Related
Morning all,
Got the phone a few days ago, excellent phone.
Quick, awesome looking, solid phone.
But I've noticed the camera is appalling. Outside daylight photos are okay but not great, inside photos are poor. Why is that? Surely for a 8mp camera the photos should be better. My camera settings seem to be correct.
I compared my Nokia Lumia camera with the SGS3 and they're miles apart.
Is this normal or is there a bug that Nokia know about and will be releasing an update for?
please let me know your thoughts. Ta
I have no idea why people expect a camera's resolution ("8mp" or otherwise) to have any significant impact on the image quality. More pixels does not make an image any better focused, better lit, less grainy, truer color, less chromatic aberration, or any other such effect. It does increase the maximum detail that the image can store, but does nothing at all for the minimum quality. Besides, people have ridiculously inflated expectations of pixel count, typically resulting in just wasting a bunch of starage space keeping huge files that are never viewed at full resolution anyhow. Your phone's screen is well under half a megapixel, for example.
That said, I can't say for sure why the Lumia 900 would have a worse-than-expected camera. To somebody used to a *real* camera, all phone cameras suck (yes, even the much-vaunted iPhone 4S) but it is entirely possible that there's a firmware issue affecting the image quality. The HTC HD7 had a long-running issue that made photos come out rather pink, for example.
Out of curiosity, are you using the flash, or do you have any special settings in the camera app selected (possibly by accident)? It would also help to know in what way the pictures are poor.
Must admit mine was abit shady out of the box but after fiddling with a few settings I got it to a reasonable quality, Maybe play with a few settings and make sure you save them, My Titans Camera was near on the same to start with.
This might help you out a bit
http://mywpstory.com/2012/04/camera...-with-your-new-nokia-lumia-900-windows-phone/
This one is a little more broad, but it is from Nokia.
http://conversations.nokia.com/2012/05/21/10-photography-tips-for-nokia-lumia-900/
Hi,Take a look ?
Search Youtube
The Cook Family's match: The Windows Phone 8X by HTC - Full Length
Even that is a MyTouch 3G
But I still felt uncomfortable
If window phone 8x compare to MyTouch 4G
is there any chance 4G could beat 8X?
Sorry, I can not post the youtube link.
plusyou88 said:
Hi,Take a look ?
Search Youtube
The Cook Family's match: The Windows Phone 8X by HTC - Full Length
Even that is a MyTouch 3G
But I still felt uncomfortable
If window phone 8x compare to MyTouch 4G
is there any chance 4G could beat 8X?
Sorry, I can not post the youtube link.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
He compared using the front-facing camera. Nobody seriously uses the front camera, it is a lame VGA 1.3MP sensor. Had he used the rear camera, the MyTouch would have held its own against the Nokia.
Fuzi0719 said:
He compared using the front-facing camera. Nobody seriously uses the front camera, it is a lame VGA 1.3MP sensor. Had he used the rear camera, the MyTouch would have held its own against the Nokia.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I beg to differ!
Anyone using phone for what it is - a communication device - normally uses the front camera a lot, not the rear one, don't you agree?
Personally I could live without rear camera at all, all those hailed "great features" of MT4GS' built-in rear camera's (and any other phone's cameras!) are easily beaten by any crappiest $20 standalone photo camera toys with a 1 inch lens (or more), and that's a fact... This rear camera module cost mere $2 or less from manufacturer (depending on quantity) and either same or very similar ones are built-in into many toys (i.e. latest Barbie with camera and screen)... Anyways, I never understood why anyone would even consider taking any more or less serious photos with the phone's tiny plastic single-optic lens. It's not like photo/video cameras with proper optics cost arm and leg nowadays... I can hardly think of more than very few situations where the rear camera may be needed instead of front camera.
Oh and having said that: Windows Phone 8 sucks. I haven't seen any difference from WP7, which IMO is the worst mobile OS ever.
MT4GS said:
I beg to differ!
Anyone using phone for what it is - a communication device - usually use the front camera a lot, don't you think?
