Related
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.
Anyone notice that optical image stabilization is missing in the specifications? I just did a quick search and found several sources saying its digital stabilization. A little bummed about that. Thoughts anyone? :crying:
From the videos, its pretty stable with digital stabilization compared to other smartphones no?
Sent from my One using XDA Premium 4 mobile app
expertzero1 said:
From the videos, its pretty stable with digital stabilization compared to other smartphones no?
Sent from my One using XDA Premium 4 mobile app
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah, can't wait for a couple full blown reviews. If anything, hopefully they will bundle the qx10 for preorders in the US too. I hear the qx10 has the optical stabilization. I'm just worried about the low light blurriness. I had the 1020 and it was fantastic.
Smartphone makers try to close the image quality gap between their phones and actual camera.
However, to be honest, I do not rely to much to phone camera.
Their lens can't and sensors can't compare to actual camera even point and shot one, not saying SLR cameras.
Anyway, a phone without a camera is also something should be in history.
It doesn't have optical image stabilization. That's why the night shots aren't so good. OIS allows for slower shutter speed and more exposure. The digital image stabilization is only used for video. All phones have this already. The Lumia 920/925, Lumia 1020, Note 3, HTC One, and LG G2 have OIS, but Sony chickened out and wanted a FLAT camera with no bump because it ruins their sense of aesthetic. They could probably make it even thinner and flatter if they removed the camera and battery completely. How about removing all the internals? A beautiful sliver thin paperweight that looks nice as long as you don't touch it and smudge it up with your filthy plebeian fingers. I'm sure there are many buyers among the Sony loyalists for this sort of product.
katamari201 said:
It doesn't have optical image stabilization. That's why the night shots aren't so good. OIS allows for slower shutter speed and more exposure. The digital image stabilization is only used for video. All phones have this already. The Lumia 920/925, Lumia 1020, Note 3, HTC One, and LG G2 have OIS, but Sony chickened out and wanted a FLAT camera with no bump because it ruins their sense of aesthetic. They could probably make it even thinner and flatter if they removed the camera and battery completely. How about removing all the internals? A beautiful sliver thin paperweight that looks nice as long as you don't touch it and smudge it up with your filthy plebeian fingers. I'm sure there are many buyers among the Sony loyalists for this sort of product.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Dude, what is your problem? It's only a phone with camera that can rival with the best currently available when it comes to pure picture quality. It bests S4 in low light shots and rivals 1020, in daylight photos you can clearly see more details compared to S4 (which by many is considered to have the best camera on android). What is true is that Sony still needs to improve their algorithm but even as it is now it can produce exceptional photos even in full 20mpix resolution.
Stop acting like a baby!!
Wishmaster89 said:
Dude, what is your problem? It's only a phone with camera that can rival with the best currently available when it comes to pure picture quality. It bests S4 in low light shots and rivals 1020, in daylight photos you can clearly see more details compared to S4 (which by many is considered to have the best camera on android). What is true is that Sony still needs to improve their algorithm but even as it is now it can produce exceptional photos even in full 20mpix resolution.
Stop acting like a baby!!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I think that we all just wanted them to do it right you know? They went out to make a great camera phone and it feels like they stopped 5% away from the finish line. Still, will probably be a great phone and a great camera.
systoxity said:
I think that we all just wanted them to do it right you know? They went out to make a great camera phone and it feels like they stopped 5% away from the finish line. Still, will probably be a great phone and a great camera.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
There'a a difference between disappointment and senseless bashing and that is what I was criticizing.
I agree that it is a shame that they weren't able to include OIS or sensor shift but I think that it could have been currently impossible with such a big sensor and bigger lens than other manufacturers. It is a shame but it's not something that automatically makes it worse than G2 or note 3/S4, on the contrary I still think that it'll end up doing better pictures than both of them.
