help out to find best phone for photography in all conditions
Printable View
help out to find best phone for photography in all conditions
Buy a cheaper phone and get a half decent prosumer compact camera or a mirrorless one??
Phones are limited by the fact they use tiny sensors,and the best phones ever made for photography,ie,the Nokia Lumia 920,1020 and Panasonic CM1 used above average sized sensors.
The CM1 will be the best phone for photography but uses an old version of Android and has been discontinued now. It uses a 1" sensor which is a few times bigger than a normal phone sensor.
I would probably get a decent phone like one of the Moto G models - India has some specific models like the Moto G Turbo for example and the Lenovo K5 Plus which have fairly decent cameras for daytime use.
I would then use the money saved over a high end phone to buy a Sony RX100.
As Cat says. The best phone camera with a fixed focus lens and small sensor will never give as good a result as a proper camera - at least for anything other than a snapshot or something for social media, or if you are going to look at it on a smallish screen.
The camera on the motog2 is OK for that, and in good light I have taken some good landscapes where the detail is less important than the overall effect.
That said, I have seen some quite good live video from an iPhone (using specialised streaming software) and it gives reasonably good results if there is nothing better (I have seen it used for electronic news gathering) but it is limited compared with a purpose designed video camera, or 'still' camera with video capability.
The top ranked phone camera according to DXOMark is the Google Pixel. You can see the testing here:
https://www.dxomark.com/Mobiles
I have seen pictures from that both,the CM1 has the same sensor as the RX100,so is decent in low light and has excellent dynamic range. The Nokia 1020,has a 1/1.2" sensor,but in lower MP modes its pictures have amazing sharpness and it has probably the best implementation of digital zoom ever made.
DXO never tested the CM1,but the Nokia 1020 was rated similar to the Fujifilm FinePix S100fs which is actually a decent bridge camera from a few years before(a 2/3" sensor camera). This was before they did the phone only tests.
Here is a CM1 review:
https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/pan...mera-review/10
It also a dedicated shutter button so can be used like a normal compact.
But TBH,I would probably just look for a decent prosumer compact or mirrorless camera.
You pay a huge premium for a better phone camera,and the problem is every time you upgrade you keep paying that premium.
The 13MP and 16MP cameras on the Moto G and Lenovo K5 series are good enough for general purpose stuff,but if you truly want something more adaptable,a decent 1" sensor compact or a mirrorless camera would be a better choice IMHO OFC.
I've done away with compact cameras and use my iPhones when my SLR is inconvenient and truth be told, just about any of the latest smart phones will be more that satisfactory for most users and the top of the range smart phones are so close in terms of image quality that you're better off finding a couple phones that suit you first and foremost (in terms of phone features) then compare the image quality of the smaller selection.
One of the old manual circular dial ones. Ideally polished black. You should get lovely arty low-range shots of it in all light conditions - try putting bright rear light and a remote flash at 45 degrees via a diffuser, mist it with light water drops, and use a low angle of perspective stopped right down, f2-3 on macro lens. B&W or careful colour grading for some iconic portfolio stuff. Nice.
Lol, had to read that twice before I got it! :stupid:Quote:
Originally Posted by ik9000
I've got a micro-four-thirds camera, which can get _very_ compact. But are still something else to carry around. The saying goes, the best camera is the one you have with you. And I'm often without mine, but rarely without my phone.
That said, I don't tend to need my camera when I take photos with my phone, as the subject matter is generally not something that warrants the use of a dedicated camera. If there is a situation where a dedicated camera might be useful, I tend to take it.
I was going to suggest the Moto Z with the Hasselblad Moto Mod added on, but reading the reviews, it doesn't seem all that great.
The 1020 gets a good mention for a reason, it's amazing for a phone. It's also slow. Very slow.
I've a Lumia 950 and I must admit the camera is amazingly good for a phone, even the HDR+ Flash mode that allows you to adjust how much "flash" is used (two photos stitched with software blending).
The Lumia range are far above anything in Android (and I've a pixel too) or iPhone have to offer in low light or macro circumstances. In broad daylight landscapes there is little to tell apart (unless you've a 1020 which makes other phones feel like a knife to a gun fight).
The real question is, what kind of photography are you doing, or wanting to do?
If you want manual settings, probably the LG V20, for automatic mode I would opt for Samsung S7 / iPhone 7 plus, depending on output preference (saturated/high contrast or natural looking)
This post's question has prompted me to look at new phones as my Xperia Z3 screen is just a bit too teeny for my sight and so I might upgrade,
Thought it would be straight forward going for Xperia Z5 or XZ, but their camera has got such poor reviews.
The LG V20 on paper looks like it should be so much better, especially the extra wide screen lens - I hope that it's not poor software that gets fixed after I've got a new phone.
Google Pixel and Iphone 7 Plus are the only two candidates IMO.
Having read a fair number of reviews, objectively the Iphone is the better choice, but as usual techies hate Apple - me included - and so all the reviews are biased towards the Pixel.
If I can get a good deal, I'm going to go for the Pixel XL - need the bigger screen and bigger battery - though I've just noticed that there is no memory slot, nor is the battery replaceable.
Moto X play is a great phone for taking photos.
No one has released a serious camera centric phone for a while. The Nokia 808 i have still beats current flagships in that department.
Up until 2015 yes. But the iPhone 7 plus and similar dual lense camera phones have moved a step beyond now.Quote:
Originally Posted by krazy_olie
iPhone is bringing a knife to a gunfight when it comes to it's camera. Still not as good as the 808 from years ago, let alone the 1020.Quote:
Originally Posted by walibe
Heck didn't they only just add RAW shooting.
