Related
I searched for a camera fix for the HD camera with no success. Does anyone know if there's going to be a fix in the near future? I'm sure that ya'll have the same problem that I do. Camera takes pictures that look old & rustic. Brownish tint to them & not very sharp for a 5 MP camera. I have adjusted all the settings for light & junk but nothing fixes it. As far as I'm concerned, it should take pictures IDENTICAL to a normal 5 MP digital camera. I can promise you that it's not doing that. Any help would be great, thanks in advance.
Vampire2800 said:
I searched for a camera fix for the HD camera with no success. Does anyone know if there's going to be a fix in the near future? I'm sure that ya'll have the same problem that I do. Camera takes pictures that look old & rustic. Brownish tint to them & not very sharp for a 5 MP camera. I have adjusted all the settings for light & junk but nothing fixes it. As far as I'm concerned, it should take pictures IDENTICAL to a normal 5 MP digital camera. I can promise you that it's not doing that. Any help would be great, thanks in advance.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Why should it take pictures identical to a 5MP camera. The lens on the front is going to be vastly different, the sensor maybe 5MP, but what is the spacing on the sensor pixels? The closer together, the noisier the image. Colour balance will be down to the sensor too.
Regards
I'm not talking about the front camera. The normal camera on the back. I understand about the pixel thing, but it still shouldn't be so brownish, right? The pictures look like an old Polaroid picture. You know, the one's that spit the picture out as soon as you took it. Old, brown & nasty looking.
My pictures come out fine...
Hmmmmmmm...................... I'll just keep playing with it.
Vampire2800 said:
I'm not talking about the front camera. The normal camera on the back. I understand about the pixel thing, but it still shouldn't be so brownish, right? The pictures look like an old Polaroid picture. You know, the one's that spit the picture out as soon as you took it. Old, brown & nasty looking.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm not being flippant, but is it possible you might have a dirty lens?
Lol, that was the first thing I tried. Cleaned both sides of the back cover & cleaned the lens on the camera. Good idea, though.
The "5mp" doesn't really mean much, as stated earlier, if the sensor and lens are poor quality. As far as I know, HTC haven't released a phone with a reasonable quality camera, yet.
I bounce between different smart-phones (just coming back to WM now, after a year with S60). I can say that many of the S60 devices (in particular the Nokia N95, but also the N82 with Xenon flash) have very good cameras, being similar to low-end digital cameras in daylight. They lack optical zoom and tend to over-compress images, but have good quality lenses.
imho hd camera is excelent
pictures look old & rustic only if you make them inside house without using the artificial light setting, and this is also a general rule, not specific to HD.
Never seen a good phone camera yet, including the latest 8mpixel ones. They're all terrible.
Never
This camera will NEVER take pictures anywhere near what real cameras do. The photo sites are so tiny, they are smaller then the length of waive of light. Therefore noise, lack of dynamic width, etc. No patch will ever fix that. Sorry
open back cover , clean the lens , you will see a huge difference in quality
Vampire2800 said:
Lol, that was the first thing I tried. Cleaned both sides of the back cover & cleaned the lens on the camera. Good idea, though.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Not that I'm doubting you or anything but you do realize that the back cover only has a hole through to the lens?
You might try setting the brightness higher:
If you touch the small rectangle near the bottom right side of the screen (when holding landscape)
Then select the gear symbol, then select brightness from the menu and hit the "+" until it looks better that will remove most of the darkness.
The camera is a plain disappointment. In the time the camera autofocusses, I could have bought a Sony Ericsson C905's, create a good looking photo (with xenon flash) and upload it to imageshack.
If 'your object' makes the slightest move, your photo will be blurry . This is also the case when you attempt to make a photo of someone that isn't aware he or she has to be waiting for the autofocus lag. Head moves >>> blurry pic.
iPhone camera shots are way better quality, don't ask me why. Overall my Touch HD scores 8/10, where atleast 1 full point is taken up by the camera
and it's better don't speak about the very laggy video recording
mach03 said:
iPhone camera shots are way better quality, don't ask me why.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Too many megapixels on a tiny sensor = major noise problem = blurring from denoise.
Even 2mpixels is too much for sensors this size, but people buy on marketing numbers of megapixels, not quality. You can just imagine the whining that would occur if the Touch HD came out with 1.3mpxiels, even though it would produce better pictures.
arfster said:
Too many megapixels on a tiny sensor = major noise problem = blurring from denoise.
