Database Info

Camera / Image signal processor quality (unexpected)

Hi everyone!
Edit: The camera and camcorder response / accessing time is also 5 and 4 times higher than another Android device.
This tablet comes Full HD display, utilizing nvidia's 40nm processor technology (SoC).
The current IC fabrication technology is 22nm, 28nm and 32nm which is considerably more efficient than 40nm in terms of processing power.
I noticed on the first day of receiving this tablet I was overwhelmed by its full HD display, for this tablet being a high-end product.
When I look at the image captured by the camera I was somewhat not surprised by the image quality of the camera.
It has been one of the main features which was talked about in the launch / promotional video of the TF Infinity.
Where it talked about a 5th lens that adds on a superior quality but I don't see that quality. There are couple of problems with the camera.
1. The well known focus clicking problem in video mode (auto focus is unavailable in video mode).
2. The image captured in a room with fluorescent lighting has a refresh rate problem (with horizontal bars across the image).
3. The zoom feature worked fine but somehow the preview which shown on the screen isn't, the live preview is low resolution and produce undesirable sharp blocks (which is just as annoying as using a low ended product).
The camera software is primitive and is lacking lots of the standard features of a camera.
But I'd expect much more quality from them and nevertheless to say it is pretty unexpected to see the full HD display while still leaving lots of blanks for the critics to fill up (wondering why the reviewers never mentioned the negative points on the tablet) and usability problems which its users faces.
A lot of people probably don't care about the camera but hey this tablet isn't cheap to start with and it's made by a reputable brand name in the technology industry (& they don't make Cameras...).
If you watch the live preview closely, you can actually see the horizontal bars moving down the screen (just like the refresh rate of the good old analog TV).
Is there any experts with cameras who can tell me how do you capture an image without the presence of the horizontal bars?
Is this tablet with high-end specification and without quality?
But if you are just an average user; Do you still get really annoying about all of the problems on the tablet?
*# One other thing which is rather inconsistent, I noticed is the file modified date in the recently released FW updates "*_epad-user-9.4.5.22.zip", all of the files within it are dated with 22/3/2011 11:21AM. And the zipped file within "*_epad-user_9_4_5_22_UpdateLauncher.zip" are dated 15/6/2012 and this update was only uploaded a few days ago!

I remember my phone originally had a lot of issues with camera...it ended up being software. I tried Camera Zoom FX, and the pictures started to come out quite a lot better. LGCamera works great as well, and also has a video mode. Try those, that might increase your picture quality and also gives you a lot more control over pictures.

As good as the camera was built up by Asus, its still a tablet camera. Tablet cameras have a reputation for being kinda crap.
But I agree with KilerG's post. Try other camera software and see if that helps. Or perhaps try turning down the resolution.

Jotokun said:
As good as the camera was built up by Asus, its still a tablet camera. Tablet cameras have a reputation for being kinda crap.
But I agree with KilerG's post. Try other camera software and see if that helps. Or perhaps try turning down the resolution.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I wasn't expecting to become a professional photographer with this tablet, much less shoot my next great film on it (even though if I did, that would be hilarious). I probably won't spend a lot of time using the camera, and when I do, I think that's it's adequate for what it is...a tablet camera.
Remember how Apple talks up their camera? It still doesn't take the most amazing photos, especially on the iPad (well they talk up everything that is basically worthless, so maybe that's a bad example). I can get a better picture from a Samsung or HTC phone 9 times out of 10 than on a fruit device.

KilerG said:
I wasn't expecting to become a professional photographer with this tablet, much less shoot my next great film on it (even though if I did, that would be hilarious). I probably won't spend a lot of time using the camera, and when I do, I think that's it's adequate for what it is...a tablet camera.
Remember how Apple talks up their camera? It still doesn't take the most amazing photos, especially on the iPad (well they talk up everything that is basically worthless, so maybe that's a bad example). I can get a better picture from a Samsung or HTC phone 9 times out of 10 than on a fruit device.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
So; I guess you didn't buy a tablet because of its camera, but you see the point of having a camera on the tablet is to make life easy and fun.
It should be expected of from a tablet, various components of the tablet works but its not perfect, why? Maybe the manufacturer can answer the question.