Personally I could live without rear camera at all, all those hailed "great features" of MT4GS' built-in rear camera's are easily beaten by any crappiest $20 standalone photo camera toys with a 2 inch lens (or more), and that's a fact... This rear camera module cost mere $2-$3, either same or very similar one are built-in into many toys (i.e. latest Barbie with camera and screen)... Anyways, I never understood why anyone would even consider taking any more or less serious photos with the phone's tiny plastic single-optic lens. It's not like photo/video cameras with proper optics cost arm and leg nowadays... I can hardly think of more than very few situations where the rear camera may be needed instead of front camera.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Really?! I'm tired of people saying their phones aren't real, respectable (ish) cameras. No offense personally, dude... I just see this as a common misconception among my fellow techies. Most 8MP and above take decent enough shots to be compared to a regular consumer grade camera. Obviously, not in ALL situations (like low light at a distance, optical zoom, etc.) but enough to be used seriously to capture a memory of loved one, day trip, unexpected wild life, etc. The MAIN point is who the hell carries a camera around with them?! Very few... so yeah, I'd say some of the newer phones can be considered serious (ish) cameras. Of course these are just opinions so we can't really prove or disprove much but I have to say that most pics are taken by mobiles and must be considered serious based on quantity alone. Remember that few people actually know what a DSLR camera is... let alone carry one. We technical minded people forget that most aren't in the same mindset we are.
I too am fond of the front facing camera of nokia phones. And that's only because nokia supports 3g Video calling unlike android that uses the front camera only for internet based video calling. Quality wise I don't really mind at all since they all are crap anyways. I would be greatful to have a 8mp front facing camera with superb compression so it wouldn't have any impacts on data transfer. But yeah it's just a dream haha
sino8r said:
Really?! I'm tired of people saying their phones aren't real, respectable (ish) cameras. No offense personally, dude... I just see this as a common misconception among my fellow techies. Most 8MP and above take decent enough shots to be compared to a regular consumer grade camera. Obviously, not in ALL situations (like low light at a distance, optical zoom, etc.) but enough to be used seriously to capture a memory of loved one, day trip, unexpected wild life, etc. The MAIN point is who the hell carries a camera around with them?! Very few... so yeah, I'd say some of the newer phones can be considered serious (ish) cameras. Of course these are just opinions so we can't really prove or disprove much but I have to say that most pics are taken by mobiles and must be considered serious based on quantity alone. Remember that few people actually know what a DSLR camera is... let alone carry one. We technical minded people forget that most aren't in the same mindset we are.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Of course it is personal prefernce, so our discussion is actually a moot.
I do agree with you (mostly), but you missed my point, which is that almost anything you may use rear camera for - all of it can be done with the front camera, but not the other way aroound (i.e. you can't use rear camera for videocall). I'd rather have a good front camera, because 99% of the time that's the camera I use, that's all. Rear camera is a gimmick to fool people, but that's just my opinion. (edit - actually not only mine, since i.e. latest Google tablets ditched the rear cameras, yet they kept the front ones...)
Regarding the quality - there is no need to "defend" the phone cameras, because I am not "attacking" them; they are what they are: cheapest cameras around and just because at certain conditions they are able to take decent shots proves nothing. Anyways, IMO the phone cameras are akin to old disposable "analog" (35mm film) cameras, they had their market too. I have actually seen people taking wedding photos with those! And there is nothing wrong with that, it's all just personal preference, really.
The fact is that when you have no camera around, even the crappiest one is a god-send, right?
edit:
The same way death of stupid iPods was just a matter of time once the first smartphones became capable of playing music and videos, the same way the "point & shoot" cameras will disappear in the next few years. People always prefer "all-in-one" devices instead of carrying multiple single-purpose devices. Let's not forget that the "convenience" always wins over "quality" (it has been proven many times), and that's why I am sure within next few years all these typical "point & shoot" cameras will disappear completely (replaced by built-in phone cameras). Camera market will consist mostly of pro and consumer DSLRs and some more-less specialized cams (3D perhaps? assuming this current 3D TV fad keeps going on).
