Related
I've been struggling with the SK17 picture quality. I've been very underwhelmed, the nr is very heavy handed and in general even under the best light conditions produces low quality pictures.
Then it dawned on me, there must be a picture fineness setting. Meaning, how much detail do you want the camera to capture. I had this thought after reviewing a number of pictures. None of them are greater than 1MB in size. A high quality jpg image will be up to 1.5MB in size.
Maybe Sony could add a fineness setting for the jpg capture?
A few other things I've found just by obervation.
Lowest ISO looks to be 64
Highest ISO 800
fastest shutter 1/1250
Note, not the easiest thing to get these values, as EV and sports mode need to be engaged.
Mike
this is the worst ever camera phone i ever had. videos are lacking in detail. we don't know if it will be rectified in the coming 2.3.4 update?
Yeah, not the best camera for non-bright conditions.
I installed an original gingerbread camera for some other Xperia device with the same sensor but modded to work for Mini Pro. And took some shots for comparison with the highest quality settings (Super Fine) on the original one. File sizes were about 30% larger but with no very little to no differences so i stuck with the Sony's one.
They're coming up with some camera tweaks for new update so maybe they'll manage to improve this aspect although i doubt it.
sulkie said:
Yeah, not the best camera for non-bright conditions.
I installed an original gingerbread camera for some other Xperia device with the same sensor but modded to work for Mini Pro. And took some shots for comparison with the highest quality settings (Super Fine) on the original one. File sizes were about 30% larger but with no very little to no differences so i stuck with the Sony's one.
They're coming up with some camera tweaks for new update so maybe they'll manage to improve this aspect although i doubt it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I hope they can come up with some improvements. Hopefully software can get better quality. The picture quality is even poor with very good lighting.
Something to note, the lens is rather small, I compared it to the C905a Exif data. the C905a is outfitted with a 6mm lens, the one in the Minipro is 4mm. That's a 33% difference in size!
I don't know the size of the W580i lens, it didn't come out in the EXIF data.
Mike
Maybe im not a demanding camera user but daylight photos look good enough for me, although they probably can be improved via software.
Only thing that i'd like to see improved is low light photos but i dont think software can help much there. Its much more dependant on sensor size.
We'll see.
sulkie said:
Maybe im not a demanding camera user but daylight photos look good enough for me, although they probably can be improved via software.
Only thing that i'd like to see improved is low light photos but i dont think software can help much there. Its much more dependant on sensor size.
We'll see.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You're right, at the end of the day it's the sensor size/quality.
I'm assuming the camera is doing a lot of internal processing. NR as well as compression. Hopefully, they can do something about reducing both.
As you say, if the sensor isn't up to the task, it won't matter.
Mike
panamamike said:
You're right, at the end of the day it's the sensor size/quality.
I'm assuming the camera is doing a lot of internal processing. NR as well as compression. Hopefully, they can do something about reducing both.
As you say, if the sensor isn't up to the task, it won't matter.
Mike
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Its a crap cam.
Arc got a way better cam, but its a cost/marketing issue... see? They want to niche ray,mini,neo,arc,play
And this shows on the pricetag/targeting ads..
Basic marketing.
r33p said:
Its a crap cam.
Arc got a way better cam, but its a cost/marketing issue... see? They want to niche ray,mini,neo,arc,play
And this shows on the pricetag/targeting ads..
Basic marketing.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well its the smallest and cheapest of them all so corners had to be cut somewhere.
Theres also the segmentation of products that you mentioned but every single manufacturer does it.
We all wish it was a bit better but its not 'crap'. And daylight pictures are decent.
Edit: Check out this comparison. Load up mini pro and arc and you'll see that Arc isnt actually that much better even though its 8mpix and device itself is highend-ish. Also load up Galaxy Ace which has 5mpix, it blows mini pro and arc out of the water. Same goes for xperia neo. 2011 Xperia phones have had sup bar cameras it seems. They all have the same imperfections, not much differences between them. http://www.gsmarena.com/piccmp.php3?idType=3&idPhone1=3713&idPhone2=3724&idPhone3=3619
sulkie said:
Well its the smallest and cheapest of them all so corners had to be cut somewhere.
Theres also the segmentation of products that you mentioned but every single manufacturer does it.
We all wish it was a bit better but its not 'crap'. And daylight pictures are decent.
Edit: Check out this comparison. Load up mini pro and arc and you'll see that Arc isnt actually that much better even though its 8mpix and device itself is highend-ish. Also load up Galaxy Ace which has 5mpix, it blows mini pro and arc out of the water. Same goes for xperia neo. 2011 Xperia phones have had sup bar cameras it seems. They all have the same imperfections, not much differences between them. http://www.gsmarena.com/piccmp.php3?idType=3&idPhone1=3713&idPhone2=3724&idPhone3=3619
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Nice find! Looks like there are 2 main issues that make me unhappy with the PQ.
