S20 Ultra - Autofocus is a mess after latest update!

[neil74]

I did some more testing today close (ish) shots again but this time in better light and whilst not a perfect hit rate the results were a lot better. So my current thinking on AF are as follows:

1 - At medium to long distance it focusses ok in most lighting conditions
2 - At closer range (2-3 feet) in medium to low light (i.e. indoors) it struggles to focus accurately and depending on the subject might not focus properly all
3 - At closer range (2-3 feet) in good light, it will focus ok but you have to be careful. Still not a anywhere near a perfect hit rate though but most were acceptably sharp
4 - AF is just slow across the board

I am leaning towards thinking these are quirks that will have to be worked around rather than a faulty device, whether it is acceptable for a £1200 phone is another question. What I do think though is that the benefits of a having a larger sensor do not appear to be evident on the ultra, but some of the drawbacks are!

YMMV

 

[blackhawkhot]

Bang on, back up to 5 or 6 feet and it is much better. I just would not expect to see limitations like this on a phone. Plus of course a shallow DOF would not matter so much if it focussed where you wanted it to.

Thank you.
Shouldn't have to go that far back but that all is dependent on how much of the subject -you- want in the field of focus.
With the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 lense it's -designed- to be shot wide open, it's literally it's sharpest aperture setting.
This is not a design flaw at all. Most lens are sharpest when stopped down to about f/5.6 but as you stop a len's aperture setting down you lose the pop effect you get wide open. A bigger concern is bokeh.
https://photographylife.com/what-is-bokeh/amp

The background blur that's in the background adds impact to the pop of the in subject that's in focus. Boken needs to be creamy smooth to be pleasing otherwise it can break the image by being a distraction. That's one of the reasons you pay top dollar for a lense, bokeh.

So shooting wide open with wide aperture is not bad if it's designed to be used as such. In skilled hands they can produce one of a kind images where the subject seems to jump out at you.
Beautiful. The pop is a good thing.

Remember photography is art. Content and framing are critical. Some subject blur is acceptable if the content is excellent.
It's purpose is to provoke a reaction from the viewer.*

Figure out what distance you need to be to get the desired depth of field as the aperture setting is fixed.
Simply backup more for greater depth of field or get closer to the subject for more pop on them.
Use it to your advantage

*The L lense I mentioned has superb flare control; you can shoot directly into a backlight subject and grab a great image.
Like this, this is what a pro cam and lense can grab, lined up and shot in a second or two. Note there's some motion blur with the boy nonetheless it's a stone cold keeper:

 

[neil74]

Usually have be standing a fair bit further back when using a 70-200 though!

I used to mainly use a 50 1.4 and 85 1.4 on Nikon (sometimes the 35) and tended to stop them down to 1.8, just found them sharper there, whilst still (on FF) giving very nice background separation.

 

[blackhawkhot]

Usually have be standing a fair bit further back when using a 70-200 though!

I used to mainly use a 50 1.4 and 85 1.4 on Nikon (sometimes the 35) and tended to stop them down to 1.8, just found them sharper there, whilst still (on FF) giving very nice background separation.

No not for headshots, a couple feet out. This is the best street shooter there is. It's sublime.
You shoot this puppy wide open
The old 50L f/1.2 is another favorite. Incredible flare control. Gave some trouble but I wuved it.

 

[Kizzy Catwoman]

I recently returned a OnePlus 8 pro due to screen burn-in and thought I would take a punt on the S20 ultra rather than go back to the S20+, I purchased it from John Lewis in the UK so unlike some retailers (looking at you Carphonewarehouse) they do have generous and fair returns policy.

Firstly I like it a lot more than I thought I would, it does not feel too big and just feels planted and more solid than the OnePlus did and the extra screen jump from the plus is noticeable IMO too. Here comes the but though which is that the camera is a mess when used indoors, yes it has the trademark Samsung blurry vision if your subject even thinks about moving a fraction but I knew that going in. The biggest issue though is the autofocus, now I also kind of also knew about this going in but with 3 rounds of fixes and many seeming happy now I hoped it would be ok and in a lot of conditions it is ok but in some it is just a mess. I used to shoot for a living and it actually reminds me of the Canon 1D MK3 that I briefly owned (a camera that was the tipping point in a decision to move to Nikon) It just seems to be attracted to focus elsewhere in the scene if there is something with more contrast even if that is not near where you are putting the AF point, that and sometimes it would just back-focus for no reason at all! Have added a few examples below.