I completely disagree. 1020 perhaps but not the 808. Still impressive that a 4/5 year old camera phone is that good and much of what has been achieved with the twin lense phones is the software. No doubt Nokia would be miles ahead if they were still around but the reality is they were awful or seriously outdated smart phones purely down to the OS.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheAnimus
Very few people have need for raw shooting at this point of the market. At the end of the day these are replacing point and shoot cameras (which lets be honest, they have pretty much achieved that) not SLRs.
My opinion is iPhone is the best Phone for Photography and also for using.
http://www.androidcentral.com/best-smartphone-camera
Blind test with unlabelled photos and randomised sequence of order pitted the Samsung Galaxy S7, LG V20, Apple iPhone 7 and Microsoft Lumia 950 against each other. The public voted the S7 as best overall camera.
I had a chance to use my recently purchased S7 in a real world scenario yesterday, taking photos from my 1 year old's birthday party. Coming from a Nexus 5 was a revelation - it's made me realise how important shutter lag and speed of auto focus are to capturing the moment - there's a number photos I wouldn't have achieved at all with the Nexus 5.
The speed of focus on this thing puts my Mirrorless to shame.
I honestly see zero point spending £100s of extra on a "better camera phone" when there are plenty for decent phones under £250. Its a bloody con - it means every time you spend £400 to £700 on a phone you have to buy another similar one. If you just bought a cheaper phone and a better camera it would cost you less. Something like an RX100 would have much better image quality and last you years and my XT10 cost £340 and has better image quality than any camera phone out there - people who have seen the pictures from the Fuji think they are awesome. Plus modern mirrorless cameras have wifi so its not even that hard to upload pics to social media if you want to do that.
For social media and general stuff even the 13MP camera on my Moto G 3rd gen is more than enough. I calculated after a couple of years of not buying high end disposable camera phones I would probably be able to buy a proper camera which I can actually print nice pictures from - which is what I prefer doing. If you are not then seriously anything over a few MP is wasted.
Most social media sites and apps will automatically downsize full res pics anyway.
Edit!!
Plus the sensors are tiny. Most use 1/3.2" sensors which are found in sub £100 compacts and they tend to use very basic lens designs. To make up for the image quality issues they do a lot of post processing in the phone to make the images look better. Plus the DR is still horrible in many pictures - they keep cramming more and more MP into these tiny sensors. I am seriously disappointed by the image quality of modern high end camera-phones and I expected much better than now. The image quality in low light and DR still isn't very good and they are relying on the IS to work round it with lower shutter speeds,which has the issue it adds image blur if you subject is not still enough.
Firstly, My Galaxy S7 cost me £320.
Secondly it's in my pocket and ready to capture a photo within 2 seconds, unlike an RX100.
Thirdly I want to the best possible photos from my phone and I'm willing pay extra for it. My kids will only grow up once and I want to document their early childhood in the best possible quality
Also it's down to personal choice and I choose to spend £320 to get the best camera phone available.
Here's a few sample photos:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/o83rey6bvh...15.11.jpg?dl=0
https://www.dropbox.com/s/46qz0trtxz...35.26.jpg?dl=0
https://www.dropbox.com/s/1k6op83sz6...06.28.jpg?dl=0
https://www.dropbox.com/s/r3kedwo0nf...52.50.jpg?dl=0
https://www.dropbox.com/s/rgsxbp7iq5...02.58.jpg?dl=0
My XT10 cost me £340 in total and will do better in almost any situation than ANY camera phone. It will be better in low light than any smartphone. The image stabilisation is ridiculously good on the lens - I could get down to silly low shutter speeds but then the high ISO performance is very good too.Quote:
Originally Posted by cptwhite_uk
Plus more importantly - the OP is from India so I expect he will be paying Indian prices.
I went to comic con recently - the people with even decentish smartphones were struggling in the light inside the NEC. I could literally get a picture of a cosplayer before they had even managed to get the phone to focus. Plus with the fact it actually had a zoom I could change the perspective of the shot.
My last dSLR lasted 6 years and still works. It cost me £230.
My Moto G 3rd gen cost me £135 and is more than good enough to get good pictures at most of the social events I went to. It actually has the same sensor off the Nexus 6 phone.
Plus I had an S95 in my bag when I went to work which I used for 5 years and I never once missed a shot even when travelling to work and that cost £100 new. Before that I had a Canon S60 which lasted me 5 years before and cost me £120 in total new. I always had a reasonable compact in my bag.
The RX100 at one point could be had for £200 and it will last much longer than your phone or any smartphone that I will use.
Camera lifespans are not in two year periods but much longer.
If you want to pay £100s for a tiny 1/3.2" ~ 1/2.4" sensor then be my guest - every shot you make will be stuck at between 26MM ~ 30MM depending on the phone you get. They will look all the same.
Having access to different focal lengths and indeed being able to have a shallow depth of field actually means you actually try something different instead of every shot look virtually the same.
This is why I am so disappointed with the current smartphones - all they are doing is relying on fake DoF effects,etc to save money on actually investing in proper optics. Plenty of these expensive smartphones could be engineered to use folded optics:
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PROD...v570_lens1.jpg
There is so much they could do to properly innovate - but it seems to cut on hardware costs,they just implement gimmick after gimmick. They could invest in larger imaging chips,but don't since they cost more.
Most of my friends who actually wanted to document their kids lives actually did buy decent cameras or lenses - my mate even invested in a Sigma 18-35MM/F1.8 for his kids pictures on his D3300.
Lenses can last decades.
Edit!!
Plus this is the other problem - every time you get a new phone you are throwing the camera away. Over 10 year period you have probably spent more than getting a half decent camera system.
