For some considerable time there have been comments made in certain quarters that at some stage in the not too distant future the smaller/cheaper digital cameras will become obsolete as a type, their simple picture taking duties being undertaken using the increasing number of multi-purpose portable devices (mobile/smart phones) now being produced that have built-in cameras, and these comments have reached a new level of late with the progressive introduction of 3mp, 5mp, and 8mp camera phones.

Are these comments an accurate reflection of the capabilities of these multifunction devices as regards picture taking, or more a measure of the amount of media and advertising hype surrounding them? We've all seen the often jumpy, wobbly, and low resolution video from camera phones of newsworthy events shown on television news programs and websites such as YouTube. Are still shots any better, or are the picture taking abilities of such multi-function devices useful to have for making a record when nothing else is available, either in an emergency or on the spur of the moment, but lacking in any real quality for any substantial purpose beyond that?

Recently we found ourselves in the position to be able to put these comments to the test when we upgraded our ageing Nokia mobile phones, (one of which did have a VGA still camera but no video), to some of the latest on offer from Sony-Ericsson, a pair of Walkman W595's. They weren't bought specifically because they are MP3 players or have cameras, these were just accepted as part of their overall specifications, which although not quite in the Apple i-phone or Nokia E71/E75 smart phone league are pretty close if not equal in most respects, allowing phone/text and web access around the world, (quad-band/3G/GPS), whilst at the same time being somewhat cheaper. 

In light of their picture taking abilities, still and video, via a 3.2mp camera, we thought that taking some shots and making image quality comparisons between them and those taken using our 3mp digicams might prove a useful and interesting exercise. This we felt should indicate whether the purchase and use of one of these more expensive camera phones could be considered as a viable alternative to a small digicam at times when carrying a larger and bulkier camera is not desirable. There are of course many small and shirt-pocket size digicams but if you carry around a mobile phone anyway there is a certain logic to it isn't there?

Camera phone specifications

The first factor which needs to be considered with camera phones is that camera specifications between mobile phones vary quite widely according to the actual cost of them, as you would expect, with newer models also having ever improving performance as makers strive to produce a better experience for users. The first cameras in mobiles were of quite low resolution and not good for much really, although it's pertinent to remember that it wasn't all that long ago that the early digital cameras had similar resolutions. Now most start at VGA quality (640x480 pixels or 0.3mp), rising through 1.3mp, 3mp and 5mp, with the very latest reaching 8mp. The latter are few in number at present, and as you would expect exist only in the most expensive phones. 

Generally the average camera phone now seems to have 3.2mp resolution, which may seem low compared to the normal digital camera these days, but is as we point out on several of our pages quite good enough for 6x4's, 7x5's and even A4 so long as the image quality is good enough, which is of course generally more important than overall image resolution. It's the quality of the sensor, lens, and image processing that ultimately counts most, and is where the question marks over mobile phone cameras lay given their tiny lenses and sensors.

Most camera phone sensors are either of 1/6" or 1/4" size. These are quite small even in comparison to the small digicam sensors. The very latest camera/phone/player to arrive from Nokia, the N86, does use a larger one, the same size as used in many digicams today (1/2.5"), but needs to considering the 8mp resolution and the image noise levels that probably result.

Here is a small table giving most of the normally used current sensor sizes. Figures are average and rounded up - there's always some small differences between nominal and actual sizes - but it's enough for simple non-critical comparison purposes.

As you can see the normal camera phone sensors are substantially smaller in size and area than the smallest digicam sensors, and considering the problems with image noise levels that exist with these, the difficulties posed in getting comparable image quality from the smaller sensors in phones is therefore quite high.

Most lenses are very small is size, front elements averaging 5mm in diameter, and of the fixed focus variety although AF is now starting to appear, fairly bright at around the f2.4 to f2.8 mark, and of a single short focal length, so a moderate wide-angle, usually somewhere around the 28mm to 34mm mark in 35mm film equivalent terms. Zoom lenses don't exist - yet - as you would probably expect given the size and space restrictions. Digital zoom functions are found on most, but are as usual, really worthless. It's just a form of in-camera image cropping which thus reduces the resolution and is often made worse by only working at the lowest capture resolution setting.