Appreciate that this is torture test with the dark cat and higher contrast elsewhere in the scene but it is one that an iPhone 11 or Pixel has no issues with. I must have taken 20 images and every one had the cat soft and was either front or back focussed on the pillow or chair. I tried fixed AF and also tracking but this did not seem to change the results, interestingly I also tried Gcam go and ZGCAM and hit the same issue which points to a hardware constraint maybe? I am also on Exynos FWIW.

I might actually go down the Samsung support rabbit hole and see what they say.....

Gosh that is one Beautiful cat though. Also am sure i heard that the exynos version uses a different camera sensor to the snapdragon version, but that may be in the standard and plus versions though.

 

[blackhawkhot]

Bang on, back up to 5 or 6 feet and it is much better. I just would not expect to see limitations like this on a phone. Plus of course a shallow DOF would not matter so much if it focussed where you wanted it to.

Also try from the boot menu>clear System Cache>Y
Many times this will fix glitches nothing else will... voodoo. It causes no harm but can root out corrupted or erroneous files that are causing issues. Always do this after any major update or uninstall. I do it about once a month as a maintenance item even if there are no issues.
Just don't choose the hard reset option by mistake...

On the Note 10 plus some of the Bixby apks are needed for the AF to work.
Pay close attention if have any system or Samsung apks are disabled. Find the cam apk packages and all associated dependencies for it.
Clear their caches and data if needed. Return them to factory load (clear updates) if desperate; easy enough to update them. Same for any supporting Goggle apks.
I've not have much trouble with Samsung updates but Goggle is another story. Some of them needed to be reset to factory default for proper functionality.

If really desperate reset all apps settings but will cause you to do a lot of work if the setup is well along.

>Go through all the settings for the cam; it's easy to miss something... just one toggle setting can do it.
Read as much information on its settings/operation as available from Samsung and any good source.
There's always something that one misses so reading up on it can only help.

I suspect this will be a great phone once you get it optimized and became familiar with it.
Took me about 2 months on the Note 10 plus to get it roughly dialed in and at the 6+ mark I'm still tweaking it and it's apps.
Sort of a steep learning curve but somewhat intuitive... you get what you put into it.
Lol, I jumped from Kitkat to Pie so imagine my future shock I wuv Pie...

 

[cardboard60]

Wouldn't it be nice, if Samsung could release a update to help this camera problem.

 

[Mike Dee]

Wouldn't it be nice, if Samsung could release a update to help this camera problem.

You can't alter the laws of physics with an update.

 

[neil74]

Gosh that is one Beautiful cat though. Also am sure i heard that the exynos version uses a different camera sensor to the snapdragon version, but that may be in the standard and plus versions though.

Thanks, he is a Burmese and is super friendly. The kids hate their photo taken so the poor cats are my test subjects!

I know the S20/20+ have difference sensors for exynos and SD not sure about the Ultra.

 

[neil74]

True, I do not think my S20 ultra is faulty just think it's limitations need to be worked around and certainly as a point and shoot (which is how I use a phone camera) it is not as good as the iPhone 11, Huawei or Pixel.

I captured a couple of examples earlier on screen recorder which shows what I am talking about but cannot figure out how to upload them!

I really like the Ultra otherwise but am considering whether to keep it or not, the thing is all the alternatives have their own issues or compromises so it's a question of how important the camera is.

 

[donm527]

This may sound dumb but... Does going with a larger sensor mean you have to sacrifice depth of field, as shown in the Xiaomi video I linked showing the iPhone at the 9:23 mark and the 108mp sensor of the Xiaomi at 9:34 mark? Or are we seeing this issue in these phones because they can't fit the right size lense that would give a depth of field similar to what was shown for the iPhone?

I would think broader depth of field meaning more of the captured image from edge to edge (at least in that example shot shown in that video for iPhone) would mean more usable information for the software to make in it's calculations for color, contrast, sharpening, etc?? A narrower plane of focus, you have less usable information to work with in your calculations... and my guess why you see such a falloff in detail at the sides??

Also that shallow depth of field I imagine can't help autofocus.

I'm not a photographer but as a computer guy all those dark details in that iPhone test image to me look like data... 0's and 1's. And with a larger sensor would mean you should be getting more data than with a smaller sensor but it really doesn't look like it to me.

I wonder what happens when Samsung goes 150 mp sensor if that depth of field gets even shallower... 600 mp?

True, I do not think my S20 ultra is faulty just think it's limitations need to be worked around and certainly as a point and shoot (which is how I use a phone camera) it is not as good as the iPhone 11, Huawei or Pixel.

I captured a couple of examples earlier on screen recorder which shows what I am talking about but cannot figure out how to upload them!

I really like the Ultra otherwise but am considering whether to keep it or not, the thing is all the alternatives have their own issues or compromises so it's a question of how important the camera is.

