Canon 7D or 60D - Off-topic

Hey everyone, I need your opinions on these two different cameras, especially if you own them.
I have always been into photography, but I have never had the proper gear to fully utilize my desire for professional photography.
I have been reading reviews thoroughly throughout the web and here is what I have gathered:
-60D-
18MP CMOS
Full HD 1080p
5.3 FPS
6400 ISO
SDHC/XC
96% Viewfinder
HDMI Out
Poly-carbonate body (hardened plastic)
Vari Angle LCD
104K screen
Amateur range
$999 Body only
~$1,299 inc 25-135mm Lens
-7D-
18MP CMOS
Full HD 1080p
8 FPS
12400 ISO
Compact Flash
100% Viewfinder
HDMI Out
Magnesium-Alloy body (metal)
948K Screen
Professional Grade
$1200 Body only
~$1649 inc 15-135mm Lens
Pricing isn't an issue for me, and even though this would be my first DSLR, and to some the 60D might make more sense for an amateur, I want to have all the benefits of a professional DSLR so I can grow into it as a photographer. I would appreciate your guys's input. Sell me on either, I am seriously split 50/50.
Thanks, Zach.

The 7d aims for pro. It's more robust than 60d, more protected against rough environments.
I wanted to change my nex-5 for a 7d, but i will go for a 60d. I'm not a pro and the diff between 60d and 7d are not big
Sent from my GT-I9000 using XDA App

Get thee to ye old camera shoppe
Handle both of them.
Decide on which one suits you better.
When it was finally time to renew my old 300D (Rebel to you guys I believe, although I'd installed the 10D firmware) I looked at the 450D, and it was just too small for my hands, so I went for the 40D which is perfect for me.
Also, for those where money is an issue, look at the cost of accessories (even chinese clone ones from ebay) that you are likely to use, like vertical battery grip etc.

I own a 7D. The 60D is much different in ergonomics and button layout then EVERY SINGLE CANON BODY, except the rebel series. With the 7D you get more FPS, and higher ISO with better performance. I did shoot an NBA game with it. Also remember to invest in glass, because that's where the quality comes in.
If you want an articulating screen, get the 60D, and if you want for FPS and better ISO performance get the 7D, but as xaccers said "Get thee to ye old camera shoppe "
Also that seems somewhat cheap for a 7D body, make sure you're not getting scammed and check www.resellerratings.com

jaszek said:
I own a 7D. The 60D is much different in ergonomics and button layout then EVERY SINGLE CANON BODY, except the rebel series. With the 7D you get more FPS, and higher ISO with better performance. I did shoot an NBA game with it. Also remember to invest in glass, because that's where the quality comes in.
If you want an articulating screen, get the 60D, and if you want for FPS and better ISO performance get the 7D, but as xaccers said "Get thee to ye old camera shoppe "
Also that seems somewhat cheap for a 7D body, make sure you're not getting scammed and check www.resellerratings.com
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thank you all for the replies, I have thought about it all day and I am going to have to go with the 7D. Thanks. $1699 for body and lens.

If I were you I'd ditch the lens and buy a higher quality one if you want to get more serious about your work. Remember, if you have good glass but ****ty body, you get good photos, but good body, but ****ty glass, then you have ****ty photos...and if you have good glass and good body you get great photos. And you know what happens when both are ****ty.

Related

Canon or Nikon?

The question is: Canon EOS 400D or Nikon D40X, which would you buy?
Looking at the reviews there is very little to separate these two cameras so I thought I'd ask on here.
I have heard all the good things about both of them, they seem to be the best two on the market and the price and quality are both good.
I have also heard bad things about the 18 - 55 kit lens that comes with the Canon and the lens fitting the Nikon limiting you to Nikon lenses.
I think the Canon is just edging it at the moment thanks to its extra features: 9 focal points, a-dep and the auto dust removal thing.
Perhaps the real question should be: How bad is the Canon kit lens?
Any advice would be greatly received.
Thanks
They're both good manufacturers. I was looking at the Canon EOS series and found that I liked the features it delivered.
throw something into the mix i just got a sony dsc-t100....now i hate sony products but DAMN this camera is seriously kick ass..it is amazing.
select lenses first.
At the end it matters how the picture looks. If you don look at the features, but just at the quality of the picture I would buy the canon. It's different when you compare the 400d to the d80 or d50.
On the net I find dpreview.com unbiased and objective, also it has a big user forum wit opinions.
Canon and Nikon are really close, but the reason I bought the canon is: 2second hand lenses are widely available and cheap. Also I didn't select the camera first but the lenses I wanted to use. A big selling point for the Nikon is the 18-200mm VR

Camera quality - Not impressed. How about you?