Sony SteadyShot
It's not all down hill guys, the Z1 has Sony's SteadyShot technology in it, it just appears to only work in video mode which imo is best place, I suppose there will be more clarification once it's out......http://www.sonymobile.com/global-en/products/phones/xperia-z1/features/#camera
katamari201 said:
It doesn't have optical image stabilization. That's why the night shots aren't so good. OIS allows for slower shutter speed and more exposure. The digital image stabilization is only used for video. All phones have this already. The Lumia 920/925, Lumia 1020, Note 3, HTC One, and LG G2 have OIS, but Sony chickened out and wanted a FLAT camera with no bump because it ruins their sense of aesthetic. They could probably make it even thinner and flatter if they removed the camera and battery completely. How about removing all the internals? A beautiful sliver thin paperweight that looks nice as long as you don't touch it and smudge it up with your filthy plebeian fingers. I'm sure there are many buyers among the Sony loyalists for this sort of product.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You sound completely mental.
OIS.. will increase quality for low light shot without question...because of ISO..dont know the ISO range.. any one knows?
jos_031 said:
OIS.. will increase quality for low light shot without question...because of ISO..dont know the ISO range.. any one knows?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
6400 it says on the Sony site I linked it 2 posts back.
Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk 2
katamari201 said:
It doesn't have optical image stabilization. That's why the night shots aren't so good. OIS allows for slower shutter speed and more exposure. The digital image stabilization is only used for video. All phones have this already. The Lumia 920/925, Lumia 1020, Note 3, HTC One, and LG G2 have OIS, but Sony chickened out and wanted a FLAT camera with no bump because it ruins their sense of aesthetic. They could probably make it even thinner and flatter if they removed the camera and battery completely. How about removing all the internals? A beautiful sliver thin paperweight that looks nice as long as you don't touch it and smudge it up with your filthy plebeian fingers. I'm sure there are many buyers among the Sony loyalists for this sort of product.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You're just trolling. I've been checking on the photo samples from the Z1 for the past couple days cause I'm considering getting one. I've been waiting for HTC to announce the One Max, but the lack of doing so at the IFA completely made me give up on them and push me toward getting a Z1 instead. At first I noticed the photos had a lot of noise from the Z1 photo samples, but it seems like the noise was taken cared of via software update. The lack of OIS doesn't exactly affect the quality of the photos so far from what I see. The photo samples from the Z1 look more natural than 1020's which had a yellow tint to it. The photos were so defined when comparing the HTC One under low light condition and HTC One is only a bit behind on 1020 under low light condition.
Really, i think at this point we all just need to get our hands on one and give it a shot. The sample photos floating around on the internet certainly haven't been flattering but that could be due to any number of variables. Any word on US release yet?
Exposure is basically the AMOUNT OF LIGHT (controlled by the aperture) that is captured over a SPECIFIC AMOUNT OF TIME (controlled by the shutter speed).
A HIGH aperture number (fstop) = LESS light being recorded on your digital sensor while a LOW aperture number = MORE light being recorded on your digital sensor. apertures are called fstops
Shutter speed: it is the amount of time your shutter stays open when you click the button
The longer your shutter stays open the more motion it will have time to record. The shorter the time your shutter remains open, the more motion it will freeze. But at low light you need more exposure
ISO rating along with the shutter speed and aperture setting are the three elements that determine the final exposure of the photographic image.
The ISO rating, which ranges in value from 25 to 6400 (or beyond), indicates the specific light sensitivity. The lower the number, the less sensitive to light the film stock or image sensor is. Conversely, a higher number indicates a higher sensitivity to light, thereby allowing that film or image sensor to work better in low light conditions.
the lower ISO rating also meant that the photosensitive grains of salt on the film acetate were very fine, thus producing a smoother, cleaner image. A higher ISO had larger, jagged grains of salt, thus producing “rougher” or grainier images.
Lower ISO ratings produce color-accurate, smooth and aesthetically appealing images… and this requires ideal lighting conditions. However, there are some subjects that you want to photograph in low light conditions. Or, you may want to stop fast-moving objects. In both situations, you need higher ISOs to capture those images with an acceptable exposure.with the higher ISOs, you can use faster shutter speeds to eliminate motion blur and/or camera shake. In the event that you want to use motion blur creatively, then decreasing the ISO is simple, and you can then decrease the shutter speed to achieve the desired motion blur and still have smooth, noise-less images.