Redefined301 said:
So; I guess you didn't buy a tablet because of its camera, but you see the point of having a camera on the tablet is to make life easy and fun.
It should be expected of from a tablet, various components of the tablet works but its not perfect, why? Maybe the manufacturer can answer the question.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This is maybe philosophical.
Being the best does not infer perfection.
Ahhh, but I too would prefer perfection. Those cameras cost 10's of thousands and almost require a degree to operate. For 500 bucks and a ton of more relevant things it does I am happy with the best of crap.
So to speak.
Lets just hope for the best of apps to get us home.

+1 for Camera ZoomFX. One of the first apps i install on my devices.

timrock said:
+1 for Camera ZoomFX. One of the first apps i install on my devices.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The quality remains the same as the horizontal bars are still present in the still image.

I took this picture today and it seemed to come out perfectly fine. There were no lights on and it was starting to get dark. My phone's camera would have taken an incredibly grainy picture, but this seemed to work just fine.
That's. My grandpa and great uncle if you were wondering. I'm visiting my grandparents and great uncle currently
Sent from my ASUS Transformer Pad TF700T using xda app-developers app

[Discussion] Quality of Camera's on Phones

It would be nice to hear some opinions on this following thoughts I've had, ever since I upgraded my phone last year from an iPhone 3G (2.5mp camera I think) to an Xperia Arc S, which at the time was the highest quality / size MP camera on a phone at 8MP, which is still a decent size for a phone camera today, as mid-ranged phones usually start at around 5-8MP and the super smart phones these days are running upward of 10MP, I think 13MP is the highest, at least on Android, that Nokia Symbian phone was like... 42MP? Or at least the fidelity / quality resembled that due to its massive lens housing, god knows what was in there, but if I remember rightly it was only 5MP images... Someone correct me.
Anyway, with my Arc S at 8MP, the images are fairly decent, I mean they're never going to be used for print, so it doesn't really need to be higher. However, as an art graduate, I spend time when I can taking photographs, and I have a 14MP Sony NEX 5, which as standard is already a better quality sensor than the tiny ones that make it into a phone.
My first point is it's still only 1MP higher than these smartphones, which makes me think; say I upgrade my phone in 1 year when 16MP is the highest, now we've gone over, for me I'm reluctant to go higher than my camera because I'd probably be swayed to using the phone more for photography, though the phones would probably have to be double the MP of a decent camera to really compare.
Secondly, Lenses, well the one on my Arc S is fairly standard, though probably more complex than some others as I think it has 7 layers of various shaped pieces of glass. But when it comes down to it, any photographer will tell you it's almost 100% the lens that really makes a photograph what it is, the phones are getting better quality, but the lenses probably aren't, the phones are constantly trying to get thinner which doesn't help matters, but phones have actually gotten fatter sue to bigger screens needing bigger battery, so I'm unsure on this part of the topic.
The lenses I use on my NEX are Canon FD mounts, a format from the early to mid 70's all the way up to about 1994, they are manual lenses because of their age and incompatibility with modern auto-focus, but the quality is superb, and I'm not just saying it, one of the lenses is a 1.4 50mm prime, and can do some great shots, though the camera isn't full frame so the lens works out at 75mm, but I also have a 28mm 2.2 (I think?) prime, which works out around 42mm and is really good.
Both lenses are dated between 1972 and 1982, and no current phone could replicate the fidelity, bokeh and colour, which is one of the reasons why proper cameras will always have the advantage. (The NEX doesn't have a mirror inside so can replicate the original setup of older cameras easily, meaning a huge number of adaptors allows tons of different lenses to become available)
However with the Nokia pureview phone (still don't remember its name... 850?...) It had a body capable of housing some very interesting tech, that hasn't really been used since, at least to my knowledge. Seeing some pictures online really showed you what this phone was capable of, I think the resolution of the images were in the ten thousands X whatever, and remained really sharp, for a phone at least. Maybe it's lack of success is due to it been on a non-leading OS at the time, I can imagine people would want a camera with maybe an Android phone? (Which apparently, Nokia are working on) so maybe it will see it's true colours shine on a larger base OS. If this tech is worth the larger body size of a phone, people are going to want it...
And lastly, Convenience. One of the main points of having a camera is to be able to capture moments WHENEVER, and having a decent camera on a phone has been a growing trend over the past few years, with the growth of social networks, YouTube and Instagram. And you're more likely to have a phone with you than a camera for a situation that's spontaneous.
So what are peoples thoughts? A few months back Jessops one of the leading camera sales company in the UK went into administration, with only a few stores been saved;
Will we see a heightening trend amongst phones been used instead of standalone cameras?
Will they (DSLR's etc) be phased out completely?
Are you an avid photographer with your phone, or do you use a standalone camera?
Am I wrong?
I'd like to hear some opinions, hopefuly some educated ones on the subject will give a sense on the spectrum of issues.
Another point to consider, Smart-Cameras, the new trend of cameras running Android, though I don't think any have interchangeable lenses.
Thanks for reading, also... You may need to change some 'if's to 'of's because my phone has a habit of changing my words.
Sent from my LT18i using xda app-developers app