Feel free to say that my expectations are too high, but I was anticipating better results from the camera than I have been seeing. Even in the most favourable of light the detail contained within the images is far lower than the headline 8 megapixel spec would have one believe and the JPEG artefacts are strong and ugly.
Just by way of one example here is a pair of images side by side. On the left we have unedited output from the Note. On the right we have unedited output from my DSLR, simply resized to match the pixel dimensions of the Note for direct comparison.
{
"lightbox_close": "Close",
"lightbox_next": "Next",
"lightbox_previous": "Previous",
"lightbox_error": "The requested content cannot be loaded. Please try again later.",
"lightbox_start_slideshow": "Start slideshow",
"lightbox_stop_slideshow": "Stop slideshow",
"lightbox_full_screen": "Full screen",
"lightbox_thumbnails": "Thumbnails",
"lightbox_download": "Download",
"lightbox_share": "Share",
"lightbox_zoom": "Zoom",
"lightbox_new_window": "New window",
"lightbox_toggle_sidebar": "Toggle sidebar"
}
The details in the image from the Note are very mushy and the colours are washed out, which I find a little weird as a scene shot with sunlit grass a couple of days back had the grass looking like it was neon. There are strong artefacts in the twigs on the tree and the details in the yellow bush on the right, the brickwork, the cracks in the pavement and the leaves on the ground are just not there.
I know it's not really fair to compare a phone camera with a DSLR, but DSLR photography has set the standard by which I judge image quality, and the Note, to my eyes falls way short. I don't know how other phones compare, but is this as good as it gets in a phone or is the Note well off the pace compared to others?
I also find that for use as a camera both the power switch and volume (zoom) rocker are poorly placed. In my efforts to gain a good, solid grip on the phone I often find myself pressing these buttons by accident, and that is not a good thing. Also, has anyone tried using the camera zoom? The results are diabolical. It's straight in the bin for anything shot with the zoom, at least by my photographic standards.
So what do you guys think? Impressed or disappointed?
If that image has been zoomed in I would say it's decent. As you mentioned it is totally unfair and you cannot compare a tiny sensor on a mobile phone which cost £500 to a dedicated DSLR which costs upwards of £400 which job is to do just photos. It could be just the phone is compressing the Jpegs a little too much but I'm sure with custom roms that can be addressed.
I forgot to add that megapixels are just marketing. It has a lot to do with the sensors and lens that are used. You may find a 5 mp camera knocks the socks of a 10 mp camera.
Can you put the original photos side by side?
From what I understand, in terms of photo quality, the only phone cameras that even match Point and Shoot cameras are the Nokia phones with Carl Zeiss optics.
Everything else will be well below that... and since DSLR is way above typical P&S cameras, I'd say the result you're seeing is exactly as expected. (In other words, megapixels mean nothing)
dangit, ninja'ed by indie.
Apples and Oranges
You've got to be joking.
In reverse:
I have considered doing a comparison of the video with 1080p HD SDI output from my video camera, but I'm afraid the Note's video might be better, after looking at these images: Note 1080p at 7.5% of the cost.
Seriously, the sensor of the note is probably very good, but the pinhole lense means it will have its limitations. It has a very good image if you consider this.
Here's a good article debunking the myth that more megapixels makes for a better image.
http://www.practicalphotographytips.com/Megapixel-Myth.html
Realistically, when talking about mobile phone cameras, you should really only be comparing like with like - comparing the Note's camera with a DSLR camera isn't going to show the Note up favourably under any conditions!
Regards,
Dave
its a very good Camera for a phone.
your trying to compare a dslr with a phone.
get real. its the glass that makes a dslr so good hence why lenses cost hundreds to thousands of dollars .
you bought a phone with a very good Camera installed, probably the one of the best on the market.....for a phone.
Sent from my GT-N7000 using XDA App
tdodd I would like to see it compared from a user and not from a review site, next to a photo from the SGS2 or from a P&S camera worth half or at max 2/3 of the Note's price.
I totally get the megapixel myth. I know very well the folly of assuming that more megapixels equals more quality. I also know the pitfalls of viewing digital images at 100%, but I don't like the output from the Note even when viewed without zooming in on my 17" laptop. It's equally unappealing on my 40" 1080p TV as well.
Unfortunately the only comparison I can make is to my DSLRs, since I don't have another phone camera worthy of the name and I hate the output from my compact camera almost as much as from the Note. What I really would like to know is how photos from the Note do compare with other phone cameras. Is it better, worse or similar? How does it compare with the new iPhone 4S, for example? Perhaps others would also like to know the answer, and since I have not seen the topic discussed, or mentioned in reviews, I thought it was worth raising.
I'm impressed with the camera and it's one of the main reasons I chose the Note (as I liked the camera on the S2) but that's because my expectations are more reasonable even though I have multiple cameras systems up to a full frame Nikon setup. For a phone camera I think it's very good, better than the Sensation's 8MP camera however it's not as good as a compact never mind a DSLR but it's always to hand whereas my compacts are not so it's handy to catch those shots that I'd otherwise miss. I was surprised how often I ended up using the S2 camera as the results were reasonable, the phone convenient and handy for uploading straight to online galleries.
You have to bear in mind the resolution doesn't really matter, the issue is the absolutely tiny camera sensor which is smaller than those used in compacts and those in compacts are far smaller than the crop DSLR/mirrorless cameras. The best of the camera phones is the Nokia N8 which boasts a sensor bigger than most compacts (up to the size of the enthusiast compacts like the LX5, S95 etc.) but it and Symbian are finished and the N9/Lumia 800 both use more conveniental camera phone sensors.
John
People! You really bought this phone for the camera? I'm sad... This phonelet (phone and tablet) has the largest screen on a phone. And some awesome specs. The camera will never be as good as a pro camera. The iphone 4s has a good camera in it. If that's the case may I suggest getting that? I think this camera is fine for a phone. I am getting this phone for its specs in general and not only the camera. Knocks the socks off most other phones in every other regard.
Sent from my BlackBerry 9900 using Tapatalk
Galaxy Note camera
I find the galaxy note camera to be quite good and very useful as a point-and-shoot. It's better than the iPhone 4 that I used to use. For images that are used for the web it is great. As a professional photographer who uses 21 megapixel full frame cameras everyday, I find this camera refreshing. It's more of a creative abstraction tool than a serious photography tool. I use it for concept and location documentation mostly.
