02-18-2013, 08:52 AM #26
- 382 Posts
Two factors are involved, none of which are the aperture, that I believe significantly contribute to having less detail than people wish.
1. Sensor size. It is tiny. Very tiny. It has to capture 8 million pixels. Up close, that translates to a very crisp, "sharp" shot. Far away, that doesn't. Test this out with your own eyes. Look at the text of anything written very small up close. It looks good. Now, stand back and look at it and it loses detail very quickly.
2. Jpeg compression/noise reduction. Every picture taken from any single digital camera is shot RAW. In camera, some fine tuning is almost always used to create jpegs (or TIFF's). This reduces the file size, inherently adds noise and attempts at cleaning up some of that noise. The level at which the Lumia does it is quite high.
Aperature being wide open is not the entire reason these pictures aren't sharp as a tack.
02-18-2013, 09:53 AM #27
- 10 Posts
You're all looking at post processing... But the real reason is if you keep looking at the display as it focuses. You will see the camera try to auto focus, you'll see it go from blurry to sharp, and then to blurry, and never go back to the sharpest looking picture. If you hold down the button halfway you will see this time and time again. You have to be VERY picky about what you're focusing on, most of the time I have to focus on a completely different object, and then pan back to where I want to take the picture. Even still, this does not work. It never seems to grab the perfect focal point. Granted, even those rare times, in a close up shot, when it looks sharp in the display, when the picture is taken it still looks kind of blurry. However, looking at pictures I took yesterday, I'm noticing a LOT of noise in these pictures... I was using all default settings. It almost looks like a high ISO photo. I think that in general, the shutter is open for too long, or the AUTO ISO value is too high, and then they darken it with the post processing, which is not my point at the time. My point is it doesnt focus worth crap. I'll attach some images for comparison. The first one here took me about eight different attempts at focusing on something other than the center of the image. The second is just a touch of the screen image capture. The noise is VERY noticable though. None have been edited.
02-18-2013, 11:04 AM #31
- 336 Posts
Well, I have seen a case that a cam of Lumia 920 was bad (1st pic, on left side) ... and after Nokia repaired it, it was just great (3rd pic, on right side)
P.S. it is not my pic, I just bring it here for this thread ...
- 02-18-2013, 01:36 PM #33
Can't expect anything exciting from 1.4 micron pixels.. just look at the new xperia Z, its shooting at 13Mpix for .. well.. marketing purposes, but its using 1.1 micron pixels.. so.. instead of improving the quality, its pretty much the same or worse:
Camera comparison: Sony Xperia Z vs Samsung Galaxy S III, Galaxy Note II, iPhone 5, Nokia Lumia 920
But most people think.. oh.. 13Mpix is more than 8Mpix, it should be much better! No. That is not how it goes. Just compare a 12Mpix pic from the Nokia N8 which shoots with 1.75 microns, and you will see the difference.
Also, the jpeg processing in the 920 is.. very tricky because of the low light performance. I've said this before, if they can't figure out a way to switch between night mode and day mode automatically, they should give the user a way to switch between the two.
On the previous page I showed couple of shots from my Phase 1 phone.. wide open at F2.4 ... there is more detail then you will ever need. So aperture is not a problem if you have a good sensor, proper optics, and the required jpeg processing.
02-18-2013, 01:43 PM #34
- 6 Posts
There's a comparative review of smartphone cameras in Gizmodo today. They try to identify the best by considering performance under various conditions, and only pick the very best smartphones for the comparison. The Lumia 920 came out as the best performing. Interestingly, sailing in the face of the title for this thread, the Lumia won the round for best daylight pictures.
The Best Smartphone Camera
I don't really understand what point the OP was trying to make with the title to this thread. Perhaps they are comparing smartphone cameras to highend SLRs. It would be more accurate and helpful to general readers for the thread title to be changed to '... why smartphone cameras take such terrible pictures'. I don't think they do take terrible pictures, and it has been a long time since I would describe any picture I've taken with a smartphone in those terms.
- 02-18-2013, 01:53 PM #35
While I appreciate all the thorough and well thought out explanations for the 920's camera, at some point you have to accept that you're using a smartphone and not a high end DSLR."Engineering is more than just the number of megapixels." - Stephen Elop
- 02-18-2013, 03:20 PM #39
Neutral density filter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ) which is basically a 3 stop reduction..
Hopefully once they properly port phase 1 to the Lumia range it will have it as well.
Here is how it works on the N8
02-18-2013, 05:32 PM #41
- 69 Posts
for gods sake...its a MOBILE PHONE...with a camera. its not a Canon 5D Mark III (amazing piece of kit btw) it IS the best camera on a smartphone aside from the nokia beast which was a camera first and a phone attached to it!
Your never ever ever EVER going to get results comparable to a DSLR, not even close...its PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE so worship it for what it is, the best camera on a smartphone today. Want something better? get a real camera.
- 02-18-2013, 06:24 PM #42
So are we talking D400 with a 2000 dollar lens, or a Canon XTi from couple of years ago with a 400 dollar lens ? Both are.. DSLRs. And I am not saying that a phone can replace a DSLR for a professional, but for an amateur ? Absolutely.
and no... the 808 is smartphone with an amazing camera as a bonus.
- 02-18-2013, 08:15 PM #45
I mean, the 808 eats the other Phones for breakfest, I have a friend With a GS3 and I have the lumia 920, both Phones are top of class known for great cameras - it's not even a fight. the 5mp shots from the 808 destorys them. makes the GS3 look foolish in all light. But the lumia can compete in low light, where handheld - it wins(ois ftw). but tripod mounted, the 808 still can't be beat (mecanical(long) shutter(speeds) ftw).
- 02-18-2013, 09:34 PM #47
An informative post does not excuse acting like a tool
- 02-18-2013, 09:48 PM #48
but my point still stands, how serious can you take the artical? I mean you compare the s3 to the one x. and conclude the one x is better (I also read the test), but and I quote "HTC's flagships come with rubbish cameras. So we didn't bother with those this time around."(- the gizmodo artical), so Obviously, they dont agree (and as I said, how serious can you take these guys?) as the S3 is in there.
so I would say it's a bitt of a stretch to say the S3 isn't on par With the others =)
- By Andrew Z in forum Nokia Lumia 820Replies: 19Last Post: 01-07-2013, 09:23 AM
- By jmajid in forum Nokia Lumia 920Replies: 2Last Post: 11-01-2012, 02:58 PM
- By baileystein in forum Nokia Lumia 920Replies: 4Last Post: 09-22-2012, 01:19 PM
- By theefman in forum Windows Phone 8Replies: 30Last Post: 09-05-2012, 11:00 PM
- By bakerwhy in forum Samsung FocusReplies: 0Last Post: 02-22-2011, 03:38 AM