The size of the digital camera’s image sensor dictates what ISO setting provides the least amount of digital noise. One must understand that image sensor size is not the same thing as pixel count. Image sensor size is the actual physical dimensions of the sensor, for most of the history of digital photography the image sensor has been smaller than a 35mm film frame. On point and shoot cameras, the sensor was quite small, and on most DSLR cameras, the image sensor has been the size of APC film (23x15mm). Smaller image sensors produce much more digital noise at higher ISOs (like 800) mainly because the high pixel count means that more pixels are being packed into a smaller area, thus producing more grain at all but the lowest ISO.
Whenever you shoot in low light or use a long lens, or if you simply aren't holding a camera steady, you risk introducing camera shake into your images. This manifests itself as a blurring of details, and unlike other image quality issues it's not something that can be fixed in post-processing.
The three main image stabilisation systems on offer:
Manufacturers have different names for lens-based stabilisation, but they all largely work in the same way.
ISO based
All but the cheapest compacts offer image stabilisation, and the easiest solution from the manufacturer's point of view is one based on sensitivity. This adds nothing to the manufacturing of a camera as it's simply the ISO which needs to be adjusted, easily handled by the camera's firmware.
As this is the most basic form of image stabilisation, and as other types are preferable, manufacturers often call it 'digital' image stabilisation in press releases and throughout specification lists.
With this type of image stabilisation, the camera looks at the focal length and shutter speed being used, and decides whether the two will create a sharp enough image. If it deems them to be inadequate the camera's sensitivity will be raised, which in turn increases the shutter speed, but the resulting signal will need to be amplified to a greater extent.
So, a camera could choose to raise an image that would be otherwise captured at 1/20sec to 1/80sec, but it would need to raise the sensitivity twofold. So, from ISO 100 this would rise to ISO 400, from ISO 200 to ISO 800 and so on.
The image is still captured sharply as a more appropriate shutter speed has been used, but this process gives rise to noise which is typical with images captured at higher sensitivities. For this reason other systems are preferable in more expensive cameras and lenses. In many compacts, this method is often complemented by sensor-based stabilisation.
Sensor based
Sensor-based stabilisation also uses information such as focal length and shutter speed on which to base its calculations, but instead of adjusting the sensitivity the camera physically moves the sensor.
The sensor will typically be mounted on a platform, which will move to compensate for any movement when the camera senses it is necessary.
Minolta first introduced the feature in its DiMAGE A1 camera back in 2003, and, after merging with Konica, incorporated it into the 7D DSLR.
Sony continued the feature when it took over Konica Minolta's imaging business, and was soon joined by Pentax, Olympus and others. All three companies continue to use the system today, and it has since been adopted by other manufacturers for their own hybrid systems and compacts.
In the case of DSLRs and hybrids, this type of image stabilisation brings the significant advantage of allowing lenses to be made smaller, lighter and cheaper (as they do not need to incorporate any form of image stabilisation themselves), and is effective with virtually any mounted lens. This is particularly handy in the case of older lenses which predate image stabilisation technology, although it may be necessary to first input the focal length of the lens into the camera, depending on the lens, camera and the nature of communication between the two.
Lens based
Lens-based image stabilisation came just before digital cameras were made accessible, but the two have more or less evolved over a similar space of time.
Today, the technology is found in a range of optics manufactured by Canon and Nikon (particularly those targeted towards the professional), as well throughout the ranges from independent lens manufacturers Sigma and Tamron. Panasonic also uses the system in its lenses designed for the Micro Four Thirds system, as well as those found in its Lumix range of compacts.
Lens-based stabilisation systems typically work by shifting a lens group towards the rear of the lens on a plane perpendicular to the optical axis.
This is done with the help of two gyro sensors inside the lens, one for yaw and one for pitch. These notice the angle and speed of any movement, and this information is fed to a microprocessor which computes the necessary adjustments needed to be made by the lens group. By doing so, the light's angle of refraction is changed so that it hits the sensor in the right place.
Manufacturers of these systems claim that this type of stabilisation is the most effective as it can be tailored specifically to the objective in which it us used. And, as stabilisation takes place in the lens, the photographer is able to view the effect through the viewfinder.
