Ok, as far as i can tell no one has mentioned this, i appologise if i have missed it as i know some people on here get a bit righteous on here.
SO the camera. , on the HD the camera was the only major thing that really sucked, it did everything else i was expecting of it but that camera really was crap in anything but perfect light conditions.
has anyone heard anything about this HD2 and its camera, its the same MP spec obviously but that means nothing, forget the LED lights they are a gimic at best. Whats needed is a larger CCD and lens, not pixel density, so whats the word on the streets guys? can this thing suck in more light than its older brother and not suffer major lag as the device tried to compensate? and is the shutter responce higher reducing those blured pics that can happen even in perfect day light?
here you have some samples
http://wmpoweruser.com/?p=8987
and more here
http://www.slashgear.com/htc-hd2-5mp-camera-gets-reviewed-distinctly-average-1259864/
it is average... nothing good, but nothing bad... but i think those are samples from pre release... so it can change...
Yeah the camera sucks
Actually, judging by the videos I've seen, HD2's camera is very fast (almost instant) when focusing, which makes it usable in real-life conditions, unlike HD's.
dazza9075 said:
forget the LED lights they are a gimic at best.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I beg to differ... While I completely agree that LED flash is no match for a "real" xenon flash, it is useful as it allows to take pictures that wouldn't be possible otherwise - you can take a picture of your friends in a bar and stuff like that (which in my case is like 90% of all the scenes I want to take pictures of )
dazza9075 said:
is the shutter responce higher reducing those blured pics that can happen even in perfect day light?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
My major gripe with HD was very slow focusing - it just didn't allow to shoot anything. HD2 is 10 times better - it almost works like a focus-free camera in terms of speed (at least that's what I saw on some hands-on video).
Fast it may be, but the pictures i have seen so far are of terrible quality, but what can you expect from a cmos lens?
CMOS sensor, you mean?
I certainly don't consider those pictures to be of "terrible" quality. They are noisy and all, but if I can use my phone to make something like that I'd be quite satisfied, for anything better I'd use a "real" camera. The problem with my HD is that I can't use it at all because it's so slow that the scene changes several times before it shoots anything.
Well my nokia 5800 only has 3.2mp and it blows those pictures away. CRAP
Yeah, i know LED lights can have a use, especially up close as you say taking pics in the bar, which ironically is exactly the poor lighting i tried with the HD to no avail!
so i take that back.
Shutter speed would be good, ive lost too many good photos because the wind was pushing me enough to slightly blur everything.
I never even thought to check if the HD cam was CCD or CMOS,
its a bit bizzar if thats the case because although CCD has a higher quality it should be slightly slower than CMOS, which it clearly isnt, which makes me wonder what exactly is slowing the whole thing down.
Well as for the (perfect lighting conditions and zero blur) quality of the HD im more than happy, so i hope HTC can build on it and make it faster.
jrvenge said:
Well my nokia 5800 only has 3.2mp and it blows those pictures away. CRAP
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
thats all rather subjectional really, my old XDA 2 produces better pics at the cost of resolution, so yes in a small printout it could be better but not when blown up. most people do not need anything more than 3.2mp, if my HD was any quicker on 3.2 id use it.
Most printers in peoples homes arent capable of printing the difference between 3.2 and 5 unless its enlarged anyway!
ive yet to see any good shots from a production HD2 but if its like the HD and its "perfect lighting" the quality is quite amazing, perfect lighting is the operative statement there though for the HD so i can only hope the HD2 can push that bar back a bit!
dazza9075 said:
its a bit bizzar if thats the case because although CCD has a higher quality it should be slightly slower than CMOS, which it clearly isnt, which makes me wonder what exactly is slowing the whole thing down.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
As far as I understand (and I'm not an expert so I may be wrong), there are two problems:
One is obviously the crappy optics (small and made of cheap plastic and such) which do not let enough light come through, combined with a tiny sensor, resulting in lower shutter speeds required to take a picture - thus you get the blur.
Two is the way auto focus works - it's not measuring distance to the object, but instead analyzes the image from the sensor for sharpness and then adjusts focus until the blur goes away. This requires some calculations, obviously. All (or most) non-professional cameras work this way, but "real" cameras have dedicated processors for this stuff, and don't do it in "software" mode - hence, they are much speedier. The same must apply to HD2 - Snapdragon has some camera module AFAIK, and/or is much faster overall than the processor in HD (and it's not just the clock speed, the Cortex A8 architecture is way more efficient).
vangrieg said:
As far as I understand (and I'm not an expert so I may be wrong), there are two problems:
One is obviously the crappy optics (small and made of cheap plastic and such) which do not let enough light come through, combined with a tiny sensor, resulting in lower shutter speeds required to take a picture - thus you get the blur.
Two is the way auto focus works - it's not measuring distance to the object, but instead analyzes the image from the sensor for sharpness and then adjusts focus until the blur goes away. This requires some calculations, obviously. All (or most) non-professional cameras work this way, but "real" cameras have dedicated processors for this stuff, and don't do it in "software" mode - hence, they are much speedier. The same must apply to HD2 - Snapdragon has some camera module AFAIK, and/or is much faster overall than the processor in HD (and it's not just the clock speed, the Cortex A8 architecture is way more efficient).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
If that is the case then i dont understand why they didnt use a CCD, much easier to build and if you need a processor for the auto focus to make it work then it makes little difference since you need a chipset anyway (cmos has most of its circuits onboard)
i put my money on a tiny sensor, but hopefully your right and it is a CPU limitation because its doing it in software, least it can only get better that way!
Related
Sure the camera doesn't have much of a lens, and the zoom is really interpolated; but I really have my doubts that the camera is actually a 3.0MP.
Have there been any in depth tests to prove the camera's resolution???
How big a file should it be with the 3.0M super fine photos?
I take photos at the highest resolution and there is still pixel 'blocking'. I know HTC is new to this, but it is a let down. My old Sony 2.0MP takes better photos.
Clearly u have mistaken abt the relationship between MP and picture quality.
Higher MP does not necessarily mean better images taken.
If u compare a logitech quickcam IM's photo to that of the microsoft 2MP one. u will realise that althought the IM only supports VGA but
picture quality is much better......
The 4 most important factors in photography: Skill, Lens quality, lens quality, lens quality.
And you did realize that when you use the 3 MP mode, there is no zoom available?
A typical 3 MP "Super fine" image will be around 900-1400 KB depending on colors and detail of the object/situation you photograph. A "Fine" photo will land around 450-750 KB.
There is no noticeable difference between "Fine" and "Super fine" modes except in close up, high contrast photos.
I have attached 2 photos for your comparison. Yes, the camera is of poor quality as seen by these 2 images.
http://bayimg.com/DAEKGaABO
http://bayimg.com/DaEkHAABO
Oh, and to double check the resolution, just take a picture, save it to your PC and open it up with any image editing program and see for yourself.
keithwwalker said:
Sure the camera doesn't have much of a lens, and the zoom is really interpolated; but I really have my doubts that the camera is actually a 3.0MP.
Have there been any in depth tests to prove the camera's resolution???
How big a file should it be with the 3.0M super fine photos?
I take photos at the highest resolution and there is still pixel 'blocking'. I know HTC is new to this, but it is a let down. My old Sony 2.0MP takes better photos.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Did you really expect super great pictures on the data centric device? Sure SE Phones do a better job of this, but what else can they do?
If you want a high quality camera or anything else techy, always buy a dedicated device for the job. Simple.
Personally speaking I find the camera quality more than acceptable for a PPC/Phone, as a matter of fact I would go as far to say that it is the best in class out of all PPC Phones. Just MHO though.
mackaby007 said:
Personally speaking I find the camera quality more than acceptable for a PPC/Phone, as a matter of fact I would go as far to say that it is the best in class out of all PPC Phones.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I've got the same impression about the cam,
at least compared to my old HTC Magician
Camera
The quality of the camera is probably the only reason why I have not let the X7501 fully replace my N95 as a phone!
thetruth1983 said:
The quality of the camera is probably the only reason why I have not let the X7501 fully replace my N95 as a phone!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
lmao, scnr
mojo2000 said:
lmao, scnr
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I've got an N95 and its camera isn't much better in my opinion, though it copes with moving subjects slightly better and video is VASTLY superior. I prefer B&W shots on the Ameo though. The flash on the Ameo is much brighter too - I still don't understand why HTC don't provide an automated flash function though - very annoying!
Sorry if I gave the impression that I was expecting a first rate camera with the 7501.
I purchased this for the following reasons, ranking in importance:
PDA
Phone
GPS
Media Player
Camera
With that said, there is another component to a good photo beside: Skill, Lens quality.
That is the software that puts all the image together.
My old Sony 2.0MP had a Carl Zeiss lens and the end product was still crap compared to the Canon's of the day. The internal software was the let down. So too the HTC.
keithwwalker said:
Sure the camera doesn't have much of a lens, and the zoom is really interpolated; but I really have my doubts that the camera is actually a 3.0MP.
Have there been any in depth tests to prove the camera's resolution???
How big a file should it be with the 3.0M super fine photos?
I take photos at the highest resolution and there is still pixel 'blocking'. I know HTC is new to this, but it is a let down. My old Sony 2.0MP takes better photos.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Calavaro said:
The 4 most important factors in photography: Skill, Lens quality, lens quality, lens quality.
And you did realize that when you use the 3 MP mode, there is no zoom available?
A typical 3 MP "Super fine" image will be around 900-1400 KB depending on colors and detail of the object/situation you photograph. A "Fine" photo will land around 450-750 KB.
There is no noticeable difference between "Fine" and "Super fine" modes except in close up, high contrast photos.
I have attached 2 photos for your comparison. Yes, the camera is of poor quality as seen by these 2 images.
http://bayimg.com/DAEKGaABO
http://bayimg.com/DaEkHAABO
Oh, and to double check the resolution, just take a picture, save it to your PC and open it up with any image editing program and see for yourself.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Dude, when was the last time you really cleaned?
another big factor of picture quality is the sensor size...
most people down know this but the bigger teh sensor the better the picture quality...
that is why a dslr with a big sensor though it may have a 3 MP pixel size will alwasy be better than a point and shoot thats 8 MP
this gets into photography .. but basicly craming more pixels into a same sized sensor will seldom yield better results ... just maybe allow you to blow up the picture a bit more thats it...
having said that i think the camera on the athena is excellent compared to other phones of the nature
I disagree with the fact that len quality is the most important factor.... Len is very important but tt is when you r using something with a gd sensor.... the image processor and sensor.... b it cmos or ccd will
b the one that makes the most difference when it comes to image quality.......
Calavaro said:
The 4 most important factors in photography: Skill, Lens quality, lens quality, lens quality.
And you did realize that when you use the 3 MP mode, there is no zoom available?
A typical 3 MP "Super fine" image will be around 900-1400 KB depending on colors and detail of the object/situation you photograph. A "Fine" photo will land around 450-750 KB.
There is no noticeable difference between "Fine" and "Super fine" modes except in close up, high contrast photos.
I have attached 2 photos for your comparison. Yes, the camera is of poor quality as seen by these 2 images.
http://bayimg.com/DAEKGaABO
http://bayimg.com/DaEkHAABO
Oh, and to double check the resolution, just take a picture, save it to your PC and open it up with any image editing program and see for yourself.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
bLiTz^ said:
I disagree with the fact that len quality is the most important factor.... Len is very important but tt is when you r using something with a gd sensor.... the image processor and sensor.... b it cmos or ccd will
b the one that makes the most difference when it comes to image quality.......
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
sensor is imp ... but like i said its sensor size...
and being how most cell phones are small... you cant fit a big sensor in it... so image quality willbe sub par always...
you made me laugh out loud with that comment....you're right!!
for gods sake calavaro if you dont want to dust, just blow that dust away.......sneeze or something!!
of course you wanted it there for effect!?!?
in keeping w/ the thread though, i have a trion w/ a 2 mp and it is the best i've had in all my pda/phones...how does the advantage compare to that camera? anyone??
dan
[email protected] said:
you made me laugh out loud with that comment....you're right!!
for gods sake calavaro if you dont want to dust, just blow that dust away.......sneeze or something!!
of course you wanted it there for effect!?!?
in keeping w/ the thread though, i have a trion w/ a 2 mp and it is the best i've had in all my pda/phones...how does the advantage compare to that camera? anyone??
dan
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Can't remember if the Trion is the same as the Hermes?! If it is, I had a Hermes and loved the camera...for a PPC, but I rate the Athena camera slightly ahead in every way.
i do find the athena camera superior to every other camera phone i have seen...
i especially like the focus... it definately makes the picture quite al ot sharper
any other camera with a fixed focal length produces far inferior results...
the reason is because it is fixed at infinity ... so it doesnt have to focus necessarily ...
basicly becaused of a fixed focal length at infinity you get a much softer picture...
and it is a common known fact among photographers the infinity focal length produces sub par results ...
for example they dont use the infinity focal length to take landscape pictures... it really depends per lens but they use a dif formula to calculate the best length...
the long and the short a variable focal lens will top a fixed focal length always...
in short if you cant focus ur lens like most pda phones athenas is better...
Haha. I do dust. I live in a 3rd world country with massive traffic in the center of a big-ass city. I even have maids helping out. That's the best that can be done on a day to day basis. So how about, you know, focus on the issue at hand?
No matter how you look at it, a camera on a phone will never be as good as even the simplest point-and-shoot camera. Yes, quality has improved, but it's still way behind.
So what's up with those red lines at the top left corner? about half the pictures I take has this "effect". Seems to happen mostly in high light conditions.
leoni1980 said:
I've got an N95 and its camera isn't much better in my opinion, though it copes with moving subjects slightly better and video is VASTLY superior. I prefer B&W shots on the Ameo though. The flash on the Ameo is much brighter too - I still don't understand why HTC don't provide an automated flash function though - very annoying!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The N95 indeed has a poor quality STILL capture, however the VIDEO capability is amazing.
Calavaro said:
Haha. I do dust. I live in a 3rd world country with massive traffic in the center of a big-ass city. I even have maids helping out. That's the best that can be done on a day to day basis. So how about, you know, focus on the issue at hand?
No matter how you look at it, a camera on a phone will never be as good as even the simplest point-and-shoot camera. Yes, quality has improved, but it's still way behind.
So what's up with those red lines at the top left corner? about half the pictures I take has this "effect". Seems to happen mostly in high light conditions.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This is becaues of teh sensor size i mentioned before ..
its just not possible unless you want to carry a huge phone... (thickness)
and though the athena is big its really not that thick...
i really don't get it. most of the comments posted praise the Athena camera. Personally i think the camera is pretty good and sharp and the fact it can produce a 3mp photo is excellent.. BUT.. after using it for 2 months.. it is only great for outdoor and scenery shots (or if your subject does not move too much). in a NORMAL (and i say normal as in if you are in doors and the lighting condition is considered very good) indoor situation, if your subject just moves a little.. the whole picture becomes blur.. try this.. take a shot outdoor while u shake ur camera.. (result.. decent picture)... go indoor and move your camera.. (result.. sucks)..
i for one bought the phone to also take pictures of my kid especially when we go out shopping.. but the camera feature simply cannot make it..
question: when indoors.. the camera is like perpetually in night mode (i mean everything is like in slow motion.. jerky..) weird?!?!? even if i am using my old xda ii, it does not do this.. why oh why?
i do understand what most of u guys are saying about a weak sensor.. but i for one is a disappointed customer.. a phone with such a powerful cpu yet the picture and video quality is terrible.. sigh...
Has anyone else noticed the F Stop/Aperature on the i9000.
It's a super low f2.6
As anyone who understands photography, the lower the number the more light is let in and as such means you can work and shoot better in poor/dim lit conditions.
The trade off is a Low Depth of Field.
I have quite a few cameras and at f2 they produce some stunning night photography.
Granted the sensor is not up to the same standards as that found in class camera lens but to have an f2.6 in this camera should still be great for shots that either require a bit of speed or for low lit situations.
Seeing as the i9000 does not have an LED Flash this is certainly going to help.
interesting piece of news thank you. sounds good!
i know quite a bit of photography, and in theory your right.
The only thing is that most phone cams have 'super big aperature', but since the lenses are very small and the sensors are also, it doesn't say anything about the quality.
Also the aperature doesn't say anything about the number of lumens the lens can catch.
it's just a calculation number.
aperature with your zoom factor make your depth of field and actually it stops there.
I have seen 4.5 lensen (on my dSLR) that can make perfect pics with no light at all, but also i've seen 2.8 lensens that suck totaly. simply because if the small lens opening.
On the other hand. Though it's still a calcuating number, it does give a good indication if you compare it to other phone cams.
Thanks for the input... appreciated.
I fully understand and agree in what you are saying.
If we look at the Nokia N97 which although not the best phone camera on the market it is known for taking surprisingly good low light photography.
Apart from the fact it has a dual LED for flash photography it's construction and lens is quite similar.
Taking aside the similarities, if you look at it's F-Stop it is slightly higher at f2.8 against an f2.6 on the i9000.
It's not much different I agree but even if it were one would expect low light or fast shooting to be on par with the N97.
I've seen shots taken with the N97 and was quite impressed at it's low light attitude.
Rarely during the day/night was the flash required.
I'm exceptionally pleased at the i9000's aperture/F-Stop and Focal range.
I for one am now not as concerned it does not have a dedicated Flash.
I'm quite excited about the camera as well. I almost never use the flash on my Omina I because I get much better results by playing around with the camera settings. The only problem is that the camera seems to have trouble focusing in low light/low contrast situations. With flash, the photos look washed out and are still out of focus. Hopefully the manual focus option and "fast auto focus" the gsmarena review mentions mean that it is possible to get good low light photos with the Galaxy S even without flash.
That said, I'm put off by the reports about video recording being choppy/crashing and the camera failing to load.
latraviata said:
That said, I'm put off by the reports about video recording being choppy/crashing and the camera failing to load.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Same here a bit... I saw videos of the Samsung Wave camera 720p video and they look better than the samples of the Galaxy S
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bHQs_DpFFoI <-- Samsung Wave.. very very nice especially the plants.
Hey guys,
I did a comparison with my 3yr old samsung innov8, which also has a 8mpixel camera. I have taken pics and found that my new Galaxy S2 camera extremely poor indoors compared to my Innov8. My Galaxy S2 camera seems to produce very poor detail, over sharpened and grainy images, unable to capture colours and lighting accurately. Old Innov8 is at least twice as much better!
I am wondering if I got a faulty device or is this considered to be normal? Everyone seems to be praising the camera quality, so I'm beginning to get a little worried. I would also appreciate if some of you could take low-light images, preferably in a room at night.
Finally, pictures I took, for your reference:
Samsung Galaxy S2
imageshack.us/photo/my-images/810/galaxys2e.jpg
Note: I took a few pictures around the room and picked the best one.
Samsung Innov8
imageshack.us/photo/my-images/687/innov82.jpg
imageshack.us/photo/my-images/64/innov8.jpg
As you can see, my old phone takes much cleaner pictures and colour is more accurate, albeit cold/blueish. It is overall better. Just to add on, it tends to have a slight pink tone in the center also.
Camera firmware is OCED10.
Baseband - XXKDH
Kernal - XWKDD
Build - XWKDD
Thanks and Cheers!
Mine isn't great indoors too very grainy, out doors im well impressed
Sent from my GT-I9100 using XDA App
Have you tried adjusting the iso settings on the GS2?
See the metadata of your pics.
SGS is compromising on ISO to maintain better shutter speed by default. That picture is at ISO400. The Innovo 8 is at ISO 200.
Thats why there is so much noise in SGS pic.
If you prefer little under exposed pics and rather have images with less noise, just set your iso manually at 100 or 200 for indoor pics.
My camera is very grainy indoors too. Outside, it's fine.
I tried setting it at at lower ISO, but it's still very grainy.
I also have the pink blob in the middle... :S What's with that!?
Funkym0nkey said:
See the metadata of your pics.
SGS is compromising on ISO to maintain better shutter speed by default. That picture is at ISO400. The Innovo 8 is at ISO 200.
Thats why there is so much noise in SGS pic.
If you prefer little under exposed pics and rather have images with less noise, just set your iso manually at 100 or 200 for indoor pics.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes i did notice that. I tried to set it on ISO 100 and ISO 200 as well. Slightly better, but no where as good as my Innov8. I have been trying all sort of test this past 2 days.
you cant compare one of the best mobile camera phones with sgs s 2...i have i8510 (im writing this post from Innov8 and i had also i8910 and what i can say is that the quality of optics,camera chip is bigger - even i8910 is noisy looser with much less detailed photos with compar. to i8510...so try to compare with nowadays smartphones not i8510 or N86 etc. Just look at my thread about sgs s 2 photos and be glad it can do such a good photos...
haha yeah i guess so.. huge difference huh. kinda heart breaking oh well. just glad to know that my device isn't a faulty one
amukilla said:
Hey guys,
I did a comparison with my 3yr old samsung innov8, which also has a 8mpixel camera. I have taken pics and found that my new Galaxy S2 camera extremely poor indoors compared to my Innov8. My Galaxy S2 camera seems to produce very poor detail, over sharpened and grainy images, unable to capture colours and lighting accurately. Old Innov8 is at least twice as much better!
I am wondering if I got a faulty device or is this considered to be normal? Everyone seems to be praising the camera quality, so I'm beginning to get a little worried. I would also appreciate if some of you could take low-light images, preferably in a room at night.
Finally, pictures I took, for your reference:
Samsung Galaxy S2
imageshack.us/photo/my-images/810/galaxys2e.jpg
Note: I took a few pictures around the room and picked the best one.
Samsung Innov8
imageshack.us/photo/my-images/687/innov82.jpg
imageshack.us/photo/my-images/64/innov8.jpg
As you can see, my old phone takes much cleaner pictures and colour is more accurate, albeit cold/blueish. It is overall better. Just to add on, it tends to have a slight pink tone in the center also.
Camera firmware is OCED10.
Baseband - XXKDH
Kernal - XWKDD
Build - XWKDD
Thanks and Cheers!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
you can choose night mode, the sgs2 are using ISO400, 1/17s (more faster shutter speed but with higher ISO), but the Innov8 is using ISO200, 1/8s (very slow shutter speed but lower ISO) ---> see the Innov8 is too much of noise reduction has been apply on the photo and cause the detail losed a lot + handshake due to slow shutter speed.
SGS2 also can get as Innov8 result as long as you choose night mode or manually reduce ISO to 200 but remember, you will get slower shutter speed.
I do wish people would stop chelping about the camera, if you want professional results get a professional camera, this camera is perfectly acceptable in good light conditions.
Agreed. This is not a system camera. However, it's argubly the best phone camera device on the market, so everything depends on what to compare it with. Personally, I'm pretty amazed about what it can muster.
stoolzo said:
I do wish people would stop chelping about the camera, if you want professional results get a professional camera, this camera is perfectly acceptable in good light conditions.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
to be honest i'd like to have a pro-like quality out of the phone, because while we're not making actual pro-pictures, its one thing less to carry around if the quality is good.
in some cases it actually is on the SGS2
stoolzo said:
I do wish people would stop chelping about the camera, if you want professional results get a professional camera, this camera is perfectly acceptable in good light conditions.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Not only that. I have at all times a professional photographer in my entourage.
How does it compare to the SGS? How will it compare to the Sensation? Those are probably two good benchmarks.
The fact that the phone is able to take pictures of this magnitude, especially considering how light and thin it is, is itself amazing. Its not really possible with today's technology to squeeze larger sensors and keep the thickness down.
This guy here(who is a professional photographer) says the camera is 'very good' and looking at the pictures I think so too.
So I really think you people should stop complaining and enjoy what the phone has to offer without being so uptight about every minute problem.
MrDeacon said:
Agreed. This is not a system camera. However, it's argubly the best phone camera device on the market, so everything depends on what to compare it with. Personally, I'm pretty amazed about what it can muster.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It is nowhere near as being the best camera phone. My gf has a Nokia N8 and you cannot believe the pictures she is able to produce with her phone. Will make this weekend a side by side comparison, with pictures of the same thing taken at the same time using both phones... I know N8 will win, just curious how much ahead it is ( and will use it at 8MP and not 12 MP to be fair ).
On another note, the indoor pics are crappy, but to be expected ( high MP count in a tiny sensor = noise ). Outdoor pics look very well indeed, even at full size they are ok. For me, not enough to replace a dedicated camera, but more than enough for the occasional picture and movie ( movies look excellent outside too ). I should mention that the N8 performs like a compact dedicated camera, so that sensor would be enough for most vacations.
Overall, given the fact that it is a phone afterall, I am more than pleased with the camera quality.
Azra2k said:
It is nowhere near as being the best camera phone. My gf has a Nokia N8 and you cannot believe the pictures she is able to produce with her phone. Will make this weekend a side by side comparison, with pictures of the same thing taken at the same time using both phones... I know N8 will win, just curious how much ahead it is ( and will use it at 8MP and not 12 MP to be fair ).
On another note, the indoor pics are crappy, but to be expected ( high MP count in a tiny sensor = noise ). Outdoor pics look very well indeed, even at full size they are ok. For me, not enough to replace a dedicated camera, but more than enough for the occasional picture and movie ( movies look excellent outside too ). I should mention that the N8 performs like a compact dedicated camera, so that sensor would be enough for most vacations.
Overall, given the fact that it is a phone afterall, I am more than pleased with the camera quality.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Let's make a comparison SGS2 vs n8
Azra2k said:
It is nowhere near as being the best camera phone. My gf has a Nokia N8 and you cannot believe the pictures she is able to produce with her phone. Will make this weekend a side by side comparison, with pictures of the same thing taken at the same time using both phones... I know N8 will win, just curious how much ahead it is ( and will use it at 8MP and not 12 MP to be fair ).
On another note, the indoor pics are crappy, but to be expected ( high MP count in a tiny sensor = noise ). Outdoor pics look very well indeed, even at full size they are ok. For me, not enough to replace a dedicated camera, but more than enough for the occasional picture and movie ( movies look excellent outside too ). I should mention that the N8 performs like a compact dedicated camera, so that sensor would be enough for most vacations.
Overall, given the fact that it is a phone afterall, I am more than pleased with the camera quality.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
cool! i wanted to see such a test. even at 12MP in fact. We all know the N8 is going to win, but i'd like to see by how much.
I had a N95 in the past and it replaced my camera. I have a SGS right now (and a SGS2 tomorrow or so lol) and it is not as good in most conditions. It's probably because the lens is really much better and bigger on the N95 (and on the N8, and on most Nokias in fact..)
I almost went for the N8 just for that, but tbh, Symbian is a pain and the browser is really bad
Looking forward to the N8 comparison as well!
to be fair the N8's camera is very good but as a an overall package its **** compared to the S2.
Yes, we would all like to get close to pro results out of it but it isnt going to happen with such a small sensor / lens
It should also be noted that a good photo, a good camera does not necessarily make.
I just bought a new camera to tote around mainly for my wife. I thought it was a pretty good camera, it's a fuji 14mp point and shoot. I've had one in the past which was pretty good.
Anyway, my point being my freaking camera on my note takes much better pictures than this camera does. I would think a dedicated camera would be the winner but Samsung did a good job here.
I've seen threads past complaining about the notes camera but mine takes great pics. Needless to sat wife still asks for the phone to take pics. That was a waste of money
From the big ole Note
Try comparing the two in conditions with poor lighting, particularly in any scenario that would require a flash or longer exposure.
When it comes to camera's, opposed to what alot of people think, the amount of megapixels you have isn't important at all. What's more important is the lens, and how big it is. The lighting, shutter time etc..
Just like knightnz said, the fuji would probably come out on top in "harder" to capture pictures.
Still I have to agree, the Note takes amazing pictures.
Yea I haven't tried the note much in low light or night pics so I'll have to check it out. I understand and have always read mp mean nothing so what is the point of these higher mp counts? I mean they are coming out with a friggin 41mp camera soon on a phone at that! Why the need for high mp if they don't affect quality?
From the big ole Note
It is just for marketing purpose.
Gesendet von meinem GT-N7000 mit Tapatalk
sprintuser1977 said:
Yea I haven't tried the note much in low light or night pics so I'll have to check it out. I understand and have always read mp mean nothing so what is the point of these higher mp counts? I mean they are coming out with a friggin 41mp camera soon on a phone at that! Why the need for high mp if they don't affect quality?
From the big ole Note
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's not like the phone takes a 2GB 41 mp jpeg lol. It's a new type of technology that combines pixles in such a way that it creates a 5-8mp file with lossless 4x zoom and greatly reduced noise.
The *real* breakthrough is the size of the lense and the amount of light it lets in. I've seen some sample pictures and it has a mean DOF effect and almost no noise.
Back to the point. The notes camera is great and it is better than a few point and shoots that my friends have, I just wish there was image stabilisation but that's just software right?
a wise man once said:
"The best Camera to have, is the one that's is in your hand."
I havnt been too impressed with the camera.. It is pretty good for a phone but I miss how fast my iPhone snapped a pic compared to this.. Not saying it's bad though
Sent from my GT-N7000 using xda premium
James Harrison said:
Back to the point. The notes camera is great and it is better than a few point and shoots that my friends have, I just wish there was image stabilisation but that's just software right?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well, the best image stabilisation is actually hardware. It is a prism that moves based on a gyroscope to compensate for all camera movements. Effectively it keeps the physical focus point where it was and moves it slowly to where it now is, avoiding the quick shake caused by your movements. Software can only compensate slightly by moving the physical focus around in a similar way in a larger recorded image.
The best I have ever had is in my Sony HandyCam. It was the bees knees when I bought it many years ago. Full 1080p video with a superb and huge Carl Zeiss lens. Dark shots were great and better than most other cameras, and it even does a fair IR night mode. The videos are very stable as long as you do not do any large swings. The 10x optical zoom is also fantastic.
Now my Note stands in, but it will never replace the HC because of the poorer dark videos, lack of zoom, and the complete lack of stabilisation. Having said that, it is used a hell of a lot more as a camera and video cam, because it is always with me!
jb9217a said:
I havnt been too impressed with the camera.. It is pretty good for a phone but I miss how fast my iPhone snapped a pic compared to this.. Not saying it's bad though
Sent from my GT-N7000 using xda premium
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Once ics comes in, u will get 0 shutter lag ! much faster than iphone...
Is there anyway we can shut camera click sound ?
The camera is good enough.
But when you see your note camera taking better pictures than stand alone point and shoot snapper, you know you have crap point and shoot camera or the person taking photographs is not taking pictures properly.
Under good light conditions, these modern snappers will match the P&S sensor quality if you know what you are doing. Picture quality varies greatly by simple choice of settings by the person taking pictures on Note. Leave it at auto and you will not get the best results in tricky conditions. You also need steady hands to get good snaps from Note camera.
But overall, its good enough to be good casual snapper.
But if you start comparing Note against even older good compact cameras like Panasonic ZS7 (which is now outdated), its not even close. These point and shoot cameras will outperform Note under any condition. Leave alone more expensive and also cameras with newer better sensors available today.
The good thing about Note camera is that it takes more than decent pictures with relatively accurate colour reproduction unlike some other phone cameras.
Mobile camera run down
jeromepearce said:
..lack of zoom..
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
There is a rather crappy digital zoom that happens when you press the volume button and swipe your finger across the slider that appears.. like here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q7abTRUO4WQ
(ignore the girl lol)
In other areas: I realise now that the stabilisation is hardware but you'd be SO suprised at how much software effects the video quality. I have 2 examples.
My old HD2 on windows mobile or android had TERRIBLE low light quality, frame rate dropped down to 9/10 fps, image noise was just unacceptable. -->
Updated to windows phone 7, and low light was quality is insane now. did not drop a single frame. The quality even went up to full 720p (which was not possible before)
I've even made some short movies with it because the low light was so good.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MZP68dAtn14 and the non "8mm style" shots in here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8JQVeeZL4aQ
(sorry not trying to drop videos here but just so you get my point)
Second example is my transformer prime. Same thing. On Honeycomb terrible fps in low light and a whole heap of noise ---> ICS update and the camera was a different beast.
My point is, software is very important in mobile cameras. Once we get ICS, we can start complaining or praising properly
katyarevishal said:
Once ics comes in, u will get 0 shutter lag ! much faster than iphone...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Dear katyarevishal,
I was hoping that till trying ICS leak but shutter lag is still same as GB... Losing my hope... Thats why i am using Fast Burst Camera app to catch the moment but limited to 1 mpx...
Kind regards...
Sent from my GT-N7000 using xda premium
PROTOCHIP said:
Dear katyarevishal,
I was hoping that till trying ICS leak but shutter lag is still same as GB... Losing my hope... Thats why i am using Fast Burst Camera app to catch the moment but limited to 1 mpx...
Kind regards...
Sent from my GT-N7000 using xda premium
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
thats because its a leak and hasnt got the fully working driverset
Hello,
I have read mixed reviews of the G4 Plus camera, while DxoMark gives it a score of 84. Many others consider it average in day light and worst in low light,
can anyone can post unedited/un-cropped images for sample. Is the G4 Plus a good buy as camera phone ?
Thank you.
In my experience it's a very good camera for a phone. Pictures here won't mean probably too much, since you have no reference point and the low resolution imposed by XDA.
Okay, let me tell you my experience. It's a good camera overall. Takes very vivid and sharp images in daylight ie in good conditions. But It has an average to above-average performance in low light conditions but..but..but.. certainly better than many phones that are in its price range. Another thing I wanna mention is that it struggles to snap moving objects. It's 'cause the g4 plus lacks optical image stabilization. I think for many of us It'd be a big deal. For me it's NOT.
I would certainly recommend this phone for phone photography.
Hit like if this post helped you
tobey_onk said:
Okay, let me tell you my experience. It's a good camera overall. Takes very vivid and sharp images in daylight ie in good conditions. But It has an average to above-average performance in low light conditions but..but..but.. certainly better than many phones that are in its price range. Another thing I wanna mention is that it struggles to snap moving objects. It's 'cause the g4 plus lacks optical image stabilization. I think for many of us It'd be a big deal. For me it's NOT.
I would certainly recommend this phone for phone photography.
Hit like if this post helped you
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Does this moving objects lag happens in manual mode as well ? when shutter is set to higher speed or only in auto mode ?
i think the fastest shutter speed is 1/5 in pro mode can you confirm this ?
Thanks
For camera, this phone is goooood.....?
But you should also pay attention to other issues like heating while camera is in use for more time and screen burn and ghosts touch..
( while screen burn and ghost touch is not common in all device, but if your luck is working wrong then you will have to face them )
tobey_onk said:
but..but..but.. certainly better than many phones that are in its price range.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I seriously doubt that is another phone with a better camera at this price point ($300). In low level light or in daylight. You need to move up to $700 to get a better camera (like added optical zoom and stabilization).
Now, I always say that phones cannot compete with dedicated cameras, therefore they should not be used for planned photo sessions (like when you expect to have great subjects).
Well HTC desire 628 ( my last phone ) gave shutter speed of 1/8000. so i don't want to get anything lower than that. Other option i got is ZTE Nubia Z11 which has an Sony Exmor 298 but not sure if its good enough
https://youtu.be/U8PITTNu7fI?t=179
Thanks
dranzer006 said:
Does this moving objects lag happens in manual mode as well ? when shutter is set to higher speed or only in auto mode ?
i think the fastest shutter speed is 1/5 in pro mode can you confirm this ?
Thanks
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
will try it.
The camera is good for the phone price but it has some quirks which make me irritated.
1. Slow focus, 1 in 3 shots would not have got focused, I notice this issue in pics with people, workaround is to wait additional second after it shows as focused, not always practical. This is probably biggest flaw of this phone. DxO remarks this in their review as well.
2. My earlier phone was nexus 5, OIS made the photos 99% of the time sharp and blur free. With G4 I have to keep my hands extremely steady in poor lighting.
3. I also find the images to be bit over sharpened, not a big deal though. Dynamic range is not that great either, has tendency to blow out sky and highlights.
4. Wide angle lens, didn't like this as objects seem to get curved across the edges of pic, this can and should have been fixed via post processing but moto decided to ignore it.
5. Finally the video recording with EIS is great but heats up the phone like crazy if shooting for long time.
For the price of phone I can forgive issue 2 and 3 but 1st one makes me hate the phone camera as I need to always check if it came out alright. Had I known it before I bought I would have skipped it.
Compared to phones in this price range though it's still decent and great when it works well. Most of the phone seems to have similar issues in this price range.