Exposure/Metering/WB/ISO is usually fully automatic although some offer exposure compensation and manual WB along with other options. A few now have flash capabilities, provided either via LED or the normal camera Xenon type. This extends the usefulness of the cameras in less than ideal lighting conditions, but the scope and power of them are quite limited as well as draining a phone's battery very quickly. Standby times for phones may run into many days, sometimes 14 or more now, but actual usage times can be low, 4-5 hours is common. Start using them as MP3 players or cameras and you can drain the battery in just a few hours.

Sony Ericsson W595 mobile phone

Whilst these phones aren't, as we have stated, as expensive as the top-of-the-range mobile smart phones currently available in 2009 they are still quite highly specified in contrast to many others, and this is reflected in the general camera options in much the same way that more expensive digital cameras have greater options and abilities than cheaper ones, and usually, better all-round image performance as a result. So you'll have to accept that as with digital cameras, other camera phones might have less options, a lower specification, and different image performance, although from what we understand it's all pretty much the same as far as the last factor is concerned.

Here are a few images of the phone to give an idea of it's design and the placement of controls, the size and position of the lens, and the comparison to our quite large Epson 3mp digicams, which are incidentally roughly the same size, shape, and weight as Canon's latest 'G' series digicam the 10mp G11.

The W595 is a slide design with dual speakers located at either end of the main body shell. The slide part has the main buttons and LCD, with the keypad located underneath on the main housing. A benefit of a slider phone design such as this is that when closed all keys/buttons automatically lock preventing accidental use when in a pocket etc. The outside buttons/keys have to be 'unlocked' to be used whilst the phone's in the closed position should this be desired i.e. in 'Walkman' MP3 player mode. The camera lens is positioned on the rear of the main body at the top right corner when used in normal 'phone' mode, or portrait mode when using the camera.  When rotated anti-clockwise through 90º for use in 'landscape' mode it's thus in the top left-hand corner.

There are we know many small digicams around today of a similar size to the phone, (which measures 100mm x 47mm x 14mm when shut and weighs 104gms), with much higher resolutions of between 6mp and 12mp as well as zoom lenses and it's probably against these that most people would want to compare a camera phone. We just didn't have any when this comparison was undertaken and doesn't materially affect the outcome of this test.

Taking shots with the W595

You can take shots in either the vertical or horizontal position once the phone has been activated (brought out of standby) by sliding the front up, and the camera chosen from the menu. It can be used in this configuration or with it then slid back shut, which normally puts it back into standby mode.

Using the phone to take shots isn't as easy as it might at first appear. The biggest single difficulty we have encountered, whatever the orientation and configuration, is getting a sharp shot, especially with lower shutter speeds i.e. keeping it still and shake free whilst pressing the button that fires the shutter.  This is the small central button on the front within the circular four-way control button, (so it's on the back when you take a shot), and in walkman mode acts as the play/pause/stop control. It's thus not the normal type of two-stage shutter button usually found on cameras.

It's not at all easy to do, pressing this whilst keeping the phone still, and we had more success when using the landscape mode than portrait because we could use two hands to hold it more easily. Depending on how you hold it you can use either your thumb or forefinger to trigger the shutter, but used one-handed there is a tendency for the phone to shake/move. Using two hands to steady the phone usually works, but not always.

Another issue is not covering the lens with one of your fingers. It sounds a simple enough task to accomplish, but the small size and limited ways to hold it means it's not as easy as you would think. Using the phone with the front slid open helps here as the lens is positioned nearer the middle and less to one side/edge. Closed there is much less leeway i.e. space for your fingers. However the phone's less solid in the open position and pressing the shutter button can make the front section move causing a blurred shot.

The lens is of the fixed focus type, and of a fairly wide angle. This is to be expected given the restraints imposed on putting a camera into a phone, and there are quite a few digicams around which use a fixed focal length wide angle view lens although they of course feature auto-focus, but this isn't quite the advantage it might seem given the large depth-of-field wide angles give at any focus distance. The bigger problem is the closest focus distance which applies, which isn't generally all that great, and in this instance is around the 0.5m mark (50cm). Coupled with the view angle this means frame-filling with smaller subjects just isn't possible, the minimum area coverage being about A3, which can be restrictive in some circumstances. You can't for example take a copy of a single sheet of A4 or the page of the average magazine.