I really cant believe you put up a cell phone camera compared with a DSLR and put the thread title "I'm not impressed"
That's literally like saying "My Honda Civic doesn't do 0-60 in 3.4 seconds like my Ferarri 458, not impressed" You didnt buy your hypothetical honda civic for it's acceleration and you didnt buy your phone to replace a dedicated DSLR camera.
tdodd said:
What I really would like to know is how photos from the Note do compare with other phone cameras. Is it better, worse or similar? How does it compare with the new iPhone 4S, for example? Perhaps others would also like to know the answer, and since I have not seen the topic discussed, or mentioned in reviews, I thought it was worth raising.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Try this goo.gl/jy5G3 (I'm still not allowed to post links but this way should work) - it's gsmarena's article "8 megapixel mega shootout." They've compared iPhone 4S, Galaxy S II, Sony Ericsson Xperia arc S, HTC Sensation XE, Nokia N9 and HTC Titan. It's very complete article but just take Galaxy S II as Galaxy Note because the both cams I believe are almost (if not exactly) the same. And long story short:
"If we had to recommend a cameraphone, it would be the iPhone 4S. The still camera was either the best or a close second in each category we tested. Also, it stole the show when it came to video recording. It goes to show that when Apple put their hearts to it, they can quickly climb to the top (and it was a steep climb too, if you remember the cameras on the early iPhones).
In a typical Apple fashion, the 4S focused on being perfect and wouldn't care for anything less - things like 720p or lower quality setting for stills.
Even so, the things that were included are highly desirable - native HDR mode, AE/AF lock and video stabilization can certainly make a difference.
The Samsung Galaxy S II is the runner up when it comes to overall performance - its still camera and camcorder beat the others most of the time. It used to be the standard-setter for 8MP/1080p mobile cameras but after 8 long (in tech terms) months on the market, it's time to cede that title.
The HTC Sensation XE is an alternative, if you value FullHD video more than still images. The Nokia N9 is a good option for those that need high dynamic range in their photos, but we're not that impressed with its overall performance.
While the Sony Ericsson Xperia arc S scored average marks among the best 8MP shooters, it's still a respectable cameraphone.
The Titan managed to surprise us. We weren't expecting much of a WP7 phone by HTC, but it offered very balanced still camera performance (with a knack for poor lighting) and solid video output (for a 720p shooter)."
Regards
I would wager the camera is the same from the galaxy s 2 which is ALMOST the same as the iPhone 4s. I have all three. I'd say the 4s is best by a hair with the other two being identical.
Sent from my GT-N7000 using xda premium
neverthemore said:
Try this goo.gl/jy5G3
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thanks for the link. That was very helpful, and that is the kind of information I was hoping to elicit from this thread. Hopefully others will find it informative too.
Here's how I tell if a camera on a phone is good:
Take a picture of a paper or hand out with lots of text on it. Make sure the paper fills the screen/picture. Zoom in and see if all the text is legible and easy to read. This his how I use my spart phone cameras. On the Note it will be particularly important since I will be able to take a picture of a paper, then zoom in and "draw" on it with the stylus.
The Camera on the iPhone 4 does a great job at this, and I hope the note is at least as good. My Flyer's camera just barely gets the job done...so meh.
zkyevolved said:
People! You really bought this phone for the camera? I'm sad... This phonelet (phone and tablet) has the largest screen on a phone. And some awesome specs. The camera will never be as good as a pro camera. The iphone 4s has a good camera in it. If that's the case may I suggest getting that? I think this camera is fine for a phone. I am getting this phone for its specs in general and not only the camera. Knocks the socks off most other phones in every other regard.
Sent from my BlackBerry 9900 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No, I didn't buy the phone for the camera nor did I say that. Pretty much all devices including phones and cameras are a matter of balance choosing what you want or need balanced against what features you're prepared to trade off. After surprising myself how often I used the S2 camera when I had a loan one the fact the Note had the same camera was a big plus combined with the incredible screen, fast processor etc.
I don't expect my phone camera to match the quality of my professional cameras as even compacts and crop DSLRs cannot do that but at the same time I don't expect my professional cameras to fit in my pocket and weigh in at much under a kilogram either. If I was buying a phone purely for the camera, it would the N8 which has a sensor unlikely to be matched in a mainstream phone for a long time if at all.
John
tdodd said:
Thanks for the link. That was very helpful, and that is the kind of information I was hoping to elicit from this thread. Hopefully others will find it informative too.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Oh? You said you thought the Notes camera was crap compared to a DSLR and It looked more like you wanted people to join in on that opinion.
Xaddict said:
Oh? You said you thought the Notes camera was crap compared to a DSLR and It looked more like you wanted people to join in on that opinion.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well I'm sorry if that's the impression I gave. My concerns were raised before I even took the side by side photos for comparison. I only shot those as an illustration to others rather than simply moaning without supporting evidence.
There are several reasons I upgraded to the Note. The screen was the main one, then the processing power, but also the camera. Since my previous phone was the Orange San Francisco, with 3.2 megapixels (yes, I know, means sh!t), no flash, and almost universal condemnation for the IQ, I really wanted the camera part to be a significant step up - something I really could make use of as an alternative to a compact for impromptu shooting. All I was saying is that I find the camera disappointing. It's an improvement on my previous phone without doubt, but combined with awkward ergonomics of the phone as a camera, it is not a feature I will use as much as I had hoped.
If others are happy then that's fine, but for me it has not provided the solution I was hoping for. I just wondered what other people thought. Now I know.
I don't know how you can even compare a photo from a phone, to that of even the cheapest SLR.
You are talking a pinhole size sensor, versus something that is almost if not bigger than a postage stamp.
The smaller the sensor, and, the more "megapixels" you have, the worse the signal to noise ratio will be, which results in a "grainy" or noisy photo.
At 100% resolution, most modern camera-phones produce a descent photo in good light, but, if you zoom in to 400%, expect a LOT of noise. It's simple physics.
You cannot cram enough "light gathering" sensors on such a small surface, without getting noise.