 

[neil74]

It is the physical sensor size that influences DOF rather than the number of megapixels.

Typically larger is better and say 64mp on a full frame or medium format size sensor would ordinarily be better than 64mp on a tiny phone sensor as the larger sensor would have 64 million bigger pixels and bigger pixels means better light capturing qualities which usually results in higher quality low light performance and better dynamic range. Moore's law means that these days we get some amazing results from these tiny sensors though.

The larger sensor gives better control over DOF too and you can stop it down if you want a larger DOF, have to aware of diffraction though as stopping down too far can impact the sharpness.

 

[donm527]

Ok... thanks for the small bite size chunk of info... physical size of sensor influencing DOF and advantages of 64 million bigger pixels on a larger sensor over 64 million pixels on a smaller sensor... I'll have to chew on those thoughts for a bit. Any more and my brain will hurt lol.

Wouldn't it been better then for Samsung to go with the bigger physical sensor but make the jump from using 12mp sensors from Sony to something like 64mp? Not really understanding their motivation with the huge jump to go to 108mp and 150 next year. The quality of their pics going with this 108 in reviews and in pics that you provided with your cat don't look to provide a significant difference to propel them ahead of the competition... to "change photography."

Q... what would it take with the this current sensor size to broaden the DOF over what it is right now? Am I putting to much thought into DOF??

What do you think they would need to do in next gen camera??

Lol, I know not a photog site but thanks for any info

It is the physical sensor size that influences DOF rather than the number of megapixels.

Typically larger is better and say 64mp on a full frame or medium format size sensor would ordinarily be better than 64mp on a tiny phone sensor as the larger sensor would have 64 million bigger pixels and bigger pixels means better light capturing qualities which usually results in higher quality low light performance and better dynamic range. Moore's law means that these days we get some amazing results from these tiny sensors though.

The larger sensor gives better control over DOF too and you can stop it down if you want a larger DOF, have to aware of diffraction though as stopping down too far can impact the sharpness.

 

[Mooncatt]

Wouldn't it been better then for Samsung to go with the bigger physical sensor but make the jump from using 12mp sensors from Sony to something like 64mp? Not really understanding their motivation with the huge jump to go to 108mp and 150 next year. The quality of their pics going with this 108 in reviews and in pics that you provided with your cat don't look to provide a significant difference to propel them ahead of the competition... to "change photography."

The 108MP sensor isn't always giving you a 108MP image. What these super high resolution sensors usually do is known as "pixel binning." If you have 4 pixels arranged in a square, it's a 4 pixel image. When they are binned, it means the software takes the data from them and treats it like a single, but larger, pixel. This actually serves well for increasing low light performance. Instead of a 108MP image, you get a 27MP binned image, but with effectively larger pixels for better light gathering.

They advertise the 108MP count because it theoretically makes it so you can digitally zoom in more and still have a usable image. The problem here is not only does the sensor have a given resolution, but so does the lens. Have you ever taken a photo but the lens was dirty, and the resulting image looked like it was taken on a low resolution camera? That's essentially what we're running up against now. Even fresh out of the box, there are still going to be minor imperfections in the lens and lens cover. You can't see them with the naked eye, but it's the same effect as a dirty lens. As pixel density increases (meaning smaller pixels), those imperfections become apparent. After a certain point, increasing the pixel count stops resulting in better image quality.

Long story short, phone manufacturers are now in the same megapixel war the DSLR and other markets were in not long ago. At this point in time,photography is about anything BUT pixel count, yet pixel count is what all the manufacturers are promoting.

Q... what would it take with the this current sensor size to broaden the DOF over what it is right now? Am I putting to much thought into DOF??

What do you think they would need to do in next gen camera??

The only thing that could be done with hardware for DoF is to reduce the aperture.

In general, here's what I'd like to see:

Forget the pixel count. If they are pixel binning anyway, just give us a lower resolution sensor with larger pixels from the start. I think 16 MP is about the sweet spot for a phone. Then work on things like better ISO handling so you don't get as much noise when that is increased.

On the optics side, a variable aperture that the user can fully control would be great. I know Samsung has this option in some phones, but I believe the system overrides it in dark situations. Instead of super high resolution sensors, stick with optical zoomed lenses, plus keep the same quality sensor (many times I see different lower quality sensors on secondary cameras). And similar to the aperture issue, keep those fully user selectable.

And stop with paper thin phones. If they would allow phones to be thicker, you can pack in much better hardware, especially when it comes to cameras. You could make the sensors physically larger and have the necessary room to house larger lens assemblies.