Even 2mpixels is too much for sensors this size, but people buy on marketing numbers of megapixels, not quality. You can just imagine the whining that would occur if the Touch HD came out with 1.3mpxiels, even though it would produce better pictures.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
hehe, thats true.
mpixels dont count as much as the general public belives. the more mpix. the higher rezolution you can print the picture in. but for ordinary photos, 1.3 mpix would be enough, as long as the optics is good.
Personally, I rarely use a phone camera.
I use either my Olympus 720SW or Canon EOS.
the camera sucks **** compared to the n95 and the video recording is horrid. i know it's not meant to be as good as a dedicated camera but this is pretty bad given the price of the device.
i concur with mach03, move the camera a slight bit and eveyrthing gets blurred. one way i've semi gotten aorund this is to unlock the burst functiona nd take a sequence of pics and hope one or two coems out alright, not the most economic way to do it though...
i would ahve thought that maybe there's a way to tweak the camera to stop the blurring or even affect how much light is picked up by the lens which should also help with clarity
Vampire2800 said:
I'm not talking about the front camera. The normal camera on the back. I understand about the pixel thing, but it still shouldn't be so brownish, right? The pictures look like an old Polaroid picture. You know, the one's that spit the picture out as soon as you took it. Old, brown & nasty looking.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
A silly idea, but seriously, did you check if maybe, just maybe, you left the "sepia" effect turned on???
just a small comparison between a professional camera and HD2's camera.What do you think? ( only cropped for same resolution, no color correction or anything)
HTC
EOS 400D
__________________________________________________________
HTC
EOS 400D
__________________________________________________________
HTC
EOS 400D
__________________________________________________________
HTC
EOS 400D
__________________________________________________________
Apart from the awfully wrong white correction, the HD2 isn't shooting the worst pics outthere, it seems.
With much light the camera is good enough for snapshots.
I think the EOS400D body needs to be sent back to Cannon and have the sensor cleaned and calibrated. And the lens needs to be cleaned.
the pics with the HD2 seem warmer on the flower and china doll. But the pics of the building and sign, are not that good. The 400D looks a lot better (except the depth of field, were the HD2 is sharper).
I have been playing with my camera a bit, and I cant get rid of the pink spot. I installed the update, and it made it better. But I still have a very noticable pink halo around 90% of my pics.
Detail on the HD2 is good once resized to 800pix wide or so, perfectly good for web use but not much more. And yes, the color balance is very often completely off, usually skewed to magenta...
+1 on your EOS being faulty, shot one is ok but shot 2 looks problematic
wolfee said:
I think the EOS400D body needs to be sent back to Cannon and have the sensor cleaned and calibrated. And the lens needs to be cleaned.
the pics with the HD2 seem warmer on the flower and china doll. But the pics of the building and sign, are not that good. The 400D looks a lot better (except the depth of field, were the HD2 is sharper).
I have been playing with my camera a bit, and I cant get rid of the pink spot. I installed the update, and it made it better. But I still have a very noticable pink halo around 90% of my pics.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
stoolzo said:
+1 on your EOS being faulty, shot one is ok but shot 2 looks problematic
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
i m not a pro photographer. how do you understand that my eos is faulty or un-calibrated? is it that bad? can you help me a little?what should i do?
The EOS is all good to me, just a couple tiny dust spots visible on photo 3, but nothing else...
The colors can seem "wrong" next to the HD2's ones... but it's the HD2 being wrong
I cant see anything wrong with your eos tbh. The eos out does the hd2 in every picture except i think the last one. The difference I can barely notice. The first picture especially you can see how the eos brings out the purple in the center of the flower. It is crisp and has a more vibrant colour. Also the hd2 white on the flower is not very clear.
However we are talking a pro camera and a phone and I think for snap shots my hd2 is the best phone camera i have ever had. Especially in the dark in a pub etc as that flash is blinding!! If i wanna take landscapes i'll crack out the T90 or the fuji finepix.
EDIT After looking again at the last picture i think i prefer the hd2's. I can see what kilrah means about magenta as the blues in the hd2 version of the last image is slightly more vibrant. If you look at the sign on the building in the background ( the long thin one with the white writing) i think the blue is nicer than that of the eos. Thats not to say that the eos hasn't actually captured the correct colour but the hd2 colour is nicer.
