Hi! I have a Fairphone 2 and would like to know if I can buy the Fairphone 3 Camera spare part to add it to my FP2? Is it working?
No it doesn’t work. The modules have different shapes and sizes.
There’s a shop at https://shop.fairphone.com, and it has pictures …
Hi, I have two fairphone2s and want to equip one with usb-c. Can I use the module from the fairphone3 store?
How are the casings in comparison? (need a new back cover as well)
To answer the question in your topic title (was: “How exchangable are fairphone parts amongst series”): Not at all.
As for USB-C you might be interested in this:
I moved your discussion here. And …
not at all, is very disapointing. so I can not grow my phone with time, only by old replacement tech. Is there any future vision as to fairphone 3 to 4 migration paths? Or migration of older versions?
Say I would not need more capacity but do want a more modern camera. Any resolutions on these kind of questions? Is anybody at fairphone concerned with questions like that?
For now (and probably for a long time) a new core module will always mean a whole new phone. Most components have certain other components they are compatible with and changing the main components will mean that the externals won’t be compatible even if you design the modules to have the same shape.
Also, from a sustainability standpoint upgrading the core module would probably be counter productive. FP wants users to keep the core module as long as possible because it contains the most valuable materials. Upgradable core modules would mean more e-waste.
Generally spoken Fairphone already had and again now have a lot more room to maneuver considering the camera specs. But they again, for whatever reason, hold on to 12 MP.
SoC 801 could go up to 21MP and now the 632 can go up to 40MP.
But lets see if there are any upgrades waiting for us some day…
Please remember, it’s not the MP that count. It is the quality of the optics and the picture-engine. The same goes for DSL(R ) as well.
Those MP monsters (like e.g. the Nikon D850, the Canon EOS 5DS or the Sony alpha 7R), having sensors of 40 to 50 MP need really expensive lenses that are able to deliver the needed optical quality. And they really make sense only, if you intend to print those pictures on a billboard.
On the other hand e.g. Nikons top model the D5 has 21MP only and the predecessor, the D4 was a pro-cam with just a 16.2MP sensor.
In my opinion 12MP is quite enough.
Taking the resolution of a chip to it’s limits always results in lower quality, than using only a fraction of it.
Yes, true. I agree.
Afaik Panasonic did/does so for e.g. my Lumix TZ-10.
The censor is bigger but the lens only captures a smaller fraction resulting in 12 MP to reach an entirely even image quality.
My girlfriends LG G4 has a 12MP main camera and a quite extended software with full auto-mode, semi-auto and full manual mode (incl. RAW). I like it and would say the pictures are imho very good in comparison to other mobile cams of this generation.
Think realistic - someone looks out for a new mobile that also should keep a good camera. First glance, the camera. What do you think counts most for the average customer?
MP or the combination of chip/lens/manufacturer? I think we know the answer already.
Imagine the second FP2 camera has 12MP and an Omnivision chip. Still some customers weren’t satisfied with the results. How would the ratio be between users being unsatisfied with the chip/lens than with the resolution?
I believe if Fairphone would had stayed at 8MP but used the best available chip & lens for the second gen. camera, satisfaction would not had been much higher.
Most customers don’t keep too deep knowledge of camera details and unfortunately simply go for the MPs or GHz for computers or HP for cars…
Well, we’re not even talking of changing the core module, I understand the sustainability argument and it makes sense. I am happy with the FP2 (despite its many bugs that I am still waiting on a fix for, like rebooting several times a day at random times).
Yet, I find it extremely disappointing that no effort was made (or in the end resulted in… no results) to keep the hardware compatibility between components (say a camera) over versions. Because in the end converging to have a unique and open standard for the camera part would mean that we need a single production line, it ensures a longer guarantee that they will always maintain that line open at least to keep the business running on the current version.
So better sustainability in the end.
An open standard would also make other companies try to use it and extend the idea of having replaceable parts, as open-source software revolutionized the software market (that is, if the goal is really global sustainability and reduced waste, and not only FP’s investors profit, but well, we are in a capitalist system and I’m wandering off, but we can dream )
Well, I would guess, that this is at least partially due to your first complaing of experiencing bugs. The phone design - especially the connections of the modules, starting with the display - were not sturdy enough. The FP2 as such was quite flexible, causing reboots, when carrying the phone in the trouser pockets.
This fact alone made it unreasonable to use the modules for the FP3.
But more important is the fact, that - if I understood it right - the modules would not have been compatible with the new SoC. That’s the trouble with smartphones, that the compatibilty between different generations and models is nothing like it is with computers.
Add to this finally, that the modules have aged and would not offer the expected performance. Especially the camera was often critized with the FP2 already.
This topic was automatically closed 182 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.