Typically this activates once the shutter release has been half-depressed, although it is possible on different camera/lens combinations to set when the stabilisation begins, such as only at the moment of capture, for example. This has the additional benefit of conserving power, as, left on all the time, lens-based image stabilisation systems can eat up battery power fairly quickly.
One recent development in this area is Canon's Hybrid IS system, which offers two types of correction.
The first is via an angular velocity sensor which notices rotational shake, which is found in existing image-stabilised lenses.
Canon 100mmThe second - and what makes the Hybrid IS system different - is a separate sensor for noticing camera shift (linear) movements, such as when a camera moves up, down, left or right while remaining parallel to the subject. Canon claims that by incorporating both sensors camera shake is better corrected.
Now i guess everyone got importance of OIS feature..
And i tried the camera of xperia Z1.. the picture was blurry at full zoom. but noise was absent..I feel low noise is more important than full zoom blur...because the photo is excellent for normal usage
wow, thank you that was a great read.
I've just been running some tests on my Z1 camera.
I noticed that it's virtually unable to produce straight lines.
I've attached a picture of my PC's monitor (in admittedly difficult light) and as you can see the normally straight lines of the bezel and windows all bulge.
Does anyone else have that issue? Is my camera a duff one?
I'm extremely hesitant to send it in to Sony for repair. Currently they have my old Xperia Z for repairs, to replace the camera module that developed black spots. It's been three weeks and still waiting for it to come back (UK repair centre).
It's those kind of issues that make choosing a Sony extremely frustrating, as much as I want to love the brand.
It's.from the lens of the camera. If someone else's camera doesn't show that aberation you should go to Sony. Only way to get it right is post processing every picture.
Sent from my C6802 using XDA Premium 4 mobile app
For comparison I took some shots with an old 350D, with kit objective (18-55mm).
One shot with at 18mm, one at 55mm, one with my Z1 and one with an old Xperia Pro.
350D:
18mm IMG_1805
55mm IMG_1806
Z1:
DSC_0111_
Xperia Pro:
DSC_1426
Exry said:
For comparison I took some shots with an old 350D, with kit objective (18-55mm).
One shot with at 18mm, one at 55mm, one with my Z1 and one with an old Xperia Pro.
350D:
18mm IMG_1805
55mm IMG_1806
Z1:
DSC_0111_
Xperia Pro:
DSC_1426
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Your Z1 is also quite bumpy, not perhaps not as much as mine.
naujoks said:
Your Z1 is also quite bumpy, not perhaps not as much as mine.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Although I don't know how much of distortion is acceptable, it's probably because of the very low focal length and wide angle? I'm no photographer but I expected it to bulge a bit.
yeah i mentioned this in the camera thread in the general section. every Z1 i've tested does this (10+ phones plus every image i've seen of a grid or line from the z1 on this forum). depending on the way the lense is mounted most deformation will normally appear towards the extreme top or bottom of an image.
ps. if you bought your phone from a uk network and are outside of your in store exchange period and wanted to get it repaired (not that i think there are any current z1's without this problem and therefore a lense that would be much better to be put into your phone) than send it through the network shop for a warranty repair and it will be repaired or replaced by anovo (all network shops use them) in around 5 working days.
That´s not unexpected.
If you make a wideangle lens this small there will be always quite a lot of distortion. Almost all cameras nowadays correct this distortions in the image-processing.
The problem is that the optical distortion changes with very close focus-distances and most software-corrections only adjust to the lenses focal-length (when having a zoom-lens), but not to the focus-distance, so the software-correction is wrong.
It seems that Sony does a combination of optically correcting the distortion in the lens, additionally to the software-corrections, which causes this very complex distortion, which quite strong pincushion-distortion in the center while still having some barrel-distortion at the edges of the image.
In distances 1m+ there is hardly any visible distortion left.
*R2D2* said:
That´s not unexpected.
If you make a wideangle lens this small there will be always quite a lot of distortion. Almost all cameras nowadays correct this distortions in the image-processing.
The problem is that the optical distortion changes with very close focus-distances and most software-corrections only adjust to the lenses focal-length (when having a zoom-lens), but not to the focus-distance, so the software-correction is wrong.