1: Is the noise reduction pattern, it looks to have a blotch pattern to me. It's not a pleasant constant grain like the iPhone 4.
2: Dynamic range looks pretty poor.
I think both of these could be due to the NR and compression algo. It would be nice if Sony would provide something better, or if it could be fixed via software.
It's a shame the test chart didn't provide better real world fine detail examples. I like to look at hair for this type of test and apparently that sample photo of the girls isn't helpful since the DSLR cameras didn't show good detail in that area.
However, it does give a feel for just how good of a job the camera can do.
Mike
panamamike said:
Nice find! Looks like there are 2 main issues that make me unhappy with the PQ.
1: Is the noise reduction pattern, it looks to have a blotch pattern to me. It's not a pleasant constant grain like the iPhone 4.
2: Dynamic range looks pretty poor.
I think both of these could be due to the NR and compression algo. It would be nice if Sony would provide something better, or if it could be fixed via software.
It's a shame the test chart didn't provide better real world fine detail examples. I like to look at hair for this type of test and apparently that sample photo of the girls isn't helpful since the DSLR cameras didn't show good detail in that area.
However, it does give a feel for just how good of a job the camera can do.
Mike
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Its a midrange/entry level phone ffs. Dont compare it with iphone4.
Its not on the same planet.
And a compression algo is indeed controlled via software. Same with nr. Stuff that SE finetunes with firmware updates.
Now, enjoy what you get for the money or buy the Arc S.
r33p said:
Its a midrange/entry level phone ffs. Dont compare it with iphone4.
Its not on the same planet.
And a compression algo is indeed controlled via software. Same with nr. Stuff that SE finetunes with firmware updates.
Now, enjoy what you get for the money or buy the Arc S.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well, the iphone4 comparison isn't appropriate, but I started the thread because I was surprise that my old SE W580i produced better photos, take resolution into account. It also has a setting for normal vs. fine level detail, I was surprised to find the Mini Pro doesn't have that option.
I think the mini pro has room for improvement...
Mike
Well i had a couple of androids. Non wich where perfect.
r33p said:
Well i had a couple of androids. Non wich where perfect.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I agree, all phones have their short comings, I just don't like it when a phone is gimped, meaning the hardware is able, but the software lack of features or bugs get in the way...
Mike
sulkie said:
Yeah, not the best camera for non-bright conditions.
I installed an original gingerbread camera for some other Xperia device with the same sensor but modded to work for Mini Pro. And took some shots for comparison with the highest quality settings (Super Fine) on the original one. File sizes were about 30% larger but with no very little to no differences so i stuck with the Sony's one.
They're coming up with some camera tweaks for new update so maybe they'll manage to improve this aspect although i doubt it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I tried some of the 3rd party cameras, 360 camera and lgcamera. Similar results, not noticeable PQ improvement and much larger files 3x in some cases.
Yet I'm not convinced these programs have full control of the camera. Wondering how the sensor RAW image is processed by the camera to produce a jpeg ect...
BTW, how did you determine which sensor is in the camera?
Mike
I find the quality to be very good. It's a digital camera afterall, dont expect magic on a 200€ device.
If u guys take still pic's in daylight , then HDR cam+ takes some awesome shots
here's a sample u can judge.
http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/818/20111014131928.jpg/
http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/3/20111014125355.jpg/
when i takce a picture with my camera on xperia mini pro, as a result the photos are really small when i see them on my pc, how can I change the size of the picture??
Try to use lgcamera...more options, you´ll find it in the market
To be honest i have a pretty good experience with my Active's camera. I had it mounted on my ski boot, and inside the strap (which adds another layer of plastic, making it a bit more blurry). I must say i was impressed.
So this is what the verge has to say :
"video capture as well, with the
camera sometimes tinting the entire scene into a new palette as it determines a new color balance.
A legitimate criticism of Nokia’s 808 PureView camera is that while it can take amazing shots, it really requires the hands of a very knowledgeable user to
pull them off. That same complaint applies to the Lumia 920’s camera as well. To most eyes, the images look a little washed out and don’t "pop," with not enough warm tones. A studied pro might say that they’re more accurate and true to life, but the vast majority of smartphone users don’t want to
think about the nuances of optical imaging stabilization, they just want to take photos."
Can somebody preferably some who've spent some quality time with 920 comment on this please !really need to know whether this was bias from verge or is it true that for an average vagabond 920 camera is too professional !
Thanks in advance .
Sorry if posted in wrong section and sorry for long title !
