see the difference...

fry178:

it wont be too bad for low light, if they switch pixel size, e. g. drop to 16MP which increases amount of light per pixel. and even if the phone has lots of storage, i doubt this will offer raw. processing that much data is already getting hard for dedicated cams.

So, why offer the sensor in the first place (I'm not literally asking you for an answer to this)? If you have to drop to 1/4 the pixel density just to get sufficient light, that sounds like a major flaw to me. If the images have to be compressed so the storage and processors can keep up with the large influx of data, that sounds like a flaw to me. It really just sounds like they want this camera that looks beefy on paper but is otherwise impractical and not really capable of delivering. After all, this is why so many phone cameras claim some BS spec boasting of a high MP count when really the effective pixel count is 3/4 that amount and they just use interpolation or whatever to upscale. It's just shady marketing as far as I'm concerned. As you alluded to later in your post, the people who actually care about image quality know there's much more to a camera than pixel count. Personally, I think Samsung would have more success if they focused on reducing/eliminating rolling shutter and offered better performance in dark areas. That would give them a real edge.

not even talking about the lens being the biggest limitation.

Yup, the lens situation is the primary reason I got a DSLR.

as long it have some improvement over previous sensor (less MP) even slightest, it sells samsung not looking for world-changing-tech but rather just to create "improvement" which they use in their smartphone in daily use, except u are pro-photographer, smartphone camera is good enough for taking picture it dont have dlsr flexibility, but most people wont need those, as long they get clear picture everything is good