 

[Mike Dee]

The 108MP sensor isn't always giving you a 108MP image. What these super high resolution sensors usually do is known as "pixel binning." If you have 4 pixels arranged in a square, it's a 4 pixel image. When they are binned, it means the software takes the data from them and treats it like a single, but larger, pixel. This actually serves well for increasing low light performance. Instead of a 108MP image, you get a 27MP binned image, but with effectively larger pixels for better light gathering.

They advertise the 108MP count because it theoretically makes it so you can digitally zoom in more and still have a usable image. The problem here is not only does the sensor have a given resolution, but so does the lens. Have you ever taken a photo but the lens was dirty, and the resulting image looked like it was taken on a low resolution camera? That's essentially what we're running up against now. Even fresh out of the box, there are still going to be minor imperfections in the lens and lens cover. You can't see them with the naked eye, but it's the same effect as a dirty lens. As pixel density increases (meaning smaller pixels), those imperfections become apparent. After a certain point, increasing the pixel count stops resulting in better image quality.

Long story short, phone manufacturers are now in the same megapixel war the DSLR and other markets were in not long ago. At this point in time,photography is about anything BUT pixel count, yet pixel count is what all the manufacturers are promoting.



The only thing that could be done with hardware for DoF is to reduce the aperture.

In general, here's what I'd like to see:

Forget the pixel count. If they are pixel binning anyway, just give us a lower resolution sensor with larger pixels from the start. I think 16 MP is about the sweet spot for a phone. Then work on things like better ISO handling so you don't get as much noise when that is increased.

On the optics side, a variable aperture that the user can fully control would be great. I know Samsung has this option in some phones, but I believe the system overrides it in dark situations. Instead of super high resolution sensors, stick with optical zoomed lenses, plus keep the same quality sensor (many times I see different lower quality sensors on secondary cameras). And similar to the aperture issue, keep those fully user selectable.

And stop with paper thin phones. If they would allow phones to be thicker, you can pack in much better hardware, especially when it comes to cameras. You could make the sensors physically larger and have the necessary room to house larger lens assemblies.

It only does pixel binning if you set it to pixel binning by turning off the 108mp setting

 

[Mooncatt]

It only does pixel binning if you set it to pixel binning by turning off the 108mp setting

Even still, there's no way you're going to get an effective/useful 108MP image when not binned. It's a pointless resolution in my opinion.

 

[Mike Dee]

Even still, there's no way you're going to get an effective/useful 108MP image when not binned. It's a pointless resolution in my opinion.

Opinions are just opinions and facts are simply facts. It serves a purpose, but since you haven't tried it that's a difficult call to make.

 

[donm527]

Thanks for the info. A lot to take in.

I'm with you though about concentrating on optical zoom. I said when first reviews came out and initial reviews of the camera were spotty... the zoom up to 10x was usable and impressive and most reviewers would say to stick with it up to 10x or maybe 30x. I was saying forget the 100x zoom and concentrate on 10x optical if you had to. It's optical right now up to 4x and you can see the examples in 4x are great.

I'm thinking the current setup, they gotta be making a compromise with the combination of sensor size with lens choice to make it work to reach that 100x and look "usable" for them to stamp the Space Zoom sticker on it correct?? Forget the 100x and optimize the system to more lower numbers... 10x optical if possible... or from 4 to 5x optical if thickness of the system is considered (I'm opposite though about allowing a phone to be too thick... imo the Ultra camera is chunky). A better lens choice so that DOF is not so narrow so that shots are better in wider range of photo situations.

I don't know, maybe I'm wrong and Samsung will prove they are right and make their setup all work in next gen camera on the S21.

This is definitely a 1st gen system... like their FPS that need improvements in the S21 or Note 20. But one spec they seem set on... going 150mp on their way to 600. Have to see how that pans out.

The 108MP sensor isn't always giving you a 108MP image...

 

[donm527]

But pixel binning is set by default right?? It's 108mp mode you have to drill into setting to change.

It only does pixel binning if you set it to pixel binning by turning off the 108mp setting

 

[donm527]

When you set the camera to true 108mp mode and take a pic, isn't that taking a full 108mp pic un-binned?? I think I saw someone post a pic somewhere in that mode but I don't remember anyone saying it was that great over default mode or so great that people are setting it by default as their mode of choice like going full QHD on displays.

When wanting a zoomed in pic, is it better then to go into full 108mp mode, take a pic and crop up?? What is the main advantage of using 108mp?? So that you have a more detailed pic to edit with??

Opinions are just opinions and facts are simply facts. It serves a purpose, but since you haven't tried it that's a difficult call to make.