MT4GS said:
I beg to differ!
Anyone using phone for what it is - a communication device - normally uses the front camera a lot, not the rear one, don't you agree?
Personally I could live without rear camera at all, all those hailed "great features" of MT4GS' built-in rear camera's (and any other phone's cameras!) are easily beaten by any crappiest $20 standalone photo camera toys with a 1 inch lens (or more), and that's a fact... This rear camera module cost mere $2 or less from manufacturer (depending on quantity) and either same or very similar ones are built-in into many toys (i.e. latest Barbie with camera and screen)... Anyways, I never understood why anyone would even consider taking any more or less serious photos with the phone's tiny plastic single-optic lens. It's not like photo/video cameras with proper optics cost arm and leg nowadays... I can hardly think of more than very few situations where the rear camera may be needed instead of front camera.
Oh and having said that: Windows Phone 8 sucks. I haven't seen any difference from WP7, which IMO is the worst mobile OS ever.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Sorry, but you really don't know WTF you're saying, so just stop. Thank you for your time.
---------- Post added at 12:07 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:04 AM ----------
Riyal said:
I too am fond of the front facing camera of nokia phones. And that's only because nokia supports 3g Video calling unlike android that uses the front camera only for internet based video calling. Quality wise I don't really mind at all since they all are crap anyways. I would be greatful to have a 8mp front facing camera with superb compression so it wouldn't have any impacts on data transfer. But yeah it's just a dream haha
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
We can do 3G video calling on our MT4GS just fine. I've used Skype and QIK to make video calls without any problem, and not on Wi-Fi.
Fuzi0719 said:
Sorry, but you really don't know WTF you're saying, so just stop. Thank you for your time.
.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
LOL I think exactly the same about your opinion, so why you just don't stop?
I use my front facing camera like 200 times a day.... No lie
CoNsPiRiSiZe said:
I use my front facing camera like 200 times a day.... No lie
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I use the front WAY more than the back camera. I mean yeah the back camera comes in handy for weird clouding in the sky, but nothing beats sitting there doing 'self portraits' of me and my daughter
Sent from a KangBanged JellyBean
I use my FFC *MAYBE* 2x a year.
I use the rear camera daily @ work as well as at play.
YMMV. We all place different value on our devices based on our lifestyle and values.
Hastily spouted for your befuddlement
In the 14 months I've owned this phone, I've used the front camera for a photo maybe 3 times. I use the rear camera a lot, at least a dozen times a week on average and when I was living in China this past summer I took over 1000 photos and a dozen HD videos using the rear camera. I've used the front camera for webcam about 6 times.
I did an informal survey among my friends. Of the 9 friends I asked who have phones with a front camera, only 2 of them had ever used the front camera for a photo, and that's because they are self-pic whores. HAHAHA
Lol I'd hope a brand new phone beats a phone that's nearly a year and a half old. But in all seriousness, I still think the MT4GS's camera is still pretty solid. I mean not the GREATEST, but it's not very bad either. The front facing camera I do use a lot and it's not quite the BEST, but I've never needed the BEST front facing camera, if it works then I'm good to go.
Wrong thread lol!
Riyal said:
Wrong thread lol!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I just hate it when I do that.
I bet we will see the beginning of the end for most point and shoots when they add optical zoom and dslr to smartphones. Like what MT4GS said, most end users prefer all in one devices. Very good point about death of ipod. I always thought that mp3 players were stupid since I was using my WM device/G1 as one. I eventually ran out of memory since the 16GB cards were expensive at the time and opted for a 32GB model mp3 player. These days... you can get a 64GB class 10 card for under a $100 which makes mp3 players obsolete. I'm sure cameras will never meet that end quite as dramatically or in numbers even for just consumers but I can see that cameras on smartphones will hit 12mp soon enough and become commonplace when optical zoom is introduced. I'm sure most manufacturers are concerned about thickness, how they can make the lens retreat mostly into the housing, and mostly... safe on their drop tests Personally, I wish they'd work on better lens because 12mp camera can look like **** with inferior lens. As far as the front camera goes, our little VGA doesn't cut it for picture... for me, at least. It is handy for video calls and nothing more imho. Even the latest, which usually include up to 1.3mp, is rather poor quality. I've been disappointed at the rate manufacturers have improved them thus far. I guess time will tell, huh?