I use my phone for everyday rubbish shots (whatsapp and such) and storing information (bustimes, lists, important stuff i take a snapshot of.) .
It will NEVER replace my DSLR.
It simply lacks the functionalities of one. So long as I can't set aperture and change lenses, it's not a real camera. I need my telezoom and macro lenses.
You can't seriously expect a phone, even that 42mp one to be as high - quality as a dslr. Too many pixels crammed into way too small a sensor. As it has always been with phones.
Not to mention, phones lack the power of a dslr. Ever tried taking nightshots with a phone? They're bad. Very bad. Or high speed shots. Nuhuh, they cant. Or far-zoom?
Lets face it, cameras on phones are not meant for professionals. They're meant for people on facebook, twitter and instagram.
Send From My Samsung Galaxy S3 Using Tapatalk 2

ShadowLea said:
I use my phone for everyday rubbish shots (whatsapp and such) and storing information (bustimes, lists, important stuff i take a snapshot of.) .
It will NEVER replace my DSLR.
It simply lacks the functionalities of one. So long as I can't set aperture and change lenses, it's not a real camera. I need my telezoom and macro lenses.
You can't seriously expect a phone, even that 42mp one to be as high - quality as a dslr. Too many pixels crammed into way too small a sensor. As it has always been with phones.
Not to mention, phones lack the power of a dslr. Ever tried taking nightshots with a phone? They're bad. Very bad. Or high speed shots. Nuhuh, they cant. Or far-zoom?
Lets face it, cameras on phones are not meant for professionals. They're meant for people on facebook, twitter and instagram.
Send From My Samsung Galaxy S3 Using Tapatalk 2
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Man how can you compare a DSLR with a smartphone camera??, a DSLR is a camera with an awesome quality and the smartphone camera is only a phone with a decent camera and not for pro- photographers.. i would always choose a DLSR over a smartphone camera. And by the way i agree with ShadowLea that you can't cram 42mp in a small lens!!! it is outrageous!

Well, it's to do with trends, if you agree or not is a different matter, but lots of pro photographers and teachers will tell you if you ask, about how important this new revolution is, the quality you can get is pretty good, even compared to digital cameras less than 10 years ago.
If it can take photographs then it's a valid form, there are pro photographers then spend lots of their time using phones for photography, 5MP and decent light is enough, some of these phones are better quality than the point and shoot cameras of recent past.
Instagram, though trendy is a very valid post processing tool, just because the majority of people use it recreationaly it doesn't diminish its power, and usage.
People use Polaroid cameras all the time, and they're quite limited, and the quality can vary greatly. You can't change the lens, and you can't really adjust any settings.
Polaroid is probably most comparable to the quality of the mid range smartphones.
As for the Nokia 41MP camera phone, if you actually look at the images you can get a good sense of the quality. The short article can be found here:
http://www.extremetech.com/electron...review-camera-finally-coming-to-windows-phone
You can also easily find examples by doing an image search on Nokia Pureview.
The convenience of a very good quality camera phone can allow for great photos, which is why it's really taking off as a trend.
Denying it is the same arguments as saying Digital is better than Film, though there are still counter arguments, benefits and people still use film cameras and Polaroid.
There's a statistic recently that goes something like; there have been more photographs taken in 2012 than all previous years since photography's invention combined.
I'm not sure if that's word for word correct, but I think it was on a Vsauce YouTube video not long back.
Sent from my LT18i using xda app-developers app