This is why the profit margins on higher end phones is so high.
So we can agree to disagree - instead of spending loads on an expensive smartphone,I would buy a much cheaper one,invest in a prosumer compact and dump it in the bag and be done with it.
Its what I have done for nearly 15 years and its worked fine for me so far. I don't want to get trapped into the repeated upgrade cycles with smartphones and tablets.
YMMV,but that is my take on it.
Plus one more thing - the OP is from India. The S7 on Amazon India is 43000 Rupees:
http://www.amazon.in/Samsung-Galaxy-.../dp/B01DBK3ECG
So around £530.
The Moto G phones in India cost relatively less there than in the UK.
The Moto G Plus is around 14000 Rupees:
http://www.amazon.in/Moto-Plus-4th-G...eywords=moto+g
This is £172.
There are specific India only models like the Moto G Turbo:
http://www.amazon.in/Moto-G-Turbo-Wh...s=moto+g+turbo
This is an upspecced Moto G3 with a Qualcomm 600 series chipset from the higher Motorola phones which was never sold in Europe.
That is £123.
Now if you go to shops in the subcontinent you can possibly try and get a better deal.
A Sony RX100 starts at 29000 Rupees:
http://www.amazon.in/Sony-Cybershot-...rds=sony+rx100
You can get an RX100 and a Moto G Plus for the price of a Samsung S7 if you buy off Amazon.
The OP gets a smartphone with a reasonably fine camera and has a 1" prosumer compact with a great lens.
Sure a Moto G is hardly going to look that cool and srubbishrubbishrubbishrubbishy,but I would take a Moto G and a RX100 over a "premium" smartphone. Thats just me though.
:rolleyes:
This is why I tried to avoid arguing with you CAT, you can't just accept the S7 is the best choice for me, or that my preferences would be different to yours.
As already outlined I wanted the best smart phone camera, a blind test suggested this is the case in real world use. I don't carry a dedicated camera around with me so all your suggestions for a dedicated camera are instantly moot - they're too heavy and bulky, require dedicated charges, carry cases, and physical connections to transfer media - none of which I want. Even compact prosumer like the RX100.
Photo quality is only one aspect of the equation. While dedicated cameras will have good auto focus speeds and low shutter lag, they won't be in my pocket to capture the moment along with many other negatives, so yeah...a phone camera is what I want given my requirements.
I appreciate your frustration at the lack of camera phone innovation, but that's where the market is at.
Folded / diffractive optics do have a penalty though in fringing, and aberation - and you get weird ghosting effects on out-of-focus areas. Check out the doughnut bokeh on the canon 70-300DO for example.
Isn't that pot calling kettle black??Quote:
Originally Posted by cptwhite_uk
You seem to be determine to push that the ONLY way forward to capture impromptu pictures is with a high end smart phone.
You don't seem to want to except a cheaper phone will do most of the same job for normal stuff and that a compact like an RX100 will outperform a high end smart phone 90% of the time.
At Indian prices the s7,etc are ridiculously expensive and they carry a bigger premium than the UK over cheaper phones. They are considered status symbol devices so will hold that premium in Asia.
I think you don't appreciate how good the image quality of cheaper phones is now.
Then why are so against cheaper phones like the Moto G,etc??Quote:
Originally Posted by cptwhite_uk
Again you don't seem to appreciate a basic thing here - I know Samsung and Apple spend millions or billions on marketing trying to push that if you don't have a camera phone you suddenly will miss all the photos you could take on the spur of the moment.
The issue it is funny that people seem to make up all these weird excuses why a compact won't work - when decades of people carrying around compacts and small cameras seems to contradict what all the marketing seems to push.
I appreciate that it's a lovely phone - but £530 Vs £135~£170 is a huge premium for the OP.
Do you honestly think before smart phones people only happened to take pictures when they decided to go on a "photographic trip". Going back to the 1960s you had tiny cameras like the Rollei 35,etc which were so small literally anybody could throw one in their bag or pocket and have it with them 24/7.
People have been taking impromptu pictures decades ago.
So how come I had a compact with me the last 14 to 15 years stashed away in my bag or in my pocket when I went to work or went out for a walk?? I had my S95 in my pocket 80% of the time. I had an S60 and various other compacts,etc.
I used to live in London,so took many impromptu pictures - I still don't undertstand why suddenly a compact it some big issue to carry about,especially since I am hardly a 6 FOOT person having trousers with large pockets.
Heck,I still remember walking into Leicester square to meet a mate and happened to see George Lucas there - if it were not for the zoom on the camera I would never had taken that picture.
Plus for all those less quality dependent scenarios I found my old phone seems more than good enough.
^^ Case in point. I'm not biting.
Diffractivr optics on the latest. Nikon stuff like the 300mm do lens seems fine out side of the bokeh but tbh bokeh on tiny sensors is not really that great due to the high depth of field and small focal lengths.Quote:
Originally Posted by ik9000
The major issue with folded optics will be fringing due to the mirror assembly but most of the designs used came out before sony moved to SLT designs,so I expect modern hardware and software will be able to negate most of that.
In fact most modern phones and cameras do significant image processing anyway to correct the final image. On the consumer side Olympus were the first to that with an interchangable system in 2004. Many modern lenses are actually optically imperfect before final corrections and are designed that way.
