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.
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???
I'm wanting to find out if the noise in some of the photos i've taken is normal for the HD2
I expect noise in a camera like this, it's just the nature of having such a small high mega pixel count sensor, I just wanted to find out if what im experiencing is normal. I've got a week left on my 14 days and would like to exchange it if it's not normal
This is probably the worst of them all that I did lastnight
http://twitpic.com/1cs2cl/full Look at the banding noise at the bottom of the frame.
http://twitpic.com/1cs4lj/full This one has some too, but not as bad as the other
http://twitpic.com/1cs50y/full This one looks like it may be a optics problem, look at the red halo around the sykes sign. the 1st time i took the pic i though maybe there was a smudge on the lens so i wiped it and still had the same result
Perfectly normal.
You're taking pictures at night and even standalone digital cameras would struggle to take a decent picture in those conditions.
The Camera will be ramping up the ISO which increases the noise anyway (and as you pointed out coupled to a small sensor just isnt great), the only way to take a decent picture with noise that isnt noticable is to use a tripod, a very small aperture and a very long shutter.
This, being a phone, doesn't have the luxury of that kind of control.
Just take pictures during the day and they are decent enough.
i get it too, including the exceptionally bright flash that usually washes out most photos, just have to live with it im afraid, or fiddle with camera settings, see what happens, but you'd have to constantly change them between night and day....
Thanks, Yeah i expected the noise in pics from the phone. Just the banding was concerning me a little bit.
It actually does pretty good at night in certain situations, there are more pics on my twitpic account from last night that came out ok, very little noise, though a bit more blur. im guessing it probably picked a lower ISO for those.
ieilisuk said:
Just take pictures during the day and they are decent enough.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I have to agree, the camera on the HD2 is outstanding in the daylight, nearly rivals the Sony T33 that ive carried around for a long time for quick snapshots. I just wish they could put a small optical zoom on the camera, even something as small as the 3x optical zoom im used to the with T33. im sure that's asking a bit much with the space constraints within a phone. Im still happy none the less.
The camera in my old Wizard was worthless, i barely ever used it. It was passable outside on a bright day, useless under normal indoor lighting conditions or darker.
Found myself in several situations where i wanted to take a pic but didn't have the T33 on me. HD2 = problem solved =)
I just noticed that there is a TMO USA HD2 specific forum. Since this is about a TMO USA HD2 could one of the mods move this thread over there? Like to see what kind of response i get from other USA version users
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
Ok so its fairly obvious that the camera bites. Is there a decent app on the market which can take nicer pics?
htc camera's always been like this, even if there's an app, i think you will be better of getting to know the limitations, and get used to manually specify the settings, this way you can really get some decent shots with it. the main purpose of a camera in a phone isn't to replace camera's at all, it's a way of having a way of the ability to quickly take a snapshot when you forgot your camera.
learn to hold your hands still, the best thing to do with a HTC phone if you use the camera
and for the app, search the market in the free section, you can always try them out to see if one suite's you
dr.m0x said:
Ok so its fairly obvious that the camera bites. Is there a decent app on the market which can take nicer pics?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I have to agree when it comes to using the flash the pics are cap all yellow and washed out. It's like the timing is off or the auto white balance is not changing to flash.
A toy camera out of a Christmas cracker could do better.
Example of flash pic
twitpic.com/34l2mp
it seems your camera didn't even focus on that event, the yellow glow can also be caused by a street light nearby? if street light was nearby it uses the flash to fill in the photo, and leaves the shutter open to receive the lighting as it is, so the faces don't shine etc. otherwise the timing and or white balance is of, or even possibly be a smudge on the flash or lens? finger near the flash unit could also cause this.
I took about 10 pics all look the same I ended up using my old n97 which took a perfect pic.
you still get the yellow from the flash indoors aswell and I tried all the white balance setting none look right with the flash.
If no one else is finding this maybe I have a bum phone.
Sent from my Desire HD using XDA App
So dose anyone else het pics as bad as me with the flash or should I take my phone back?
dr.m0x said:
Ok so its fairly obvious that the camera bites.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
ok so its fairly obvious that this guy is rude and obnoxious and doesnt mind insulting a product we all paid a serious amount of money for.
I am a professional photographer specialising in weddings for over 12 years and the camera is perfectly adequate for a phone.
panyan said:
ok so its fairly obvious that this guy is rude and obnoxious and doesnt mind insulting a product we all paid a serious amount of money for.
