"Android camera." Wow, that has a weird ring, doesn't it? You just don't
think of a camera as having an operating system. It's like saying
"Windows toaster" or "Unix jump rope."But yes, that's what it has
come to. Ever since cellphone cameras got good enough for everyday
snapshots, camera sales have been dropping. For millions of people, the
ability to share a fresh photo wirelessly - Facebook, Twitter, e-mail,
text message - is so tempting, they're willing to sacrifice a lot of
real-camera goodness.
That's an awfully big
convenience/photo-quality swap. A real camera teems with compelling
features that most phones lack: optical zoom, big sensor, image
stabilization, removable memory cards, removable batteries and decent
ergonomics. (A four-inch, featureless glass slab is not exactly
optimally shaped for a hand-held photographic instrument.)
But the
camera makers aren't taking the cellphone invasion lying down. New
models from Nikon and Samsung are obvious graduates of the "if you can't
beat 'em, join 'em" school. The Nikon Coolpix S800C ($300) and
Samsung's Galaxy Camera ($500 from AT&T, $550 from Verizon) are
fascinating hybrids. They merge elements of the cellphone and the camera
into something entirely new and - if these flawed 1.0 versions are any
indication - very promising.
From the back, you could mistake both
of these cameras for Android phones. The big black multitouch screen is
filled with app icons. Yes, app icons. These cameras can run Angry
Birds, Flipboard, Instapaper, Pandora, Firefox, GPS navigation programs
and so on. You download and run them exactly the same way. (That's
right, a GPS function. "What's the address, honey? I'll plug it into my
camera.")
But the real reason you'd want an Android camera is
wirelessness. Now you can take a real photo with a real camera - and
post it or send it online instantly. You eliminate the whole "get home
and transfer it to the computer" step.
And as long as your camera
can get online, why stop there? These cameras also do a fine job of
handling Web surfing, e-mail, YouTube videos, Facebook feeds and other
online tasks. Well, as fine a job as a phone could do, anyway.
You
can even make Skype video calls, although you won't be able to see your
conversation partner; the lens has to be pointing toward you.
Both
cameras get online using Wi-Fi hot spots. The Samsung model can also
get online over the cellular networks, just like a phone, so you can
upload almost anywhere.
Of course, there's a price for that
luxury. Verizon charges at least $30 a month if you don't have a Verizon
plan, or $5 if you have a Verizon Share Everything plan. AT&T
charges $50 a month or more for the camera alone, or $10 more if you
already have a Mobile Share plan.
If you have a choice, Verizon is
the way to go. Not only is $5 a month much more realistic than $10 a
month, but Verizon's 4G LTE network is far faster than AT&T's 4G
network. That's an important consideration, since what you'll mostly be
doing with your 4G cellular camera is uploading big photo files. (Wow.
Did I just write "4G cellular camera?")
These cameras offer a
second big attraction, though: freedom of photo software. The Android
store overflows with photography apps. Mix and match. Take a shot with
one app, crop, degrade and post it with Instagram.
Just beware
that most of them are intended for cellphones, so they don't recognize
these actual cameras' optical zoom controls. Some of the photo-editing
apps can't handle these cameras' big 16-megapixel files, either.
Unfortunately, you won't really know until you pay the $1.50 or $4 to
download these apps.
The cameras themselves, each available in
black or white, are clearly designed to flaunt their superiority over
cellphone cameras. You get 16-megapixel resolution. You get a true
built-in flash, rather than the feeble LED built onto the backs of
phones. And these cameras have incredible zoom ranges, even while
recording video - 10X for the Nikon, an impressive 21X on the Samsung.
Phones, of course, generally don't have any optical zoom at all.
All
the usual touch-screen tricks work: tap to take a photograph; swipe to
view the next or previous shot; spread two fingers to zoom into a photo.
Neither
camera has an eyepiece viewfinder. Both offer automatic, self-stitching
panorama mode, where you create an ultrawide photograph (as wide as 360
degrees, in fact) just by swinging the camera around you.
The
Nikon S800C is compact and attractive. To the right of its 3.5-inch
touch screen, physical plastic buttons appear for the standard Android
functions: Back, Home and Menu. (On the Samsung, they're on-screen
buttons that sometimes disappear.) Cleverly enough, Nikon made the
camera turn on very quickly so that you can start taking pictures;
Android itself takes another 30 seconds to load behind the scenes,
during which the Home button doesn't work.
Touch buttons for
exposure, self-timer, macro (close up) and flash flank the left side of
the screen. That's handy, because unless you intervene, the camera fires
its flash too often. The Smart Portrait mode is handy; it doesn't take
the shot until your subject smiles.
The Home screens look a little
dated, because the S800C runs a nearly two-year-old version of Android.
But the sharing options are plentiful: Pinterest, Facebook, Gmail,
Google Plus, Instagram, Picasa, Skype or Twitter. You can post to Flickr
by e-mail or certain add-on apps.
The Samsung Galaxy Camera is a
completely different beast - and beast it is. It's huge and heavy, as
befitting a camera with a 4.8-inch screen. (Samsung asserts that it's
the largest on any available camera.) You won't fit this baby in your
pocket unless you're wearing overalls.
It runs the more recent
Jellybean version of Android, and it teems with features. Voice control
is truly useful: you can say "zoom in," "shoot" or "capture," which is
much better than any self-timer.
Only the Samsung offers full
manual controls, and its scene presets are far more interesting. There's
slow-mo video; a mode that lets a buddy draw against darkness with a
flashlight or sparkler; and Best Face mode, which lets you choose the
best face from each of several group shots. The camera assembles the
different heads into a single perfect shot.
As convenient as these cameras are, you probably shouldn't buy them. For three reasons.
First,
the battery life is terrible: 140 or 280 shots on a charge (for the
Nikon and Samsung). And that's assuming you don't use any apps (surf the
Web, navigate with GPS, play Angry Birds), which slurps up juice even
faster.
Second, the price is very steep. If that sharing-online
business intrigues you, here are two words that must make these cameras'
product managers shudder: EyeFi card.
The EyeFi X2 series are
standard SD memory cards ($30 for the 4-gigabyte model) that add Wi-Fi
to any camera. Turn on the Direct Mode feature, and boom: your camera
now sends every new photo to your smartphone as it's taken, ready for
uploading. Setup is far more complicated, but it gets your freshly shot
photos online at a fraction of the price, and it works in any camera you
choose.
Finally and this is the heartbreaker - the pictures
just aren't very good. The digital "noise" (mottled pixels) and softness
of the images are what you'd expect from a camera that costs half as
much. And no wonder; both of these cameras are based on non-Android
models from the same companies that cost hundreds less. For the $500
you'd pay for the Samsung, you could buy an S.L.R.-like camera that
delivers absolutely spectacular pictures, like Sony's NEX-5N.
But
don't hate these cameras because their price-performance ratio is
appalling. Love them for what they really are: bold 1.0 pioneers grand
experiments that hint at the very happy place cameras may go in the
next few years.
© 2012, The New York Times News Service
Remember
the first time when you laid your eyes on the iPad with Retina Display?
Surely the difference was obvious when you laid it side by side with
the first generation iPad and the vanilla version of the iPad 2, but
when it comes to resolution count and pixel density on tablets,
Panasonic has got everyone beat this CES. Granted, toting around
Panasonic’s 20” tablet is not going to be the most enjoyable of tasks
for road warriors, but when you consider how it weighs as much as a
standard notebook (not an Ultrabook, mind you) at just 2.4kg, you would
sing a different tune and say that the 20” is a sheer marvel in
engineering.
