Which Company Makes the Best Camera Phone in 2018? Not Apple 174
Which smartphone takes the best photos? For years, the unequivocal answer to that question has been the iPhone. Apple has, for years, taken pride in the pictures its iPhones are able to capture. And rightly so. But over the years, the competition has been catching up, and now it feels like it has stolen that crown from the iPhone. Here's a review of various reviews of the iPhones.
The Verge, reviewing the iPhone 6 launched in 2014: There's one feature that stands out, though, the one that most strongly makes the iPhone 6's case as the best smartphone on the planet: the camera. A year later, The Verge reviews the iPhone 6s: But these improvements aren't dramatic, since the previous rear camera was already terrific. Still, the new rear camera will maintain the iPhone's position as the best smartphone camera around. In another review, it said: I noticed slightly better macro performance and slightly better bokeh in a few shots, but Apple's been taking iPhone 6 photos and blowing them up to put on billboards for a year, so the bar is pretty damn high. Let's put it this way: the iPhone 6S is the best camera most people will ever own, but it's not going to keep anyone out of the market for a mirrorless rig. The camera review of the iPhone 7 Plus: This all adds up to a decent improvement, but the iPhone 6S was already operating at the top of the scale, bested only recently by the latest cameras in the Galaxy S7 and Note 7. In low light, that faster lens and optical image stabilization means that the 7 significantly outperforms the 6S. But compared to the iPhone 6S, the iPhone 7 is a step improvement, not a major leap. The camera review of the last year's iPhone 8 Plus: Over the past year, the S8 and Pixel pulled ahead of the iPhone 7 in various tests. Apple told me they don't look at benchmarks closely, but the images from the iPhone 8 camera definitely look more like Apple's competitors than before. Like Samsung, iPhone images are now more saturated by default, although Apple says it's still aiming for realism instead of the saturated colors and smoothing of the S8. And HDR is just on all the time, like the Pixel -- you can't turn it off, although you can set it to save a non-HDR image as well. We ran around shooting with an iPhone 8, a Pixel XL, and S8, and iPhone 7 on auto, and the iPhone 8 produced the most consistent and richest images of the group, although the Pixel was the clear winner several times, especially in extreme low light. The camera review of the $1,000 iPhone X, which was also launched last year: Now that we have an iPhone X and the Google Pixel 2, we're going to do a super in-depth camera comparison, but here's what I can tell you right now: the iPhone X has basically the same cameras as the iPhone 8, and the photos look almost exactly the same. And at the end of the day, I tend to prefer the photos from the Pixel 2 XL. And now, the camera review of the iPhone XS and XS Max, which The Verge published Tuesday (video): The camera upgrades in the XS over the X are significant. But I'm just going to come out and say this: I don't think the iPhone XS has better cameras than the [Google] Pixel 2 ... and Pixel 3 comes out in just a few weeks. Don't get me wrong, it's a really good camera, and I think people are going to like the photos it takes. But the Pixel 2 is the standard to beat and the iPhone XS doesn't do it for me.