It's also vitally important to keep the tiny lens thoroughly clean. No one deliberately uses a camera with a dirty lens, and we always try and keep all ours as clean as is possible, but you don't normally check them every few minutes. With camera phones it seems you do - if you want worthwhile images. The slightest hint of dirt or grease has a massive impact on image quality as we discovered during the tests, due no doubt to the lens small size, and the ease with which they can become dirty when the phone is handled in a normal manner. Fingers can easily brush over them leaving greasy marks or dirt adhere when they are slipped into a pocket.

The lack of flash is another limitation which becomes fairly obvious when you start using the phone's camera indoors, where light levels aren't great even during normal daylight hours, and the lack of some kind of flash capability means high ISO's and slow shutter speeds. Not a good combination at all in any circumstances, and means shots at any type of social gathering indoors or in poor light, where a small, discrete, slip-in-the-pocket camera is most useful, are just not feasible. This is perhaps the biggest single disappointment.

There is a self-timer option. Despite it's slim design it is just possible to stand the phone on it's longer edge and use the self-timer. The surface must be nice and flat, but it can be done, and in lower light levels with no flash capability it's essential to help get a reasonably sharp shot. You can set it and then concentrating on holding the phone still should you choose.

You can't take shots in rapid succession, except in the low resolution (VGA) burst mode where 4 are taken at once (we're not sure we really see the point of this). Even if you turn off review the image you have just taken appears for about 5-7 seconds on the screen while it's processed and written to file. So taking shots is a slow process and if you miss a shot you can't take another straight away. And in these circumstances the time lapse before you can seems incredibly long.

The panoramic mode also works at VGA resolution. Three shots can be taken which are then stitched together. You take one, the right hand edge of the image is shown in reduced opacity so you can line up for the second, and the same for the third. Then the three are stitched and the result saved.

Image quality comparisons

Now we come to the crux of the matter. Image quality. The test shots were taken in July, August, and early September, both indoors and out, during the day and in the evening, so generally in fairly good lighting conditions taking the time of year into account. We tried all the options available with the camera at least once just to see what happened and the results, but often used some options such as using the self-timer, altering the WB, and setting the optional 'night mode' in low light. Anything that we felt might alter/improve/reduce the image quality was tried just to see what the outcome was under particular conditions. As a rule the resolution used was the maximum of 3mp and lower rates only used when a particular option set it. This occurred with burst mode (4 shots in succession), Panorama (3 shots stitched together in-camera), and frames (overlays through which a shot is taken - mostly meant for portraits). All these use VGA. About 150 specific shots for test/comparison purposes were taken, as well as several panoramic ones and about a dozen short videos of between 1 and 3 minutes duration.

The results were a really mixed bag which go from being quite respectable to very poor. Mostly this is down to the tiny sensor needing plenty of light through the tiny lens, the problems that occur when the light levels fall, and the image processing that's needed to produce an image under varying conditions. There is considerable difference in performance and image quality between those shots taken in good to fair lighting conditions, and those taken under 'challenging' conditions i.e. poor or artificial light. Even with good lighting there is big differences in the level of depicted image detail between areas of good light and shadow, the sensor obviously struggling to record lower levels of light information due to it's tiny pixels.

The camera phone auto exposure/auto iso shots ranged from 1/1250 sec at F2.8, ISO64, to 1/4 sec at f2.8, ISO400 depending on the lighting and White Balance setting, and whether the low light level 'night mode' was used. This last feature seemed to increase ISO by 1Ev, but we're not sure if it actually altered the exposure the camera set, or instead meant the processing boosted the sensor output levels. The AWB was mostly okay outdoors but very poor inside, even in normal daylight. Light levels seemed to have a big influence. In bright conditions images seemed overly warm whilst in low light they were overly cold. In other words veering from being a touch too reddish to far too blue. Lower light levels also seemed to have strange effects on exposure. Some results were thus puzzling, such as the fact that using Incandescent WB produced a better image in low light than using night mode, whether indoors or out. 

One aspect we can't ignore here is the panoramic stitch mode. At low VGA resolution we weren't expecting much at all, so we were pleasantly surprised. Not by the image quality as such, but rather that they were better than anticipated with fairly accurate results, not too much visible mis-alignment, although exposure changes often were, but generally better overall images still occurred than we have got when trying to stitch using the panoramic stitch application Photomerge in Photoshop Elements. Of course nothing beats using a proper dedicated stitching application such as the one we normally use, PTGui, full details of which can be found on our pages dealing with this subject  Panoramic/Stitch Images  but the camera makes a fair stab at it. You can't produce them at a large size of course, the file size is quite small at a maximum of just 1664 x 432 pixels, but for making 6"x1.5", 7"x1.75" or perhaps even 8"x2" prints they aren't too bad. More than just pure novelty status as with some of the other options.

