Moto X Pure Edition Camera

[Loiter]

Re: "Official" Photo Gallery Samples

Thanks for the replies.

Have to disagree though that a smartphone camera never can replace a good camera. I usually shoot with a Nikon Df and prime lenses. Excellent sensor that can see in the dark, but there are these moments with no Nikon with me and then I want a quality backup that's easy to carry along, and well the phone is always with me.

Phone cameras are able to produce astonishing results, and I'm pleased to see how well the MXP performs in good lighting. The sticky pictures thread shows the feared flaws. As soon as the light gets more challenging, colors look washed out and dull, so this looks like a flagship phone for many good reasons, but not the camera I'm afraid.

Interesting point made by Loiter:



Currently owning a Windows Lumia device, excellent camera, but Windows Mobile with is excellent user interface and great work flow is still very limited in use, so either heading back to the very nicely integrated Apple world or a first Android device.

But the Apple home button really is something I try to avoid, and when changing back to the last window having to tap the top right instead of something in the bottom of the screen where the fingers naturally are. Tough choices, as there are so many great options out there!

Well, I haven't always been an Android user and I don't consider myself a "fandroid". I've been a fan of webOS, I've used some Symbian (mainly to try the excelllent Nokia 808 Pureview) and I know something of iOS. So I'll try to be objective.
I'm also in the same boat as you, I own a Nikon camera and I try to have it with me, but as you said you can't always carry with you.
So:
- If you know and like iOS, you should stick with an iPhone which always performs nicely in terms of photos (although IMHO is nowdays not as good a cameraphone as some of the Androids). If you have invested in the iTunes (which I detest with passion) ecosystem, then maybe you should go back.
- If you really want to try Android for your first time you should get a new Nexus or a new Moto. It's a good first contact with Android (being stock or ALMOST as stock) and they are respectively the first Nexus and Moto devices to have good cameras. Also, if you have a Lumia and you like the Glance/Peek thingy, then you will absolutely love Moto Display. If on other hand you'd prefer a bit better low-light performance get the Nexus. For me, Android after 4.3 is the best OS for people that tweak their phones. I'm not talking about rooting. Just everyday things you would like to change. It gives you enough freedom that Apple thinks you don't need.
- Also, I don't know where you live, but usually the iPhones are a lot more expensive than some of the best Android devices. So you can get things like quick charging or fingerpint scanner for less money or you can save some money to buy other things (even accessories for your phone). You won't go wrong with any of the devices mentioned (iPhone 6s, MXPE, Nexus, LG G4, even S6). Unless you want excellent low-light performance, where there are differences between them. I wouldn't personally choose a phone only based on this, as there are many other aspects to consider, but it's your choice after all.

Just my two cents.

 

[Almeuit]

Re: If camera is a main priority, does the X Pure deliver?

No phone meets the needs of good photographs, it meets the needs of goofing around shots. It's good for quick snapshots, period.

I would have to disagree with this. I use my phone as my main camera not just quick snapshots. I am not a photographer nor am I going to blow up a poster of a photo so wasting money on a real camera wouldn't be needed.

 

[Ry]

Re: If camera is a main priority, does the X Pure deliver?

No phone meets the needs of good photographs, it meets the needs of goofing around shots. It's good for quick snapshots, period.

I used to take photos for spanish language functions and have taken thousands of photos, but while a phone camera is ok for taking shots out and about it makes no sense to rely on something like that for photos that you want for memories. It's a phone with a camera as a hobby. If you want good get a small point and shoot even, better than even the best phone. If you just want to grab something happening at the moment then.

You can get a small point and shoot that is much better than any phone for less money with zoom and a lot of options. I guess some do not care about their photos, I am old enough that they mean a lot to me and I have a lot taken on slr and dslr that I am glad are not from a phone.

I'm not saying never take a picture with a phone, I'm just saying if you know you are going to be taking pictures and you want them to matter it makes no sense to choose a phone.

Carrying a point and shoot is irrelevant. The top-tier smartphones of this era can all take great photos. It makes sense to choose one that can take the best photographs.

 

[MTeator]

Re: If camera is a main priority, does the X Pure deliver?

It's irrelevant to you and people that can't do anything but push a shoot button but the fact is with zoom and all the different options they have now they are in a different universe than phone cameras no matter how much you want them to be. Some even shoot in raw. I'm not sure why you are getting upset, it's a fact.

Before the revolution in smartphone cameras, we were all shooting quick shots with 110 film and polaroids. This is what the non-camera-geek people are comparing to in their minds. What we can do now with phones is amazing. I don't care about being a great photographer, I want to capture memories in a quality sharable manner.

 

[Ry]

Re: If camera is a main priority, does the X Pure deliver?

It's irrelevant to you and people that can't do anything but push a shoot button but the fact is with zoom and all the different options they have now they are in a different universe than phone cameras no matter how much you want them to be. Some even shoot in raw. I'm not sure why you are getting upset, it's a fact.

Actually take a look and tell me how cheap phone cameras make point and shoot's irrelevant and. They do not, they still have a long way to go.

Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 review - CNET

http://cnet3.cbsistatic.com/hub/i/r...706b/Sony_Cybershot_DSC_RX100_35326410_01.jpg

It's irrelevant in the sense that if someone's asking for the best camera on a phone, point and shoots don't matter - they're not even looking at those. Since we're all making assumptions, I'm making the assumption that we should all know that regular cameras take better photos that cameras on a phone.

It's like someone asking about the best point and shoot, then someone coming in and recommending a DSLR. We know with the right lens and right training, a DSLR will take better photos than most point and shoots but the original question was about point and shoots in this example.

I am not saying point and shoots are irrelevant as a whole. I'm saying they're irrelevant to the conversation/question.

 

[MTeator]

Re: If camera is a main priority, does the X Pure deliver?

The op posted concerns about the camera and I will still say if you are concerned with the camera then get a real camera.

I'm in a similar boat as the OP and understand the question entirely. I have a nice DSLR and a nice point and shoot. They both collect dust because I'm not a photographer so I don't bring them with me. Photography itself isn't my primary concern as it's not my hobby. I do want to take the best pictures possible with what I have on me cause photographer or not I like a good photo. So the question of wanting the phone with the best camera is a valid one, especially if you're not someone so concerned with the phones that the difference between the iPhone, MPXE, Nexus 6P, Note 5, etc really matter. Honestly, to the average user, it's hard to buy a smartphone nowadays that isn't good at being a smartphone.

 

[Almeuit]

Re: If camera is a main priority, does the X Pure deliver?

Mod Note - Let's not go down the troll / insult road. Thanks.

 

[sulla1965]

Re: If camera is a main priority, does the X Pure deliver?

Now that I have the Moto X Pure I can say the camera is much improved over previous Motorola devices. In daylight the color accuracy is phenomenal. Better than S6 or G4. Focus is also lightning fast, comparable to the S6. EIS is amazing, videos are smoother than on s6 or G4. Low light is a problem, but flash does take decent photos. The only things I don't like is the lack of 1080p @ 60fps . and the over sharpening of photos which make parts of some photos look slightly out of focus. 21 megapixels means the Moto pure can take highly detailed photos. I still prefer the G4 and s6.,overall, but I can definitely live with the Moto x pure's camera.

 

[hrbib21]

I'll you one thing that's horrible on mine: Video. Grainy beyond belief in all light conditions. Grainy no matter the video quality I choose.

 

[jephanie]

Re: moto camera is really growing on me

Yeah that was my point too - I use the circle focus tool, but it's just not the same as touch to focus. I discovered recently that only I can take decent pics with my phone, if I give it to my wife to take a pic they're mostly out of focus or blurry.

Exact same experience I have with my pro DSLR. I can get fantastic images without any thought. Hand it to someone else....absolutely horribly out-of-focus and blurred images.

 

[jephanie]

Re: "Official" Photo Gallery Samples

I think the image blur in the macro shots provides a nice effect. Good eye on the barrel distortion but, um, yeah. It's a smartphone camera. ;-)

Image blur is not the same thing as bokeh.

 

[Shimon Mor]

I compared the camera on the Moto XPE to a couple of "real" cameras so people can see how they actually compare. Although the Moto is 21 Mega pixels and is fairly new...you will see below that it can't compare to larger sized sensors. However, most people just post images on the net so when they are downsized, camera photos actually look pretty good. Note, this is not a comprehensive comparison nor is it perfect test. It's a quick and dirty comparison. All shots were handheld. Field-of-view for the Moto and Ricoh were about the same while the Nikon was shot with a 35mm lens so I stood a little further away to achieve a similar FOV. Exposure on the Moto was all auto (of course, no choice here) and the Ricoh and Nikon were shot at f4 with auto ISO. I took a shot indoors and outdoors with each camera. I posted a 1200 pixel down-sampled image and a 100% crop from each camera.

You can see that 21 MP doesn't really mean much. A 12 MP camera from 2008 has much more resolution. Of course, comparing a camera phone to a DSLR isn't fair...but it's a good demonstration that Mega-pixels are really just marketing ploys: "more is better". As you can see...more isn't necessarily better. But marketing departments love numbers they can boast in advertisements. In the outdoor shots, you can see that it would be difficult to tell any of these images apart once down-sized for Internet viewing. But the indoor shots have a lot more variation with the Moto having a lot of noise-reduction applied which destroys any acuity. It's too bad the Moto doesn't shoot RAW and allow manual controls. We could do a lot with that small sensor to improve output if we had more control.

First, some camera specifications:

Moto XPE: 1/2.4" sensor (5.92 x 4.57 mm), 21MP (5248 x 3936 px), Focal Length (35mm equiv) approx 28mm, max aperture f2.0, released 2015
Ricoh GR: APS-C sensor (23.7 x 15.7 mm), 16MP (4928 x 3264 px), Focal Length (35mm equiv) 28mm, max aperture f2.8, released 2013 (camera is a high-end point and shoot with a large sensor)
Nikon D700: 35mm sensor (36 x 23.9 mm), 12MP (4256 x 2832 px), Foca Length 35mm, max aperture f2.0, release 2008 (lens used: Zeiss Distagon T* 35mm f/2 ZF.2 manual focus)