▶ No.985133>>985152 >>985161
One for the US, one for Russia, one for China, and one for Israel.
▶ No.985135>>985140
>taking photos with a smartphone
I literally have never used the camera in my smartphone
▶ No.985137
▶ No.985140>>985163 >>985196 >>985664 >>985924 >>985952 >>994313 >>994471 >>995584
>4 cameras on a goddamned phone
This is what happens when cucked companies try to chase Macfag dollars.
This bullshit all began when Mac cock gobblers began trying to use iPhones as "real" cameras
>>985135
>I literally have never used the camera in my smartphone
I use it for casual non-personal stuff, like visual note taking.
I assume that no camera photographs are really secure, however.
Nothing you do on your phone is ever really 100% secure. And if you carry a cell phone, your location is always known to the phone company.
▶ No.985141
>>985128 (OP)
Now finally the (((intelligence agencies))) can have 24/7 surveillance of every street corner in every town at the HD level.
One mediocre camera just wasn't enough for that, they needed actually different lenses.
▶ No.985150
>telephoto camera
Wow, fuck me, why? What a miserable future, I can already imagine the fat fucks using their phones rather than walking over and looking at something.
▶ No.985152
I wouldn't mind having three cameras, one being a regular visual spectrum camera, one infrared and the third ultraviolet.
>>985133
>and one for Israel.
Let's be honest here: They're all for Israel.
▶ No.985159>>985164
>>985128 (OP)
>meme cameras
I thought they would stop at amber-colored flashes that make everything amber for some retarded reason. Boy I wish I was right.
▶ No.985161
▶ No.985163>>985164 >>985535
>>985140
smartphones have been high quality enough for quite some years that they have completely changed (((journalism))). most just use their phone and upload it instantly and more or less automatically to try to keep ahead of the competition.
having a real camera is now a meme for hipsters.
▶ No.985164
>>985163
>>985159
Please tell me DSLR are better
▶ No.985167>>985172
Why not a fifth camera though? Are they skimping out on hardware to save money?
▶ No.985172
>>985167
>Galaxy Five Eyes Edition
I'll pass on that offer
▶ No.985196
>>985140
Phone cameras easily match the majority of consumer grade digital compacts though, in terms of image quality lad, the only thing left going for dedicated digital cameras is they have more settings, and even then phones can get apps like opencamera which give the all the basic features a normie would ever need
▶ No.985202
>>985128 (OP)
>direct linking to The Verge
>>>/g/
>>>/reddit/
▶ No.985218
What's wrong with that? I'm buying a Samsung smart phone once they release their patented Graphene batteries. I really hope they offer some burn-in free OLED and release the goddamned flexible pyrex display.
▶ No.985258>>985302
It's ridiculous that people buy expensive phones for the camera. It's so stupid. If you give a fuck about picture quality, get an actual camera!
▶ No.985302>>985317 >>985334 >>985349 >>985473 >>995594
>>985258
>spend 1000 on a pocket computer that can take very decent pictures among million other things
or
>spend 5000 on a huge and heavy brick that can take very decent pictures but is incapable of literally anything else
▶ No.985317>>985319
>>985302
Forget cameras anyways. The new future archive is gonna be audio recordings. Hearing a conversation you had 10 years ago is more impactful than a photo.
▶ No.985319
>>985317
Hence Siri, OK Google, Cortana and Alexa. It's just not going to be you hearing those recordings.
▶ No.985334>>985935
>>985302
Dumb nigger. I bought a pocket camera from thrift store for 7 dollars with better specs then that phone camera, 25mp with 15x zoom lens, AND manual focus. dumb cellphone niggers don't get that.
▶ No.985349
>>985302
1000 for a phone, or 5000 for a camera - both are too expensive. You can get a great phone AND a great camera for 500 total.
▶ No.985401>>985465
Actually this is the kind of thing they should have been doing for years. Putting a proper zoom lens into a camera is tough, and you end up with a thick camera even if you use mirrors or prisms to fold the optical path parallel to the camera body's long axis. Sensors and lenses the size of a period on a printed page are dirt cheap now, and this strategy will result in better image quality than a zoom lens anyway.
▶ No.985465
>>985401
Yeah it seems neat. The signal processing that's used to simulate what the photos should look like can only go so far. This method has the potential to keep taking nice photos towards the various extremes the lenses are labeled as being for.
▶ No.985467
>what is Huawei
slowpoke.jpg
▶ No.985472
Most people aren't out to take photographs, but would like to take a nice one if they happen to run into something and they're carrying a phone all the time anyway. Phone cameras in general are a good idea, but having more than 1 is pretty stupid. Maybe another for low light would be ok at most.
▶ No.985473
>>985302
>spend 1000 for a pocket piece of shit that spies on you but atleast you can post shit photos to social media
▶ No.985535>>985538
>>985163
>real cameras are memes for hipsters
Real cameras have usage. When your line of work is taking photographies with fine Nikons/Canons, editing them, and making highschool graduation diplomas, grade pictures, etc., you need cameras.
▶ No.985538
>>985535
yeah but that’s only a niche of the camera market
it still depends on what you’re trying to do with a camera. it’s not bad what smartphones can deliver, but in low light big sensors remain king
▶ No.985664>>994313
>>985140
>I assume that no camera photographs are really secure, however.
Are the android .png screenshots secure? or relatively by comparison
▶ No.985924>>985944
>>985140
>This bullshit all began when Mac cock gobblers began trying to use iPhones as "real" cameras
It's a bit ironic, then. Back in 2007, the original iPhone had a wimpy 2MP back camera, and no front camera. Nokia's flagship for that year, the N95, had a 5MP back camera (with Carl Zeiss lenses) and a CIF front camera (it was not intended for selfies, but video chat).
▶ No.985935>>985959
>>985334
And youre going to carry it with you all the time, right?.
▶ No.985944
>>985924
I want to be a photographer, but not if I can't use a hip minimalist slim white-covered designer device as my camera!
▶ No.985952>>985959
>>985140
No, its what happens when 100% of companies copy things apple does that are not GOOD
And "real cameras"??? come on dude are you 12? or just trying to signal that you own a big boy camera? good Camera != good pictures
▶ No.985959
>>985935
He said it's a pocket camera, so might as well.
>>985952
Crap cameras can take good pictures when the conditions are good.
Good cameras can take good pictures when the conditions are crap.
▶ No.985983>>994323
>>985315
fuck this image triggered my clusterphobia.
▶ No.994313
>>985664
>>985140
Android is full of proprietary malware, so yeah as long as you got that your camera is working for the five eyes.
If you drill through the network card of the phone and run fully free software however, I don't see how the camera is botnet.
But I've had exiftool manage to read exif data in png pictures, PNG is as compromising as jpeg if you don't strip exif. PNG doesn't technically have exif support, but it does allow for custom data blocks, and it seems to work well enough that exiftool can read exif there and whatever app I was using at the time seemed to write it into the png.
▶ No.994323
>>985983
Not the worst, but damn, it does bother me quite a bit.
▶ No.994459
>>985986
Isn't light the company that makes those post shot focusing magic shit?
▶ No.994471
>>985140
>I assume that no camera photographs are really secure, however.
Secure in what meaning?
You can encrypt your phone storage, but pretty much none of the True Cameras offer encryption so if someone grabs your camera he gets the data too.
▶ No.995041
>>985128 (OP)
>that second picture was exactly what I thought upon reading the thread title
are we the botnet? should I unplug for a while?
▶ No.995042
>>985315
looks like some kind of nasa space probe
▶ No.995045
Fellas, calm down will ya? Different lenses are needed for different types of photography and you clearly can't change lenses on a phone camera like you can with an old fashioned camera. The most best solutionv at this time is to have a camera for each lens.
You're acting like the camera has 4 lenses so each lens can transmit a video feed to the CIA, FBI, NSA, and TSA
▶ No.995584
>>985140
What if I develop my film myself and keep my negatives locked up? This is secure right?
▶ No.995585
I DONT GIVE A FUCK ABOUT SHITPHONES. FUCK OFF
▶ No.995594>>995650
>>985302
Really? An entry level digital DSR costs ~500 USD and can produce ~12 x 14" prints at 300 dpi. You can buy this camera ``once``, and it will never depricate, and you can choose the right lense for the shot. Zoom will lose light, but can be easily corrected with post processing or sence modificaition.
OR
You can buy 300-1000 USD smart phone with software zoom (loss of quality), artistic filters (post-processing,unnötigste), no lense capability, and have the deprecating botnet attached. I view the camera on the botnet sutable as a communication aid, nothing more, besides, retards go buy a new one once a year.
▶ No.995650>>995676 >>995680
>>995594
You seem to forget the fact that most people aren't photographers by hobby, they just want to snap a pretty picture that may pop up. Then the camera is a waste of money. Hauling a phone is not difficult, but hauling your camera with seventy lenses around is not exactly practical for everyday use.
▶ No.995676>>995679
>>995650
Why would the owner of a $1k piece of garbage need more than one lens
▶ No.995679
▶ No.995680>>995684
>>995650
Then get an integrated camera with an optical zoom.
▶ No.995684
>>995680
But he doesn't need that either. The average owner just wants something that takes good photos (to the untrained eye). Not something that requires training (all that ISO/shutter speed/etc. shit) or knowledge.
▶ No.995688
>>985315
that's quite a lot of cameras for one phone.