1. It's not as simplistic as that. Smaller f-stop means that the lens is larger and more light can enter, however things like sensor size, shutter speed and ISO (sensitivity to light) are all aspects (more important aspects as well) to better low light photography. It's not just 'smaller f-stop means better low light photos'. There's way more to it than that. Don't give out false information.
F-stop 1.9 vs 2.2 means that the 1.9 is larger and will allow more light to enter, that's it. Has nothing to do with the quality of the photographs. Along with that, there are downsides to lower f-stops as well. All depends on what you want to take photographs of, there are tradeoffs with all cameras on phones.
3. I'd argue that the Sony sensor in the iPhone 6 (f-stop 2.2, 1.5 micron sensor) is better as it has a larger physical active sensor which captures more information for processing. Having a wider lens is nice, but that information has to hit the sensor for it to be useable. Larger sensor = more information. But more important than that, I believe Apple have the best camera software processing engineers. The cameras on their phones are consistently lauded and I have to admit that they're damn great at taking photos. If there's one thing I'll praise about iPhones (in particular the iP6 and iP6+) it's the cameras. I haven't seen a phone take better photos in so many scenarios than them, but I hope the Galaxy S6 will change that. Apple just seem to have the camera software processing down pat.
The problem with a lot of these so called 'camera comparison' things you see on websites is that they always compare photos on crops where they choose a small section of a photo, crop it and then ask the viewers to decide which image looks better. Android phones having typically higher resolutions than iPhones (in the 16mp to 20mp range) obviously will have better resolved images than an 8mp camera on crops, which is why those camera comparisons are complete garbage. The websites that do those comparisons stack the android cameras to win. It's lazy and it's not a good indicator for real image quality.
The better photo is the one that looks better in its entirety, not just some lame crop.
So because the S6 has real-time HDR (which isn't really HDR, would just be a guess by the software), that somehow means it's better?
Now I've heard it all. I used to think the better image was the one that looked better after it's taken. I guess now the better image is the one before it's taken because one phone can guess the HDR effect before taking the photo....
Real-time HDR being done before the image is taken doesn't beat or mean it's any better. It's just a feature Samsung has added. Doesn't mean that the end result is any better, and the end result is all that matters.
I'd rather no real-time HDR and the images being great over having real-time HDR and having mediocre HDR images.
I typically agree with you hero but sadly I can't this time.
While I agree that it is more than just the lens or Fstop that is important in low light photography, because in cellphones we are shooting in only aperture mode, yes aperture size is quite important in determining how well a person can shoot in low light of all other things are equal.
Due to shooting in aperture mode, only fast lenses are best when in low light. It's why on the m7 it was a fast F2.0 lens combined with a good (2 stop maybe) OIS that helped provide the user with workable shutter speeds. The S4 at the time had some tricks up its sleeve but it was never seemed good with its F2.2 lens and software tricks.
So is the sensor and iso important too? As I said, yes. But if all things are equal, then it boils down to the F-stop.
Also, while I agree with sensors being important, pixel size (what you are referring to) didn't always equal quality. A good example is the m7. it too had larger pixels then most cellphones but the dynamic range was horrible in all the photos it took. (I know, my wife has the m7) so I'll say again, I originally agree that it is a combination of hardware and software that makes it or breaks it.
As for live HDR, I agree that a better implementation is better then worse. But with live view I now know my results before I shoot, not after when I'm gone and may have to go back and reshoot.
Now if typically the Galaxy line of phones took horrible HDR photos, then yes live view would be just a gimmick. But since the Galaxy line of phones have some of the best HDR photos, then live view is not at all a gimmick and helps the user in knowing what the results will be before a picture is taken.
Now, as far as testing methods are concerned. The link I provided listed "crops" all from the same image (example: daylight) . So when enlarged or cropped, you now see the left side, the right side, and the center of that single image. In other words, if the S6 and the ip6 both had the image made into an 8x10 print, then yes, the ip6 would be crap compared to the S6 because you would notice it in the whole image.
(at least I would notice)
So yes, the link I provided showed only crops from one image (in daylight) and thus proved that from edge to edge the S6 is now the new "baseline" for all cellphone cameras to compare with.
Show me a better testing method and I may see things differently. But for right now, this was one of the best camera tests I've seen, and like you I'm an HTC fan so there is no bias here my friend.
Posted via Android Central App
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram