I've Compared Our Camera To That In The Note 2 And Ours SUCKS (!!!) By Comparison....

[PsychDoc]

...I mean really sucks as in it's not even close. The N2 camera is simply better in every respect. I did side by side shots with and without flash and in bright light and limited light. In all instances the N2 was markedly better.

Less grain in limited lighting conditions without flash.

Far better color saturation and contrast. Colors on the DNA camera look beached and washed out under all shooting conditions.

About equal in detail resolution.

Flash performance was markedly better than the DNA with the DNA flash blowing out highlights and ruining color accuracy.

White balance under incandescent lighting was far, far better in the N2 with the DNA causing whites to look decidedly yellow with White Balance set to Auto. Shockingly, when set to Incandescent things got no better with the DNA. A really, really horrible showing for the DNA here. A $10 POS digital camera does a better job. Just shocking.

Special effects on the N2, again, are much better than on the DNA and offer more flexibility and fun. Admittedly, these won't be used much but they do seem to be better integrated and more varied than those found in the DNA.

The only area where I'd give the nod to the DNA is in the fact that we have our zoom bar right on the screen at all times, making zooming and framing very easy and intuitive. The N2 makes you first hit the volume rocker while in camera mode to get the zoom bar up on the screen. And then the place it on the left which is not as ergonomically 'correct' as placing it on the right side of the screen (IMO).

HTC should really be ashamed of itself to equip this phone with such an incredibly sub-par camera. :-\

 

[DarkBeer]

<Sarcasm> Dang. I was just about to purchase a DNA, but now that I can't count on it to replace my DSLR camera, I'm not sure what to do. </Sarcasm>

 

[PsychDoc]

<Sarcasm> Dang. I was just about to purchase a DNA, but now that I can't count on it to replace my DSLR camera, I'm not sure what to do. </Sarcasm>

Sarcasm missed. I wasn't comparing it to a Nikon D800, I was comparing it to another cell phone's camera. And yes, it sucks by comparison. Just trying to be objective here. If you're looking for all sycophantic reviews all the time I guess you'll have to look elsewhere.

 

[Irvgotti]

Weird. My dna takes equally if not better than my friends note 2.

Sent from my HTC6435LVW using Android Central Forums

 

[Bobbman]

Note 2 camera is much more consistent. Had both for 2 weeks. The DNA camera is much hyped, but actual results when pictures printed or looked at on computer only good...not great.

 

[potatolover1102]

My DNA takes the worst low light pictures I have seen in literally years on a phone. It is so grainy I'm embarrassed to show people sometimes. With BSI, image chip, and all these awesome camera qualities I wonder why it performs so poorly to other phones with less? My s3 took great low light photos even before the jelly bean update came which made low light even better. Can the grain be fixed in an update?

Sent from my HTC6435LVW using Android Central Forums

 

[Sooks]

I too have had both phones, regards to low light you are correct, the Note 2 takes it; with natural light and the right settings, there is no doubt in my mind that the DNA takes it, on screen and printed. The DNA has the camera hardware down. It's lacking in software optimization, which hopefully, if we ever get an update from HTC, will be resolved.

 

[PsychDoc]

I too have had both phones, regards to low light you are correct, the Note 2 takes it; with natural light and the right settings, there is no doubt in my mind that the DNA takes it, on screen and printed. The DNA has the camera hardware down. It's lacking in software optimization, which hopefully, if we ever get an update from HTC, will be resolved.

Can you share what the "right settings" are on the DNA. I've played with ISO, color saturation and white balance settings and none seemed to improve it's mediocre performance. What have you discovered? I will say that I like the effects options (post shot) on the DNA are better (read: more realistic and thus, likely to be useful for real world use) than those on the N2.

 

[blashandroid]

I didn't want to admit it but now that I'm reading this thread, I'm recalling several occasions where my DNA camera let me down as well. Specifically, there were several occasions where the camera couldn't focus on the subject and repeatedly attempted focus like the software had the lens on an endless loop of focus-attempts. One occasion was shooting two faces in a well lit room on Christmas Day. The other was at a restaurant with low to mid amount of light; also people were the subjects. Its intermittent and have to think its a software thing as a result. But disappointing nonetheless.