The Verge, reviewing the iPhone 6 launched in 2014: There's one feature that stands out, though, the one that most strongly makes the iPhone 6's case as the best smartphone on the planet: the camera. A year later, The Verge reviews the iPhone 6s: But these improvements aren't dramatic, since the previous rear camera was already terrific. Still, the new rear camera will maintain the iPhone's position as the best smartphone camera around. In another review, it said: I noticed slightly better macro performance and slightly better bokeh in a few shots, but Apple's been taking iPhone 6 photos and blowing them up to put on billboards for a year, so the bar is pretty damn high. Let's put it this way: the iPhone 6S is the best camera most people will ever own, but it's not going to keep anyone out of the market for a mirrorless rig. The camera review of the iPhone 7 Plus: This all adds up to a decent improvement, but the iPhone 6S was already operating at the top of the scale, bested only recently by the latest cameras in the Galaxy S7 and Note 7. In low light, that faster lens and optical image stabilization means that the 7 significantly outperforms the 6S. But compared to the iPhone 6S, the iPhone 7 is a step improvement, not a major leap. The camera review of the last year's iPhone 8 Plus: Over the past year, the S8 and Pixel pulled ahead of the iPhone 7 in various tests. Apple told me they don't look at benchmarks closely, but the images from the iPhone 8 camera definitely look more like Apple's competitors than before. Like Samsung, iPhone images are now more saturated by default, although Apple says it's still aiming for realism instead of the saturated colors and smoothing of the S8. And HDR is just on all the time, like the Pixel -- you can't turn it off, although you can set it to save a non-HDR image as well. We ran around shooting with an iPhone 8, a Pixel XL, and S8, and iPhone 7 on auto, and the iPhone 8 produced the most consistent and richest images of the group, although the Pixel was the clear winner several times, especially in extreme low light. The camera review of the $1,000 iPhone X, which was also launched last year: Now that we have an iPhone X and the Google Pixel 2, we're going to do a super in-depth camera comparison, but here's what I can tell you right now: the iPhone X has basically the same cameras as the iPhone 8, and the photos look almost exactly the same. And at the end of the day, I tend to prefer the photos from the Pixel 2 XL. And now, the camera review of the iPhone XS and XS Max, which The Verge published Tuesday (video): The camera upgrades in the XS over the X are significant. But I'm just going to come out and say this: I don't think the iPhone XS has better cameras than the [Google] Pixel 2 ... and Pixel 3 comes out in just a few weeks. Don't get me wrong, it's a really good camera, and I think people are going to like the photos it takes. But the Pixel 2 is the standard to beat and the iPhone XS doesn't do it for me.
Forget smartphones, just buy a camera (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly.
The iPhone camera has never been a superior camera to real full fledged digital cameras (of their time). And for Phone Camera's I doubt for the average user that they will see a difference from an iPhone X to an iPhone 6 and defiantly not compared from an iPhone X to a Google Pixel 2.
Now in the hands of an experience photographer they will probably be better off with a real camera, as such device is designed to make good quality images, and not just an add on feature. But for us. Not much of a dif
Workflow on smartphones vs "real" cameras (Score:5, Interesting)
The iPhone camera has never been a superior camera to real full fledged digital cameras (of their time).
Smartphone cameras don't (usually) make superior images to "real" cameras. But smartphone cameras do several things FAR better than "real" cameras, most related to work flow for certain types of tasks.
1) Far better ability to share and back up images via the internet. Any picture I snap with my smartphone is automatically backed up to the cloud and can be shared immediately via email, text message, or social media. Not so much for "real" cameras which still require plugging in a cable or pulling out an SD card and finding a PC somewhere. They are seriously terrible at this and it's costing them dearly in sales against smartphones.
2) Bigger and more useful screens to view and edit images. Better touch screens too.
3) Fit in my pocket. I can carry my smartphone almost everywhere. Not so much for my bulky "real" camera. The best camera is the one you have with you. I'm not lugging a Sony A9 with a 70-200F2.8 around very often - the thing weighs the better part of 2kg and is bulky as heck. Awesome under the right circumstances and yes it makes better images but that comes at a cost both financial and in work flow. Hard to justify if you aren't getting paid to take pictures. Even compact point and shoot cameras like the RX100 which make great images are still bulkier than my smartphone and can't do anything else besides take images.
4) Has a FAR more elegant interface for basic shooting. Seriously the interfaces on interchangeable lens cameras are universally awful and almost useless for anything more than basic chimping [wikipedia.org].
5) Unless you get into some pretty pricey gear smartphones often actually do as good or better on video than a shocking number of "real" cameras for certain applications.
So called "real" cameras get better images (if you know what you are doing) but there is a LOT of overhead in achieving that. The work flow for basic point and shoot picture taking and image sharing is vastly superior on smartphones than any "real" camera. No they can't get the best possible image in most cases but most of the time that's not important to most people. There is a reason why the point and shoot camera market has basically died despite the fact that they can produce measurably better images. Image quality is NOT the only thing that matters for most people most of the time. The overhead, shitty work flow, and bulky equipment required to achieve these (usually marginally) better images with "real" cameras is simply not worth the hassle. And I say this as someone who is a photography enthusiast with a lot of very expensive camera bodies and lenses.
Re: (Score:2)
Mod parent +1 Insightful.
You've summarized all the points beautifully. While I have a dedicated Canon Digital Rebel it is far more practical / convenient to just use the smart phone I do have with me to take pictures when I *don't* have the Rebel with me. Go figure! :-)
"The best camera is the one you have when you need it."