To ensure a reasonable level of image quality, not too much obvious noise, and fairly sharp and punchy images, quite high levels of noise reduction and sharpening are evident. This results in shots which have over-sharpened edges and smudged and smeared details when seen at close quarters. It isn't always obvious at smaller sizes but becomes clear once images are enlarged a bit. There's a distinct lack of detail in things such as foliage - flowers, plants, shrubs, trees, grass etc, indeed anything with texture, a 'painterly' effect you could say. The overall result is images of 3mp resolution that look to be of a lower resolution as far as image details and overall sharpness go when enlarged and viewed beyond a certain point. Keep enlargement size down and it's fine. Print out the full 3mp image at 6"x4" or maybe even 7"x5" and they don't look too bad at all. Indeed they are far better than we expected given the lens and sensor size. But zoom to pixel size - view at 100% - and it's a slightly different story. 

Now we know that many digicams have no better image quality than this, whatever their resolution, for we've handled and tested them - and looked at the results, and to be perfectly honest Sony-Ericsson have done a decent job in getting the image quality that they have from such tiny sensors and lenses. Whatever else you might think about the image quality, like the Epson's there is no colour fringing caused by poor optics. This is not something that can be said about many digital cameras these days as surprisingly it's even present with some high resolution full frame types. 

So we may be being rather harsh here as regards the image quality, but the fact is we are used to taking the 3mp Epson images, cropping them by as much as 50%, and then producing them at A5 and A4 sizes when we make the odd print. Perhaps we've been spoilt in this respect, but these are the standards we are used to working with, and so anything less is obviously viewed as below par by us. Thus we may be being a bit harsh on the W595 images and the cameras overall performance compared to most digicams, but we can only judge things using the benchmarks we have to go by, i.e. the cameras we own and use.

Anyway here are some image comparisons. These are between the W595 and the 3mp Epson 3000z digicam. All these shots are 'as taken'. No alterations of any description have been made to the Jpeg files, save size and resolution reduction for web publication. You'll notice one obvious factor here between the two cameras. The overall exposures are pretty evenly matched with tonal ranges that are very similar. 

Sony Ericsson W595 3.2mp camera phone 1/1000 sec @ F2.8 ISO64	Epson 3000z 3mp digicam 1/750 sec @ F4.0 ISO100

There's virtually no difference in image quality or overall detail here between these two shots. It's really only if you view them at 100% and examine them closely that very slight variations emerge. But it's hard to find anything that would actually make a difference that would show when viewed normally. This is due to the bright sunny conditions and the angle/direction of the shots in relation to that of the sun, which help the phone's lens/sensor to record good information, as there's only small areas of deep shadow/high contrast.

The biggest variation is the colour reproduction. The Epson's were made to produce the highest level of detail possible under the widest range of lighting conditions, and use lower levels of both contrast and sharpening in order to achieve this. Images can sometimes look 'flat' as a result, especially in dull lighting, and always look a bit on the 'cool' side. The camera phone on the other hand, in common with many digital cameras, is set to produce bright images full of colour and contrast. This has it's advantages, particularly in dull conditions, but ultimately leads to lost details which become obvious at larger reproduction sizes.

The next pair of images were taken from virtually the same position as the last two by simply turning left through 90°. We did however step out of the road onto the pavement! Actually we shot this little church, the smallest in Essex, by balancing the cameras on the top of the churchyard's metal railings. 

This scene has more shadow areas than the last because of the change of direction, and this shows in the resulting image quality, the camera phone struggling to record details in the areas with lower light levels. It's also lost more highlight tones indicating a narrower overall dynamic range which is not really all that surprising given the small pixel size. This isn't too obvious at small size, but is when viewed at larger sizes. The colour differences are also more obvious, the camera phone warmer and the Epson cooler. Neither is entirely accurate, and somewhere between the two would have been correct.