I'm all for HD2 pictures, but let's be honest here, you should learn how to take better pictures with the 400D. In capable hands, there's no way you can compete a DSLR vs a puny smartphone with a static lens.
totally uneven comparison
I own both, and of course in "tailored" shots you can notice only what appear to be bare differences (Except the horrible pink staining effect which is visible everywhere even if background colours may tend to cover for it), yet in "daily life" shots you cannot actually make much out of it... also remember HD2 has a complete unalterable assembly, while much of the eos 400d power comes from the lens that you mount on it, and I am not really comfortable at all to compare my 18-200 OS sigma lens to the plastic on the HD2
If I need to shoot items I want to sell online, I always do it with my HD2, or even if I need to get quick shots of things where the main thing is to "get the idea", but I would never fathom to use the HD2 in a real shooting situation... like when I'm on vacation. I would simply lose every pleasure in shooting if I had to do it with a phone camera.
lude219 said:
I'm all for HD2 pictures, but let's be honest here, you should learn how to take better pictures with the 400D. In capable hands, there's no way you can compete a DSLR vs a puny smartphone with a static lens.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
i didnt try to take good or stylish pictures.only took daily shots in a hurry, no manual settings or photoshop corrections.other way of course canon will shot much better pics. but i wanted to show that hd2 is also pretty good
Except photos 1 (flower) all pics from the HD2 are better than from Eos, more crispy-sharp, more depth, more details
... but this is only my personal sunbjective impression, I´m no prof. photographer though
troed said:
Except photos 1 (flower) all pics from the HD2 are better than from Eos, more crispy-sharp, more depth, more details
... but this is only my personal sunbjective impression, I´m no prof. photographer though
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
you're missing the pink that stains everything in the center of the viewport
Also, if I had to define detail, I'd say hd2 shots, when zoomed in, show a very, very "washed out" aspect all over the area, while zooming in all the way shots by the 400d you can only see the normal amount of moiree
its an interesting comparison, maybe we should leave it there as it doesn't really mean anything beyond showing the HD2 pics arent too bad at all - which we already new
I have the hobby of photography.
All pictures from canon are a lot better than htc, and it's normal.
The canon sensor it A LOT bigger than a phone sensor.
You can notice that the canon pics are sharper, have a better exposure, a better white balance, a smoother out of focus, are less grainy. In some you have the impression that are crispier, but it's due to oversharpening (and if you like would be easy to obtain in pp on the canon shots)
About the depth of field, due to the smaller sensor of the htc (the smaller the sensor the deeper the depth of field), in most shots everything is in focus. But in photography this is a flaw. If, for example, I shot a portrait, I would prefer to have the face in focus, and all the rest out of focus.
On the other hand, on a reflex, you can choose the depth of field you prefer opening or closing the diaphragm
There are new sensor on the way and I'm sure that in future quality of our phones will be more and more similar to quality of point and shot cameras,
but will never reach the quality of reflex for the lack of BIG, HEAVY, good lenses.
Stop criticising the guys photographic skills with his EOS. All he was trying to do is compare an image from the HD2, with an image from a dedication digital camera, to show that the HD2 isn't all that bad. And people jump in expecting him to take photographs like Edward Weston. Give the man a break!
On topic: Nice comparison. Good to see that compared with a proper digital camera, the HD2 is still pretty good.
can you share your camera settings in hd2?
brightnes
iso
white balance
image properity
flicker adj.
thank you
HD2 has a bit of a magenta cast.
On the other hand, this shows how good the HD2 camera is.
HTC has come a long way from the 1Mb and 2Mb shooters that came with the BlueAngel and Prophet. HD2's photos now gets compared to that of an SLR.
Buy a decent camera, and also buy a decent PDA/smartphone. End of story.
There are so many *freakin* experts here.
madindehead said:
Stop criticising the guys photographic skills with his EOS. All he was trying to do is compare an image from the HD2, with an image from a dedication digital camera, to show that the HD2 isn't all that bad. And people jump in expecting him to take photographs like Edward Weston. Give the man a break!
