For the first time in a long time I don't have upgrade fever!

[motorcycle_monkey]

The camera difference between my MAXX and my Turbo are quite crazy. The MAXX I knew had a bit of a greenish hue to them, but never realized how much until pitting the two against each other. I know the Galaxy line has great cameras, and would love OIS, but for what I use it for, the Turbo is pretty good for my money. I also like the 4:3 aspect being the default!

Cheers!

 

[KPMcClave]

The camera difference between my MAXX and my Turbo are quite crazy. The MAXX I knew had a bit of a greenish hue to them, but never realized how much until pitting the two against each other. I know the Galaxy line has great cameras, and would love OIS, but for what I use it for, the Turbo is pretty good for my money. I also like the 4:3 aspect being the default!

Cheers!

I have to say that I am looking longingly at the advance specs on the LG G4's camera. f1.8 (more light in than the S6 camera, which is being universally praised). That factor would (should) obviously address my issue with the Turbo camera.

 

[TechCaptain]

I have to say that I am looking longingly at the advance specs on the LG G4's camera. f1.8 (more light in than the S6 camera, which is being universally praised). That factor would (should) obviously address my issue with the Turbo camera.

Battery is what I'd be looking at.

Sent from my (still relevant) Droid Maxx

 

[88horizon5speed]

I have to say that I am looking longingly at the advance specs on the LG G4's camera. f1.8 (more light in than the S6 camera, which is being universally praised). That factor would (should) obviously address my issue with the Turbo camera.

What I am missing is that you have been saying that phones which have lesser specs, including higher f stops than the turbos 2.0 are better at low light photos. So I dont see why you'd be thinking a camera with an f stop of 1.8 is better? I'm not trying to argue or bash your thinking, I'm just curious is all.

 

[CharlieL3]

A lower f-stop lets in more light.

 

[vzwuser76]

A lower f-stop lets in more light.

The thing is, every time I went to a newer phone, the camera's image quality always got better, until I got the Droid Maxx. I came from a Galaxy S3, and I ended up keeping either my S3 or my Lumix Camera with me in case I needed to take a shot or two. Looking at the shots my Maxx took, it reminded me of the Galaxy Nexus, like the sharpness and contrast took a hit.

But the point was, all of these cameras had better and better f-stop than the previous ones. So f-stop alone isn't going to mean better images. Granted, LG's cameras are pretty damn good, but from what I've heard, they actually went backwards from the G2 to the G3 in terms of image quality. So hopefully that doesn't happen from the G3 to the G4.

I'd also be worried about battery life and the thermal issues with the SD810 in the G4. I'd rather deal with a sub par camera in a great phone, than a great camera in a sub par phone. But, well have to see what this years Motos under Lenovo will bring, better or worse offerings?

 

[vzwuser76]

What I am missing is that you have been saying that phones which have lesser specs, including higher f stops than the turbos 2.0 are better at low light photos. So I dont see why you'd be thinking a camera with an f stop of 1.8 is better? I'm not trying to argue or bash your thinking, I'm just curious is all.

A lower f-stop number is better. The more amount of light let in, the lower the f-stop number. That along with a short shutter speed (for portraits at least), sensor quality, and OIS should mean better images. I said a short shutter speed for portraits is better because, the shorter the time the shutter is open, the less details will be picked up. So it tends to focus on what is right in front of it (a portrait). In landscape shots, a longer shutter time means more details will be captured throughout the entire image. But a longer shutter time will also result in blurred images if there is movement. So for action shots, short shutter time, for stationary shots, a long shutter is preferable.

 

[KPMcClave]

What I am missing is that you have been saying that phones which have lesser specs, including higher f stops than the turbos 2.0 are better at low light photos. So I dont see why you'd be thinking a camera with an f stop of 1.8 is better? I'm not trying to argue or bash your thinking, I'm just curious is all.

Like anything, one spec doesn't tell the story. I don't know why the Maxx did better in lower light/motion situations than the Turbo has, but it did. The Maxx is the only camera I have compared to the Turbo directly (so there aren't "cameras" with lesser specs I've touted).

As for the G4, f1.8 is going to let more light in, allowing for faster shutter speed. That should adress the issue of capturing motion (blur). Now, if the shutter lags, then there's a problem, but the G3 had a good camera by most accounts, so this should be an improvement on that.

 

[KPMcClave]

Battery is what I'd be looking at.

Sent from my (still relevant) Droid Maxx

Oh, of course. I can't imagine going back to a non-Turbo level battery. I won't say it's impossible, but a phone would really have to blow me away otherwise (and still have excellent battery life relative to the rest of the field).

 

[Phoenix212]

I've had my Turbo for less than a week but I'm already positively smitten with the battery life and overall pep of the phone.

My old S3 had such lag issues that, towards the end, I often could not send a text message without waiting up to 5 seconds between typing each letter. Sounds ridiculous and it honestly was. Unplugging my S3 in the morning at 6 am meant that I had to charge it again by noon to keep it from dying. Then charge it again when driving home. Then again overnight. I ended up carrying around a spare battery AND a battery charger whenever I knew I'd be away from home for more than a couple hours.

When I finally was looking at new phones recently, I considered the S6 but, in the end, battery life and not having to deal with TouchWiz made the Turbo my top choice. I don't see the S6 or M9 as significantly better than the Turbo in any way. S6 processor is octocore, sure that's awesome, but let's get serious, is there anything that you throw at your Turbo on a daily basis that causes your phone to lag or wish you had an even faster processor? I don't but maybe I'm not as much of a hardcore user as others. Corporate push email, personal email, streaming audio and video, the occasional game of Zelda on an NES emulator (I'm not a hardcore gamer, still love my 80s games), photos, web browsing, and some social media are what I use my phone for and that hasn't changed in years (basically same stuff I've been doing on my phone since the original Droid Incredible was in my pocket). To be able to do all of that and not worry about lag or battery issues, I couldn't be happier.

Now ask me again at this time next year and we'll see if I still feel the same.

 

[Fable]

So funny. I actually got an email from Verizon and Samsung today telling me they would give me 100.00 for my "old phone" toward a new S6 / Edge now!!! In the past I had to be on the newest .. I had to root it right away and start ROMing it up... I must be getting old or something. I'm very pleased with the Droid Turbo and what it has to offer me still. I have no thought of even taking them up on the offer. I actually am pleased with the device and the features seem to suit me perfectly. So i'm in the same boat. I will continue to look at new offerings - but I see no reason to jump ship anytime soon.