I think you need to understand that Professional stands for "getting paid for your work" or "being an accomplished/awarded photographer" and not "I can hold a camera!".
Yes, there have been more photo's taken in the last year than since the invention of the photograph. I do hope you are also aware that this includes every halfbrained moron on Instagram and Facebook posting their friday-night drunk shots.
No selfrespecting real photographer uses a phone's camera for his or her work. The only ones that do are either A, doing an experiment, or B, people on the internet fooling themselves into thinking they're photographers.
PHONE CAMERAS DO NOT HAVE APERATURE SETTINGS. And that's where it all ends. There isn't a single pro or semi-pro who uses a fixed aperature camera.
42MP doesn't make a bloody difference if the sensor is meant for 2MP. The photo's may look fine on the internet, but newsflash: Your monitor is 72DPI, not 300. And a 6000x6000 pixel image is always going to look amazing when downsized to 1920x1080 or lower. (which is what every website does.)
As for trends, they're for the common cattle, not semi/professionals. People with knowledge and experience pay attention to specs, not to hypes.
Sent from my ASUS Transformer Pad TF700T using Tapatalk 2

ShadowLea said:
I think you need to understand that Professional stands for "getting paid for your work" or "being an accomplished/awarded photographer" and not "I can hold a camera!".
Yes, there have been more photo's taken in the last year than since the invention of the photograph. I do hope you are also aware that this includes every halfbrained moron on Instagram and Facebook posting their friday-night drunk shots.
No selfrespecting real photographer uses a phone's camera for his or her work. The only ones that do are either A, doing an experiment, or B, people on the internet fooling themselves into thinking they're photographers.
PHONE CAMERAS DO NOT HAVE APERATURE SETTINGS. And that's where it all ends. There isn't a single pro or semi-pro who uses a fixed aperature camera.
42MP doesn't make a bloody difference if the sensor is meant for 2MP. The photo's may look fine on the internet, but newsflash: Your monitor is 72DPI, not 300. And a 6000x6000 pixel image is always going to look amazing when downsized to 1920x1080 or lower. (which is what every website does.)
As for trends, they're for the common cattle, not semi/professionals. People with knowledge and experience pay attention to specs, not to hypes.
Sent from my ASUS Transformer Pad TF700T using Tapatalk 2
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I think you're missing my point, I meant professional photographers that use iPhones for photography for non print, recreation, street photography etc.
Sent from my LT18i using xda app-developers app

For those interested in hearing a pro talk about it, I present, Chase Jarvis.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=buDa-m65RyA&feature=youtube_gdata_player
Sent from my LT18i using xda app-developers app

Anyone found a decent camera app that's not laggy?

Hi Folks,
I visited the fair today with my boy which arrives in the city once a year.
My boy was on the rides and I tried getting a few photos of him with my 20mp Sony Xperia Z3....
By the time the photo was taken, my boy had already gone by....
The camera is soooooooooo disappointing, but has so much potential to be good.
Has anybody discovered a decent camera app yet, that has no shutter lag and one that makes full use of the camera?
If I don't find something by November, I'm going for the Nexus 6 :silly:

@rseHoyle said:
Hi Folks,
I visited the fair today with my boy which arrives in the city once a year.
My boy was on the rides and I tried getting a few photos of him with my 20mp Sony Xperia Z3....
By the time the photo was taken, my boy had already gone by....
The camera is soooooooooo disappointing, but has so much potential to be good.
Has anybody discovered a decent camera app yet, that has no shutter lag and one that makes full use of the camera?
If I don't find something by November, I'm going for the Nexus 6 :silly:
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Haven't tried a different app yet, but I may have something else for you. It's the autofocus that delays the photo.
1. Use the camera button
-push it down slightly, it should focus
-once it has found the focus, just keep holding it slightly
push the button completely if you want to take the photo, it should be without a delay now.
You can also use a different type of autofocus... Have to try the different modes for myself.
Also use manual mode, depending on the light conditions and the movement, you want a high shutter speed and if needed a higher iso, which gives you a sharper image while moving.
Damn, someone should write a guide for the camera

Thanks for this info. I'll give it a go

I'm not sure the camera is quick enough to capture moving stuff. I have tried a lot of modes and can't seem to sort it.
With an awful flash too, in sub par lighting, like parties, this is a recipe for absolute disaster. Can't believe Sony didn't sort out the camera flash.

Jonathan-H said:
I'm not sure the camera is quick enough to capture moving stuff. I have tried a lot of modes and can't seem to sort it.
With an awful flash too, in sub par lighting, like parties, this is a recipe for absolute disaster. Can't believe Sony didn't sort out the camera flash.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Sony has the ability to film and during film to make pictures. I do that for fast moving pictures, like filming friends that pass by during marathon's. You can then decide to keep the film and the pictures. If you only want pictures, delete the film afterwards. This way you can start filming in advance and you are sure you are not too late and you have the risk your camera is not ready yet.

Jonathan-H said:
I'm not sure the camera is quick enough to capture moving stuff. I have tried a lot of modes and can't seem to sort it.
With an awful flash too, in sub par lighting, like parties, this is a recipe for absolute disaster. Can't believe Sony didn't sort out the camera flash.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I haven't tried it yet, but have you tried the Timeshift burst? I think this is what we should use when trying to capture moving objects.

Yep, that is even better than my idea!

As a general rule, I only use auto on any camera when there is no more than one thing away from perfect conditions:
If it's motion but in great lighting, auto is ok.
If it's dark but the subject is still, auto is ok.
If it's a bit dark AND there is motion, you are gonna need to set up some manual settings or a mode like burst to get a good result. That said, as above, focussing first is essential for moving objects. Find something that is at the same distance as the subject you want, half hold the button to get the focus point, then hold it until the subject comes into frame, then depress fully. This, combined with burst, is the best way for fast movement.

Ok, I was at a scary halloween function last night, and by the time I took photos of scary subjects, they'd gone...
There's no excuse for this camera, it's a mess...
I have a Fuji XT1 camera and I know how photography works, apparently the Xperia Z3 has 20 mega pixels - Maybe it does, but only if you want a grainy shot....It's shocking!

KurtHoyle said:
Ok, I was at a scary halloween function last night, and by the time I took photos of scary subjects, they'd gone...
There's no excuse for this camera, it's a mess...
I have a Fuji XT1 camera and I know how photography works, apparently the Xperia Z3 has 20 mega pixels - Maybe it does, but only if you want a grainy shot....It's shocking!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
How can you say you understand photography when all you point to is the megapixel count? There is so much more to a good photo than resolution.

The reason I point to the 20 mega pixel is because the photos taken with this camera should be of a good enough standard to print out at a size of 18" x 12" however, the photos look grainy on screen so I'd hate to see how crap they look any bigger.
The camera is shocking, the 4k videos are too so please dont try to defend it. Its very poor!

A Better Camera is a good alternative.

The best and ultimate Camera Replacement app for M7?

Lets face it, the M7 camera ap is not much to put in the christmas tree.
Hopefully you will also be able to get better photo result with a 3rd party app ?
Which maybe have better auto settings etc, better auto exposure ?
I have tried the google camera app a little... it is a lot faster then the m7 app faster interface.. but I see no direct
improvment/difference in photo quality. But the Google camera app is good enough to replace the mediocre M7 Camera app, but I am sure there is even better ?

a better camera. Don't know if the photos are better but more options/tweaks.

Hi
I dont understand why people are complaining about mate 7's camera so much. It is much better than my old LG G2's camera.
I am using stock camera with no tweak. Really happy with its performance. I am on holiday with my friends and as you guess i took tons of photos and selfies, all my friend praised my phone's camera as having a very good performance.

I have tried an app called perfectly clear it brings superior quality to the m7 camera in hdr realistic mode.. A must have now... Must good hdr apps cost money...
Down side with the app is that you must hold the of steady since the app takes two pics and merge them so it takes a few seconds longer to take the shot but it's worth it.

Camera

I'm considering the XZ, however there are very conflicting reviews of the camera. Some show really nasty photos, some show good photos. I'm assuming some of this has to do with SW versions and I know the XZ recently updated to 7.0.
I can't tell anything from a tethered store display unit.
Anyone have any comments regarding photo quality?
Manual mode is fine for me to shoot in. I almost always use manual mode on my cell phones and also my digital cameras.
Thanks in advance.

I find it pretty good, the manual shutter speed goes right down to 1/4000, manual focus ISO etc.
In MM I did realise the camera quality was worse than in 7.0 - so they did improve it.
Photos I have taken have great colours, and can usually be edited quite well in lightroom.
Big downside is the no RAW support (Yet, hopefully they release it)

nzzane said:
I find it pretty good, the manual shutter speed goes right down to 1/4000, manual focus ISO etc.
In MM I did realise the camera quality was worse than in 7.0 - so they did improve it.
Photos I have taken have great colours, and can usually be edited quite well in lightroom.
Big downside is the no RAW support (Yet, hopefully they release it)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thanks.
Colors have pretty much always been good in reports. The main thing that some of the "bad" reviews have mentioned is the artifacts especially in lower light. The better reviews and pictures that I've seen online don't really show a huge artifact problem and some of the youtube videos show what appears to be very good lowlight performance using manual mode.
I knew about the lack of raw support and I've used LR for a long time.

Fred98TJ said:
Thanks.
Colors have pretty much always been good in reports. The main thing that some of the "bad" reviews have mentioned is the artifacts especially in lower light. The better reviews and pictures that I've seen online don't really show a huge artifact problem and some of the youtube videos show what appears to be very good lowlight performance using manual mode.
I knew about the lack of raw support and I've used LR for a long time.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Sony has always been a bit dodgy with low light, but I have found the XZ really improves on that (Compared to ther Z3, and Z5) Manual mode really helps with some of that though (same as a DSLR though)
Another thing to note, the device unlocks super quickly, and same with the camera, good for those un prepared shots

nzzane said:
Sony has always been a bit dodgy with low light, but I have found the XZ really improves on that (Compared to ther Z3, and Z5) Manual mode really helps with some of that though (same as a DSLR though)
Another thing to note, the device unlocks super quickly, and same with the camera, good for those un prepared shots
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thanks again for the response.
I suppose that there isn't really any infor on their nrw 19mp camera used in thr XZs, nor have I found any pricing on it. At any rate it seems only a small upgrade from the XZ, with mostly the new camera and another 1 of ram

Pictures are generally very noisy and blurry when its not in extremely good light (inside with the sun shining through the windows with the lights on as well) Video however is very very good. I dont use manual mode since I don't know what to do, but as a point and shoot I can think of several phones that do better and probably cost less. If you want to buy it for the camera, just dont.

omarfarrah said:
Pictures are generally very noisy and blurry when its not in extremely good light (inside with the sun shining through the windows with the lights on as well) Video however is very very good. I dont use manual mode since I don't know what to do, but as a point and shoot I can think of several phones that do better and probably cost less. If you want to buy it for the camera, just dont.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Noisy and blurry? Do you have a xz? In my xz i don't have those problems...

djgigi94 said:
Noisy and blurry? Do you have a xz? In my xz i don't have those problems...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thats strange, I hope I dont have a faulty hardware , however did you try to take indoor pictures and zoom in, you'll really notice the noise atleast, and if I'm not still as a building then it will also blur.

Sometimes the SW can overboard with the sharpening, I wish there was an option to disable it. Most phones probably have this issue too though.
I dont know if this can be counted as an issue but the lens on XZ has kind of a fish eye effect, So If you are taking a picture of an object and put it i the corners, it stretches and looks a bit... uh, unnatural? Because of this I try to make sure to center people as much as I can.
Some also say that taking pics in 8 mp mode introduces some artifacts because of the conversion algorithm (23mp to 8mp downsizing). So I use 23MP to avoid any unwanted processing.