What case in point - more pot calling kettle black. You make up weird points to say how a compact or a cheaper phone won't work and to avoid actually talking about anything you make it about the person. I love how on purpose you forgot the OP is from India where the s7 is £530 and the phones i suggested start at £135 and are cheaper than in the UK.Quote:
Originally Posted by cptwhite_uk
This is about the best all round advice for the OP - you are annoyed since i suggested that your device is not the best for the job. I don't even own an rx100 myself (s95 will do the job). Heck even my phone is OLD. Even my suggestion of the Moto G is based on the cheaper Indian models there and does not include all the Chinese phones from oppo, huawei,etc which have a far more greater push there but i have less experience with them.. I mean i just looked at some pics from a P9 LITE yesterday which a relative bought and they are better than my phone. £125 from EE at the time.
Its all down to personal preference or what you can afford. Most shutterbugs will stick to a dedicated camera(Mirror less or DSLR) with a phone as back up. While some folks are quite happy with the camera on their phones.
Each to his or her own.
Personally I prefer a combination.
Hope the OP makes the best decision that suits them.
I've still got the Nokia 1020, that used to be the king of cameras on a phone. Since owning the S7, might fine camera in any lighting condition, iPhone 7 Plus isn't too far behind it.
To be fair, the OP didn't ask for the 'best value for money in the region I live' or ask for the best device for taking photographs - he specifically asked for the best phone camera for taking photographs in all conditions.Quote:
Originally Posted by CAT-THE-FIFTH
Such a wide remit is bound to generate a variety of responses because no smartphone is going to compete with a conventional camera in all conditions!
Asking a question like that is like asking what the best graphics card/hdd/sad etc is, without specifying the type of use it will get.
cptwhite_UK described what works for him and why, others (including me) have said what phones we use to give acceptable results for the use we put it. My smartphone is infinitely inferior to my Olympus C50 - when I am under 20 metres of water, simply because I have a waterproof housing for the C50, but not the phone. On the other hand, if I'm wearing a pair of shorts and a polo shirt, the phone slips into a pocket, while the C50 doesn't.
With such an open ended question, it seems reasonable to assume that the poster is not constrained by budget issues, although it is worth remembering that many medium priced phones will give results as good as or close to more expensive models.
How is that any different from somebody coming here and saying they want a Titan XP and a Core i7 6800K for running WoW at 2560p and somebody else says,wait a second you can buy a £240 Core i5 7600K and a £400 GTX1070 should do the job for much less??Quote:
Originally Posted by peterb
The OP needs to be made aware of what is available out there,and the disadvantages of even "high end" phones or even that a much cheaper phone might be sufficient too. Remember we have these questions all the time on here with computers - people thinking they need a £250 motherboard when an £80 one will be fine.
The thing is I have mates who have a whole load of "higher end" smart phones too including the S6 series,various iPhones,OnePlus models,Nokia 1020,etc. AT actually rated the S6 as having better image quality in a number of situations than the S7. I am not making the statement through just ignorance - I do that through actually looking at some pictures people have taken.
How do we know whether the OP has even considered a compact and thinks their ONLY option for a smallish camera is either a phone or an ILC of some sort?? A lot of people might not even be aware of 1" sensor compacts at all - I remember doing direct comparisons between the 1/2.3" and 1/1.7" Canon compacts of the same generation and it was noticeable how much better the latter cameras were. Most people's experience with compacts was not with the larger sensor models anyway.
The fact of the matter is you are comparing a sensor over 4 times larger,a massively bigger aperture(much more light),an F1.8 lens together with image stabilisation. The RX100 sensor can be pushed to much higher ISO and it will have better DR.
The thing is the difference is still huge - £350 to £400 going to a higher end phone. Phones are far more disposable than compacts - the RX100 has been built for nearly 5 years now,which shows how sound the basic design is. The Olympus C50 is like 13 years old and I had the Optio 450 and Canon S60 which uses similar generation Sony sensors so I know the image quality(got some good pics with them). Trust me when I tell you you can use the RX100 at ISO 1600 and ISO 3200 and it blows my S95 out of the water once the ISO goes up(it also has OIS) and that is using newer tech too.
From the Imaging Resource review:
Unlike most review sites,they still print their images.Quote:
Though its official base ISO starts at 125, the Sony RX100's ISO 80 images looked good printed at 24 x 36 inches. Color was muted, particularly yellows and greens, as we also found in our MacBeth test target.
ISO 125 shots also looked quite good at 24 x 36, with excellent detail, but the muted color persisted.
ISO 200 images also looked very good at 24 x 36, if a little softer than ISO 125. Not enough to require a smaller print size.
ISO 400 images printed very nicely at 20 x 30 inches, with sharp detail.
ISO 800 shots were soft enough at 20 x 30 that we preferred the 16 x 20-inch prints, though we'd still call the 20 x 30-inch prints usable for most subjects. By ISO 800, the red leaf swatch appeared soft.
ISO 1,600 shots are usable at 13 x 19 inches, but look better at a still fairly large 11 x 14 inch size. The red leaf swatch was somewhat soft at this point.
ISO 3,200 images look good at 8 x 10 inches, with the exception of the difficult red leaf swatch.
ISO 6,400 images are a bit soft for 8 x 10 inch prints, but look quite good at 5 x 7 inches.
Overall, the Sony RX100 stands out as a pocket camera that can produce good quality 24 x 36 inch prints from ISO 80 to 200, and even its highest ISO of 6,400 outputs a good quality 5 x 7. Impressive!
To put that in context,an RX100 will produce a decentish A3 print at ISO 1600.
We need to consider Asia has different SKUs than here - the Moto G was a prime example of it. The Moto G Turbo was the same price as my OLD 3rd gen Moto G in the UK,but had the SOC from the Moto X Play which was £250+ and it also had quick charge.,etc.
Then you need to consider Chinese companies have far more market penetration too,so there is a huge range of phones to look at. I would say the sub-continent market is actually more crowded than here,so there might be actually quite decentish Chinese or local phones too.