It seems that Sony does a combination of optically correcting the distortion in the lens, additionally to the software-corrections, which causes this very complex distortion, which quite strong pincushion-distortion in the center while still having some barrel-distortion at the edges of the image.
In distances 1m+ there is hardly any visible distortion left.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That's very interesting and the most insightful reply on this topic in any thread yet, thanks. My only concern is that i have read a report of a picture of a horizon have both the barrel distortion and pincushion problems which is at some distance. I'll have to check for long distance distortion. If it's not there i'm happy.
Thanks for the replies!
On top of the above problem I also noticed a distinct out of focus area (top left corner in my case) in shots taken at a wide distance.
I can't say I every detected either of these problems on my old iPhone 5. Maybe Apple's camera is simply better and the algorithms even things out more.
I'm currently having the Z1 and the Galaxy Note 3 at home and try to decide which one to keep, and it's proving very difficult. Both phones have their distinct positive and negative sides.
naujoks said:
Thanks for the replies!
On top of the above problem I also noticed a distinct out of focus area (top left corner in my case) in shots taken at a wide distance.
I can't say I every detected either of these problems on my old iPhone 5. Maybe Apple's camera is simply better and the algorithms even things out more.
I'm currently having the Z1 and the Galaxy Note 3 at home and try to decide which one to keep, and it's proving very difficult. Both phones have their distinct positive and negative sides.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
the bottom right side of my pictures are blurred. gsmarena had a similar issue with their test unit.
Today I conducted some more tests with both Z1 and GN 3.
At 100 ISO the Z1 showed considerable noise and much less in focus than the GN3, in good light.
At first I thought that the Z1 camera complaints might be not so visible to the untrained eye and that the average user such as myself wouldn't notice anything amiss, but the differences in direct comparison are really striking.
There are many things I like about the Z1, and its design is far superior to the GN 3, but knowing that there are virtually no conditions under which the Z1 would be able to take good pictures is a deal break for me, so the Z1 will go up on eBay. Hopefully better luck in 6 months with the Z's next iteration.
naujoks said:
At 100 ISO the Z1 showed considerable noise and much less in focus than the GN3, in good light.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I think Sonys decision not to kill all detail with heavy noise-reduction was a good (although unexpecting when looking at their cameras which usually use quite heavy NR). Chroma-Noise is very well under control up to the highest sensitivities and the luminance-noise is very fine grained and not objectionable at all. Unfortunately thats not true for ISO 1600+, where NR gets so high everything becomes a blurry mess. Of course these sensitivities are hardly usable for 1/2,3"-Sensors, regardless of the strength of the NR
Finally you can always use some additional NR in PP, but you never can bring back detail that has already been destroyed by heavy processing.
Also contrast (at least in manual) mode is quite low (at least for a consumer-device), which leads to surprisingly good DR, unlike the blocked shadows (which also hide noise) you get on most phones (and most compact-cameras as well). Again increasing contrast in PP is not a problem, unlike the other way around.
I just hope this won´t change with future Firmware-updates.
Of course there will be less in focus as well, a bigger sensor + larger aperture means less DOF and therefore less in focus.
This can also become a problem at close focus-ranges, because the focus-plane is in reality not flat, instead it is somewhat spherical shaped. At close focus-distances therefore soft corners can become a problem.
demoniality said:
My only concern is that i have read a report of a picture of a horizon have both the barrel distortion and pincushion problems which is at some distance. I'll have to check for long distance distortion. If it's not there i'm happy.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I've taken pictures of a sea horizon...
They get the strange distortion too
---------- Post added at 11:29 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:20 PM ----------
*R2D2* said:
I think Sony's decision not to kill all detail with heavy noise-reduction was good.
I just hope this won´t change with future Firmware-updates.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm completely agree
High detail is better than a very little bit of noise
I think the only thing I would like to see in next firmware is a stronger sharpness algorithm. XZ with Honami Camera driver produces sharper pictures (obviously they get more grain and pixelled than XZ1 when zooming in because of sensor, lens and mpx)
*R2D2* said:
I think Sonys decision not to kill all detail with heavy noise-reduction was a good (although unexpecting when looking at their cameras which usually use quite heavy NR). Chroma-Noise is very well under control up to the highest sensitivities and the luminance-noise is very fine grained and not objectionable at all. Unfortunately thats not true for ISO 1600+, where NR gets so high everything becomes a blurry mess. Of course these sensitivities are hardly usable for 1/2,3"-Sensors, regardless of the strength of the NR
Finally you can always use some additional NR in PP, but you never can bring back detail that has already been destroyed by heavy processing.