As far as DSLR goes, I'm sure it will be added when they become more commonplace in the consumer realm. HDR seems to be adding to all models as a feature like panorama. The photography world has become very exciting lately
Fuzi0719 said:
In the 14 months I've owned this phone, I've used the front camera for a photo maybe 3 times. I use the rear camera a lot, at least a dozen times a week on average and when I was living in China this past summer I took over 1000 photos and a dozen HD videos using the rear camera. I've used the front camera for webcam about 6 times.
I did an informal survey among my friends. Of the 9 friends I asked who have phones with a front camera, only 2 of them had ever used the front camera for a photo, and that's because they are self-pic whores. HAHAHA
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You still don't get it.
I will try one more time slower for you
Whatever you use your rear camera for, it can be done with front camera in almost every case. If MT4GS had the 8Mpx front camera with all the same features (and no rear camera) you would be using it the same way as you already did with this camera being in the rear - AND all of us using only/mostly the current front camera would be using it the same way as we did so far too, don't you get it? The rear camera is redundant in 99% cases of use.
You have used the rear cam only because you wanted take photos or videos in a higher resolution (than the current front camera's VGA). Simply replace the front VGA cam with 8Mpx camera from the back and you don't need 2 of them anymore.
What I would actually prefer instead of 2 cameras is having a second small screen on the back (to be used as i.e. "viewfinder" for those rare occasions when the front camera would be used for taking photos of something, but anyways there are plenty of other/better uses for second small screen on the rear), but that's another matter...
edit:
I just did same survey, 6 ppl:
4 agree the rear camera is redundant and they do or would use only front camera if there was no rear cam
1 person has only front cam (and she said she don't need rear camera at all)
1 person said he would NOT buy phone without 2 cameras (front and back)
so...
MT4GS said:
You still don't get it.
I will try one more time slower for you
Whatever you use your rear camera for, it can be done with front camera in almost every case. If MT4GS had the 8Mpx front camera with all the same features (and no rear camera) you would be using it the same way as you already did with this camera being in the rear - AND all of us using only/mostly the current front camera would be using it the same way as we did so far too, don't you get it? The rear camera is redundant in 99% cases of use.
You have used the rear cam only because you wanted take photos or videos in a higher resolution (than the current front camera's VGA). Simply replace the front VGA cam with 8Mpx camera from the back and you don't need 2 of them anymore.
What I would actually prefer instead of 2 cameras is having a second small screen on the back (to be used as i.e. "viewfinder" for those rare occasions when the front camera would be used for taking photos of something, but anyways there are plenty of other/better uses for second small screen on the rear), but that's another matter...
edit:
I just did same survey, 6 ppl:
4 agree the rear camera is redundant and they do or would use only front camera if there was no rear cam
1 person has only front cam (and she said she don't need rear camera at all)
1 person said he would NOT buy phone without 2 cameras (front and back)
so...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It is really sad when a narcissist has so pissed off everyone else in his life that he's reduced to taking his own self-pics with the front-facing camera on his phone. :laugh: And no, I would not use the front camera even if it were a higher quality. The photos I take are of other subjects, not myself. I'm not that vain.
MT4GS said:
You still don't get it.
I will try one more time slower for you
Whatever you use your rear camera for, it can be done with front camera in almost every case. If MT4GS had the 8Mpx front camera with all the same features (and no rear camera) you would be using it the same way as you already did with this camera being in the rear - AND all of us using only/mostly the current front camera would be using it the same way as we did so far too, don't you get it? The rear camera is redundant in 99% cases of use.
You have used the rear cam only because you wanted take photos or videos in a higher resolution (than the current front camera's VGA). Simply replace the front VGA cam with 8Mpx camera from the back and you don't need 2 of them anymore.
