I believe it is possible to zoom in the Nexus 4’s camera mode. Touch the screen with two fingers, then move them away from each other in a motion akin to “stretching” the picture. Then you should get a “magnification” level displayed on-screen to confirm that it worked. (As a side note, this technique, along with the “rotate”, is best perfected using the Google Earth application, which I recommend if you haven’t tried it yet).

What I don’t know is whether this method employs optical or digital zoom, the latter being less useful, although still potentially saving you having to crop later.

It’s only a digital zoom though. Smartphones have lots of other components in them and, worse, are very thin. This means that it is not possible to fit in an optical zoom, and also that the camera’s sensor has to be physically very small and the low light performance is often poor, which I think is the big problem with the Randy Barnett photo. However, if you are taking photos in good light of things that are not very far away, smartphone cameras are getting to be pretty good.

Economies of scale are so huge that progress is being made on the low light issue (the new HTC One is very good in this regard, I hear). The lack of the optical zoom issue is harder to surmount. Samsung are doing interesting experiments though - seeing what you get when you start with a camera and add a phone rather than the other way round.

http://www.android.gs/samsung-galaxy-s4-camera-phone-is-in-the-works-its-called-galaxy-s4-zoom/

I agree with Michael Jennings’ doubts and there is another thing to add: bokeh. Photographers love it and phone will just never be able to give you any.

I thought the artefacting (lumpy bits that shouldn’t be there) in the Poles crop was pretty bad too actually and there was some fringing (CA) which will presumably be much worse in more challenging conditions.

Maybe we need a Campaign for Real cameras. Anyone think of a good acronym?

I agree with all that’s been said - phonecams are undoubtedly inferior. But I thought one of Brian’s points was that this enables him to take shots he wouldn’t otherwise take (since he was just nipping out for batteries), and if the shot is primarily of “digital” data, such as the text on a poster, then the quality is not so important.

If Brian’s Nexus 4 means more blog posts like this, I’m all for it!

I don’t think “doubts” is quite the word I would use. Smartphone cameras have certain weaknesses, but there are still a great many circumstances when they are highly useful.

I do roll my eyes a bit when people inside the Silicon Valley and phone industries make remarks like “There is now no reason for anyone to buy a point and shoot digital camera”, though, as they have been prone to in recent months. The Fuji point and shoot that I can buy in my local Asda costs £50, has a proper zoom and a decent sensor, and is a much better camera than that found in any smartphone. Also, a decent smartphone will cost you £250 plus, so price alone would be a reason even if it wasn’t a better camera.

I can only conclude that people who say things like this have never used any other camera, but have noticed that smartphone cameras get better every year, and so now think that smartphone cameras are good, when they are in fact at best mediocre.

Which does not change the fact that if the smartphone camera is the one one you have with you, it is good enough to usually get the shot.

Apart from the fact that the device is made by Google, there isn’t anything exciting about Nexus4.