Re: (Score:2)
Lol at your attempt at camera-shaming the OP.
Not exactly (Score:2)
Good digital cameras do not exist in a vacuum, and manufacturers have known this for a dozen years and have really compensated for it.
1. A good digital camera these days will pair with your smartphone, such that every time you snap a picture, one or more versions of it appear on the phone, potentially also triggering any number of secondary actions like watermarking, cropping, and uploading to multiple services. My favorite app for this purpose is "shuttersnitch".
2. In much the same way you can pair the ca
Yes exactly (Score:2)
1. A good digital camera these days will pair with your smartphone, such that every time you snap a picture, one or more versions of it appear on the phone, potentially also triggering any number of secondary actions like watermarking, cropping, and uploading to multiple services. My favorite app for this purpose is "shuttersnitch".
Good digital cameras (and I own several) do nothing of the sort out of the box and the software provided with them to share images is almost universally terrible. I shouldn't have to invest in third party applications to get a useful work flow. And you are missing the point. Aside from professional photographers, if you have to pair the camera to a smartphone or tablet to get useful workflows then for most people for most circumstance it's better for them to just carry the phone or tablet and drop the ca
Re: (Score:2)
Well shit, man, you should have said you meant "random consumer grade camera" when you wrote "real camera", and "random jerk off the street" when you meant "photographer". That would have avoided a lot of angsty TL;DR writing!
Serious photographers (Score:2)
For truly "serious" photographers, none of those things matter nearly as much as being able to get as many photons to as many silicon photosites as quickly as possible.
If you think that then you don't know many serious photographers. Being a serious photographer is far more complicated than having the biggest possible glass and most pixels.
Which is why a Phase One IQ3 costs 50 grand without lens and can't do any of the the above except via expensive tethering software tied to a PC.
The Phase One products are aimed at a tiny fraction of a fraction of the market even among professional photographers. Most people that get paid for their photos do not use equipment like this and they certainly are not the demarcation line for what makes a "serious photographer".
Re: (Score:2)
- good enough
- not tedious
- easy to use, simple
- physical/digital management
Sure, I'm down with poo-pooing "real" cameras for everyday use. They're superfluous, right? I'm down with regarding smartphone cameras collectively as "adequate for our needs".
Then I trust that means we'll stop fucking circlejerking about them?
To be fair, it's the "journalists" who started it. The same fuckwads who need to fill 800 words after holding it for 30 seconds at an expo, and so regale us with size specs, the glass shell, h
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't matter which camera is better.
The best camera is the one you have with you if you need to take a picture.
True. But... the easiest way to lose your latest photos is to forget your unlock code on your cell phone. Never had this problem with a digital camera...
Yes, I should have synced or backed up to the cloud, but timing... Fortunately I had photos on my camera as well...
Image quality isn't everything (usually) (Score:2)
I strongly agree with your first point, but this point is absolute nonsense. I can't speak for your Sony a9, but I have owned 4 Canon bodies and the interface is far more functional than android or ios.
Sigh... No it is not. I'm not talking about the act of capturing the image. Dedicated cameras mostly handle the actual image capture just fine. I'm talking about everything before and after and particularly about the software. I've used Canon's too and their software UI is just as bad as anyone else. Setting up your camera to get a good work flow requires a lot of training and needless configuration of the software. Doesn't matter which camera maker you prefer, they are all pretty bad. Sony, Nikon, C
Re: (Score:3)
I have a camera (several, actually). But I always have my phone on me, and it automatically uploads my photos both to Google Photos so my wife can look at them and Dropbox so I have the original quality if I want. The convenience of this alone means that I now take many more photos using my phone than I do on my cameras.
My current phone is about to be replaced by a Pixel 2 when/if they drop in price a bit.
Re: (Score:2)
I have a decent camera, it's even quite compact, but since I got a Pixel XL I didn't use it, The photos from the Pixel are excellent, good enough that the upgrade I'd get from carrying a real DSLR just isn't worth it.
Re: (Score:2)
nonsense, unless you never leave your mom's basement without a camera, most people do not have one on them at all times
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Like using a regular expression, now you have two problems.