Holiday Camera inside and out

Well I decided to make a post explaining how blessed you are to have this phone's camera. Since I'm a professional photographer, this stuff is important to me
Camera Specs:
Megapixels: 8
Sensor: CMOS (pretty small i don't know the sizes exactly)
ISO range: 100-800 (naturally, software can increase to at least 1200)
Aperture: 2.2​
Explanation of these specs:
CMOS Sensor, common in almost all cameras today, rarely you'll find a CCD, they do produce better image quality but use much more power.
8 Megapixels, this isn't really important unless you are blowing your picture up. the human eye actually cannot tell a difference past 4
ISO range, this is actually important, the lower your ISO is the less sensitive the sensor will be to light, making a need for more light for a properly exposed picture, but giving a better image with less noise and sharper details. the higher the iso the more sensitive the sensor is to light making it easier to take pictures indoors or in darker situations, with the trade off of noise.
Aperture, this is the opening of the lens that lets in light. the bigger this is the smaller the number (i don't get it either, deals with some math) but the bigger, the less light is needed for a properly exposed picture meaning less ISO needed. also it adds that blurred background​
If something doesn't make sense and needs further explaining don't hesitate to ask!
Also check out the amazing Bananacake's HQ Camera mod giving uncompressed images and video!
Is had a 4s dude compare to me . Apparently his photos were a lol better. I also had a dusty screen protecter and maybe also the lenses
His orange was more orange lol
Sent from my HTC PH39100 using XDA
his phone has a 2.4 aperture, but better glass in his lens though, the manufacturer Carl Zeis is one that makes 10,000 dollar lenses lol. we can also focus ALOT closer for awesome closeups
but our pictures come out better they have comparisons online to.
Let me say it right now...as a photographer myself. It's more the photographer than it is the camera.
Sort of like I've always believed its the violinist, not the violin
Sent from my HTC-X710a using XDA
I believe in that as well except I'm like super nerdy with camera specs.
My thing is, it doesn't hurt to have it