Also contrast (at least in manual) mode is quite low (at least for a consumer-device), which leads to surprisingly good DR, unlike the blocked shadows (which also hide noise) you get on most phones (and most compact-cameras as well). Again increasing contrast in PP is not a problem, unlike the other way around.
I just hope this won´t change with future Firmware-updates.
Of course there will be less in focus as well, a bigger sensor + larger aperture means less DOF and therefore less in focus.
This can also become a problem at close focus-ranges, because the focus-plane is in reality not flat, instead it is somewhat spherical shaped. At close focus-distances therefore soft corners can become a problem.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
An interesting and well informed reply, however, in my test shots we were not just talking about "a bit" of noise, but a considerable amount, and the picture was noticeably less sharp than the GN 3 picture I took, with its 13MP camera. So if there are any advantages to be had on the Sony, I can't see them. And while I theoretically could tinker with improving the pics in Photoshop I don't think I would have had the patience to do this with every little picture I take.
So, out of the box, the Samsung produces the better pictures, with less hassle for me, and I don't need to have specialist knowledge in photography or Photoshop in order to get a good result, and that's what tipped the scale for me.
hi sorry but i cant understand what whitelines the OP is talking.
i upload a picture, can tell me if mine have any problem?
---------- Post added at 12:15 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:14 AM ----------
hi sorry but i cant understand what whitelines the OP is talking.
i upload a picture, can tell me if mine have any problem?
shawnhalu said:
hi sorry but i cant understand what whitelines the OP is talking.
i upload a picture, can tell me if mine have any problem?
---------- Post added at 12:15 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:14 AM ----------
hi sorry but i cant understand what whitelines the OP is talking.
i upload a picture, can tell me if mine have any problem?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I was talking about CROOKED lines, not white lines.
And yes, you have them too.
shawnhalu said:
i upload a picture, can tell me if mine have any problem?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Look at the somewhat waved appearance of the tab bar.
But what worries me more in your picture is the softness on the right side, that is obvious even at this rather small image-size. It may be a result of not holding the camera parallel to the screen (the softer bottom definitely is), but if you always get a soft right side, your camera-lens might be misaligned.
*R2D2* said:
Look at the somewhat waved appearance of the tab bar.
But what worries me more in your picture is the softness on the right side, that is obvious even at this rather small image-size. It may be a result of not holding the camera parallel to the screen (the softer bottom definitely is), but if you always get a soft right side, your camera-lens might be misaligned.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
haha i cant see the softness u stating. i try take afew more picture head on and let u see. thanks
naujoks said:
I was talking about CROOKED lines, not white lines.
And yes, you have them too.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
actually i cant see the crooked line where is it?
---------- Post added at 10:47 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:43 AM ----------
naujoks said:
I was talking about CROOKED lines, not white lines.
And yes, you have them too.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
*R2D2* said:
Look at the somewhat waved appearance of the tab bar.
But what worries me more in your picture is the softness on the right side, that is obvious even at this rather small image-size. It may be a result of not holding the camera parallel to the screen (the softer bottom definitely is), but if you always get a soft right side, your camera-lens might be misaligned.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
photo retake for u, can u help me have a look of the softness and the crooked line?
shawnhalu said:
photo retake for u, can u help me have a look of the softness and the crooked line?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
First picture again shows severe softness on the right side, just look how hard it is to read the text.
Corner-sharpness isn´t the greatest with this camera, which is to be expected considering the relatively large sensor with a relatively small lens, but this shouldn´t extend that far into the picture.
Your camera seams to be especially strange, as the corners are actually sharper, the small text of the clock in the bottom right corner for example is much easier to read then the text in the center right side, which is very unusual. Normally the corners are the softest, but as you use 16:9, which crops the extreme corners, there shouldn´t be much of a problem at all.
There is nothing to notice on the rest of the pictures.