Re: (Score:2)
You're obviously not a photographer... But as I am, I'll add my two cents:
A phone with a better than decent camera is a godsend. It's a camera I can always have with me. I can (and have) taken pictures of people with my phone that I'd have never been able to with my DSLR. (The DSLR stands out, with a phone I'm just another guy with his face buried in his phone.) Heck, I've taken random pictures of various interesting things that I would never have done before - because I wouldn't have had my DSLR in th
Re: (Score:2)
It depends on what you're photographing. Outdoors in the daytime, I agree with you; it's largely not the phone that matters most, but the photographer. But in dim conditions and with motion, the small apertures of smartphones are a very serious limitation.
Re: (Score:2)
Pixel phones seem to have the best low light performance. They apparently have larger sensors than most phones, at the expense of optical image stabilization which they offset by doing it in software.
Low light is always a weak spot for iPhones. The colour always looks artificial and they get a lot of bloom and wash out. Apple has tuned their software to make the subject bright and as clear as possible which isn't a bad thing for selfies and portraits, but there is obviously a cost to doing that.
Re: (Score:2)
You forgot four groups: Natural-light photographers, sports photographers, portrait photographers, and candid photographers, though arguably it isn't really because those groups need image quality per se so much as because they need light gathering ability, and light g
Re: (Score:2)
I never claimed that a phone camera could replace a DSLR - in fact I specifically pointed out that it could not.
If you have to reshoot most of the photos you attempt with a cell phone, then I don't know what to tell you - because I can't imagine a single situatio
Re: (Score:2)
You misunderstand. I mostly shoot photos in low light situations. I don't have to reshoot most of the photos I attempt. I own a real camera because I know the limits of cell phone ca
Re: (Score:2)
The best camera is the one you have when you want to take a picture.
If you always carry around your camera, good for you. If it's at home in your camera bag, it's not going to take a very good picture is it?
Re: (Score:2)
If there is an innovative disruptive Silicon Valley genius out there who wants to do something, how about a really cheap, reliable cell phone that JUST makes calls and texts? ... No camera. No games. Nothing.
If you make products for geezers, your market shrinks with every funeral.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why are you assuming only 'geezers' would buy that?
Because they already exist. You can buy them on Amazon. But the only place I have ever seen them advertized is in my mom's AARP newsletter.
The only reason to want a phone without a camera is if you are a technophobe, and fear complexity, which is strongly correlated with geezerhood. Otherwise you could just NOT USE IT. It adds about 100mg of mass to your phone, and near zero power consumption. If you fear the NSA, you could just tape over it, or blot it out with epoxy. But that would be foolish, becau
Re: (Score:2)
I found that what puts older people off smartphones is often that they get a crappy one. They aren't sure if they want one so get the cheapest or a hand-me-down just to try it. The phone is slow and unresponsive, the touchscreen barely works and even I find it frustrating and annoying.
My mum had this issue until I got her a decent phone and now she is fine with it.
Not worth the bother (Score:2)
If there is an innovative disruptive Silicon Valley genius out there who wants to do something, how about a really cheap, reliable cell phone that JUST makes calls and texts?
No money in it. Seriously the number of people who would actually buy this is so small that it is not really worth addressing. It's cheaper to just include the camera and if the user doesn't want it they don't have to use it.
Re: (Score:2)
Besides, go to any thrift store or yard sale, and chances are there will be plenty of old cell phones that just make calls, and may or may not have other features; and for super cheap as well. There is plenty of supply to meet the small demand.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
2/3 the CCD resolution is not 2/3 the quality.
Compact point and shoots still have _crappy_ glass. Better than a cell phone, but still crap.
Flaws in point and shoots (Score:3)
Compact point and shoots still have _crappy_ glass. Better than a cell phone, but still crap.
That's not true at all [dpreview.com]. There are some point and shoots with very good quality glass. Far better than smartphones in the right hands. The problem point and shoots have is that their workflow after the picture is taken SUCKS and they are one trick ponies. They take good pictures just fine but then what? They offer nothing after that. With a smartphone I can edit the photo, add filters, back it up to the cloud, share it with my friends, post to social media, all within seconds. And I have a device that
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know jack about regular cameras but someone has to have done something like this. Transferring the photos via bluetooth or something.
Post processing image quality (usually) (Score:2)
Wouldn't all these workflow problems if the cameras just transferred the image instantly to your smartphone (will you will be carrying anyways)?