What I would actually prefer instead of 2 cameras is having a second small screen on the back (to be used as i.e. "viewfinder" for those rare occasions when the front camera would be used for taking photos of something, but anyways there are plenty of other/better uses for second small screen on the rear), but that's another matter...
edit:
I just did same survey, 6 ppl:
4 agree the rear camera is redundant and they do or would use only front camera if there was no rear cam
1 person has only front cam (and she said she don't need rear camera at all)
1 person said he would NOT buy phone without 2 cameras (front and back)
so...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Not to tease but what do you do when you take pics other than yourself & someone/something? I agree with Fuzi... I'm just not sure how people are taking so many FFC pics.... Am I missing something? Again, no sarcasm intended. Just curious and confused
sino8r said:
Not to tease but what do you do when you take pics other than yourself & someone/something? I agree with Fuzi... I'm just not sure how people are taking so many FFC pics.... Am I missing something? Again, no sarcasm intended. Just curious and confused
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I have a folder on my sdcard that's nothing but self pics of me and my kid TOGETHER. And its around a few hundred photos, then there's me and my fiance together ect.
Also the ffc is a mirror for me when I cut my own hair and need to see the back of my head and only one mirror is there...I mean the ffc has more uses than what's being looked at.
Btw I notice this thread has gone way off track to MT and fuzi opinion thread on why this camera is better than that camera
Sent from a KangBanged JellyBean
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
I'd like to know what are people's solutions for getting images from their DSL Camera, to your Device for in-the-field/ on-the-road sharing?
there are card-readers made specifically for tablets, but I'm talking about from your phone..
the main obstacle is file size
your DSL may take a gigantic photo, which would be too big to share over social shares
An average shared image doesnt really need to go much further than VGA size, maybe 800xsomething smaller max..
Up until today I was working to get my OTG working so I could transfer files from my DSLR to my phone directly.. but then I thought. 'this is kind of stupid".. since the images are just too big for sharing..
which means you'd need a batch-file image processor to reduce the size of all your images to around VGA or so
then I thought, 'well, I cant really do any of my post-processing either, so is the gain really that much by not waiting to get home, or via my laptop'..
I wonder if any of you have a good workflow for sharing your images you take from a more professional camera, to your blog or whatever
maybe an app made for this exact thing?
Besides having a camera with bluetooth, which most of them dont.. or a big camera lens slapped on the back of a phone, or a 41 MP camera phone, since even they dont take great pictures, since the quality of an image is really dependent on lighting, framing, lens quality, and sensor quality... with the sensor being the most expensive thing on a DSLR, and the reason you'd buy one.
so 41mp will produce the same crappy phone picture, except you can zoom it in indefinitely
and a giant lens on the back of your phone, isnt going to be processed by a worthwhile sensor, and you'll not end up much better either
your DSL, even at VGA resolution image, will be monumentally better looking than even the most advanced current camera phones
hence, you'll still need your big camera or at least a dedicated camera for your good pictures for the foreseeable future.
so.. looking for workflows
please share
41 Megapixels.. that doesnt make any sense..
unless you're a peeping tom or something
who needs to zoom so close to a phone-quality image they've taken?
do they realize they can just walk closer?
oh ya. for taking photos of and zooming in on those elusive clock towers.. so its great if you're a clock tower fanatic, and need to see the all important stone detail 100 feet above the ground.. thats about the only reason I can think of..
but lets be honest.. the real purpose of it is its far more practical use of snapping those bikini-clad girls that have no idea you're taking a photo of them from the distance you usually have to keep from such girls to avoid having the authorities alerted
-
So I got an Idol 3 5.5 that fell from 15cm off the ground and of course broke it's screen, so a friend gave me his old iPhone 4S as a replacement until I decide what I will do with the Alcatel. I'm a semi-professional photographer and have been using SLRs and DSLRs for some 15 years. I am astounded how good the camera on the 4 and (almost) a half years old iPhone 4s is, especially compared to the half year old Alcatel. But it's not that the iPhone is excellent (although it is), the Alcatel is, well, not so good.