Source : http://mobile.theverge.com/2012/11/1/3584486/nokia-lumia-920-review
Only thing Ive heard is that the camera is great, and some say its not too good in daylight, but that it is known to Nokia and its a SW issue that theyre working on as we speak.
EVERY single review Ive read have said the camera is fantastic, and this is going by normal standards, not professional photographer standards.
Yup thanks for the reply
I still have my doubts after reading that verge review ! Am not a pro user either
nikufellow said:
Yup thanks for the reply
I still have my doubts after reading that verge review ! Am not a pro user either
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Most phone cameras take pictures that looks very "meh" until you do some slight editing. Like just upping saturation and contrast by like 15-20%, and cropping them if youre feeling like a daredevil. Even the N8s pictures, and it has a great camera.
I wouldnt worry about it at all, but if it helps just go read more reviews on the phone and see what others have to say about it.
Again; that software issue with pictures not being crisp enough is known and is being worked on as we speak.
Thanks again i have read many reviews and only this one seems to downplay the camera a bit that is why i thought it would be nice to hear some opinions from owners
I've been taking pictures in just auto mode and they have come out great. They aren't oversaturated though, but if you're into vivid pictures its easy enough to do in an app.
Sent from my RM-820_nam_att_100 using Board Express
Not sure if something like this has already been posted:
A post on the android subreddit describes improvements to the camera API with specific mention of Sony devices:
Sony
Sony post processing isn't as good as it could be, look at this Xperia Z sample.
If you have a high end Sony phone from the last two years I wouldn't hesitate to say that your photos and video will drastically improve with this new API if implemented well in a good app.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The full post is worth a read. There may be hope for the ZU camera after all.
http://www.reddit.com/r/Android/comments/2lr0d2/an_indepth_analysis_of_the_new_android_50_camera/
unidentifier said:
Not sure if something like this has already been posted:
A post on the android subreddit describes improvements to the camera API with specific mention of Sony devices:
The full post is worth a read. There may be hope for the ZU camera after all.
http://www.reddit.com/r/Android/comments/2lr0d2/an_indepth_analysis_of_the_new_android_50_camera/
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
We were hoping that the API and RAW format was going to arrive in KK as it was rumoured back then. Having access to the RAW data will help, but a noisy sensor is a noisy sensor.
There are some photo comparisons out there of the Nexus 5 running both Kitkat and Lollipop. The improvement in quality is very very noticeable, and I will eat a hat if we don't see some improvement on the Z Ultra too.
I believe it was Forbes that tested the Nexus 5 camera.
i hope this new camera API gets unmolested RAW data from the sensor
the JPGs this thing spits out currently is horrible
Software doesn't make miracles when hardware is at fault, just think that ZU Camera is a tablet Camera and get over it
Sm0L said:
Software doesn't make miracles when hardware is at fault, just think that ZU Camera is a tablet Camera and get over it
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's not software, but APIs, which grants direct access to the camera hardware. This is a first time on Android. What this means is that regular devs will have access to the camera hardware, and new camera apps can actually claim to take better or different photos. Want to shoot RAW? Sure. No problem. Want to dump Sony's post-processing algorythm? Not an issue.
There's probably not any issues with the sensor and module. Sony makes incredible camera modules, and even the cameras in the iPhones are from Sony. But the iPhone camera is much better than the average flagship Android, isn't it? Yes, and that boils down to the camera software. Not the hardware. So Lollipop will probably, and hopefully make a huge difference on the Ultra's camera. Low-light will still suck though.
---------- Post added at 03:53 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:51 PM ----------
ShadowVlican said:
i hope this new camera API gets unmolested RAW data from the sensor
the JPGs this thing spits out currently is horrible
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
There's already a third party camera app for Lollipop that does this. It shoots RAW. The app itself is crappy (according to most users), but it's more of a proof of concept at this point.
H. E. Pennypacker said:
It's not software, but APIs, which grants direct access to the camera hardware. This is a first time on Android. What this means is that regular devs will have access to the camera hardware, and new camera apps can actually claim to take better or different photos. Want to shoot RAW? Sure. No problem. Want to dump Sony's post-processing algorythm? Not an issue.
There's probably not any issues with the sensor and module. Sony makes incredible camera modules, and even the cameras in the iPhones are from Sony. But the iPhone camera is much better than the average flagship Android, isn't it? Yes, and that boils down to the camera software. Not the hardware. So Lollipop will probably, and hopefully make a huge difference on the Ultra's camera. Low-light will still suck though.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I don't think you are right, imho the sensor and module of the ZU is a bit of a crap and can't get better with new APIs, but i hope your are right.