This is why I mentioned it,as we are making assumptions based on UK positioning for example.
On a side note from the OP,one of my mates was all into upgrading to the latest and greatest iPhone every year,until I pointed him to an offer on a higher end X series prosumer compact. The thing is he keeps looking at the latest iPhone and thinks,his old X series camera is still better and nicer to use(people even on and off ask to have a go on it,since it looks olde worlde),and then he saw me using an XT10 at the latest comic-con,and the camera was doing far better under the challenging light than all the people with their smartphones and now he has pretty much sold on getting one,and going to use the iPhone until it breaks.
That is the main issue I have - its why I never bought a Nokia 1020(also the OS on that one too) or even the CM1(I could have got one for £250 new) - unless I want to stop updating my phone,I know as time progresses it will become a paper weight. The problem is if you don't update it,you will start to have issues running newer software and you will have more security holes. Then you are stuck replacing it with another expensive phone a few years later.
Then the other problem of phones - you have a much higher chance of dropping the thing anyway,and this is why you see so many people with cracks,etc on their latest iPhone,Galaxy S,HTC,etc especially with the sort of geocaching type of stuff I do. I found the "cheap" plastic phones seem to survive drops and bumps far better than the metal ones I had.
Plus a decade ago,you used to get the phones cheap via a 12 month subsidised contract,so you got a nice new higher phone every 12 months and it worked out much cheaper than buying a phone up front. Now you either have to stump a large amount upfront or get caught into 24 month contracts since the networks don't subsidise phones as much now.
Its why I look at these "high end" phones and seem to be continually disappointed by them - I personally think we need much more competition in the high end market. The marketing seems more than the sum of their parts sadly.
It is different because the OP didn't ask about specific models - he asked a general question. to use your example - had he asked "is x brand better than y brand" then your analogy would be true. It is unfortunate that the OP has not been back to clarify his requirement in the ligtof posts here though.Quote:
Originally Posted by CAT-THE-FIFTH
Its perfectly reasonable to point out the alternatives - but the OPs question was specifically about phones - and the 'best' - whatever that means.
Your arguments about not updating/buying a high end phone might be perfectly reasonable for you - but they might not be applicable to the OP. :)
And you are quite right about other phones available in the OPs area that are not in the UK market - but this is a UK based sight although we do have an international readership, but contributors can only comment on what they know and what works for them.
Except we get plenty of people asking for high end gaming rigs that they want to game at XYZ resolution for a few years - how many here will say,get a GTX1080TI instead of a Titan X/XP since it is 90% of the Titan XP or don't get this Intel CPU since this cheaper one is 90% of it for less. Oh I want the best £300 motherboard - here is a £150 which does most of it. Or that £400 RAM set - that £150 one does the same job.Quote:
Originally Posted by peterb
I am sorry but I have not once recommended a Titan over a 80TI card EVER even on an uber budget build. I don't see the point of spending significantly more to get small improvements especially with the short lifespan of a lot of stuff. This is something I have not hidden for years.
Also, the whole not applicable stuff - remember when I started on Hexus,people were arguing with me when suggesting AMD CPUs,since they were not applicable to gaming since Intel was the only option as it was "the best". Yeah,I still remember the massive arguments over that too.
But the problem is again,I have tried many higher end phones out, making up a 100000 excuses why the alternative to one won't work - yet I am not the only one who actually has used smallish high end compacts(even back in the film days) and had no issues carrying them about.
:)
Plus its all a moot point if people don't even print the image at a reasonable size- this defeats the whole objective of worrying about image quality especially when most social media sites compress them down more,so a cheaper phone will probably suffice.
Also don't try to make it about me - I am more perplexed since plenty of people have HUGE MASSIVE phones nowadays which need bigger pockets than most of the compacts I am talking about. Even some of the best selling high end phones are over 5.5" in screen size,the exploding Samsung was huge, with people carrying small external batteries to recharge their phone on the go,or these attachments:
http://thewirecutter5.wpengine.netdn...owres-8648.jpg
or a selfie stick!! Yes,people do carry these bits around.
How did people manage before all these high end smartphones - when I actually lived in London and got some of these impromptu pictures when walking to work,etc. Apparently this is not possible since cameras are too large and big to use.
So again I am not sure why I need to be recommending a £500 smartphone,which will be obsolete much quicker than a decentish compact whilst ignoring cheaper phones in the same breath.
Sorry,I am not going to push something that costs more and has worse image quality just to keep up.
Oh another thing:
http://www.zdnet.com/article/smartph...g-your-iphone/
This is what I have been saying all along - the new models are drip fed improvements over older ones,there is a lack of innovation and cheaper phones are eating away sales of high end ones.Quote:
Big brands are finding it harder to persuade users to upgrade to the latest models, while cheaper rivals make a breakthrough.
Quote:
If you look at why people are extending lifecycles -- it's about the innovation of today and the benefits of upgrading," Cozza said, arguing that many don't see a benefit in upgrading their iPhone or Samsung Galaxy on a yearly basis because vendors are losing the ability to "show value" in their yearly product updates.
However, while Apple and Samsung are struggling to convince us to buy their latest phones -- especially as high prices can put consumers off -- Chinese manufacturers Huawei, Oppo, and Xiamoi have experienced a significant growth in sales
Oh,wait what was I saying??Quote:
In terms of predicting the future, it looks as if there's a growing divide between the dirt-cheap manufacturers and firms that are still producing higher-end Android phones. Huawei, ZTE, TCL and Micromax are all considered success stories having turned their attentions to India and other emerging markets. Sony, HTC and Samsung, to a lesser extent, are all marked down as losers that "struggled to achieve growth at the high end of the market."
The fact that older phones can even compete,and that a number of old compacts are still better,should set alarm bells ringing and just shows how much Samsung,Apple,LG,etc are taking customers for a ride and the market is slowly starting to respond. They could easily have better cameras,zooms,etc considering how much money they have,but they choose not to since reheating what stuff they have lying around as the latest is far cheaper.
Seriously if somebody told me 10 years ago in 2017 people would be spending at least a £200 to £300(or more) premium on going from having a camera with a 1/3.2" sensor to a 1/2.3" one with no zoom,and a very basic lens design,even more money on extension lenses,etc I would honestly think they were joking.
However,considering how well Beats has done,I shouldn't be surprised! ;)
Over and out!
So I decided to check if I was being unfair about the cost of the cameras.
No I wasn't.
Samsung S7 camera
http://www.gsmarena.com/samsung_gala...news-17222.php
iPhone 7Quote:
The 12MP camera with Dual Pixel tech costs nearly $14
http://uk.businessinsider.com/iphone...16-9?r=US&IR=T
https://petapixel.com/2016/10/22/iph...-26-9-5-phone/
https://www.dpreview.com/news/485202...-material-cost
The cameras come to around $20 to $26.
P9 Lite
http://blog.ihs.com/huawei-p9-smartp...nd-some-misses
Similar cost for the cameras.
Google Pixel
http://www.businesswire.com/news/hom...ost-Line-Rival
The cameras are just under $20.
These are all mass produced units in these phones and more importantly are probably not the pricing for large customers from the OEMs either(who probably order millions of these).
Even though marketing might say one thing I would argue that a fair chunk of the R and D cost for the camera modules is going to be borne by the OEMs who sell the completed units to the phone companies and have to be involved in the actual design process,and companies like Sony,etc who develop the actual imaging chips. Things like chip fabrication plants and optics factories probably have a large sunk cost on top of this and Samsung and Apple are known to drive OEMs hard on costs too.
In fact most of the increased BOM of a high end smart phone is down to things like processor,chipset,wireless bits and display.
CAT, I appreciate your commitment to maximising value or required performance for a particular goal. I love the fact you go into so much depth and would argue your corner until the end of time. However you do need to take a couple of points on board, and instead of running off with cost analysis examples please give them a fair hearing and consider what I'm saying.
1) Your idea of best value, or best course of action isn't necessary the correct or best solution for everyone. For example I explicitly stated I simply want the best smartphone camera. For me, the Galaxy S7 is the ideal package for everyday use. The quality, in my opinion, is good enough. It also ticks all the other criteria I'm after. I appreciate it's not the best value, best quality in a given price bracket or your personal preference but for me, personally, it is.
2) Value for money isn't everything to all people. Yes I like a bargain as much as the next person, but in the case of the phone camera I carry with me at all times, I'm happy to spend the extra to get the very best quality. Even if on a cost/performance metric it's not the best. I want that that little bit better quality in low light and consistency the S7 gives as opposed to the Oneplus 3T, Moto X, LG G6, or Sony equivalent.
3) Try and not take things personally. I don't see any contradiction with the views I expressed, and it seems to me you implied some of my opinions by yourself that I didn't even state. Comments like:
This isn't the case for everyone, but for myself it is my preferred solution due to the fact I don't want to carry around any kind of dedicated camera equipment full time, as I already expressed. I never stated it was the only way to capture impromptu pictures, you assumed this yourself.Quote:
You seem to be determine to push that the ONLY way forward to capture impromptu pictures is with a high end smart phone.
I wish to draw a line to this ridiculous debate and have us just accept we have differences of opinion due to different priorities in our photography and leave it at that.
I'd appreciate you replying to address these points outlined, but just to be clear I won't be continuing this debate beyond acknowledging your response. I have a full time job and 2 kids, and simply can't dedicate the time and research to a debate that you apparently can. Try to chill out a bit, we're not enemies here.
Peterb - thanks for your contribution and sanity also.
Like everyone else says, a Mirrorless Camera or DSLR would be best but if you have to go for a phone camera, my vote would go for either the LG G5 or G6! Nice f1.8 aperture camera on the back of them and manual controls!
Aw, does that mean that you're not going to say what you ended up getting?Quote:
Originally Posted by cptwhite_uk
Such a shame when responders polarised views put a forum off topic - so few responses talking about camera on phone :(
I haven\'t got myself a new phone yet.
I\'ve decided against the Google Pixel XL - handling one in a shop didn\'t impress me enough.
Half thinking about the Xperia XZ Premium, but if it\'s not available before my holiday in May, then I\'ll probably check the Note 8 later in the year - hopefully the dual lens rumours will come true.
I have just bought myself a new compact camera - not too awkward to carry around when you\'re wearing a coat, but I won\'t be generally using it when the weather is warm enough not to need a coat, unless I\'m carrying a bag/backpack for some other reason - too used to the portable convenience of a phone\'s camera.
My always available Xperia Z3 is still taking very excellent snaps, so that\'ll have to do for now.
I personally love my DSLR and use it a lot, but there are so many times when I don\'t have it with my and see something that I have to photograph on my iPhone. It\'s nowhere near as good as my DSLR with a 24-70mm f2.8l lens on, but it\'s better then nothing. In-fact lots of famous photographers have done exhibitions from phone cameras!
Quote:
Originally Posted by snedger
Going back to the original question, Google's image processing is undoubtedly the best in the game. I find iPhone cameras to produce lack-luster images, with very bland colours; often described as neutral (but boring, nevertheless).
