Is my S9+ camera defective?

[mgbosshogg]

God, I hope they fix this when the real Galaxy flagship comes out in September.

I like taking the odd bad picture, these fill me with dread.

 

[Rodzp]

I think the softness some is reporting from low light is just from heavy post processing to remove noise. My s9 Plus takes acceptable low light pictures. It is much better than the iPhone 8 Plus. If I want amazing low light pictures I break out my SLR with my 70-200 2.8 lens because it is the better tool for the job.

 

[Stocklone]

I get random fur detail wiped out with the Samsung camera app that I don't when I use Open Camera immediately afterwards. That makes me think it is a processing issue. I really hope it is a processing issue. In another instance, I was doing low light shots of my cat and Samsung had the most issues of motion blur compared to the HTC U11 and Huawei Mate 10 Pro. The super low light shot is amazing is compared everything else I have. But the sort of low light shots with possible movement are literally the worst out of the phones I have because I have to take so many to get a good one. It's kind of ridiculous. If I remember correctly it merges a bunch of images together to kill the noise in low light. Maybe it should only be doing that in the really low light situations. It has motion blur nobody else has. It's like nobody on the Samsung camera team owns a pet. #SamsungHatesCats

 

[goji26]

I get random fur detail wiped out with the Samsung camera app that I don't when I use Open Camera immediately afterwards. That makes me think it is a processing issue. I really hope it is a processing issue. In another instance, I was doing low light shots of my cat and Samsung had the most issues of motion blur compared to the HTC U11 and Huawei Mate 10 Pro. The super low light shot is amazing is compared everything else I have. But the sort of low light shots with possible movement are literally the worst out of the phones I have because I have to take so many to get a good one. It's kind of ridiculous. If I remember correctly it merges a bunch of images together to kill the noise in low light. Maybe it should only be doing that in the really low light situations. It has motion blur nobody else has. It's like nobody on the Samsung camera team owns a pet. #SamsungHatesCats

Exactly my point and experience. The camera also takes all detail out of my 6 year old's face.

 

[lmandl]

I cleaned it (albeit not with alcohol - too late for that now as I already returned it), but the results were the same.

Challenge - Can anyone with a S9 post a pic of a pet as sharp as the one above (where you can see every small hair razor sharp)? In low light even better.

I just got the phone yesterday. I like the camera. It's working for me.

 

[RapidTurtle]

That's a beautiful boxer. They are great dogs...

 

[mlblack16]

I received an update for the camera on my S9+ and I just got it activated Friday evening through Verizon. I have yet to play around with the camera yet, but I guess I'll have to do that considering all the complaints on here. The issues appear to be something which can fixed with a software update. Perhaps that's what mine received already.

 

[Michael_Archangel]

I just got the phone yesterday. I like the camera. It's working for me. View attachment 282369View attachment 282370

Nice dog! Maybe it's just a matter of taste, but I wouldn't be pleased with those pictures. They are very soft and there is no visible detail whatsoever on the fur - it's like the entire picture is slightly out of focus...

 

[afh3]

Nice dog! Maybe it's just a matter of taste, but I wouldn't be pleased with those pictures. They are very soft and there is no visible detail whatsoever on the fur - it's like the entire picture is slightly out of focus...

I think what you are describing is an artifact of the very shallow depth-of-field that could be expected when the camera is using an f/1.5 setting. The sharpness is there, but limited to the focus-point.

At least that is my take on these images.

 

[racedog]

I think what you are describing is an artifact of the very shallow depth-of-field that could be expected when the camera is using an f/1.5 setting. The sharpness is there, but limited to the focus-point.

At least that is my take on these images.

Bingo!! Super shallow depth of field and focal point is not well placed. The image has focus but it is not placed where it needs to be, not where the eye is drawn to naturally so we see it as out of focus. This is a problem of the very wide aperture that leads to a very shallow depth of field and users who expect a point and shoot experience.

 

[jhimmel]

Bingo!! Super shallow depth of field and focal point is not well placed. The image has focus but it is not placed where it needs to be, not where the eye is drawn to naturally so we see it as out of focus. This is a problem of the very wide aperture that leads to a very shallow depth of field and users who expect a point and shoot experience.

Sounds like this is not a software issue that can be "patched". It's a drawback of the wide aperture on the S9+?

 

[racedog]

Sounds like this is not a software issue that can be "patched". It's a drawback of the wide aperture on the S9+?

Photography is subject to the laws of nature governing light reflection/absorbtion that dtetermine color values and the travel of light through time and space and the way it bends etc. Photography is the result of reflected light from n image, the way that light enters into a camera and is acted upon by a lens and is then stored on some type of media.

Cameras in phones attempt to simplify and make it easy for non-professionals to take pictures that are in focus and with relatively accurate color representation. Sometimes it work and sometimes it doesn't. They write software algorithyms that attempt to do what a professional photographer does through years of training. When it works the results can be spectacular but when it doesnt it can be various degrees of bad to awful. And, this doesn't even start to cover rules of composition etc.

 

[afh3]

Sounds like this is not a software issue that can be "patched". It's a drawback of the wide aperture on the S9+?

I suppose you could select the camera's f/2.4 aperture...

 

[Michael_Archangel]

I think what you are describing is an artifact of the very shallow depth-of-field that could be expected when the camera is using an f/1.5 setting. The sharpness is there, but limited to the focus-point.

Bingo!! Super shallow depth of field and focal point is not well placed. The image has focus but it is not placed where it needs to be, not where the eye is drawn to naturally so we see it as out of focus. This is a problem of the very wide aperture that leads to a very shallow depth of field and users who expect a point and shoot experience.