On topic: Nice comparison. Good to see that compared with a proper digital camera, the HD2 is still pretty good.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
thanks dude you understand me
figured i'd start a thread on the use of the camera and what others have done or do to take amazing pictures. possibly post some
only thing i've noticed is holding down the camera button half way till the center cue comes up and beeps, to snap a shot allows for a lot better clarity and focus on a shot.
that is the focus .... setting the anti shake before taking pics helps too. the use of macro mode helps with the small items... also adjusting the metering can help when you are shooting something and the light is coming from an odd angle...
ah k. Kinda assumed it was since pics are taken instantly with the push of the button instead of typical 2-3 sec delay to focus as with other phones. Have to mess with macro or any other feature other than image filter for b&w shots. Will try it though.
samsungs always take great pics.... i wish this phone had the settings the omnia 2 had.... that camera was the best 5mp out...
i wonder what Nokia's partnership with Microsoft and Windows Phone 7 will bring as far as cameras, cause honestly the last great cell phone camera i ever used was on an old Nokia flip phone from T-Mobile (years and years ago). it may have been 1.3MP camera but it took some sharp pics and quick. Iphone was eh aight, blackberry curve..the led flash was too long too bright and pictures were grainy, HTC Tilt 2...so so quality with slight not so noticeable color tint. but this Focus phone takes better pics than my old 8MP Nokia digital camera.
I am a new owner of the S5 and after few days of using it a couple of things bother me. Could you guys shed some light/
1. The camera sticks out in the back a bit. Does that mean that when I leave my phone on a table, desk, etc. it will scratch the camera lens and all my photos will have the scratch marks? If so, what should I do -- have a really thick and bulky case?
2. when taking photos, the 16 megapixels are only available in 16;9. But in photography, generally pictures are taken in 4:3. Unfortunately, the samsung camera is only 12 megapixels at 4:3. So, if i want to highest quality picture, I cannot take it with 4:3. What do you guys use? I mean 16:9 looks nice on a TV, but so what. In fact the biggest flaw is that the front-facing is 2 megapixel but, again, at 16:9. And a 16:9 selfie is horrible!
If the table is flat and clean it won't scratch, the other end sits lower so the entire phone is tilted lifting the lens up for a tiny bit.
Photos I just take 16:9, if you need 4:3 you can always crop it later on.
It's not clear if you are seeking pragmatic solutions or venting.
Scratching the rear camera glass is not a big concern. The rear camera glass is recessed from the bezel, so it won't be scratched if set down or even slid on a smooth surface. If you take decent care of your electronics it's not likely to get scratched. A reasonable person wouldn't set their phone down on something like a coarse stone bench.
Nor are minor scratches likely to have an obvious visible effect on photos. If you are careless with your phone, then consider a case. Or buy some spare $2 camera glass covers and replace them periodically.
If you want an old fashioned 4:3 image, just crop the 16:9 photo. Done.
If you still feel that the 16:9 format is a deal breaker, then you only have yourself to fault in not researching your purchase better in advance. A 16:9 format is pretty standard for phones and it's pretty picky to find that a serious fault. If you do, then you can look at other phones or a stand alone camera.
.
fffft said:
If you want an old fashioned 4:3 image, just crop the 16:9 photo. Done.
.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
but S5's 4/3 FoV is so small... compared to S4 or S3
And why oh why oh why can't the 7D have a full frame sensor????
I don't really understand your complaint. You can't change the camera in the way you are wishing for, so why are you bemoaning that it is 16:9? Either the overall package makes sense to you or it doesn't. You can crop the picture or probably find an app that crops the FOV as a default setting. You say that doesn't work for you. Fine. If the camera format is a deal breaker for you, then move on and get a different phone.
Complaining that you don't like the camera specs after your purchase accomplishes nothing other than venting. If you prefer an S3 or S4 or whatever model, then why did you buy the S5? Complaining after the fact only underscores that you didn't do your due diligence. The sensible time to have weighed your objections was before you bought your S5.
.
I take very good care of my electronics...and that's why I am paranoid and asking the question if I can easily scratch the camera even though I take good care since it is somewhat more exposed and sticks out. Generally, I leave my phone on its back while in the office or at home. The rest of the time -- it is in my pocket. I got an ultra slim case, which does not lift from the camera, so I was under the impression that I am not protecting the camera.