So, here's a test I did. I photographed the same subject in the same lighting conditions (artifical constant indoor light so no variations in lighting between shots) from the same position, maybe a few milimeteres to the side (not farther or closer to skew the perspective/depth of field).
Photos in next post so I can add attachments to it
Are you kidding me, I can't post photos?
You should not have expected superb photo quality. The cost of the phone speaks for itself.
Can't tell if you are trolling or not.
How are you a semi-professional photographer and comparing an iPhone to the Idol 3. There is more to cameras than just megapixels you know and Apple is known for having top-of-the-line cameras in their phones. Also, if you are an avid photographer, why did it take you getting an iPhone in order to confirm that you don't like the Idol 3 photos?
lying about what though? I don't think they claimed to take better pics than an iphone 4s?
OK guys, it would all make much more sense if I could post photos, but I was actually not comparing the photo quality from iPhone and Alcatel, but rather the exposure values, where the EXIF suggests that the lens on the Alcatel is not f/2.0, but actually something smaller. In the same lighting conditions the iPhone photo had these values:
f/2.4, 1/20s, ISO 200
and the Idol 3:
f/2.0, 1/50s, ISO 1800
and this suggests that there is significantly less light coming to the chip of the Alcatel (almost three stops less). I have tested the exposure value of this situation with my Nikon and it is in sync with the iPhone EXIF values. Also, depth-of-field of the image on the Alcatel when compared to the iPhone is also confirming this. I'm not here to bash Alcatel and would actually be glad if anyone could prove me wrong! Maybe my unit is defective?Please, try to shoot the same frame with the Alcatel and some other camera and compare the exposure values.
I wouldn't say they're lying.
The sensor on the Idol 3 is a Sony IMX214 which has an aperture of f/2.0.
It's a very good sensor, but the camera lens is not as good as the sensor used.
The Nexus 6 & OnePlus One have the same sensor, but the lens used are far superior than one ones on the Idol 3. (Same f/2.0)
I'll say again, the price of the phone speaks for itself.
Sent from my 6045O using Tapatalk
Yeah I know that this sensor is used in a variety of cameras and have seen images from the 1+ and they were great! But again, I'm not talking about the quality of the image, I'm talking about it's objective performance in terms of the amount of light that comes to the sensor which seems to be less than they state it should be.
I just remembered that the camera app has that "Pro" mode which makes it possible to manually input the ISO and shutter speed so I will try to do it again comparing it to the iPhone, DSLR and my wife's Sony T3 later today.
I'm sure they used a lens of lower quality but it shouldn't block almost three stops of light compared to other lenses.
Hemidrosis said:
I wouldn't say they're lying.
The sensor on the Idol 3 is a Sony IMX214 which has an aperture of f/2.0.
It's a very good sensor, but the camera lens is not as good as the sensor used.
The Nexus 6 & OnePlus One have the same sensor, but the lens used are far superior than one ones on the Idol 3. (Same f/2.0)
I'll say again, the price of the phone speaks for itself.
Sent from my 6045O using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
1 -
mrkva123 said:
I'm not here to bash Alcatel and would actually be glad if anyone could prove me wrong!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
and in topic you said that Alcatel is lying.
2-how you managed to shoot photos with your idol3 when it has a broken screen? Cant it be,that your idol3 camera chip or camera lenses are affected after the fall of the device?As a photographer you should know that there is heavy postprocesing and when you use poorly written software it is also bad as hell.
3- you can show usThe pictures using a link to a cloud where you can upload it.
4-The picture quality is not only made by chip. There are also lenses and a software. You can see it everywhere on chineese low budget phones. They use IMX214 bud bad optics and poor software and the pictures look bad. Also you can see it on Alcatel idol3 app that the app has a problem with propper exposure recognition (i have always to tap to a screen on a place i want to have propper exposure metering from).
So in end effect i dont defence ALcatels picture quality it can be far better with software optimalisation. But as many users said before, you cant compare iphone camera to idol3 camera. They are on different levels and as a photographer you should known that time of release is not a comparable fact (you mentioned 4 years old iphone 4....).