The S7 while good, I feel isn't as good as the Pixels, and certainly not as versatile as the G6 with its wide angle lens. So it's up to you, OP, as to whether you want point and shoot results with great image quality, or don't mind spending a little more time perfecting your shots (LG G6), but having a broader range of scenarios you can use it in.
Look down the market range especially in terms of AF and image quality. Look at the G5 Plus for example:
https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/len...essions-review
Smartphones won't produce a decent image in all conditions - they lack DR,and they have to rely on various tricks,etc to try and produce decent images in low light. If you can run a smartphone with a largish screen,then I really honestly think people over estimate the size of cameras now.Quote:
12MP CMOS sensor with 1.4µm pixel size
F1.7 aperture
On-sensor phase detection
People are selling the OP a dream which won't work out in reality. OP can have the best of both worlds on a £500 budget - those 1" cameras will can be used up to ISO3200 and have OIS.
Edit!!
Lets look at the size comparisons.
Here is the older gen phone I have with a 5" screen:
https://i.imgur.com/uBmwNVi.jpg
Many have screens which are much bigger.
That top camera in silver is a Fuji Tiara which I used to carry about before digital was affordable. My S95 was smaller than that and an RX100 slightly smaller. My wallet is bigger than the camera.
My phone is not big - yet I need bigger pockets to carry one than the camera. Most of the higher end phones are bigger.
That black and red box is an external battery which I carry around when geocaching,etc,since these destroy battery life and I walk sometimes a few dozen km with that in my pocket.
I am not a 6 footer so I don't have big pockets,but I still carry that and my wallet and my phone fine. I have seen plenty of people carry smaller power packs due to things like Pokeman Go,etc...in their pockets.
So I am trying to figure out how a small compact is suddenly a massive problem.
I get what you're saying CAT, and I agree with half the stuff you've said. But also, you must remember, not everyone carries a camera round with them, and the best camera you own is the one you have on you at the time. There ARE good cameras that do the job, but OP asked for the BEST SMARTPHONE camera.
For a smartphone, it's not all to do with the sensor, as I'm sure you know. LG have proven this, as have motorola, in opposite ways. LG's G6 uses a 'mediocre' sensor, a takes, in my opinion, fantastic pictures for a quick point and shoot, and the Motorola G5 Plus uses the same sensor as the S7, but takes very underwhelming photos in comparison.
I've contemplated getting an RX100 second hand to take pictures, but get put off by the thought of having to carry around another sizeable tech device, that I have to charge up and buy SD cards for.
I'd rather spend the extra cash on a phone, get 90% of the picture quality for a similar price, and not have the faff of carrying multiple devices around. If everyone bought the best device for each function, heck we'd be walking round with a music player, satellite phone, camera, multiple lenses etc etc, but people, on the whole, just want the one devices that's 90% as good. And you may argue why not just get a budget phone with cameras that are good enough, and it's because budget phones are budget for a reason, less time spent on software optimisation, and less on materials.
For me, 400 quid on an S7 edge over 200 on a budget phone and 200+ on a second hand camera.
Also, I've used a TZ70 as a point and shoot for a number of days, and while it's a great camera (Smaller sensor than an RX100 I know, but they're gold dust), I just didn't feel for every days quick shots, or 4K video recording it was as good. I had to play around with the settings more than I otherwise would and it's just hassle.
Because it necessities the need to carry two items around with you, as opposed to one. Assuming like most people in the real world you do carry a phone with you at all times.
Ive just been comparing photos taken with my iPhone and the from my 2004 Olympus C50 at a then respectable 5 Megapixel. Its difficult to tell the difference for point and press - the Olympus has slightly more vibrant blues - but under good light the results are comparable. Zooming is much better on the Olympus - optical zoom so Im not sacrificing pixels for the zoom effect, and I guess low light performance would be better - but for convenience (as others have said) the phone wins because it is nearly always in my pocket - the Olympus (or my main camera, a Canon 5D) isn't. But if Im going out specifically to take photos - then its the compact or DSLR depending on the circumstance.
People are carrying massive phablets - they need far more space,and what about all those extension lenses,selfie sticks and external batteries?? I see people carrying bits and pieces for their phones.Quote:
Originally Posted by cptwhite_uk
Its very easy to compare. Most of the smartphones use 1/2.3" BSI sensors of 12MP~16MP which interestingly are similar to many of the consumer orientated compacts. The 1" sensors are 4 to 5 times larger - DR is not only better,but ISO 1600 and ISO 3200 are usable.Quote:
Originally Posted by MrRockliffe
A lot of the cheaper phones are incorporating similar sensors to higher end phones - the Moto G5 Plus has phase detection AF and a 12MP sensor which looks eerily similar to the ones in certain high end phones. Remember Lenovo is Chinese,and the Chinese companies are really starting to push things.
Regarding build - not so sure. I tend to do actually do a reasonable amount of walking,geocaching,Ingress,etc. My phone is waterproof and long before that started being a feature on high end phones. It has survived drops on to cobble - my mate had the same model and was so drunk one day it slipped out of his hand,screen first onto some cobble. It had no case,yet not a scratch.Quote:
Originally Posted by MrRockliffe
Yet my mate who had an iPhone dropped it once and it not only dented but the top bit of the screen shattered. Now,I don't deny an S7 Edge looks shinier but the build on high end phones needs to get better.
The older ones used to have more plastic and could actually survive drops much better.
I had the Optio 450 and Canon S60 - the noise limit is probably not more than ISO 400.Quote:
Originally Posted by peterb
Now you need to compare it to a more modern S95 which is smaller,has a 1/1.7" sensor and OIS,and upto ISO 800~1600 is usable. The RX100 is just another league above it - the sensor is a few times bigger and coupled with OIS its utterly wipes out the previous generation of compacts.