Sony Ericsson W595 3.2mp camera phone 1/500 sec @ F2.8 ISO64	Epson 3000z 3mp digicam 1/432 sec @ F4.0 ISO100

Sony Ericsson W595 3.2mp camera phone	Epson 3000z 3mp digicam

The above crops of each respective image shows the variations. The camera phone shot's smudged details can be clearly seen, along with the high contrast edges due to the over-sharpening applied. Look at the level of detail in the brickwork, the stained glass windows, the foliage, and on the backs of the gravestones. Looks crisper at smaller sizes of course. This is the swings and roundabouts of image sharpening. What can look good at small reproduction sizes doesn't suit larger ones. And of course you can always increase sharpening, but can't undo it to restore lost levels of detail. See  Image Sharpness  In this case the increased sharpening is being used to offset the loss of detail that either the sensor can't capture, or is being lost by noise reduction, and while it works at smaller image sizes it clearly shows up here.

We mentioned the panoramic stitch mode earlier, and here's a result of three shots taken inside the church. As we said it's the smallest in Essex and this view pretty much covers it in it's entirety since it was taken from the rear wall. A multi-layer stitch would of course been better, but there are no such options available with any in-camera panoramic stitch option as far as we are aware. Many panoramic stitch programs can only cope with single layer stitching and three or five landscape images and with the phone it's three landscapes taken in succession.

Sony Ericsson W595 3.2mp camera phone 1/8 sec @ F2.8 ISO250

The difficulty we had with this mode was getting the camera phone level and straight for all three shots. We didn't quite manage it here, but this was the best of the two attempts we made. Normally we take a central shot and then one or more either side. But in this mode you have to take them in sequence starting on the left, joining each successive image up with the last in-camera, which displays an opaque section of the previous one with which to do it. This makes it awkward to judge where the middle of the panorama will end up. However at low resolution and fairly high ISO, (for the camera phone ISO range), the results you can get aren't actually too bad. Not brilliant, but useable under certain limited conditions. The noise levels are surprisingly low in comparison to the output we have seen from many digicams considering the tiny sensor size.

The lack of flash, the small sensor and lens, and the limited ISO range does really begin to show under poorer lighting conditions i.e. anywhere indoors. The interior shot of the church isn't really representative for two reasons. The walls inside were light and reflective being mostly white painted plaster, and plenty of light was flooding into the church through the windows and open door. Thus although the shot was taken at a slow shutter speed and higher ISO noise levels are quite modest, and don't really show or intrude. This isn't always the case, even at similar ISO's and shutter speeds.

Here's one of the few attempts we made at taking shots inside at a social event. Without flash it was really a waste of time as this image shows. With flash it might have been better - or not - depending on the power of the flash and the fill-flash abilities. Often indoors in very low light levels you need a mix of flash plus longish exposure to give a balanced image with background details that is also sharp. Some cameras are very good at doing this automatically using slow sync flash, the Epson digicams being brilliant in this respect. We'll never know about the phone........

As taken 1/4sec @ F2.8 ISO400	adjusted in Photoshop  using levels to lighten	close crop

Without flash you've no chance of taking a sharp, blur free shot at low shutter speeds. There's at least three separately registered images here that we can see, and the noise levels are also very high. What is surprising is that the underlying image quality is as high as it is, given the lack of flash, the high ISO, and the very small size of the sensor and lens. It's obvious the exposure wasn't as long as was needed for the light levels despite being the maximum the camera could set. We do wonder what the addition of flash might have produced. 

Video

Although we don't generally deal with video on this site we'll consider it here in the general aspect of comparison against the Epson's. Both have an auto everything video capture mode. These are low resolution at 320x 240 and saved in a QuickTime Movie wrapper, the W595's in mepg 4 format.

The Epson 3000z cannot be zoomed when taking video, it's fixed at the focal length - anywhere between 34-102mm -  chosen before capture starts, but the later Epson 3100z can be zoomed to any focal length when capturing video, and keeps focus as this happens. Neither can capture more than 25 secs of video at a time due to the processing capabilities and video format used back in 2000/2001 when the cameras were made no matter what size CF memory card and speed rating is used.

The W595 has of course a fixed wide-angle view focal length, with no restriction on video length, you can capture for as long as there is space on the memory card, or the phone's battery runs out.