I find the colors of the photos, taken with the XZ, to be very dull and way too cold to my liking, and XZ's Camera UI and Camera API have very limited manual controls set, unlike the rest of the flagships out there. I made a few photos with my old Xperia Pro and my new Xperia XZ for comparison, you can check them here - https://www.dropbox.com/sh/0u28226fxm9z27d/AADrU08TmvfIUtSbprgharT-a?dl=0 . I was very unhappy with the XZ's camera so I sold it one week after I bought it.
EDIT: you check this thread for more information about the limitations, related to the manual controls of XZ's camera - https://forum.xda-developers.com/xperia-xz/help/enable-manual-controls-camera-t3580654

My experience, XZ pictures have a lot of noise (you can see that when you zoom in) when the light is not enough (and the phone is the one that decides what it means by enough )
I am coming from Galaxy s6 edge + to XZ Dual, and the S6 is the winner in my comparison.
If you want it for the camera, I wouldnt recommend you to go for the XZ.
---------- Post added at 04:10 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:09 PM ----------
check this for your reference
https://forum.xda-developers.com/xperia-xz/help/xperia-xz-dual-sim-camera-noise-t3582899

Fred98TJ said:
Thanks again for the response.
I suppose that there isn't really any infor on their nrw 19mp camera used in thr XZs, nor have I found any pricing on it. At any rate it seems only a small upgrade from the XZ, with mostly the new camera and another 1 of ram
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This review has sample photos in full res from XZS if you wanna know about picture quality. I own the XZ and i do see a difference in quality to the better in XZs compared to XZ..
https://www.lowyat.net/2017/128842/sony-xperia-xzs-review-one-trick-pony/

After I started using 4:3 full resolution instead od cropped 16:9 and disabled object tracking I very rarely see edge bluring and the photos in general are a lot better.
The "noise" people talk about in most cases is not really noise, it's a result of the image processing algorithm being too aggressive trying to eliminate noise even when there isn't any. First it sharpens the hell out of the photo to bring out as much detail as possible and then it tries to remove the resulting noise by applying heavy noise reduction. It's basically shooting itself in the foot. But, it really isn't as dramatic as some would say, you can't really see that effect until you zoom in really close. If Sony could find a middle ground, balance it out a bit, it would be perfect.
Sony's image processing has always been an issue for some unexplainable reason, they mastered sensors and image processing in photography a long time ago, but when it comes to phones it fails in software department, the sensor are the best on the market still.
It really is mind boggling, and they are aware of that, it's basically a software issue, it just needs some adjusting, why apply a noise reduction filter when there isn't any noise? HDR usually sucks as well. Then again, their DIS is top notch, the autofocus since the XZ is superb, the colors to me look great all around, low light photos are very good, specially in manual mode with adjustable shutter speed...there are great things about Sony's cameras, but usually things average user doesn't really see or cares about.
To be fair, the only time I see those artefacts is when I zoom in, not even when watching fullscreen on a PC, so I'm really pleased with the camera on Xperia since the Z3, but all things considered, Sony should have the best smartphone cameras in the world or at least be the top 3.
All that being said, shooting in manual mode is a different story, once you get a hang of it and learn how to use it, it can stand besides the best of them, easy. But that's not really a fair measurement, only auto modes, because that's what most people will use, and that's where Sony usually doesn't do that great.
The phone takes great photos, and I have yet to see a review that says it's a bad camera. It really isn't, it just isn't at the top few as it could be.
As for the XZs, currently it often produces lower quality photos than the XZ, depending on the scenario, it isn't a better camera, it's just different and has different strenghts in different scenarios. Plus, the slowmo gadget, if you care about that stuff. Other than that, there is no reason why it should be a better camera in average scenarios, maybe in low light because the pixels are bigger, but that's pretty much it.
If the quality of photos is your only concern about buying an XZ (or XZs, for that matter), you shouldn't be worried.