[Q] Ultrapixels

Review from The Verge
If you watch the video, HTC One only has 4mp but claiming it that it has Ultrapixels. What does that mean?
knightrazor said:
Review from The Verge
If you watch the video, HTC One only has 4mp but claiming it that it has Ultrapixels. What does that mean?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It means that the pixel is as huge as dSLR pixel.
This means that the quality of the camera pixel is like dSLR although its lower resolution.
Its like you use 10MP Canon dSLR but crop it in the middle. It is that awesome. Probably the best camera ever in smartfone. Will kill off every competitiors. Nokia Pureview also lose to dSLR camera in HTC ONE.
kkcheong said:
It means that the pixel is as huge as dSLR pixel.
This means that the quality of the camera pixel is like dSLR although its lower resolution.
Its like you use 10MP Canon dSLR but crop it in the middle. It is that awesome. Probably the best camera ever in smartfone. Will kill off every competitiors. Nokia Pureview also lose to dSLR camera in HTC ONE.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Do you even know what a digital SLR is? the HTC phone camera is not a DSLR, nor will it every compare to one, a larger sensor and 14bit colour depth this is what really sets any DSLR from any point and shoot or phone camera.
The 2-micron pixel width in this phone???, my DSLR is over twice this 4.3-micron pixel pitch.
The proof of the quality will obviously come, but prelim reviews state that it is not as good as the Nokia.
HTC already tried this once with the HTC One, with their most stupid marketing. "HTC One Versus DSLR Images, Can You Spot The Difference?". I wrote to them and told them how stupid this marketing was. 364x268 (0.1 megapixel) photos were the comparison, so I sent them sample photo's from my Nokia N70, Blackberry 8900, HTC Desire and my 4Mp Canon G3 point and shoot. Reduced them in size to 364x268 and challenged them to tell the difference between any of them. They very quickly removed this challege from their website about 6 hours afterwards.
Don't get me wrong I am sure this camera is stunning, but it's no DLSR in terms of quality and neither is any point and shoot on the Market. Just the same as ANY cropped DLSR will compete with a full frame DSLR.
danw_oz said:
Do you even know what a digital SLR is? the HTC phone camera is not a DSLR, nor will it every compare to one, a larger sensor and 14bit colour depth this is what really sets any DSLR from any point and shoot or phone camera.
The 2-micron pixel width in this phone???, my DSLR is over twice this 4.3-micron pixel pitch.
The proof of the quality will obviously come, but prelim reviews state that it is not as good as the Nokia.
HTC already tried this once with the HTC One, with their most stupid marketing. "HTC One Versus DSLR Images, Can You Spot The Difference?". I wrote to them and told them how stupid this marketing was. 364x268 (0.1 megapixel) photos were the comparison, so I sent them sample photo's from my Nokia N70, Blackberry 8900, HTC Desire and my 4Mp Canon G3 point and shoot. Reduced them in size to 364x268 and challenged them to tell the difference between any of them. They very quickly removed this challege from their website about 6 hours afterwards.
Don't get me wrong I am sure this camera is stunning, but it's no DLSR in terms of quality and neither is any point and shoot on the Market. Just the same as ANY cropped DLSR will compete with a full frame DSLR.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Sorry for the exaggeration. I just trying to get the point across about megapixel Vs photosites.
UltraPixel ?
kkcheong said:
Sorry for the exaggeration. I just trying to get the point across about megapixel Vs photosites.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Another marketing Gimmick .Make fools of intelligent .
As Said in India " It's easy to make fool of intelligent rather an idiot "
knightrazor said:
Review from The Verge
If you watch the video, HTC One only has 4mp but claiming it that it has Ultrapixels. What does that mean?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
In answer to your question, HTC are trying to be different (Marketing move to gain lots of interest).
The pixels that gather the light are larger (Ultra), allowing more light to be captured. Meaning the camera should be amazing in low light compared to most other phone cameras.
http://www.techradar.com/news/phone...in-htc-one-explained-1132205?src=rss&attr=all.
My Canon G3 point and shoot camera was only 4Mp, the photo's from this camera are stunning, great lens and sensor, 4Mp is the optimal balance (quality/noise) for this image sensor size.
more megapixels really only gives you benifit from printing larger prints, or allowing a high quality crop of a shot. How many people print about A3 type size? not many and certainly from a phone.
TheMask007 said:
Another marketing Gimmick .Make fools of intelligent .
As Said in India " It's easy to make fool of intelligent rather an idiot "
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Not true. Higher megapixel is gimmick. Reducing megapixel and increase photosites is not gimmick. Its science.
Thanks for that in depth explanation.
danw_oz said:
The pixels that gather the light are larger (Ultra), allowing more light to be captured. Meaning the camera should be amazing in low light compared to most other phone cameras.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
And I thought that the only way to gather more light is to have a lower aperture. Well with this, it's a good move to capture low light images with more details (less depth of field). This makes it perfect for concerts.
danw_oz said:
more megapixels really only gives you benifit from printing larger prints, or allowing a high quality crop of a shot. How many people print about A3 type size? not many and certainly from a phone.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yup, it also reduces files sizes. This is good for phones with non expandable memory. I always choose the option to have a smaller MP as these pics are only to be viewed on a laptop. If I wanted to do prints, I'd take my dSLR to shoot pics.
Here is another explanation on the ultrapixel
http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2013/02/htc-zoe-camera/
I agree with what HTC says
More megapixels crammed into a sensor of the same size, ie 8, 13 mp in a sensor of the same size, will make the pixels themselves smaller. Less light is captured, more noise produced.
Reduce the amount of pixels and suddenly there are bigger pixels and more light can be captured. I think it will be good for the camera, as a cropped 2mp picture from a DSLR is waaaaay better than a 8mp picture from my incredible s or a one x.
Think of a wire grid fence, if you have more wires there will be more holes, but less light will be able to come through
Dunno how they will market it though. Makes it seem like the old nokias with 2mp cam are the best lol
knightrazor said:
Review from The Verge
If you watch the video, HTC One only has 4mp but claiming it that it has Ultrapixels. What does that mean?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Nothing. It's meaningless guff.
The HTC One has a slightly (VERY slightly) larger image sensor, and halves the number of pixels to roughly double photodiode area. That (should) mean much better low-light sensitivity and noise, but much worse resolution. (Still plenty for a typical consumer print, though.)
It simply trades off resolution for low light / noise performance. And the "Ultrapixel" doesn't exist. There have been numerous cameras in the past with the exact same pixel size as the HTC One, including camera phones. Few of them have been available for a few years, or made with current tech, but that's beside the point.
"Ultrapixel" is just a marketing brandname meant to give you the warm fuzzies and make you forget about megapixels.
kkcheong said:
It means that the pixel is as huge as dSLR pixel.
This means that the quality of the camera pixel is like dSLR although its lower resolution.
Its like you use 10MP Canon dSLR but crop it in the middle. It is that awesome. Probably the best camera ever in smartfone. Will kill off every competitiors. Nokia Pureview also lose to dSLR camera in HTC ONE.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Complete and utter rubbish. The smallest pixel of any SLR belong to, if I'm not mistaken, the Nikon D3200. It has nearly double the pixel size of the HTC One's camera. And even a cheap consumer DSLR lens is in a different league to a smartphone lens, especially at the center of the image frame.
It is utterly unrealistic to expect even remotely similar per-pixel image quality from a DSLR and the HTC One, even for the central four megapixel crop.
Well the 4mp nothing at all
Even got 41mp also useless if don't have good camera lens
MP just the image resolution only
Sent from my GT-I9300 using xda premium
XeactorZ said:
Well the 4mp nothing at all
Even got 41mp also useless if don't have good camera lens
MP just the image resolution only
Sent from my GT-I9300 using xda premium
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