Sm0L said:
I don't think you are right, imho the sensor and module of the ZU is a bit of a crap and can't get better with new APIs, but i hope your are right.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
But it might get faster. I think sonys post processing is already pretty good, when you consider the sensor being crap. Especially the video stabilization is impressive, it's doing a better job than some phones with OIS. But we will see when the GPE port arrives.
madphone said:
But it might get faster. I think sonys post processing is already pretty good, when you consider the sensor being crap. Especially the video stabilization is impressive, it's doing a better job than some phones with OIS. But we will see when the GPE port arrives.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Sony's post-processing is the worst.
Certainly the write-up I posted suggested it's Sony's post-processing. Sony's sensor's are supposed to be best and is what's in most top phones.
Does anyone have any evidence (aside from self-referencing the XZU and Sony phones) that the 8 MP Exnor RS Sensor itself is flawed? Any other products using this sensor that also produce poor photos? Otherwise it's just a matter of opinion (without evidence) that it's sensor vs. the api.
The only other way to know for sure is to wait and see.
unidentifier said:
Certainly the write-up I posted suggested it's Sony's post-processing. Sony's sensor's are supposed to be best and is what's in most top phones.
Does anyone have any evidence (aside from self-referencing the XZU and Sony phones) that the 8 MP Exnor R Sensor itself is flawed? Any other products using this sensor that also produce poor photos? Otherwise it's just a matter of opinion (without evidence) that it's sensor vs. the api.
The only other way to know for sure is to wait and see.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah, we'll just have to wait i guess No reason to fight over something that doesn't have a right or wrong answer yet.
unidentifier said:
Certainly the write-up I posted suggested it's Sony's post-processing. Sony's sensor's are supposed to be best and is what's in most top phones.
Does anyone have any evidence (aside from self-referencing the XZU and Sony phones) that the 8 MP Exnor RS Sensor itself is flawed? Any other products using this sensor that also produce poor photos? Otherwise it's just a matter of opinion (without evidence) that it's sensor vs. the api.
The only other way to know for sure is to wait and see.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Wikipedia list the Z Ultra's camera module as the IMX134 and is shared with the Xperia L and the Huawei Ascend G6, I don't know if that's correct or not but it's listed as 1/4in sensor which I can believe as that would account for poor image quality. Comparatively the Z1 and successors use 1/2.3in sensors which are much bigger although in general for cameras, that's still on the small side.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exmor
I don't believe there is any way we're going to see drastic improvements from Android 5.0, I do think Sony's image processing is an issue because they're trying to push a poor sensor too much resulting in noise reduction and sharpening which is far too aggressive. Dealing with noise is difficult, it's unsightly but the more aggressive the noise reduction is the more you lose detail but companies generally favour reducing noise at all cost on small, noisy sensors. Dialling back some of that aggressive processing will probably help the image quality a bit but ultimately it's still a small, noisy sensor and there's not much you can do with that.
John
Interestingly, this review of the Xperia L touts its "fantastic camera", concluding that "we feel that the camera is really something special. For those that want a decent camera phone, but don't want to pay loads, you might want to look at the Xperia L."
Expert Reviews say they "were impressed by the performance of its backside-illuminated camera sensor" and that it "takes some of the best low-light photos we've seen, with far more detail and less than noise than the Samsung Galaxy S4's shots. Daylight photos were acceptable if not spectacular. Contrast was impressive, with no sign of overexposure in lighter areas even on a sunlit day, but details became muddy when we zoomed in, showing the limits of the Xperia L's eight megapixels." Is the Ultra's sensor not backside-illuminated, maybe? The L also has a flash.
On the other hand, CNET is disappointed in its low-light performance. Trusted Reviews agrees, saying "Indoors, the Sony Xperia L camera is affected by yet more issues. While the camera takes balanced, good-looking photos in bright, natural light, in dim indoor lighting the white balance is off, resulting in ugly yellow tinged photos. The inbuilt flash does little to help, either." They say it does have "many positives, including a pleasing colour balance, sharp focus in shots".
PC World is generally happy with the Ascend G6's camera, saying "photo performance is generally strong — especially when you keep the Huawei’s price in mind — but we did encounter signs of flaring and feathering during testing. Image noise is present, but its at a low level, while the on-board HDR mode does a decent job at capturing detail that is otherwise lost."
These do take into consideration the price of the phones, however - they're both much cheaper than the Ultra was at launch.
Edit: All that to say, maybe there is hope in the software department.