I don´t really know what´s going on there, the strange sharpness-pattern could be a result of the rather unusual distortion and the correction for it, but then left and right side should be identical. A misaligned lens/sensor should show worse corners (top right corner is quite good as well).
If the camera had some image-stabilization I would say, that maybe the moving sensor/lens-element moved to an area of the lens which isn´t optically as good, but as this camera doesn´t have any stabilization this isn´t possible.
One guess would be that there is some dirt on one side of your lens, or the covering-glass, or maybe some scratches.
Another guess would be that the camera chose one of the multi-shot-modes. Sonys cameras usually are quite good discovering softer parts of the image and multiple instances of the same objects their multi-shot-modes, but of course the algorithm isn´t fool-proof, so their might be a chance that software combined a softer image in the final picture on the right side, while not using this soft image on the left side.
It appears that to the vast majority of modern day uber mobiles that the camera is the most important factor?
I notice that some are actually going to change from the SGS8+ to the Note 8 'just' for the camera?
Cards on the table. I know next to zero regarding photography and very very seldom, if ever, use the camera on my mobile. I find the most attractive extra as sound production however...
Can some of you camera experts inform me how a pocket camera compares in quality of picture to the Note 8?
I would think, I don't know, that my Canon DSLR produces better photographs? How would my little pocket Sony camera compare?
Just how good is the quality of pictures produced by the Note 8 (also the SGS8+ that I own)? Is it just a matter of convenience or do these new mobiles produce truly 'good' photo's?
Thanks for your replies.
Ryland
The S8+ takes amazing pictures. I haven't bought a good real camera for about 6 or 7 years, but I am sure it still takes superior pictures to the best smartphone cameras. But it is bulky, easily broken (ex dropped it a week after I bought it and broke the lcd display on the back although you can still see through the cracks enough to use it) and a PITA to carry around. So I have little need personally for an actual camera. It was $850 to boot and I wish I had never bought it.
The Note 8 and it's dual rear cameras are a definite step up from the S8+. The S8+ has a GREAT camera, low light especially. But the dual shooters in the rear are very, very nice from all accounts on the Note 8. If I can actually get $425 for my Note 7 on trade in from Sammy for the Note 8 I will get the Note 8 and sell my S8+. Otherwise I will not take a 400 to 500 dollar beating to switch from my S8+ - which is a very nice phone - to the Note 8. I do miss the S Pen and a bit bigger screen is always nice. I am a tad concerned about going down in battery size - the S8+ has a 3500 mah battery and smaller display, the Note 8 has a 3300 mah battery and a bit larger display.
Anyway, IMO, the camera upgrade alone is not enough for me to switch. The trade in of $425 for my Note 7 would be enough IF I can actually get $425 from Samsung for my Note 7.
Dipends on what that "pocket camera" is, if it's an m4/3 like the Olympus OM-D or even the Canon EOS-M. i don't think Note 8 can compete with those cameras. But if it's like those small Sony "Point and Shoot" cameras, it does stand a chance of being at par if not beating the picture quality of what the Note 8 can produce.
The f1.7 lens is a huge plus because of it's lowlight capabilities and of course the bokeh effect (where the subject in front is focused and the background is somehow blurred). from what i've seen Note 8 also has an Optical Zoom which is waaaaay better than digital zoom IMO.
All in all i think it will be a great move even if you're coming from the S8+, aside from the camera, the S-Pen can offer a looooot of things that will be helpful for productivities (and picture editing too! haha)
I have Canon DSLR and it does have little better picture quality, but: I don't carry my DSLR with me unless I specifically plan to take a lot of pictures and I have my phone with me all the time. Also in good light, which is most of the time I take pictures, it's hard to tell difference. My S8 is as fast at focusing as my DSLR, S8 have higher FPS for action photos, takes better video in higher resolution (4k) than my DSLR. In other words I use S8 camera most of the time, even if I have my DSLR and use Canon only for specific type of shooting (night, portrait and zoom). Note 8 has the same cam as S8 plus x2 zoom, so better bokeh, but for portrait and telephoto DSLR it is still much better, for everything else I prefer phone, if only for it's size. In my case it's not the cam I'm upgrading from S8 to Note 8, since addition of x2 zoom won't improve capabilities over S8 that much, it's the pen and I suspect it's similar with many others.