Yes and no. It would be a quick fix and it's shocking that they cannot already do it efficiently. Even my Sony A9 which gets awesome images makes it a huge pain in the ass to get the pictures where I need them after taking them. It has wifi but the software to connect to it SUCKS. It has an ethernet RJ45 port built in that I cannot do anything but connect to an FTP server with!?! WTF? This isn't the 1990s... But even if they could transfer quickly the problem for dedicated cameras remains. Why would
Re: (Score:2)
The thing that tends to limit point-and-shoot cameras is the crappy software. Software is also what makes phone cameras great.
If you could get a point-and-shoot that had, say, the computational photography stuff in a Google Pixel phone it would be awesome. But you can't, so there is a very good chance that despite the smaller sensor and technically worse optics the Pixel will give you a better photo.
It's about the software (Score:2)
The thing that tends to limit point-and-shoot cameras is the crappy software. Software is also what makes phone cameras great.
Exactly. This is exactly right. The hardware in the dedicated camera (point and shoot as well as pro cameras) is more than good enough but the software for interfacing and post processing is absolutely horrible. Doesn't matter which camera vendor you are talking about either - they are all terrible.
If you could get a point-and-shoot that had, say, the computational photography stuff in a Google Pixel phone it would be awesome. But you can't, so there is a very good chance that despite the smaller sensor and technically worse optics the Pixel will give you a better photo.
I don't think I could have said it better. Why bother carrying a dedicated camera if my phone takes good enough image quality and has vastly better post processing?
Re: (Score:2)
they are capable of results far better than a phone-cam
I guess you need to provide some proof of that.
Re: (Score:2)
There are clip on mounts and lenses that can turn a phone into a microscope or a telescopic camera.
And those suck but they are better than nothing [petapixel.com]. While this is a bit absurd, they didn't have to take a flagship pro camera for the test, it does show the difference in quality and should properly set expectations of those add on lenses for cellphones. My advice is to view them like most pro photographers view telephoto converters, most are crap, a few aren't bad, but they are all better than nothing when you really need the extra reach.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nonsense. That's just you not wanting to carry around a separate camera. They do some amazing things in software in these phones, but looking at mobile phone photos on a real screen and working with them in Lightroom is just fucking depressing, especially when they're seen alongside photos from my six year old P&S and 8 and 2 year old DSLRs. I'm certainly no "professional photographer", but that doesn't mean I'm part of the take-a-million-shit-photos-and-post-them-all-online-and-never-look-at-them-ag
Re: (Score:2)
Why do you want to have pictures down in your pants?
Re: (Score:2)
Why do I have all of these pictures of hot grits?
The Verge, reference site for professionals... (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:The Verge, reference site for professionals... (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Just ordered a Sony XZ2 Premium the other day. (Score:2)
Love its camera setup. Like many modern phones, there's an extra camera on the back, but rather than being telephoto or wide angle or the like, it's greyscale, and designed solely for getting intensity values in low light. So they maximize the light data for a given amount of sensor area, and then correlate it to the color data from the primary camera.
While the benefit is nice in still pictures, it really shines in motion. Some great comparisons here [youtu.be].
Also like how the phone doesn't try to make still shot
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Cheap out and get the XZ. Same CCD, and a headphone jack.
Re: (Score:2)
The camera on the XZ2 Premium is its main selling point, and not available on any of the other earlier XZ models. But I guess if you don't do low-light / fast motion photography much it's not that big of a deal.
Re: (Score:2)
It is _slightly_ improved.
See: https://www.gadgetsnow.com/com... [gadgetsnow.com]
The XZ already does the low light/high speed. Much cheaper, f2.0 vs f2.2 glass, and has a headphone jack.
Re: (Score:2)
No. You linked to a comparison between the XZ and the XZ2. Not the XZ2 Premium. But beyond that, that page doesn't even cover the key distinguishing feature as a category: the addition of an entire grayscale low-light camera whose data is correlated with the color camera.
Re: (Score:2)
XZs have done low light, high speed photography for 3 versions now.
Re: (Score:2)
* I've resigned myself to the fact that the headphone jack is going the way of the dodo, though I don't like that fact. Have to convert at some point. :P Seems to be happening, but I'll keep raging against they dying of the light.
* I'm not yet resigned to the concept that LCD screens are being killed off by AMOLED
* I'm rather indifferent to the notch. I know I'm supposed to have strong feelings one way or another but... nah.