Johnmcl7 said:
Wikipedia list the Z Ultra's camera module as the IMX134 and is shared with the Xperia L and the Huawei Ascend G6, I don't know if that's correct or not but it's listed as 1/4in sensor which I can believe as that would account for poor image quality. Comparatively the Z1 and successors use 1/2.3in sensors which are much bigger although in general for cameras, that's still on the small side.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exmor
I don't believe there is any way we're going to see drastic improvements from Android 5.0, I do think Sony's image processing is an issue because they're trying to push a poor sensor too much resulting in noise reduction and sharpening which is far too aggressive. Dealing with noise is difficult, it's unsightly but the more aggressive the noise reduction is the more you lose detail but companies generally favour reducing noise at all cost on small, noisy sensors. Dialling back some of that aggressive processing will probably help the image quality a bit but ultimately it's still a small, noisy sensor and there's not much you can do with that.
John
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Triflot said:
Interestingly, this review of the Xperia L touts its "fantastic camera", concluding that "we feel that the camera is really something special. For those that want a decent camera phone, but don't want to pay loads, you might want to look at the Xperia L."
Expert Reviews say they "were impressed by the performance of its backside-illuminated camera sensor" and that it "takes some of the best low-light photos we've seen, with far more detail and less than noise than the Samsung Galaxy S4's shots. Daylight photos were acceptable if not spectacular. Contrast was impressive, with no sign of overexposure in lighter areas even on a sunlit day, but details became muddy when we zoomed in, showing the limits of the Xperia L's eight megapixels." Is the Ultra's sensor not backside-illuminated, maybe? The L also has a flash.
On the other hand, CNET is disappointed in its low-light performance. Trusted Reviews agrees, saying "Indoors, the Sony Xperia L camera is affected by yet more issues. While the camera takes balanced, good-looking photos in bright, natural light, in dim indoor lighting the white balance is off, resulting in ugly yellow tinged photos. The inbuilt flash does little to help, either." They say it does have "many positives, including a pleasing colour balance, sharp focus in shots".
PC World is generally happy with the Ascend G6's camera, saying "photo performance is generally strong — especially when you keep the Huawei’s price in mind — but we did encounter signs of flaring and feathering during testing. Image noise is present, but its at a low level, while the on-board HDR mode does a decent job at capturing detail that is otherwise lost."
These do take into consideration the price of the phones, however - they're both much cheaper than the Ultra was at launch.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Solid research John and Triflot. Thank you.
Personally, I will be happy if the camera works at all with unlocked bl.
You want me to put the hammer down?
Deleted
leonbarroso said:
Do as I did - buy a semipro camera on blackfriday
Serious photography with smartphone is bull****
And I am a former Lumia 1020 owner
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Why does it have to be 'serious' photography? I have many dedicated cameras from 1in sensor size up to professional full frame setups but none of those cameras are small enough to keep in my trouser pockets all the time, I tried recently going for one of the smallest dedicated cameras I could find but even that was irritating to carry in my trouser pockets alongside the phone. My phone on the other hand is always in my pocket and always to hand so it's ready to go any time when I want to take a photo unexpectedly plus its online connection means the photo is immediately ready to upload the photo if I want to as well. Some of my dedicated cameras have wifi for transferring photos but it's still a fiddle in comparison.
I don't need an amazing camera but I'm just disappointed how poor the Z ultra camera is, I find I use it like an older camera phone where it was only really handy for capturing serial numbers or information I need to quickly jot down whereas I used the Galaxy Note as a camera a fair bit and while the quality can't match the dedicated cameras it could produce reasonable pictures. I'm seriously considering going for a Note 4 and taking the hit on the screen size to get the better camera, it will be a few months before prices are reasonable so that's time to see if Sony announce anything (which I seriously doubt) or anyone else offers anything interesting with a larger screen.
With regards to the Z Ultra sensor, I'm surprised it is BSI as I thought I'd read initially when considering the phone that Sony had taken an older sensor and rebadged it as Exmor RS which made sense. There's not many sources for the camera module but the few I can find agree with Wikipedia as do sources for the Huawei and the Xperia L, is there any way to verify this in software on a Z Ultra? With regards to photo quality on the Xperia L and the Huawei G6, I am surprised by the positive comments even allowing for them being budget phones and the G6 having a faster lens (F2 rather than F2.4 on the Sony's). Then again some of the reviews of the Z Ultra aren't that hard on the camera either so it's difficult to tell objectively, DXOmark haven't tested it (admittedly I'm not convinced by their testing anyway) nor have I seen any particularly objective testing.
John
Review from Engadget is up, and looks like most of it is good except low light performance of camera. Hope there is fix for this.
https://www.engadget.com/2016/07/30/zte-axon-7-review/#gallery=419900&slide=4003963&index=14
I'm still not sure why people seem so obsessed with low light camera performance. When I look at my album, less than 5% of the pictures are of low light scenes. I'm not going to let such a menial metric determine whether or not I buy this.