Thank you all for your kind and informative replies. I appreciate your time.
One point. Whats a "Bokeh"?
Ryland
the camera is important but it just depends on what your gonna do with the pictures...most will just share on social or just look at them on there phone..i havent seen a bad picture since i had a nextel flip phone.
for me the s-pen is the main selling point and of course the size of the unit
I would say the camera features are not important to the "uber mobiles" as you describe but more like the last item that can truly be updated / differentiated on a device for maximum upsurge with minimum cost.
That's all vendors have left to try and create hype for the next flagship.
Quote:
One point. Whats a "Bokeh"?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bokeh
Hi,
I noticed that Pixel 4 XL doesnt have equal sharpness in the frontcam pictures. If subject aka me are in the centre of frame (phone in portrait orientation), the photo comes halfway blurred. I mean my beard looks sharp, but in eyes level and above everything is a blurry mess. The hair looks so bad compared to my beard.. If I out stretch my arm, then its not so visible but anything from 30-50 cm shooting distances and you can definetely see that the picture looks weird because of that hair/eye level blurriness. I can fix the blurry eyes by re centering myself to lower of the frame. Its insane but it works always.
I want to know if this is normal software processing (distortion correction) or do I have a bad lens/camera sensor? And please dont remind me that its a fixed focus lens I already know that and i have described the problem which isnt purely focus issue.
E; I attached screenshot from one of my photos, where you can see the problem. (look at hair vs. eyebrown focus and scene wasnt windy!) I wasnt centered in viewfinder, little bit lower than centre of the frame trying to show that non equal sharpness (without sharing myself to whole internet)
Sadly, Pixel 4 FFC doesn't have autofocus. It is fixed focus, to get it in focus you have to move the camera at arms lenght (focus point is around 55cm)
It is a pity but that is how it is. Pixel 3 narrow FFC had autofocus and I got the best selfies that way. Pixel 3 wide FFC was fixed focus.
"The Pixel 4 comes with a fixed-focus lens that offers a wide depth of field but has a slightly limited focus range. The latter means that in selfie shots captured at close distance (30 cm), images are slightly soft. However, sharpness is good at a typical arm’s-length shooting distance of 55cm and remains good at selfie-stick shooting distance (120cm), where many other devices struggle."
https://www.dxomark.com/google-pixel-4-front-camera-review/
Google reasoning is:
P4 FFC is wide, so you want to have the back frame and other people focused (not possible with autofocus)
Maybe no space to add a autofocus FFC because of soli?
Because Google and FFC with autofocus will come back with the P5
.
This really doesn't answer your question of whether your phone has a problem or not... but the image sensor is a flat object, while the lens is a hemisphere. The different parts of the hemisphere are different lengths from the image sensor; IE the center is a different length than any outer edge. The P4 in particular has aggressive perspective correction to cover up this fact and make things (usually) look flat when they should. But it can't correct the different focal lengths that change from center to outer edge. Maybe this is what you're seeing. I don't know a lot about cameras... I could be completely wrong.
jljtgr said:
This really doesn't answer your question of whether your phone has a problem or not... but the image sensor is a flat object, while the lens is a hemisphere. The different parts of the hemisphere are different lengths from the image sensor; IE the center is a different length than any outer edge. The P4 in particular has aggressive perspective correction to cover up this fact and make things (usually) look flat when they should. But it can't correct the different focal lengths that change from center to outer edge. Maybe this is what you're seeing. I don't know a lot about cameras... I could be completely wrong.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Otherwise good opinion, but how every else major flagship doesnt suffer this? iPhone, Oneplus for example (have had both). Can someone test this? For testing, you need to take it outdoors and in bright conditions and take a punch of selfies from center and litle lower of frame and see how it affects to focus. (usually if you have beard its sharper than your eyebrowns and it makes the photo horrible looking when cropped in) I showed to my friend examples who doesnt know anything about smartphone cameras and he was sure that this much be broken, cause it was so baad looking and the in the other it was so good, as expected. (same distance, differennt in frame positioning)