* I'll keep resisting bezel-less designs. No, I don't lik
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm, did I miss any of the modern cell phone design religious war topics? ;)
You forgot ever-growing screen/device size! (Something I'm also resisting.)
I can see how some people can accept no headphone jack in the same way that I can see how many people were perfectly content using the stock earphones that came with their device. But for anyone who works with music, audio production, or just gives a shit about sound quality, not being able to use your personal preference of headphones is just not an option. And for me, having had to use a dongle in the past to listen to music fro
Re: (Score:2)
It's not so much the "replacing hardware" that bothers me as it is the fact that you have to either go wireless - meaning "something else to charge" - or use a micro USB connection. And micro-USB isn't anywhere near as durable as a 3,5mm headphone jack. I loved the 3,5mm jack because it's such a thick, strong piece of metal it's almost impossible to mess up. You might mess up the wiring leading up to the jack or the cord that connects to the plug, but not the jack itself or the plug. Micro-USB ports are
Re: (Score:2)
I understand why they want to reclaim the volume taken up by the 3,5mm jack, I really do. Even tiny amounts of internal space make a big difference for them in terms of capabilities that they can offer.
Is the space really such an issue though? I don't think it is. I don't see how that tiny amount of saved volume achieved by eliminating a headphone jack allows some other feature that there wouldn't be room for otherwise -- especially given how stupidly big devices are these days. There's the false argument of eliminating the headphone jack to make the device thinner: the Samsung Galaxy A8 (2015) is 5.9mm thick and includes a headphone jack, compared to the iPhone XS at 7.7mm thick without one.
I guess a wireless charging pad and bluetooth headphones will have to do. I can see which way the wind's blowing.
IMO, the wind
Re: (Score:2)
Just because there are examples of things having a jack and being thin, waterproof, etc. isn't evidence it's not cheaper or simpler to forgo the jack.
I think after Apple made the first move, everyone followed because of a "what have I got to lose" mentality. It made their devices cheaper and simpler, and if anyone complained it was "Apple did it first".
Re: (Score:2)
There used to be waterproof phones with replaceable batteries. The quest for 0.1mm thinner phones killed it.
Re: (Score:2)
The only meaningful weakness of LCD is that the blacks aren't as black as AMOLED (but they're more than black enough unless you're specifically looking for that problem, and the LCD generally has brighter whites) The problem with AMOLED isn't that it doesn't get as bright. It's not even burn-in, which AMOLEDs have and LCDs don't. It's that after 1-2 years the colour balance on AMOLEDs gets out of whack because the individual LED colours degrade at different rates, and the compensation schemes that have bee
Re: (Score:2)
But it has LDAC bluetooth which is pretty good
Flip-phone without a camera? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
More to the point for actual tech folks: Is it still possible to get a flip-phone without a camera?
There are several cheap flip phones with no cameras. Samsung A157 for instance. Google "flip phone without a camera" for a list of several others.
They also have a button you can push to make it say "Get off my lawn".
Seriously, why do you care? If you don't want to use the camera, then just don't use it. If you are worried about the NSA spying, then just tape or epoxy it.
Sensors are Still Too Small (Score:4)
The Pixel 3 photo sensor is still only 1/2.3"... the same as my P&S camera from 2004. It's a phone. The photos are best for snapshots and, if the light is really good, the occasional "serious" photo. Who cares *that* much about image quality? It's still far better than a Kodak Disc camera. Or a 110. (Yes, I'm old.) And the phone is always in your pocket, ready to go.
More important question: when are they going to stop making phones so damned huge? The Internet sucks on a phone. Stop trying to make it a do-all web terminal.
Re: (Score:2)
Okay, okay, I'm getting off your lawn!
Re: (Score:2)
I approve this message.
Damn kids!
Re: (Score:2)
Or a 110. There was one good 110 camera [wikipedia.org] but it was still limited by the tiny 110 format film. I now wonder if I can find some 110 film locally.
Re: (Score:2)
Take a look at this review of the Pixel 2 and the example photos in it:
https://www.dxomark.com/google... [dxomark.com]
That's not a snapshot camera. The results are excellent in a variety of difficult conditions. And presumably the Pixel 3 will be even better.