http://s1297.beta.photobucket.com/user/ivicask/media/HTC_ONE_NEXUS_4_COMPARE_zps973ef748.jpg.html
I made compare HTC ONE 4.3M cam and Nexus 8M,
as you can see in this zoomed in picture in Nexus does have more pixels, but HTC ONE has more details and colors.
Here is full original image taken from ONE S
http://mobilesyrup.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/IMAG0031.jpg
Also Camera sample
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ez_HaOhtxnA
So in short, best phone camera so far if you ask me!
HTC marketing is getting ridiculously stupid, and HTC fanboys are following suit. The megapixel race is not a LIE. In bold, because HTc marketing material likes to make it bold. Megapixels is not the only factor in determining image quality, but it is an important one. But HTC wants you to believe it doesn't matter, AT ALL. So damn stupid. If it doesn't matter, then go reduce an image to a 32x32 icon. Beautiful isn't it! Looks exactly the same as the original! So stupid. HTC is just making a compromise between larger pixel sizes and resolution. The images will be worse in outdoor shots since it doesn't have as good a resolution, but indoor and low light shots will look better since it can gather more light. The question is, how much better? So far from what I can tell, the video and picture samples at the HTC event, which is indoors in low light, are not that impressive. It's definitely gonna be worse in bright outdoor use.
danw_oz said:
Do you even know what a digital SLR is? the HTC phone camera is not a DSLR, nor will it every compare to one, a larger sensor and 14bit colour depth this is what really sets any DSLR from any point and shoot or phone camera.
The 2-micron pixel width in this phone???, my DSLR is over twice this 4.3-micron pixel pitch.
The proof of the quality will obviously come, but prelim reviews state that it is not as good as the Nokia.
HTC already tried this once with the HTC One, with their most stupid marketing. "HTC One Versus DSLR Images, Can You Spot The Difference?". I wrote to them and told them how stupid this marketing was. 364x268 (0.1 megapixel) photos were the comparison, so I sent them sample photo's from my Nokia N70, Blackberry 8900, HTC Desire and my 4Mp Canon G3 point and shoot. Reduced them in size to 364x268 and challenged them to tell the difference between any of them. They very quickly removed this challege from their website about 6 hours afterwards.
Don't get me wrong I am sure this camera is stunning, but it's no DLSR in terms of quality and neither is any point and shoot on the Market. Just the same as ANY cropped DLSR will compete with a full frame DSLR.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I accidentally thanked you.oops. I don't know what DSLR is, but I'm quite sure that htcs new image sense will be quite beyond par for pretty everyone except your absolute perfect photographic self. Also, since you're such a good photog, such an unimpeachable artist,...please share where this work cod be viewed critically. I know artists would love to see it.
Thanks
From my Evo LTE, yup.
katamari201 said:
HTC marketing is getting ridiculously stupid, and HTC fanboys are following suit. The megapixel race is not a LIE. In bold, because HTc marketing material likes to make it bold. Megapixels is not the only factor in determining image quality, but it is an important one. But HTC wants you to believe it doesn't matter, AT ALL. So damn stupid. If it doesn't matter, then go reduce an image to a 32x32 icon. Beautiful isn't it! Looks exactly the same as the original! So stupid. HTC is just making a compromise between larger pixel sizes and resolution. The images will be worse in outdoor shots since it doesn't have as good a resolution, but indoor and low light shots will look better since it can gather more light. The question is, how much better? So far from what I can tell, the video and picture samples at the HTC event, which is indoors in low light, are not that impressive. It's definitely gonna be worse in bright outdoor use.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well, how many megapixels do you think you need?
To answer that question, think about what you're viewing the picture on. A PC monitor? What's the resolution of that? Unlikely to be much higher than 2560x1440; that's 3.6MP - any more than that and the extra detail is wasted.
Or maybe you're thinking of printing the photo? 300 dots per inch is plenty of resolution for a colour photo. So, to produce a 7" by 5" print, you only need about 3MP in the image. Even if you want to print out a picture filling an A4 page, you still only need around 8 or 9MP. Are you really going to be printing out your photos larger than an A4 page? And if you are, are you going to be viewing them from less than 12 inches away? (If the viewing distance is greater than that, you don't need 300dpi).
What's more, adding additional MP isn't free. The smaller the pixels get, the more the detector suffers from noise (and removing the noise from the image means you effectively lose the extra resolution), and the more the low-light performance suffers.
And finally, with the kind of aperture sizes and the quality of the lenses you're dealing with, you're unlikely to be able to resolve anywhere near 8MP worth of real detail anyway.
The camera on the HTC One isn't exactly revolutionary, but I think HTC should be congratulated for a move in the right direction: away from a design whose sole purpose is to include a big number for marketing purposes, and towards actually producing a better quality image.
i agree with shasarak, i used to work as photographer, and with our 5mp it was enough for pictured used in public advertising (5 meters * 3 meters)
Yeah pretty much what shasarak said. Thank god HTC had some bloody sense to not load it with more needless MPs as a marketing gimmick.
scottspa74 said:
I accidentally thanked you.oops. I don't know what DSLR is, but I'm quite sure that htcs new image sense will be quite beyond par for pretty everyone except your absolute perfect photographic self. Also, since you're such a good photog, such an unimpeachable artist,...please share where this work cod be viewed critically. I know artists would love to see it.
Thanks
From my Evo LTE, yup.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
DSLR stands for Digital Single Lens Reflex http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_single-lens_reflex_camera, if you are up to it you can read the section 2.6 Larger sensor sizes and better image quality
I don't really understand what you are asking or in fact even trying to say, but if I have it right http://www.flickr.com/photos/dan-wilson/ Is my photography site, Thanks.
Nokia's pure view ends up producing a 5mp picture only thing is that it puts the quality of a 41mp(resolution) in to a smaller frame so when u zoom in u don't loose picture quality.....HTC one does sumthing similar but zooming in will reduce quality [email protected] the end pictures are clear enough to see every detail in the full frame no need to zoom in, its a good tech for those who understand....as for the iPhone's wonderful camera(like it or not) its just a perfect cocktail of very good lenses(which in a way let in lots of light, main reason y it looks bluish and not purplish) plus good apature and good sensors......megapixels =size , good lens+apature+sensore = great picture quality.
Sent from my Desire Z using xda premium
Thx for explanation.
Finally someone with knowledge and sound reasoning. People really need to cool down while in discussion. At the end of the day, it will be just another phone and it will not wake up next day and go to work for you. :good:
Shasarak said:
Well, how many megapixels do you think you need?
To answer that question, think about what you're viewing the picture on. A PC monitor? What's the resolution of that? Unlikely to be much higher than 2560x1440; that's 3.6MP - any more than that and the extra detail is wasted.
Or maybe you're thinking of printing the photo? 300 dots per inch is plenty of resolution for a colour photo. So, to produce a 7" by 5" print, you only need about 3MP in the image. Even if you want to print out a picture filling an A4 page, you still only need around 8 or 9MP. Are you really going to be printing out your photos larger than an A4 page? And if you are, are you going to be viewing them from less than 12 inches away? (If the viewing distance is greater than that, you don't need 300dpi).
What's more, adding additional MP isn't free. The smaller the pixels get, the more the detector suffers from noise (and removing the noise from the image means you effectively lose the extra resolution), and the more the low-light performance suffers.
And finally, with the kind of aperture sizes and the quality of the lenses you're dealing with, you're unlikely to be able to resolve anywhere near 8MP worth of real detail anyway.
The camera on the HTC One isn't exactly revolutionary, but I think HTC should be congratulated for a move in the right direction: away from a design whose sole purpose is to include a big number for marketing purposes, and towards actually producing a better quality image.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse

HTC One Camera Quality

Hi,
I am considering buying HTC One but there is just one thing that makes me rethink my decision and that is the 4MP Camera. It's a stunning device but I am a bit skeptical considering the low megapixel count of 4 in HTC One. People who have already got the phone and also people who have researched on the imaging quality of "The One", please shed some light on the camera bit.
I know it is good for low light conditions but are the daylight photos good enough if not the best that GS4/ iPhone 5/ HTC One have to offer.
Thanks a lot!
Priyankac said:
Hi,
I am considering buying HTC One but there is just one thing that makes me rethink my decision and that is the 4MP Camera. It's a stunning device but I am a bit skeptical considering the low megapixel count of 4 in HTC One. People who have already got the phone and also people who have researched on the imaging quality of "The One", please shed some light on the camera bit.
I know it is good for low light conditions but are the daylight photos good enough if not the best that GS4/ iPhone 5/ HTC One have to offer.
Thanks a lot!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Daylight images are good, but maybe not as "good" as the GS4 purely cos of less details from the lower MP sensor. HTC is probably one update away to perfecting their metering and auto-exposure, but it is still very good and don't forget really really fast
Megapixels are not a measure of image quality. Never has been, never will be. Higher MP just means bigger prints.
The size of the sensor determines image quality. The One camera takes better photos than my 8MP Nexus 4.
PcFish said:
Megapixels are not a measure of image quality. Never has been, never will be. Higher MP just means bigger prints.
The size of the sensor determines image quality. The One camera takes better photos than my 8MP Nexus 4.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That's cos the Nexus 4 had a pretty meh sensor I'd say stock S4 camera app is about as good as modified HoX camera For low light, nothing really beats the One though
PcFish said:
Megapixels are not a measure of image quality. Never has been, never will be. Higher MP just means bigger prints.
The size of the sensor determines image quality. The One camera takes better photos than my 8MP Nexus 4.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yep, there's been an arms race, so to speak, with manufacturers trying to compete with one another over buzz words, "megapixels" being one of these. The Anandtech HTC One review by Brian Klug covers in excruciating detail the tradeoffs HTC made with the camera hardware vs. marketability
Priyankac said:
Hi,
I am considering buying HTC One but there is just one thing that makes me rethink my decision and that is the 4MP Camera. It's a stunning device but I am a bit skeptical considering the low megapixel count of 4 in HTC One. People who have already got the phone and also people who have researched on the imaging quality of "The One", please shed some light on the camera bit.
I know it is good for low light conditions but are the daylight photos good enough if not the best that GS4/ iPhone 5/ HTC One have to offer.
Thanks a lot!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
To be fair and honest, I find the shutter speed to take long sometimes in natural and incandescent lighting indoors. I could be sitting at the dinner table and be underneath our ceiling fixture and the picture would be a little out of focus or take too long when the lighting is good. I'm assuming this can be fixed with software tweaks. It's almost as if the sensor takes in too much light sometimes, as I find myself having to turn on the flash manually in some indoor shots.
The positive side, the PHONE takes great pictures in outdoor lighting and even indoor with the right lighting or flash. The colors come out more natural and detailed than my wife's S3. Compared to my old Inspire, the One is 100x better.
Sent from my HTC One using xda premium
I've just been reading a thread on the S4 forum about the lag on the S4 camera. It can take superb landscape pictures in bright light but it struggles with moving images.
The One on the other hand is extremely fast which translates into, for the most part, images with no blurring. And of course low light pictures are far superior which is what everyone raves about.
It really depends what you want from a camera. I, like you, was worried that 4mp would be too much of a downgrade. I then started to think how I actually used my camera. I predominantly take pictures of my family and friends, kids playing in the park etc. I rarely ever view the pictures I've taken on a device that has a better resolution than 1080p and don't crop images often.
A 4mp camera is far higher resolution than 1080p.
As soon as I started snapping my kids, often indoors at dinner times with only fluorescent lighting, I was happy I plumped for the One. It really is astounding how fast it is, and the pictures look lovely on the phones 1080p display.
I would much rather have lower MP. pictures I can use than constantly having to delete blurry higher MP pictures.
Best thing to do? Check out both forums. They are a far more accurate representation of performance than reviews.
Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk 2
Currykiev said:
I've just been reading a thread on the S4 forum about the lag on the S4 camera. It can take superb landscape pictures in bright light but it struggles with moving images.
The One on the other hand is extremely fast which translates into, for the most part, images with no blurring. And of course low light pictures are far superior which is what everyone raves about.
It really depends what you want from a camera. I, like you, was worried that 4mp would be too much of a downgrade. I then started to think how I actually used my camera. I predominantly take pictures of my family and friends, kids playing in the park etc. I rarely ever view the pictures I've taken on a device that has a better resolution than 1080p and don't crop images often.
A 4mp camera is far higher resolution than 1080p.
As soon as I started snapping my kids, often indoors at dinner times with only fluorescent lighting, I was happy I plumped for the One. It really is astounding how fast it is, and the pictures look lovely on the phones 1080p display.
I would much rather have lower MP. pictures I can use than constantly having to delete blurry higher MP pictures.
Best thing to do? Check out both forums. They are a far more accurate representation of performance than reviews.
Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk 2
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thanks for your reply