Anyway ...who cares?
I'm not saying that they are lying definitely but I'm just asking cause this sounds strange.
Yeah, I can use the phone although its screen is broken since only one part (lower) of the screen is not functioning and the phone is flippable, so I need to constantly flip it to use different parts of the screen.
I sincerely doubt that the fall damaged the camera or any parts of it cause everything works, no artifacts or anything else.
Once again, this has nothing to do with the quality of the lens, chip, software or anything else. Image shot at f/2.0, 1/50s and ISO 200 will have the same exposure value (it would look to be equally light or dark) whether it was shot on an Alcatel Idol 3 or a professional Hasselblad medium-format 50 000 € camera or a film camera, or a camera obscura. Exposure is objectively measurable and is expressed with these values, nothing to do with the quality of the parts used and nothing to do with the quality of the photo, it's just the amount of light, not the quality of it or the image!
I have uploaded the photos to a image hosting service but I can't link to them, I tried numerous times.
DallasCZ said:
1 - and in topic you said that Alcatel is lying.
2-how you managed to shoot photos with your idol3 when it has a broken screen? Cant it be,that your idol3 camera chip or camera lenses are affected after the fall of the device?As a photographer you should know that there is heavy postprocesing and when you use poorly written software it is also bad as hell.
3- you can show usThe pictures using a link to a cloud where you can upload it.
4-The picture quality is not only made by chip. There are also lenses and a software. You can see it everywhere on chineese low budget phones. They use IMX214 bud bad optics and poor software and the pictures look bad. Also you can see it on Alcatel idol3 app that the app has a problem with propper exposure recognition (i have always to tap to a screen on a place i want to have propper exposure metering from).
So in end effect i dont defence ALcatels picture quality it can be far better with software optimalisation. But as many users said before, you cant compare iphone camera to idol3 camera. They are on different levels and as a photographer you should known that time of release is not a comparable fact (you mentioned 4 years old iphone 4....).
Anyway ...who cares?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I use the app A better camera for making photos and especially indoor photos are much better than using the standard app.
It's made by Almalence which is also making the software for some phone and camera manufacturers.
so, here are the images
first I shot with the iPhone since it can only shoot full auto:
http://imgur.com/CE9xNOc
EXIF says that it's:
1/20 sec, ISO 160 and f/2.4
So I set the Alcatel in the manual mode as follows to be as close to the iPhone shot:
1/30 sec, ISO 200 and the aperture is according to Alcatel, f/2.0 (although when I shot it in manual mode the aperture value is mysteriously omitted from the EXIF). the photo from the Alcatel should be brighter on these settings!
and here's what we get:
http://imgur.com/7d7c407
Once again, this has nothing to do with quality of the camera or any other parts involved, it's not that the Alcatel is worse, it is wrong.
And I finally managed to post photos
can someone please take a photo with the Idol 3 and some other cellphone in the same lighting conditions and scene just to confirm this?
you can check the EXIF values here: http://regex.info/exif.cgi
and write down the exposure values that you get from both phones.
mrkva123 said:
And I finally managed to post photos
can someone please take a photo with the Idol 3 and some other cellphone in the same lighting conditions and scene just to confirm this?
you can check the EXIF values here: http://regex.info/exif.cgi
and write down the exposure values that you get from both phones.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
i see what are you trying to tell, but i as i said, its a mobile phone i dont care.
But as i remember, there was same issue on my previous ZTE V5..the first firmwares said,that the aperture is 2.2 ...people complain about it and they have corrected it in next firmware.
So here can it be also. Ask on redit or in main XDa QA section, maybe someone who better understands optics and photograpy will tell you.
easyriider said:
I use the app A better camera for making photos and especially indoor photos are much better than using the standard app.
It's made by Almalence which is also making the software for some phone and camera manufacturers.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Awesome! Just installed it and it is definitely the best camera app I have used on this phone. :good:
TallTommy said:
Awesome! Just installed it and it is definitely the best camera app I have used on this phone. :good:
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Agree! Because of you I gave it a try, amazing app + Now it's on sale. Wow
I don't know whether they are lying about the specs of the camera but mine is constantly collecting dust on the inside of the rear lens (already had it cleaned once and it is starting again). Never happened with any other phone I ever had and basically renders the rear camera useless within few weeks.
petertakov said:
I don't know whether they are lying about the specs of the camera but mine is constantly collecting dust on the inside of the rear lens (already had it cleaned once and it is starting again). Never happened with any other phone I ever had and basically renders the rear camera useless within few weeks.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I have no single piece of dust on my camera..i have it for about 9 months allready.
My camera is also perfectly clean after more than half a year. I don't think they are lying about the specs. I suspect that the problem here is in the t-stop, which no lens manufacturer ever tells you about. The lens on the idol 3 is probably f/2 as they claim, but the amount of light that reaches the sensor has almost nothing to do with the f-stop, it's the t-stop that determines that. You can't actually rely on the f/stop for exposure (though it's a good approximation, usually), the f/stop is really only accurate for the depth of field that you get. I suspect that the t-stop on the idol 3 is lower than the one of the iPhone, while the t-stop of the iPhone happens to be more similar to the one of your DSLR lens. Though I have to say, the exposure difference in the photos you posted is very dramatic, maybe about 2 stops? I don't know if the t-stop can cause such a big difference.
That said, you could also easily test if the idol 3 camera is actually f/2. The idol 3 has a 6.1mm x 4.64mm sensor, and an 3.8mm focal length. Considering the sensor size, the crop factor is 7,2. As you probably know, the crop factor not only affects the focal length, but also the f/stop (and in fact also the ISO, but that doesn't matter now). So the idol 3 has a 35mm equivalent f/stop of f/2 x 7,2= f/14.4 (as far as DoF is concerned, not the exposure, obviously. This is the reason that it's so hard to get nice background blur on photos from smartphones unless you are very close up, it's because they have crazy small apertures like our idol 3 here at f/14.4. Again this is ONLY for DoF, not exposure. Basically because the sensor is very small, the aperture being small doesn't matter for exposure, the amount of light per pixel is about the same as if it was f/2 with a 35mm sensor.)
So, you could grab your Full Frame DSLR, set it to 27,4mm and f/14.4, (or if you have a 1.5x crop sensor DSLR, at 18.2mm and f/9.6), and then take a test picture with that DSLR and one with the idol 3. It's a DoF test shot, so take that into account when taking the photos (maybe set up a couple of items in a row, get them in frame in the same way on the idol 3 and DSLR, and focus on the frontmost item). The pictures from the DSLR and idol 3 should look about the same, DoF wise. The idol 3 will likely be noisier and not as sharp, and the exposure may be different too, but if the DoF is very different, then the idol 3 is not f/2. Setting up the DoF test shots might be tricky, because the minimum focusing distance is probably very different on the idol 3 and DSLR, but if you take these test shots we will at least know for certain if it is f/2 or not.
petertakov said:
I don't know whether they are lying about the specs of the camera but mine is constantly collecting dust on the inside of the rear lens (already had it cleaned once and it is starting again). Never happened with any other phone I ever had and basically renders the rear camera useless within few weeks.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
"Dust in the lens, all we are is dust in the lens..." lol No problems here, and everyone is free to do what they want with their phones, but I assume you are not using a full coverage case? I really can't believe some of the things I see people complain about when they don't use a quality case, and nowadays, a 9H glass screen protector. Not picking on you, and it's possible, even likely you got a bad unit. But "I dropped my phone, and I can't believe the pos shattered! I read it had blah blah next generation glass!" That one really makes me laugh.
And as far as the camera, There are lots of options for downloading/porting other cameras, with better settings and software. It's a $200 cell phone, and taking good pics is something that is important to me, so I always do a little searching on the forums of the new phones I get. I only paid $109 from Cricket, but even at $249 retail, what you get for the money is an amazing piece of technology, not a dedicated top of the line camera. And picture quality is somewhat subjective when you are talking about contrast, exposure, and saturation. Just one man's opinion....