Best camera is the one you have with you .... (Score:5, Insightful)
Fact: I have no interest in carrying around another Android phone right now. The photos coming from the latest iPhones look excellent. As Apple pointed out in their presentation, even a cover photo for Time magazine was shot with one. So arguing whether or not a Google Pixel has a better camera is, IMO, a bit pointless. I mean, kudos to Google for making that good a camera in their phone .... I just fail to see how it changes anything? Very few people who prefer using iOS to Android's OS would switch products to a Pixel phone just because of the slightly better camera capabilities.
If the camera functionality is THE most critical factor for you? I'm wondering why you didn't invest in an SLR to use for your photography instead? A good SLR will still handily beat even Google's Pixel 3 when it comes out.
iPhone user: camera is crap (Score:2)
It's immensely frustrating and has been going on for years.
https://discussions.apple.com/thread/7691303?page=67 [apple.com]
My 4s took better shots. Even when I look at them on my 6s+ display. I see people complaining about the 7 and 8 with the same issues, and I immediately can tell an iPhone photo when somebody sends it to me.
In anything other than bright daylight, the watercolor effect on the images due to compression are horrible.
I would hate to have to give up the iPhone because I'm sick of the photos of my chi
Re: (Score:2)
So you brought your shit camera instead of your good one and you whiffed the shot. Aren't you kicking yourself.
Re: (Score:2)
I just fail to see how it changes anything?
Because people care very much about the camera in their phone. I suspect the billions in R&D going into smartphone photography isn't based on a hunch.
Very few people who prefer using iOS to Android's OS would switch products to a Pixel phone just because of the slightly better camera capabilities.
You could say the same about any feature. Very few people will switch to Android if it's slightly faster. Slightly easier to use. And so on. If that's true Google should just give up.
I'm wondering why you didn't invest in an SLR to use for your photography instead?
Do you really need to ask why I don't pack around an SLR in a fanny pack with me everywhere I go? Why I don't like to spend an hour uploading the photos from my SLR to my comp
Re: (Score:2)
For some reason Apple phones always have a red tint to their photos. You can see it very clearly in this comparison: https://www.dxomark.com/huawei... [dxomark.com]
Also look at the low light performance. If you like doing night time city shots (I do) then the iPhone's performance is lacking. There is a lot of bloom, artificial smoothing, the colours go completely weird and the highlight/lowlight detail is very limited.
If you really need iOS then okay, your choices are limited, but otherwise there is still a lot of compet
Pixel camera (Score:2)
My girlfriend has the latest iPhone through her work, I have the latest Pixel, whenever we go to use her camera, her comment is "no, use your phone, it takes better photos". We discovered this pretty early on in our relationship, her phone only comes out for photos if mine is across the room or has run out of battery.
If it weren't for the camera, I would just buy any standard $200-class android phone, but since the Pixel takes such fantastic photos, it is worth the extra $400 to have a high quality
Re: (Score:2)
One wonders, if you discovered this pretty early in your relationship, and she’s got the latest iPhone, if you’re actually aware that a new iPhone was announced last week.
Re:Pixel camera (Score:5, Informative)
It may just be that she's outsmarted you....in that if YOU are taking all the pics with your camera, then SHE is more likely to be IN all of the pictures taken when ya'll are out....?
The curse of the photographer, you're never in that many pictures since you're behind the camera 99% of the time.
Re: (Score:2)
My girlfriend
We discovered this pretty early on in our relationship
we own an SLR, it lives in the closet and comes out for weddings and that is just about it.
You've been with here long enough to have a "pretty early on" period of your relationship, you consider an SLR camera to be joint property, and multiple weddings have been attended by one or both of you during your relationship, yet she's still only your girlfriend?
How many more times are you going to make her go through one of her friends' weddings?
How many more times will she have to act happy for someone else while wondering if she'll ever get her turn?
How many more times will she have to laugh off the "
Re: (Score:2)
How many people heard that DLSRs take better pictures, so they went out and bought the cheapest entry level model with a kit lens? It's the glass stupid. If you want good photos, you have to put good glass on that SLR. I think my first lens cost 50% more than the camera body, and it was worth every penny. I don't mind carry it around either, but that's a personal preference.
Pixel 3? (Score:2)
But, Tim Cook does not sell the Pixel 3.
So, what is the point of it?