As far as the megapixels, do not get me wrong I am not complaining, rather asking what you guys are using 16:9 or 4:3. I used to be into amateur photography a couple of years ago, and back then the thing was to shoot in 4:3 always, regardless that cameras support 16:9. So, not sure of the trend has changed, and if folks using DSLRs for example are now shooting in 16:9. Now, for a selfie 16:9 is awful, but you can use an app like Retrica which always crops it to a square so no issues there.
I was just curious what people are shooting with 16 megapixel or 12.. or even less...
Besides my Turbo I also have a company provided IPhone5s so I decided to do a real world side by side comparison. Here is the setting: my truck is parked about 250' away from stop sign, I held each phone with both hands resting on the steering wheel. Both phones have all settings on AUTO the crossroad has a speed limit of 50 mph and no stoplights nearby so I am fairly certain the vehicles crossing in front of me are doing no less than 50 mph. My purpose is to catch the vehicles as close to the center of intersection as I possibly can, I took the Turbo pictures first and made every possible effort to capture the best picture possible with both phones. Observation: the shutter SOUND on the Iphone was instant, shutter SOUND on Turbo had an estimated full second delay. Look at the pictures and draw your own conclusions.
smokie11 said:
Besides my Turbo I also have a company provided IPhone5s so I decided to do a real world side by side comparison. Here is the setting: my truck is parked about 250' away from stop sign, I held each phone with both hands resting on the steering wheel. Both phones have all settings on AUTO the crossroad has a speed limit of 50 mph and no stoplights nearby so I am fairly certain the vehicles crossing in front of me are doing no less than 50 mph. My purpose is to catch the vehicles as close to the center of intersection as I possibly can, I took the Turbo pictures first and made every possible effort to capture the best picture possible with both phones. Observation: the shutter SOUND on the Iphone was instant, shutter SOUND on Turbo had an estimated full second delay. Look at the pictures and draw your own conclusions.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
So while the shutter sound was delayed, it did not matter?
The Droid got the job done while the iPhone did not.
Which pics are which?
aviwdoowks said:
So while the shutter sound was delayed, it did not matter?
The Droid got the job done while the iPhone did not.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The Turbo has what looks like a simulated gray shutter closing when you take picture, when that happened the picture was captured, the sound followed the visual cue.
wadamean said:
Which pics are which?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The first 3 are the Turbo, the last 3 Iphone, if you hold the mouse over the pictures it identifies them, they can also be enlarged.
Ummm... Congrats?
It seems like you had HDR on with the Turbo
zed011 said:
It seems like you had HDR on with the Turbo
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
He used default settings.
HDR on auto is one of them.
I have read here and other places what a dreadful camera the Turbo has, specially the inability to focus on moving objects and how slow it was to capture an image. I didn't want to dismiss the many stated comments about how awful the camera is. I also did not want to just simply say how I feel about the camera, to me it's a great camera for a phone. I did a heads up comparison between a camera praised often for being superior to the Turbo's and the Turbo camera consistently focused clearly on a fast moving object, the IPhone failed to catch a single vehicle in the focal area. I don't expect to sway the one's that hate the camera one bit, I simply presented evidence, proof of what the Turbo camera CAN do; not an opinion. WE all like here to look at pictures to prove a point... I gave you pictures.
iPhone is sharper
theineffablebob said:
iPhone is sharper
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah that missing detail is really crisp.
Its so sharp I cannot see the cars!
I like the camera on the turbo, can't understand how anyone could argue the results of your test
Steve One said:
I like the camera on the turbo, can't understand how anyone could argue the results of your test
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Steve I did my best to present visual evidence and leave my own personal opinion out as best I could, I didn't know what the outcome would be and I would have presented results even if the Turbo had crapped out. I wanted to address focus and shutter speed on moving objects. The following IS an opinion: the camera is only as good as the hands holding it, even the world's best camera can take a bad picture in the wrong hands. The pictures the IPhone took were considerably darker than actual surroundings, the sky was NOT the darker blue in the picture and of course the obvious: no vehicles are present in the IPhone pictures, if you look hard enough to the right in one picture you will see the car I was trying to capture.
If you have a ceiling fan in your house or office, do the same test on the fan, well lit, low speed.
I've been doing that with the DT and whatever other phones I can lay hands on, none of them that
are built into a phone do very well. My observations that given some light and distance, the DT can
do OK with movement, but lack of light and/or up close action it's lacking. It isn't an accident that they
are putting dual flashes and ring flashes and such on cameras, the $2 sensor and lack of lens is really hurting.
wolf_walker69 said:
If you have a ceiling fan in your house or office, do the same test on the fan, well lit, low speed.