Does cropping render the quality very low?
Something to add, is that if you take low light video (night clubs, bars, dimly lit rooms etc) the video framerate will fluctuate between 17 and 30fps, causing it to look choppy. That is the only thing I hate about the One at the moment. Choppy video in low light. The galaxy s4 (and my old s3) do not have this issue
Galactus said:
Something to add, is that if you take low light video (night clubs, bars, dimly lit rooms etc) the video framerate will fluctuate between 17 and 30fps, causing it to look choppy. That is the only thing I hate about the One at the moment. Choppy video in low light. The galaxy s4 (and my old s3) do not have this issue
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's just different companies prioritizing different things. The One tries to get in enough light regardless of what it has to do, and that means fluctuating frame rates in low light video. The S3, S4 and Lumia do different things in where they force 30FPS, but in return you get much less light in, making the video darker. But the phone is still plenty new, and we can all hope that HTC would give us an option for what we want, shutter speed priority mode please
ArmedandDangerous said:
It's just different companies prioritizing different things. The One tries to get in enough light regardless of what it has to do, and that means fluctuating frame rates in low light video. The S3, S4 and Lumia do different things in where they force 30FPS, but in return you get much less light in, making the video darker. But the phone is still plenty new, and we can all hope that HTC would give us an option for what we want, shutter speed priority mode please
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah, my issue is that they prioritized something that I'm not used to lol but yeah, hopefully that issue can be fixed
Speaking of the software, if they're gonna include Zoe and all that, I wish they'd provide a Highlight studio of sorts where you can choose the transitions/music/frames etc on the phone.
Currykiev said:
I've just been reading a thread on the S4 forum about the lag on the S4 camera. It can take superb landscape pictures in bright light but it struggles with moving images.
The One on the other hand is extremely fast which translates into, for the most part, images with no blurring. And of course low light pictures are far superior which is what everyone raves about.
It really depends what you want from a camera. I, like you, was worried that 4mp would be too much of a downgrade. I then started to think how I actually used my camera. I predominantly take pictures of my family and friends, kids playing in the park etc. I rarely ever view the pictures I've taken on a device that has a better resolution than 1080p and don't crop images often.
A 4mp camera is far higher resolution than 1080p.
As soon as I started snapping my kids, often indoors at dinner times with only fluorescent lighting, I was happy I plumped for the One. It really is astounding how fast it is, and the pictures look lovely on the phones 1080p display.
I would much rather have lower MP. pictures I can use than constantly having to delete blurry higher MP pictures.
Best thing to do? Check out both forums. They are a far more accurate representation of performance than reviews.
Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk 2
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thanks a lot for your reply.
Currently I have Galaxy S4 and I am thinking of returning it and going for HTC One. The camera is the only thing holding me back. I am super confused.
Could you please direct me to the two forums you have mentioned, being new I am unable to find them.
Thanks for the help.
Is it really 4 Mega pixels??
I thought it was 4 Ultra Pixels??
Surely that different?
"Ultra Pixel" is a marketing name for this sensor, it's still a 4MP device with bigger pixels to get more light and reach the f2.0 limit. Not more only bigger.
m.r.davies said:
Is it really 4 Mega pixels??
I thought it was 4 Ultra Pixels??
Surely that different?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's 4 Megapixel in resolution, but the sensor has more than 4Megapixels. They extra pixels are used solely to capture light, and that's why it has very good low light capabilities
Here's the technical explanation of this ST Microelectronics CMOS Sensor:
The Camera
The HTC One bucks the trend. Based on the 1/3″ form factor of a camera module and today’s state-of-the-art 1.1 µm pixels, all the latest competitive phones sport 13 Mp resolution. HTC has gone with a larger 2.0 µm pixel (confirmed) and a 4 MP sensor. They are pitching the low light sensitivity as a key feature. The device is a back-illuminated sensor fabricated by STMicroelectronics with die marks 58698A. This is the first BI sensor we have seen from ST.The camera uses the IDG-2021 gyroscope by Invensense for motion stabilization. It is a dual-axis gyro with high resolution ADCs designed specifically for optical image stabilization.The secondary sensor is a 2 Mp, 1.4 µm sensor by OmniVision with die marks OV2A9BA. It is a nice secondary sensor that we have seen before in other phones.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The moving video is fantastic with the optical gyro.always smooth videos.
And takes great night shots with longer exposure cause it's easy to get a steady photo.
Why does mine say pn071?
Sent from my HTC_PN071 using XDA Premium HD app
Personally I love the 4MP cam in the One. I came from a long line of iPhones and although they're not perfect, I realized that the most I was going to be doing was hold these images for viewing on my computer, sharing at times. Between the 13MP GS4 and the One I thought it was an easy decision to get the One. I just don't see a need for 13MP size picture files laying around in my computer taking up space.
Now I'm just a normal consumer from a photog perspective. I have a graphic arts background, but I rarely perform treatments or heavy manipulation on my own photos. Take some shots with the One demo at your local store. You'll be amazed at the clarity, especially when zoomed in.
So, i used this device for over a month and so far the camera works great to me, i compared it to other phones i got in touch like iPhone 4s, Note 2 and the S3, video recording is just great on HTC One, it just works better in my opinion, great clarity, good autofocus.
As for photos, it's great, all the photos on 100% zoom look bad, but the HTC One photos look modest at 100% zoom so i don't really think camera is a deal-breaker, it's a great camera the thing is HTC opted for a more revolutionary camera and so far i think they've done a pretty good job.

Categories

Resources