IIRC (Score:5, Funny)
iPhone's camera is made by Sony.
It's obviously not apple, because apple barely makes anything.
Apple is a software company (Score:2)
It's obviously not apple, because apple barely makes anything.
Apple makes software. They are a software company [youtube.com]. People seem to have a hard time with this concept but it's true. Companies are what they make and what Apple makes and sets their products apart is software. The hardware in an iPhone is really barely different than any similar Android phone. A Mac's hardware is nearly identical to any Windows PC. What Apple sells people is the software in a pretty box. People who think Apple is a hardware company don't understand their business model.
Re: (Score:2)
For a software company, they surely don't write a lot of their software.
The Verge? Oh. Thought we were talking serious... (Score:2)
The Verge is roughly The National Enquirer of Tech Journalism.
Basically you only read their shit if you're a voracious reader, the website was auto-loaded by some ad malware and your internet went down immediately afterward.
Otherwise, you'd get more value out of trying to read used toilet paper.
The best camera? That's easy! ... (Score:2)
I've known several extremely talented photographers over the years, so I don't actually remember which one passed along this tidbit of wisdom... but it stuck with me. No matter how much money you spend on cameras and flashes and props and all that... the very best camera is always incredibly easy to identify: Simply put, it's the one you have with you.
In the long run, it really doesn't matter how much "better" that other camera that you left at home (or didn't buy) is; if that amazing, potentially award wi
The Verge? (Score:4, Insightful)
Yea, pardon me if I really don't trust their judgement.
Re: (Score:2)
Then go with someone more respected: https://www.dxomark.com/catego... [dxomark.com]
Re: (Score:2)
They claimed that their staff got some racist abuse [twitter.com]. Since the original video is gone we can't check the comments on it, but from the video you linked to:
Darkfire gaming
He dosnt know because he is blackï
w00ly mamooth
lol n!gs trying to build pcs
It was a terrible video and all that, but is there really any need to exaggerate their statement about it into a straw man and then link to a video that proves you wrong anyway?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It was a pretty epic fuck-up... I don't know how that ever got past review. They could have just asked one of the many, many Youtube channels that does it all day all week to help them out.
Re: (Score:2)
Best peice of advice... (Score:2)
Nobody cares (Score:2)
If you want a digital camera, or a film camera, or even a motion picture camera ...
Buy one.
This is a smartphone. If you're using it for other things, you probably shouldn't.
I'll be honest, I've actually used a lot of the features of smartphones, but it wasn't why I bought that phone.
What is "Best"? (Score:2)
I don't know how "best" might be defined. Pixels? Resolution? Color quality? At some point, when all the phone cameras are taking good photographs, I don't think it matters much. My iPhone 8 takes very good pictures. My Essential PH1 phone takes very good pictures. Which one is better? Damn if I can tell.
The best camera is the one you have with you all the time; you can have the most phenomenal camera in the universe in your closet at home, but the one you have is better than the one over there
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
From an optical standpoint, smartphone cameras are shit, all of them. Good cameras need big lenses and big sensors. Quantum physics told us that light has a size, its wavelength, and it comes in small packets called photons, it means you can't expect to make a camera smaller and expect the same quality as something bigger.
The reason smartphones are able to take decent pictures is all about photo-processing. There is analog and digital image processing in the camera itself, plus additional processing by the
Re: (Score:2)
If Apple didnt have such an established (and well-earned) reputation no one would even be having this discussion.
Re: (Score:2)
I've seen some comparisons of Pixel 2 with various other high end phone cameras, and it does seem like the processing software of the Pixel 2 makes better decisions a lot of the time when you just leave them set to auto mode. But in side by side comparison photos taken in high light level conditions where post-processing contributes less of the end result, you can often see that competitors have sharper focus due to their better quality lenses (not specifically talking about Apple here), and by changing se
Re: (Score:2)
Apple's photo-processing makes the best pictures.
That seems unlikely.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Processing depends on what your goals are "out of the box". You can apply a noise filter, up edge sharpness, increase the saturation to make things more vivid, etc.... but you can also do that in post. On the other hand, such filtering can throw out real details and is not always desirable. On the opposite end of the spectrum, unfiltered HDR images can look washed out and grainy, but you'll get the best results if you use them as a starting point for further processing.
A good comparison between heavy fil