The sharpness is where? There is not a single point on this image which is sharp:

https://forums.androidcentral.com/a...-s9-plus-camera-defective-20180406_101323.jpg

This is definitely not a depth of field issue, there is more to this. Multiple photos in this thread have shown this. This is aggressive noise reduction.

And even if it was just a depth of field issue (it isn't), then Samsung shouldn't be using f/1.5 sensors on a phone. Either way, this is a bad camera for anything other than photos in pitch black environments.

Also, one more thing about aperture: the LG V30 has a f/1.6 aperture and does not have these softness issues. So I do believe that whatever Samsung is doing, it can be fixed in software.

 

[afh3]

The sharpness is where? There is not a single point on this image which is sharp:

https://forums.androidcentral.com/a...-s9-plus-camera-defective-20180406_101323.jpg

This is definitely not a depth of field issue, there is more to this. Multiple photos in this thread have shown this. This is aggressive noise reduction.

And even if it was just a depth of field issue (it isn't), then Samsung shouldn't be using f/1.5 sensors on a phone. Either way, this is a bad camera for anything other than photos in pitch black environments.

Also, one more thing about aperture: the LG V30 has a f/1.6 aperture and does not have these softness issues. So I do believe that whatever Samsung is doing, it can be fixed in software.

We've arrived at subjectiveness now, and as such it becomes somewhat pointless to discuss IMO.

Regarding your contention that "this is a bad camera" - we'll have to agree to disagree about this.

The fact that there are somewhat more objective (instrumented) reviews - like those provided by DxOMark - that generally contradict your position, may be worthy of consideration before pronouncing judgment.

 

[goji26]

I'd have to agree, this is NOT a good camera. Everything is blurred unless the subject is completely still, good luck taking pictures of any kids. Then if you do get them to hold still, there's absolutely no sharpness in any pictures. This is my 9 month old. As you can see, there is absolutely no detail to his skin. When I take the same picture with my Pixel 2, there's detail and natural imperfections in his skin. Do I expect this camera to be better than the Pixel 2? No, but I expect it to be better than my Moto X Pure Edition, of which it is not.

 

[goji26]

Here's is a picture taken with my Pixel 2. Night and day difference.

 

[Michael_Archangel]

The fact that there are somewhat more objective (instrumented) reviews - like those provided by DxOMark - that generally contradict your position, may be worthy of consideration before pronouncing judgment.

Do they? Let's see what the DxOMark photo scores say about the Galaxy S9+ vs Pixel 2:

91 for Exposure and contrast for S9+, 95 for PX2
81 for Color for S9+, 86 for PX2
91 for Autofocus for S9+, 98 for PX2
67 for Texture for S9+, 73 for PX2

These are the things we're talking about, and on each of these the Galaxy S9+ is beaten by the Pixel 2 by quite some margin. So the more "objective" review actually contradict YOUR position...

The only reason the general Galaxy S9+ score beats the Pixel 2 is because of better noise reduction (at the expense of details in some scenarios) and especially because of zoom where it thrashes the Pixel 2 with more than double its score because the PX2 does not have a second telephoto camera.

Also I trust more real life examples than "measured" reviews which are not tested in real life scenarios like moving pets or kids. I have no doubt the Galaxy S9 takes great landscape pictures, but the fact is it destroys details in a lot of scenarios, and in low-ish light will remove all details from skin and fur. Some people might not mind, I do...

 

[edubb256]

Do they? Let's see what the DxOMark photo scores say about the Galaxy S9+ vs Pixel 2:

91 for Exposure and contrast for S9+, 95 for PX2
81 for Color for S9+, 86 for PX2
91 for Autofocus for S9+, 98 for PX2
67 for Texture for S9+, 73 for PX2

These are the things we're talking about, and on each of these the Galaxy S9+ is beaten by the Pixel 2 by quite some margin. So the more "objective" review actually contradict YOUR position...

The only reason the general Galaxy S9+ score beats the Pixel 2 is because of better noise reduction (at the expense of details in some scenarios) and especially because of zoom where it thrashes the Pixel 2 with more than double its score because the PX2 does not have a second telephoto camera.

Also I trust more real life examples than "measured" reviews which are not tested in real life scenarios like moving pets or kids. I have no doubt the Galaxy S9 takes great landscape pictures, but the fact is it destroys details in a lot of scenarios, and in low-ish light will remove all details from skin and fur. Some people might not mind, I do...

I'm generally a fan of the DXOmark scores, but in this case, they got it wrong, or I got a defective camera. In particular, I think the exposure and contrast, and texture scores DXOmark gave the S9+ are too high given actual performance of the S9+ I had.

 

[waqqas31]

I'd have to agree, this is NOT a good camera. Everything is blurred unless the subject is completely still, good luck taking pictures of any kids. Then if you do get them to hold still, there's absolutely no sharpness in any pictures. This is my 9 month old. As you can see, there is absolutely no detail to his skin. When I take the same picture with my Pixel 2, there's detail and natural imperfections in his skin. Do I expect this camera to be better than the Pixel 2? No, but I expect it to be better than my Moto X Pure Edition, of which it is not.View attachment 282420

I agree with you, but beauty is in the eye of the beholder. When my wife saw her picture and asked for affirmation that her skin looked good, I didn't have the heart to tell her that it was the S9+'s camera :lol:

But I hope they offer some sort of fix or option (and fast). I was hoping to keep this thing for at least 2 years, given the cash I shelled out for it.