Adiyel said:
I'm still not sure why people seem so obsessed with low light camera performance. When I look at my album, less than 5% of the pictures are of low light scenes. I'm not going to let such a menial metric determine whether or not I buy this.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Doesn't matter what % you take in low light. low light pictures are the best how you know your camera is good.
Sent from my Nexus 6P using XDA-Developers mobile app
Adiyel said:
I'm still not sure why people seem so obsessed with low light camera performance. When I look at my album, less than 5% of the pictures are of low light scenes. I'm not going to let such a menial metric determine whether or not I buy this.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
If it takes good pictures in low light, then it will probably take great pictures in brighter conditions. Some of us take more pictures at night time, at concerts, or simply want the option to take better quality pictures.
Apropos camera quality, I've almost never liked my iPhone 6's low-light shots, but have absolutely no complaint about the other 98% of the times I take a picture during daylight. So in case you wanna measure it "as of worst case", sure, but I don't think there's a clear way to translate that performance directly to "quality". Specially for a tiny smartphone sensor without interchangable lens etc.
When it comes to the Axon 7's camera, exposure (pictures come out darker from what I've seen) and that grain I see in some pictures are the only "worries" I think I might have when I switch (currently waiting for UNKNOWN EU shipping dates). And both of those problems might as well be fixed via software.
MKBHD [1] said it a couple of times, nowadays we tend to measure smartphones by what's wrong with them, instead of what's right about them. So I understand, why people complain about a not so good low light camera performance.
But I'm with @Adiyel. It's the same for me, I almost never take photos in low light, so I don't care about low light camera performance.
[1] Quote from MKBHD's OnePlus 3 Review
Axon 7's low light photo results is the only con I know Axon 7 has at the moment....well.....beside the availability problem here in Europe at the moment.
We are judging phones from their flaws since if you see phones with relative similar price, you will start to compare the pros and cons. Since phones these days are already good, looking for their cons are the better comparison rather then going over their pros. In the end, you simply want a the best phone for your money.
aaa said:
Axon 7's low light photo results is the only con I know Axon 7 has at the moment....well.....beside the availability problem here in Europe at the moment.
We are judging phones from their flaws since if you see phones with relative similar price, you will start to compare the pros and cons. Since phones these days are already good, looking for their cons are the better comparison rather then going over their pros. In the end, you simply want a the best phone for your money.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well then from both of you and Cypher's points of views, other phones don't have dual-facing speakers with DOLBY ATMOS AND High-End DAC, so all of them are out of the question. See? Not the best way to compare things...
I don't know about reviews and how it is done, but atleast in real life use I think camera is decent and this is coming from someone who have used Lumia 1520, iPhone 6 & LG G4 in past. My fiancé got same phone and we were texting back and forth on whatsapp yesterday and few selfie she sent in pitch black dark room with just the screen light looked pretty decent to me on my LG G4. If you go pixel peeping even you can find flaws with pics of D800 and 5D mk iii. I think when I get mine from B&H I'd not be upset with the camera atleast based upon what I saw yesterday.
Low light is an issue imo because night-life is a popular time to take pictures for a large amount of phone users. The majority of this forum might be married with kids and/or cave-dwellers but let's not rationalize away things that could use improvement.
macallik said:
Low light is an issue imo because night-life is a popular time to take pictures for a large amount of phone users. The majority of this forum might be married with kids and/or cave-dwellers but let's not rationalize away things that could use improvement.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah sure you can complain all you want. Was just throwing in my two cents, and I'm really sad that you won't be able to take great pictures in the dark, where you should be drinking and getting on with the girls instead Coming from a "cave-dweller".
P.S. People should check their upgraditis once in a while. 400 bucks get you this far, and I think you won't find so much more features, if any, in many other phones with the same price.
MeggaMortY said:
Yeah sure you can complain all you want. Was just throwing in my two cents, and I'm really sad that you won't be able to take great pictures in the dark, where you should be drinking and getting on with the girls instead Coming from a "cave-dweller".
P.S. People should check their upgraditis once in a while. 400 bucks get you this far, and I think you won't find so much more features, if any, in many other phones with the same price.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Night-life is about doing things at night, not just being in a bar/club.
Personally, I think the Axon 7 suits my needs greater than the OP3 (a similarly priced phone) in most ways. Photo quality is an area that the phone is being outperformed however.
macallik said:
Low light is an issue imo because night-life is a popular time to take pictures for a large amount of phone users. The majority of this forum might be married with kids and/or cave-dwellers but let's not rationalize away things that could use improvement.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No I'm not trying to rationalize low light performance. All I'm saying is what I've seen so far is good enough for my use, yes there is always room for improvement. But I don't see any other device in this price range with all this feature set giving any better low light pictures then what Axon 7 does at this period of time, There might be devices in future that will beat Axon 7 for price feature category. But at present I feel this is best value for your money. And with more RAM + more powerful processor - point I don't get is if you are not a gamer, does it really matter ?
macallik said:
Low light is an issue imo because night-life is a popular time to take pictures for a large amount of phone users. The majority of this forum might be married with kids and/or cave-dwellers but let's not rationalize away things that could use improvement.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I agree with this. Have you seen Linus Tech's review of the Axon? For night scenes, most people are rocking iPhones, Galaxies, LGs, and oddly enough, ZTE phones (4th largest in the USA). Only recent phones really have passable lowlight, and it's easy enough to spend a couple minutes in snapseed and make a night photo really usable.