The comparison between the video produced by the Epsons and that from the W595 is roughly the same as that for still images. The W595's is decent enough for what it is, but once again looks less sharp with less detail definition, hazy is a good description. Not quite dreamy soft focus, but getting there.

Additional Points to consider

The Sony Ericsson W595's are as we have already stated quite highly specified and this has important implications, (vital in some respects), in several areas beyond the fact that they are quad-band with 3G and GPS.

Connectivity between them and a computer can be via either Bluetooth, which only some of the higher specified laptops generally have, or USB (in phone or mass storage mode). The latter option means that image and music files can be moved easily and quickly between them using either the supplied Sony Ericsson PC software suite, or Windows Explorer. (In this way you can if needed move files between computers using the phone's memory card). The phones will also charge via USB, another important benefit. (Many airlines now provide USB ports even in economy class). Phones which only have Bluetooth connectivity mean you either can't get the images off the phone at all if you don't have a Bluetooth enabled laptop, or only at great expense via picture messaging and at low resolution. And there's no option to charge via USB. Some camera phones don't even have Bluetooth.

Another benefit in this respect was that the phones came supplied with all the software and accessories needed to get the best use out of them. A mains charger, USB lead, and earphones. All use the same multi-purpose connection socket on the side of the phone. With many phones, apart from the charger, these are expensive extras.

Memory capacity is another specification to bear in mind. Most phones have internal capacity which is low, which can be limiting when taking still or video images. For example the W595's is 58mb, and that of the Nokia E71 is 110mb. Many now accept mini-sized memory cards to allow increased storage space, and the W595's use Memory Stick  Micro (not surprising considering the Sony connection), and came with 2Gb cards supplied and installed. This was of course mainly to do with them being walkman MP3 players, but the space can be used for any type of media files. Many other phones such as the Nokia E71 use mini SD cards.

Conclusions

When we decided to see just what these mobile phones were capable of as regards picture taking we weren't expecting too much. We knew what the output of our old Nokia phone with it's VGA camera was (640x480pixels), which pretty much restricted it to shots taken for reference/notes, and in reality you wouldn't expect much else for the resolution. With 3.2mp (2048x1536 pixels) the resolution is considerably higher and enables fair sized reproduction given decent image quality. The question that we asked ourselves was how good could the optics and sensor be, given their tiny size, and the image processing.  

We think it's fair to say that the images the W595 produced surprised us quite a bit in some ways. This no doubt down to the input that Sony have had, not only with the Walkman/MP3 player side, but camera-wise as well. There's the restriction of using a fixed focal length of moderately wide angle with fixed focus rather than auto-focus, and the lack of flash is a real drawback both indoors or at anytime light levels fall below reasonable. But apart from those points the images were better than we had been expecting. Although they couldn't really match up to those taken using our 9 year old 3mp Epson digicams they were much closer than we would have imagined before we started the test. 

The desire to produce 'punchy' images whilst keeping noise levels down means high levels of sharpening and noise reduction are employed to offset image quality issues and this leads to the smearing and smudging of details that shows as soon as files are enlarged. But keep to smaller reproduction sizes, not get too close to a subject -  not easy to do with a wide angle lens - and the phone's camera is more than sufficient for general picture taking in reasonable lighting. The main point is that whatever was thrown at it the camera made a fairly good stab at it with decent, reliable, and consistent exposures for the light levels it encountered. Only in low light levels did it struggle, as any camera would without flash to assist it. However, the difficulty of holding it firmly enough to get a sharp shot without blur due to shake/movement when pressing the shutter button is a major drawback, although the biggest single downfall has to be that lack of flash. 

With flash capability we feel that perhaps those comments we mentioned at the start, that camera phones will replace cheap/basic digicams for picture taking in the future, could well have more substance to them than we would have thought. That some of the latest phones do have flash, LED or Xenon, just brings it one step closer, and the days of some of the lower performing digicams could well be numbered. 

In the general view of things however there seem to be just a few too many obstacles to a camera phones easy use as simple, cheap, good quality, go anywhere digital camera with decent image quality to state that as an absolute. In a 'get you out of a hole' or 'use in the absence of anything else' situation they have their uses at present, but that is really as far as it goes. Give it a few more years however and who knows, we may all be using camera phones for simple social picture taking, especially if flash becomes standard and resolution rises a bit. We reckon a 5-6mp camera phone with flash could well become a commonplace digital camera.