I mean sorry but by now we should have at least 1/1.7" sensors in £500 phones.
We should be having some degree of optical zoom.
Its almost like phone companies gave up after Nokia left the phone market.
I suppose I see the issue here - I probably expected in 2017 for higher end smartphones to be far better than they are now,looking at what is possible on the market and the billions made out of smartphones. I used to remember when spending lots on a higher end phone was a big improvement at all levels. But the reality things have more or less slowed down,and its my disappointment leeching through - I see so many reviews where they state image quality has stagnated compared to previous models(or is slightly worse),etc and I just feel sad when old compacts can compete with 2017 tech. I honestly think we need more of the Chinese companies to start putting the screws on Apple,Samsung,etc - quite a few have not properly entered the phone market here yet,and the incumbents are just in a holding pattern.
Edit!!
I will shut up now.
I still regard the camera on a phone as a bonus - the intention was initially for a quick record type photo for upload to social media - and they do that well - and the fact that they do that so well and under good conditions produce very good results, is testament to the tech - but the drive for slim models really precludes the mechanical assemblies for optical zoom, and to some extent limits the sensor size.Quote:
Originally Posted by CAT-THE-FIFTH
The small format sensors produce very good results for their size - I have a rear view camera in a vehicle that produces excellent results using a Sony sensor (two in fact, one looks down at the ground when reversing - the other looks behind for rear view)
Amen to that! A couple of years ago each new generation of phone had huge upgrades! Now you have to look closely to see the small incremental upgrades. If you look at the patents some of these manufacturers are filing, its clear hey can do much better, but it is as if they are holding back these features to make more money. Problem is I don't think the Chinese companies are doing much to push the box either.Quote:
Originally Posted by CAT-THE-FIFTH
My opinion is that the world is filled with two types of people - those that are keen on photography, and those that take snaps. Several of the contributors to this thread, and me, fall into the first group, own high end cameras and lenses and aren't likely to be terribly impressed with any phone's camera ability, unless just taking a quick snap.
Most of the second group, however, would probably be happy with the results from many phones.
It all comes down to expectations. If your 'photo's end up being viewed on your phone screen or uploaded to some social media site, you're expectations are different from someone entering photo competitions, or hanging A3 prints on the wall.
I have the s7 and it's awesome. The pictures look amazing and the focus is just soooo fast. The s8 is going to be using the same camera as the s7. So you should be able to get the s7 at a more normal price once the s8 releases.
I agree that SLR and mirrorless cameras are way better and I do use a pro body with pro lenses. But I wouldn't discourage anyone from using their mobile camera for artistic shots. If you look on Google there are lots of famous photographers who have put on whole exhibitions using smart phones as a challange. They obviously aren't as good as using a DSLR but they are very impressive.Quote:
Originally Posted by Saracen
If you want to take it to an extreme, Digital Rev do a series of videos of pro photographers using cheap cameras (way worse then a camera phone). Heres a good one with Lara Jade https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jDAn...CB90D96DF59DE5
I take your point, but I'd suggest that them doing it "as a challenge" also kinda makes my point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mangomonkey
Oh, there's exceptions to every rule and any sweeping statement is begging for an "ah, but .... " response. Godness knows I've done enough "ah, but..."s myself over the years.
Another way of looking at it, I guess, is that the best camera is the one you have with you and everybody carries a phone.
On that subject, and about sweeping statements, everybody BUT ME carries a phone. And when I do carry a ohone, it is usually off. And doesn't have a camera anyway,
I do, however, nearly always have a camera with me, or close to hand, even if it's a very compact P&S. I carry a camera the way 'most' people carry a phone.
Camera scores for mobile devices
https://www.dxomark.com/category/mobile-reviews/page/1/
You can apparently download the google camera APK and sideload it on Android, giving you the software benefits that the Pixels have.
I'm finding the step up in image quality going from a single camera smartphone to a dual camera smartphone to be really impressive. If you are just viewing on-screen and not printing, then even the cheaper dual camera models pull off some great shots.
I was looking at some shots taken with a Samsung phone - really impressive - at least on the phone screen. The real test of course (and this is true for any 'simple' camera) is how the images scale up on a larger screen, or when printed.
I'm getting some nice pictures from my Mate 20 Pro.
Any reason for that? Personal experience? Reviews?
Hmm, I wonder if this question still applies? I see the original date and there's a lot of different phones now.
Tricky that bit "for all conditions" as no single phone has nailed it in reviews I've seen (including photo specific reviews like DPReview does at times)
The question has become more complicated as phones offer differing lenses etc, but as a general rule:
Pixel 4 has the best point and shoot camera with natural results
Samsung S10 / Note 1 has the best "ready to use" camera with punch colours and vibrancy
iPhone has the best video recording, and 2nd best stills, but also have wide angle which Pixel 4 doesn't.
Other phones like One Plus 7 Pro, Mate 30 Pro and many others also perform admirably, if less consistently.
Depending on your needs, I will still with whatever phone you are using a get a dedicated compact camera.
PleaseQuote:
Originally Posted by vicar
don't
feed
the
spamsters
Who said they are a spammer? May just have trouble writing?
It reads as : Depending on your needs, I would stay with whatever phone you are using and get a dedicated compact camera.
Omg can we please lock this thread? It's seen more resurrections than Bruce Forsythe's TV career. And similar to that each one is less memorable and less appreciated than the one before.
Agreed, as most old threads being used to get the post count upQuote:
Originally Posted by ik9000
enough PCP already. Closed.