I also think a problem our generation has is that we judge this phone's lowlight based on other phones, but its performance wouldn't change if these phones didn't exist (the 2016 galaxies).
Like the other guy said earlier, the performance is passable. And lowlight isn't an indication of how good a cam is...it's more indicative of how versatile and stable the performance is across different scenarios. Look at the TechRadar review, and look at the walkway scene. The Axon pulls in far more detail than the S7. Period. Lots of small pixels has a tradeoff for great daytime detail and performance. Large pixels and lower resolution has compromises, too.
Overall, the Axon does so many things right for so little money. How many phones can say that? How many offer what the Axon 7 does at or below is cost? The list is VERY small, trust me.
I would prefer an artificial light / indoor light review as I class that as low light. So many recent phones I have had are awful inside the house and loads of my photos are I doors with my children just having fun and of you want a camera test that would be a great one. Best phone so far including s7 and s7 Edge for taking photos of a baby bouncing in a bouncer is any of the Sony xperia Z range using timeshift burst. One click and an instant 40 photos (I think) 20 before shutter and 20 after now that's amazing at freezing moving images just a shame resolution was a little low and phones heat up) all the same it's a clever bit of software ahead of its time.
Have always wondered how the moon looks so good every single time with 100x !
Moon mode magic makes the media mad, but many more manipulated megapixels have their merit
- Marques.
Computational photography, it's widely known, Google SuperResZoom it's the same approach. All raw info it's developed in some way in every picture, every camera does. But the phones, does with more strength.
CarlosLopezES said:
Computational photography, it's widely known, Google SuperResZoom it's the same approach. All raw info it's developed in some way in every picture, every camera does. But the phones, does with more strength.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Be fun to give some focus patterns and see what it does...
Let's all be honest here...it's been over a 1 month since the phone was released...how many of us here have taken 28 photos of all faces of the moon? Forget the moon, how many of us here have been using the camera app exclusively more than other apps on the device? Your phone's battery history app should give all the top used apps over the week and possibly the month and I'm sure the camera won't even figure in the top ten for the majority of us. This whole moon photography will wane away after 2 months!
Computational photography has been in the business ever since Pixel 1. Although Google rules this field, over the years almost every android OEM has their own version of computational photography. This is why the same scene looks legitimately different on different phones. And, if anyone argues that iPhone has no computational photography, then they should be shot dead!
Let's all enjoy our devices for it is...controversies will always come and go! The fact is the S23U is a good product out of Samsung's floors in a long time!
The essential part for me is that this can be deactivated (Scene optimizer), so you can benefit of AI but you are not forced to do so...
That a smartphone with its tiny lenses has to rely heavily on computational photography is no real news
And I never understood why this focus on moon shots has developed over the past (aside from the fact that its a readily available test object for high-zoom images) - while its impressive what a smartphone can do its still miles away from "real" moon photos which of course in return require much more equipment to accomplish this....
s3axel said:
... I never understood why this focus on moon shots has developed over the past (aside from the fact that its a readily available test object for high-zoom images) - while its impressive what a smartphone can do its still miles away from "real" moon photos which of course in return require much more equipment to accomplish this....
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
A smartphone can take photos of the Moon of that far , that too so clearly!
- This sounds good and echoes well and so is a good selling point maybe.
We can say that some people have ample time in their life and they don't know what to do with that other than make fuss about how good investigating knowledge they possess than anyone else. Anyway, here's a 2 shot of Moon. The warmer times is from Pixel 6 Pro zoom lens from back March 2022. And the right one is from Galaxy S23U zoom lens.
Side note: people should simply enjoy taking pictures and not making fuss about how fake the pictures are. Most of the same professional photographers forget that they use 3rd party tools like Lightroom, Photoshop to make the photos look unrealistic than they actually shot
Here's 100x, on Auto mode, handheld, unedited.
Here's the same photo, a bit of of adjustments on Samsung Gallery App.
krips2003 said:
We can say that some people have ample time in their life and they don't know what to do with that other than make fuss about how good investigating knowledge they possess than anyone else...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Not exactly I would say. A tech reviewer making users aware of what they are getting for their money is a good deed and consumers discussing about it is probably not a fuss. Tech enthusiasts have ample time for it ofcourse.
What makes me laugh is this is well documented, and most youtuber already made video about this on previous samsung and huawei phones....
Not because the s23 is new, that the topic is new....
damn influencers.
CarlosLopezES said:
Computational photography, it's widely known, Google SuperResZoom it's the same approach. All raw info it's developed in some way in every picture, every camera does. But the phones, does with more strength.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
S23U turned a rough paper cutout of a Moon picture into a real Moon that iPhone 14 Pro and Google Pixel 7 Pro did not. In RAW terms, it's simply a fake picture of the Moon.
Fast forward to 03:35
I don't know where have you been all this time but AI processing on photos have been there since 2019 probably. Didn't you always wondered why google pixel for 3 straight years were taking best photos with same camera sensor? They were way ahead of competition with their AI image processing that's why. That's the answer. Naturally all camera sensors are way to small for taking amazing photos in most scenarios that's where AI magic happens. Every phone does that
Klaudas said:
I don't know where have you been all this time but AI processing on photos have been there since 2019 probably. Didn't you always wondered why google pixel for 3 straight years were taking best photos with same camera sensor? They were way ahead of competition with their AI image processing that's why. That's the answer. Naturally all camera sensors are way to small for taking amazing photos in most scenarios that's where AI magic happens. Every phone does that
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Using a phone I took a picture of a rotten potato and astonishingly it looks like a fresh tomato when I checked.
There's nothing wrong in it and shoutout to the phone because it's Artificial Intelligence doing it.
Virgo_Guy said:
Using a phone I took a picture of a rotten potato and astonishingly it looks like a fresh tomato when I checked.
There's nothing wrong in it and shoutout to the phone because it's Artificial Intelligence doing it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Does it see faces in the cat litter?
How does it do with faces, the gold standard?
If it can do that NASA technology trick that be cool.
Virgo_Guy said:
Using a phone I took a picture of a rotten potato and astonishingly it looks like a fresh tomato when I checked.
There's nothing wrong in it and shoutout to the phone because it's Artificial Intelligence doing it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Not sure that's an accurate analogy though, although I understand you're just trying to make a point haha. But I think it may actually be misleading.
That analogy might be good if Samsung's moonshot resulted in an incredibly detailed picture of the sun, AND the actual reality/appearance of the moon was "rotten" (not sure what that would actually look like though haha).
Are there side by side pictures of the moon taken by DSLR cameras compared with Samsung's moonshots?
EDIT: interesting article on this from over 2-years ago when the first Samsung phone (S21 Ultra) was taking such moonshots: https://www.inverse.com/input/revie...hotos-investigation-super-resolution-analysis
I think the issue has been blown out of proportion all due to an idiot on reddit. Everyone knows its AI enhanced. Fake is what Huawei did a few years ago. Samsung has clearly described what it does in its support pages. These so-called YouTubers are half-assed smart talkers. Let's always remember good content & production value on YT does not equate to truth. And dare they say anything against the fruit logo. See them sweet talk their way when Crapple officially introduces such features.
Check out this tweet & his recent timeline from a professional photographer where he exposes all these so called experts:
https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1635367726570143746
https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1635356104795516928
Side note: I took early morning pics of the sun and the AI tried to render a sunspot (see top right in one of the pics below).
A good use of 10X and AI is when we zoom 100x and we can see how it tried to read the license plate of a car which is almost 400 mts away.
linom said:
I think the issue has been blown out of proportion all due to an idiot on reddit. Everyone knows its AI enhanced. Fake is what Huawei did a few years ago. Samsung has clearly described what it does in its support pages. These so-called YouTubers are half-assed smart talkers. Let's always remember good content & production value on YT does not equate to truth. And dare they say anything against the fruit logo. See them sweet talk their way when Crapple officially introduces such features.
Check out this tweet & his recent timeline from a professional photographer where he exposes all these so called experts:
https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1635367726570143746
https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1635356104795516928
Side note: I took early morning pics of the sun and the AI tried to render a sunspot (see top right in one of the pics below).
A good use of 10X and AI is when we zoom 100x and we can see how it tried to read the license plate of a car which is almost 400 mts away.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I don't think that's a sunspot. It could be the mercury planet. Much more clearly visible here.
sam142000 said:
I don't think that's a sunspot. It could be the mercury planet. Much more clearly visible here. View attachment 5865033
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah it's mercury
Before we leave Moon to explore other celestial objects further away and beyond, I think we should ask another pressing question: is the Moon flat?
It certainly appears that way on all the Samsung Galaxy astronomy pictures.
Some another video of proof that sammy take real moon photos...