Skip to main content

Phone makers, please stop putting terrible macro cameras in your cheap phones

The trend of adding more and more cameras to our smartphones has made for far better camera systems, especially on the high end. The Samsung Galaxy S21 Ultra, anyone? But it has also given rise to the feeling that more cameras always makes for better photos, and as a result, companies have been making sure to include multiple cameras on every phone.

The worst offenders? The 2-megapixel macro cameras that seem to appear on every phone under $350 these days. A few devices in the new Moto G series have them. Recent TCL phones have them. Even the more expensive OnePlus 8 has one. They add literally nothing to the photography experience, and only serve to say the phone has one more camera than a competitor. Yuck.

Macro as a concept

To be clear, there’s nothing necessarily wrong with macro cameras. Sometimes they can be kind of fun. A macro camera lets you get super-close to a subject to capture fine details on a miniature scale. Usually, it requires a dedicated camera with a large lens, but the same can be accomplished on a smartphone if the components are right.

I personally would much prefer to have the trifecta of a wide, ultrawide, and telephoto, before there’s a discussion about a macro lens. With those three cameras, a phone camera offers an incredibly versatile experience. But a macro camera, if added to the versatility of a multicamera setup, can provide some value and an interesting shooting option.

But many smartphone makers get around using a macro camera altogether — without skipping macro photography. The Samsung Galaxy S21 Ultra, for example, uses its ultrawide camera for macro photography. Its A.I. automatically detects when the object is less than 10 centimeters away, and switches to the so-called “Enhanced Focus” mode.

There’s nothing wrong with macro cameras. There’s everything wrong with bad macro cameras.

Dedicated macro cameras aren’t necessary for macro photography. After all, if the best of the best phones don’t have a macro-only camera, but can still take excellent macros, then why include the extra lens?

Well, we know why: So that a company can claim that its phone has two, three, or four cameras — and so it looks like it has the ability to take better or more varied photos, even when it doesn’t. Those cheap macro cameras, after all, don’t cost much. An extra high-quality sensor with an ultrawide lens and autofocus, like the S21 Ultra’s, is much more expensive.

Garbage in, garbage out

Of course, there are times when we can look past the inclusion of a macro camera on a phone: When the macro camera actually takes solid photos. Both the Motorola One 5G and Samsung Galaxy A51 can take decent macro photos in the right environment, using higher-resolution 5MP sensors. The OnePlus 8T has the better sensor, too, seriously improving on the macro experience found on the previous OnePlus 8.

The real problems arise with the aforementioned low-resolution, 2MP macro cameras that seem to have shown up on every budget phone. Phones with higher-resolution sensors actually have what’s necessary to get a crisp and detailed macro shot, but 2MP is just 1920 x 1080 resolution — that’s horrible, and entirely incapable of getting a crisp shot. The entire point of a macro photo is to get up close and show off the detail of the subject, and it’s literally impossible with just 2MP.

Take a look at some of the “gold” we’ve taken with these subpar macro cameras below. Colors are dull, the camera has a hard time focusing (if they have autofocus at all), night mode is nonexistent, and even in ideal lighting and with time spent getting the right focus, there’s little detail to speak of.

As you can see, these aren’t stellar cameras. In fact, they’re just downright bad. Nobody wants to look at any of these photos, or would be impressed by them. Phone manufacturers would be doing right by their customers to only include one good camera rather than two (or three) mediocre ones. Adding these dedicated macro shooters is the most egregious example of letting marketing and spec sheets take precedent over actual customer experience.

Hopefully, the tacked-on subpar macro camera is a trend that will die in the (very) near future. Until then, don’t be fooled by the addition of a 2MP macro shooter — if you want to take macro shots, there are cameras with good macro sensors out there.

Editors' Recommendations

Christian de Looper
Christian’s interest in technology began as a child in Australia, when he stumbled upon a computer at a garage sale that he…
Please keep terrible 8MP wide-angle cameras off my phone in 2023
OnePlus 10T camera module.

For a while, the 2-megapixel camera was the most pointless, least-liked addition to a new smartphone’s camera system — but it’s time to redirect our ire in a new direction. Our collective Paddington Bear-style hard stare should be focused on the 8MP wide-angle camera, which is rapidly taking over from the now-mostly-ignored macro camera as the biggest waste of space on a phone today.
What’s so bad about wide-angle cameras?
Before explaining why the 8MP wide-angle camera is so awful, I should explain that I’m not campaigning against wide-angle cameras in general. The wide-angle camera, ever since it first graced phones like the LG G5 in 2016, is an essential part of the camera system. It adds, quite literally, another perspective — increasing versatility and giving us more creative freedom when taking photos. I like and want a wide-angle camera.

What I don’t want is a token effort, and that’s what an 8MP wide-angle camera is. A 2MP macro or depth camera allows manufacturers to put a multi-camera system on the back of a cheap, or moderately priced, phone to entice people into buying it. The fact these basic 2MP cameras are useless doesn’t matter. It looks a bit like the iPhone 14 Pro, and that (maybe) drives sales. These terrible cameras live on despite complaints, and they’re often paired with equally disappointing 8MP wide-angle cameras.

Read more
Goodbye Samsung Galaxy Note 20, you were a terrible phone
Galaxy Note 20 Back

There are many reasons to love Samsung. It has a broad range of good (often great) devices, solid software, and the ability to interconnect smart devices better than most Android manufacturers -- but the Samsung Galaxy Note 20 is not one of the reasons. In fact, it's a terrible smartphone, and after swapping to the Google Pixel 7 Pro, I can finally purge myself of this experience and move on.

The Samsung Galaxy Note 20 was one of the worst phones I've ever used, and you should thank your good fortune if you didn't buy it. If you did, I feel your pain.
The Note 20 was already the unloved sibling
The Galaxy Note 20 (left) and Note 20 Ultra (right). Andy Boxall/Digital Trends

Read more
The 6 biggest warning signs when buying a cheap phone
Motorola Moto G Play 2023 in the hands of a user.

When it comes to the smartphone market, you’re going to find a huge mix of very budget-friendly options, mid-range options, and premium, top-of-the-line flagship devices. As great as flagships like the iPhone 14 Pro, Pixel 7 Pro, and Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra are, not everyone can afford a phone that starts at around $1,000 and goes up from there.

While there are some decent mid-tier smartphones, you’ll need to be careful when considering the truly budget-friendly “cheap” devices. Here are a few warning signs that you should consider before you’re tempted by that smartphone that seems too good to be true (because it probably is).
Look at the amount of internal storage

Read more