 

[osubeavs728]

I came from a Gnex so compared to that this camera is a dslr

 

[doogie1]

I have to agree, in low light situations It is mediocre. As someone pointed out, In natural, we'll illuminated settings.. It takes exceptional pictures. I had the gs3 and it took phenomenal, low light pictures. It can be fixed with software, it certainly has the right and capable hardware.

 

[jreed2560]

Change the resolution from widescreen to 4.3 and most of the problems are solved. Turn auto iso off and use landscape scene and I get outstanding shots with my DNA

Sent from my HTC6435LVW using Android Central Forums

 

[MrRicks84]

Change the resolution from widescreen to 4.3 and most of the problems are solved. Turn auto iso off and use landscape scene and I get outstanding shots with my DNA

Sent from my HTC6435LVW using Android Central Forums

I tried this and it did help the image quality. I also found less grain & noise if I didn't zoom at all

 

[sr2012]

Indeed. Digital zoom affects quality a lot. Turn off widescreen and use manual low ISO like 200 or even 100 where possible.

Sent from my HTC One X using Android Central Forums

 

[bespinct]

I came from a Gnex so compared to that this camera is a dslr

Yeah, no kidding. It's all relative...

Steve

Sent from my HTC6435LVW using Tapatalk 2

 

[heartagram616]

Compared to the razr m this thing takes immaculate pictures like night and day difference I'm totally happy with the DNA camera. I'm also no photography expert either.

 

[Adamd1169]

...I mean really sucks as in it's not even close. The N2 camera is simply better in every respect. I did side by side shots with and without flash and in bright light and limited light. In all instances the N2 was markedly better.

Less grain in limited lighting conditions without flash.

Far better color saturation and contrast. Colors on the DNA camera look beached and washed out under all shooting conditions.

About equal in detail resolution.

Flash performance was markedly better than the DNA with the DNA flash blowing out highlights and ruining color accuracy.

White balance under incandescent lighting was far, far better in the N2 with the DNA causing whites to look decidedly yellow with White Balance set to Auto. Shockingly, when set to Incandescent things got no better with the DNA. A really, really horrible showing for the DNA here. A $10 POS digital camera does a better job. Just shocking.

Special effects on the N2, again, are much better than on the DNA and offer more flexibility and fun. Admittedly, these won't be used much but they do seem to be better integrated and more varied than those found in the DNA.

The only area where I'd give the nod to the DNA is in the fact that we have our zoom bar right on the screen at all times, making zooming and framing very easy and intuitive. The N2 makes you first hit the volume rocker while in camera mode to get the zoom bar up on the screen. And then the place it on the left which is not as ergonomically 'correct' as placing it on the right side of the screen (IMO).

HTC should really be ashamed of itself to equip this phone with such an incredibly sub-par camera. :-\

You need to find something better to rant about, tiger.

Sent from my HTC6435LVW using Android Central Forums

 

[Bobbman]

I think that the hype with htc cameras leads you to expect the best smartphone camera. There was no hype with the note 2 camera. So when using the DNA the bar was set high by the hype, but it comes in a bit below the expectations. The note 2 didn't set the high expectations so it comes in like wow... Great camera. My long 4 cents.

 

[whiteshadow001]

Seriously at this point in the camera game who cares. We are getting awesome cameras on our phones so Why do we need to see these small details? You're not going to notice the imperfections unless you absolutely look for them.

Besides HTC said the camera issues with the DNA are software related. Once updated the DNA will blow your note 2 away

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

 

[Habiib]

Seriously at this point in the camera game who cares. We are getting awesome cameras on our phones so Why do we need to see these small details? You're not going to notice the imperfections unless you absolutely look for them.

Besides HTC said the camera issues with the DNA are software related. Once updated the DNA will blow your note 2 away

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

With the ImageSense chip and rewritten software, I was expecting more with my EVO. I've seen the issues where it struggled to focus consistently. But you make an excellent point that I think is relevant. When the Nokia Lumia 920 many owners and reviews weren't too pleased with the daylight photos it took. After a recent software update, all of its issues were fixed and the Lumia's daytime photos are just as good as its night-time shots. So it's very possible that HTC could do the same for the DNA and other devices.