I've been doing that with the DT and whatever other phones I can lay hands on, none of them that
are built into a phone do very well. My observations that given some light and distance, the DT can
do OK with movement, but lack of light and/or up close action it's lacking. It isn't an accident that they
are putting dual flashes and ring flashes and such on cameras, the $2 sensor and lack of lens is really hurting.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You realize its the same camera that the Z3 has, right?
For a phone camera, it is pretty good. As for the ceiling fan, that is a rather silly test considering typical shots a phone will take arent that fast. Everyone can agree that there are a few aoftware quips that need to be fixed, but lets stop moving goal posts when someone defies a complaint, yeah? It's never going to be as fast as a DSLR or even a point and shoot.
I don't care if it's Genghis Khan's own Point-N-Shoot, it's deficient in a number of areas.
Like anything moving that isn't 20 yards away or in direct sunlight, or a christmas tree.
Nor am I alone. And that fake DSLR soft focus BS isn't fooling me either.
When conditions are favorable to the DT's camera strengths, it takes very nice photos, better
than my S4 for example, the rub is the S4 took better photos most of the time because it's
range of acceptable conditions was wider. There are a hoard of people with kids and dogs
which are frequently in motion that are not pleased with the basically useless camera in those
situations.
http://forums.androidcentral.com/mo...droid-turbo-photos-auto-focus-blurry-why.html
wolf_walker69 said:
I don't care if it's Genghis Khan's own Point-N-Shoot, it's deficient in a number of areas.
Like anything moving that isn't 20 yards away or in direct sunlight, or a christmas tree.
Nor am I alone. And that fake DSLR soft focus BS isn't fooling me either.
When conditions are favorable to the DT's camera strengths, it takes very nice photos, better
than my S4 for example, the rub is the S4 took better photos most of the time because it's
range of acceptable conditions was wider. There are a hoard of people with kids and dogs
which are frequently in motion that are not pleased with the basically useless camera in those
situations.
http://forums.androidcentral.com/mo...droid-turbo-photos-auto-focus-blurry-why.html
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Here are some pictures of my baby girl, she posed in one; all the others she was moving and yes I can take a bad picture I'm man enough to admit it. I just think "basically useless" is a bit harsh. Merry Christmas.
Great looking dog! Your pics perfectly illustrate the performance I've observed, well lit, white background to reflect available light, mostly static subject, GREAT pics.
That last one with the blurry head, typical for less than great light or up close movement.
wolf_walker69 said:
I don't care if it's Genghis Khan's own Point-N-Shoot, it's deficient in a number of areas.
Like anything moving that isn't 20 yards away or in direct sunlight, or a christmas tree.
Nor am I alone. And that fake DSLR soft focus BS isn't fooling me either.
When conditions are favorable to the DT's camera strengths, it takes very nice photos, better
than my S4 for example, the rub is the S4 took better photos most of the time because it's
range of acceptable conditions was wider. There are a hoard of people with kids and dogs
which are frequently in motion that are not pleased with the basically useless camera in those
situations.
http://forums.androidcentral.com/mo...droid-turbo-photos-auto-focus-blurry-why.html
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
the grass is always greener.. if you read through some of those post you will come to the one where the guy with the Note 4 says he has similar results with what everyone praises as the one of the best cameras.. My DT could take some crappy shots as well as some amazing ones, and so can my wife's iPhone 5s.. I agree with an earlier comment.. I would say the overwhelming factor in getting good pics from any phone... is the user..
I now have the N6 and the story is the same.. some pics are trash some are great.., i take pics with that knowledge therefore I don't get as disappointed as I used to.
lazarus2297 said:
the grass is always greener.. if you read through some of those post you will come to the one where the guy with the Note 4 says he has similar results with what everyone praises as the one of the best cameras.. My DT could take some crappy shots as well as some amazing ones, and so can my wife's iPhone 5s.. I agree with an earlier comment.. I would say the overwhelming factor in getting good pics from any phone... is the user..
I now have the N6 and the story is the same.. some pics are trash some are great.., i take pics with that knowledge therefore I don't get as disappointed as I used to.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I think that the camera operator has much to do with the quality of pictures that come of the camera phone itself. This applies to non-phone cameras too.