I am a professional photographer specialising in weddings for over 12 years and the camera is perfectly adequate for a phone.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I would say it depends what you are comparing it to. It rubbish compared to a good camera phone like the N86 or N97 but ok compared to the iphone. So if you have only had bad camera phones I guess that's why you may think it ok.
panyan said:
ok so its fairly obvious that this guy is rude and obnoxious and doesnt mind insulting a product we all paid a serious amount of money for.
I am a professional photographer specialising in weddings for over 12 years and the camera is perfectly adequate for a phone.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
my old nokia n95 camera thats 5 years old takes better photos, though ive found it does take nice close ups, SGS camera is perfectly adequate though
@jeffmason : have you tried setting the flash to 'on' instead of 'auto', mine takes blurry night photos too unless the flash is set to always on.
Has anyone tested how well the camera performs when taking shots of moving objects? In my experience, every single android phone (including S6) has been poor when taking shots of moving objects like infants/toddlers indoors. Whereas the iphone does much better under this scenario. Can the S7 compete with iphone when it comes to shooting moving objects in less than ideal lighting?
I went to a BestBuy this weekend with my girlfriend and had her take a picture of me walking past her (At normal walking pace) on the other side of the demo table. Picture came out crisp and clear. Looked like I wasn't moving. No blur at all. Haven't compared to iPhone but I've seen from videos that the S7 auto focus is much faster. Was also able to tap the camera button quickly without lag.
Even better, my wife was highly impressed when she snapped a photo of our always active kids when we were at the Samsung Experience store and the photos came out perfect!! No motion blur. The kids were in focus and clear =)
Here are two shots I just took cars going about 30mph I work on the beach.
If you're indoors in a dimly lit room, it's going to have some blur. Even DSLR's have trouble here as you need a wide aperture and a high ISO to capture moving objects in low light. From the samples though, it looks promising.
Very true. But I will say this is probably the best camera in a smart phone.
This photo I just took is brighter than what I see lol. And clarity is excellent.
razball said:
Here are two shots I just took cars going about 30mph I work on the beach.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Nice pictures on my opionion, way better than my note 4 with camera mod, also took nice pictures
razball said:
Here are two shots I just took cars going about 30mph I work on the beach.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Wow that's actually amazing, no discernible blur at all
Has anyone got any more?
I'm surprised we haven't had the S7 downer crew in here telling everyone how bad the photos are and that we should all buy a Nexus 6P or S6 Edge instead.
Hard to give his true mind or negative opinion when "fanboy kikoo lol" report us as troll and make us censored by moderator... but i can try...
I don't had a problem with s6 to have my subjects totally crips (but im using very rarely the basic photo app)... so i don't understand really this.
I have more problems with the pic posted by razball...
Beefheart said:
I'm surprised we haven't had the S7 downer crew in here telling everyone how bad the photos are and that we should all buy a Nexus 6P or S6 Edge instead.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
S7 camera is essentially what the 6P would have been had it had OIS. Big mistake by Google to omit such an important camera feature.
razball said:
Here are two shots I just took cars going about 30mph I work on the beach.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Jealous you work on the beach. I hate the snow.
Sent from my SM-N920W8 using Tapatalk
supercakefish said:
S7 camera is essentially what the 6P would have been had it had OIS. Big mistake by Google to omit such an important camera feature.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I haven't personally tried the 6P camera, but it seems to suffer from the same problem of shooting moving objects/kids indoors:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Nexus6P/comments/3scwc8/nexus_6p_rear_camera_focus/ It's unfortunate, but the iPhone is on another level when taking shots like this (any wife/mom with an iPhone will say the same), which is why I'm wondering if the S7/Edge and it's Dual Pixel auto focus can finally match Apple for these types of shots.
anywho said:
I haven't personally tried the 6P camera, but it seems to suffer from the same problem of shooting moving objects/kids indoors:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Nexus6P/comments/3scwc8/nexus_6p_rear_camera_focus/ It's unfortunate, but the iPhone is on another level when taking shots like this (any wife/mom with an iPhone will say the same), which is why I'm wondering if the S7/Edge and it's Dual Pixel auto focus can finally match Apple for these types of shots.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
couple of articles
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6VUPgOzGlw
http://www.androidauthority.com/samsung-galaxy-s7-vs-iphone-6s-camera-test-677222/
Beefheart said:
I'm surprised we haven't had the S7 downer crew in here telling everyone how bad the photos are and that we should all buy a Nexus 6P or S6 Edge instead.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
? ? ye I've seen them around here alot recently
The s7 takes great photos but for some scenarios i use my g5 but when taking Taekwondo pictures in the dojang i use the s7 if i don't have my camera like all phones they perform best under ideal conditions