Note 3: My Note 1's camera was better then this....

[V J]

You can harbor your opinions all you want. All objective data says it's a provably incorrect conclusion.

You cannot quote me because you haven't seen me say that.

I said that the phone has been reviewed on par or better than the iPhone 5S in most shooting scenarios, and that even by 2012 standards the GS3 wasn't an amazing camera phone. It's low light capability would be unforgivable if launched in a recent flagship (low light doesn't = night time/pure darkness, BTW) and it's White Balance, Color Accuracy, Exposure, Focus Speeds, Burst Shot Speeds, And Software Speed/Processing Times (for things like HDR, Night Mode Shots), etc. are all lacking compared the S4 or Note 3.

There is no shred of objective evidence that says the GS3 was better than the Note 3, or even on par with it, as far as camera performance is concerned. None.

So you can wail all day about how your opinion and experience is this or that, but that actually doesn't even matter except for whether or not you decide to keep the phone for yourself. The Note 3 on Auto is easily better than the S3 on Auto.

Oh, I can't quote you?

the Note 3, which has been proven by every reputable camera review site/professional to perform better

You can defend the Note 3 camera all you want. But there are a number of people unhappy with it, and that's not up for debate. Sure, I may be being subjective when I say my S3's camera performed better that this. But being able to objectively produce higher quality / better resolution / better colour reproduction / more detailed / better fidelity photos after spending 5 minutes trying to get the right settings and retakes is NOT what most people are after. For some of us it boils right down to being able to produce great photos with relative EASE OF USE, a concept which seems lost on you.

 

[iN8ter]

Oh, I can't quote you?

Don't quote me out of context and in snippets. That's intellectually dishonest. We were talking precicely about the GS3 vs the Note 3, and this is what I said, the whole statement...:

So to come and say it is better than the Note 3, which has been proven by every reputable camera review site/professional to perform better (which can produce photos as good or better than an iPhone outside of low light scenarios), is an exaggeration.

And nothing in that statement is untrue.
There is, literally, no camera review site or professional that would say the GS3 is a better camera phone than the Note 3.

Either from an Image or Video Quality POV, or from a camera software features POV, or from a camera optics/ISP Hardware POV. None. Cause it isn't.

There is no objective metric that would put the GS3 ahead of the Note 3 as a camera phone. Likewise, there is no camera professional or reviewer/review site that failed to produce a superior picture with the Note 3 in Auto Mode than the GS3 produced in Auto Mode, especially once the light becomes dubious or low.

You can defend the Note 3 camera all you want. But there are a number of people unhappy with it, and that's not up for debate. Sure, I may be being subjective when I say my S3's camera performed better that this. But being able to objectively produce higher quality / better resolution / better colour reproduction / more detailed / better fidelity photos after spending 5 minutes trying to get the right settings and retakes is NOT what most people are after. For some of us it boils right down to being able to produce great photos with relative EASE OF USE, a concept which seems lost on you.

There are people unhappy with all aspects of every smartphone. Welcome to Planet Earth, where people are about 100x more likely to complain than they are to praise about a product they have.

The Note 3 will outperform the GS3 on Auto. Like I said, had both phones and have access to an S4 which performs very similarly to the Note 3 as well. The S4 and the Note 3 *always* took better pictures, especially once light started to decrease.

I never said that it took 5 minutes of fiddling to produce better photos than the GS3 with a Note 3. The GS3 is for all intents and purposes a terrible camera phone compared to most of the recent flagships on the market these days. But that doesn't mean it doesn't meet the needs of its owner.

What I said is that the phone lacks an Intelligent Auto System and features like Auto HDR, and the software was not designed for super simplicity like the iPhone default camera software. It was designed to give Good Auto-Mode Images and allow you to produce superior-than-auto mode results by going in and optimizing for various usage and environmental scenarios.

The Note 3 is capable of things that the S3 can't even dream of from a camera point of view. It's a superior camera phone, in practically every way possible.

 

[V J]

There is, literally, no camera review site or professional that would say the GS3 is a better camera phone than the Note 3.

That is an assumption on your part. Take your own advice and don't spout opinions while simultaneously trying to pass them off as facts. Stop trying to act like some professional photographer and your word is gospel. Some people prioritize factors other than which one has better technical specs.

Yeah sure, some people will find a fault to any smartphone, that's true enough. But I don't remember the GS3's camera being this heavily criticized when it was released. And contrary to your statements, there are more threads here praising the Note 3 than ones criticizing it or have you failed to notice? Praise is well-deserved, and for the most part I'm happy with the rest of the phone. Although honestly, thanks to this little debate I'm now realizing how important it is to me to actually be able to take good photos with as little fuss as possible, so I'll look into changing handsets.

 

[iN8ter]

That is an assumption on your part. Take your own advice and don't spout opinions while simultaneously trying to pass them off as facts. Stop trying to act like some professional photographer and your word is gospel. Some people prioritize factors other than which one has better technical specs.

Yeah sure, some people will find a fault to any smartphone, that's true enough. But I don't remember the GS3's camera being this heavily criticized when it was released. And contrary to your statements, there are more threads here praising the Note 3 than ones criticizing it or have you failed to notice? Praise is well-deserved, and for the most part I'm happy with the rest of the phone. Although honestly, thanks to this little debate I'm now realizing how important it is to me to actually be able to take good photos with as little fuss as possible, so I'll look into changing handsets.

That's not an assumption, that's a fact. Check all the reputable smartphone camera review sites and you'll see for yourself. DPReview is a good place to start. You can also look at all the Camera Phone Shootouts and reviews from major tech blogs, and there are some very knowledgeable professionals that you can find reviews from via social media and other outlets.

Not one of them would say the S3 was even on par with the Note 3, never mind better.

If the Note 3's camera isn't working for YOU, and the camera is important than I would certainly look into getting another handset. I wanted an HTC One *badly* but got the Note 3 because of the better camera.

 

[mavrrick]

You two do know you are debating two things really. One is complaining about your experience and the other is really talking about the potential of the device.
You can't make someone be smart about using there tech. Just point them in the direction and hopefully they figure it out.

Either way just chill out.

Posted via Android Central App

 

[V J]

That's not an assumption, that's a fact.

Not one of them would say the S3 was even on par with the Note 3, never mind better.

LOL, do you know what an "assumption" is? Did any of this happen? Did anyone say the S3 isn't on par with the Note 3? No? Of course not otherwise you wouldn't have worded it like that. The fact that you say "none of them WOULD say that" is an assumption.

It didn't really happen, you're ASSUMING that is what they WOULD say. So it IS an ASSUMPTION on your part. I hope I explained the meaning of assumption clearly enough.

You Sir, are NOT a god/psychic/fairy/time machine. What you THINK they WOULD say is NOT what's going to happen, it's just an assumption on your part. Good day.

 

[iN8ter]

LOL, do you know what an "assumption" is? Did any of this happen? Did anyone say the S3 isn't on par with the Note 3? No? Of course not otherwise you wouldn't have worded it like that. The fact that you say "none of them WOULD say that" is an assumption.

It didn't really happen, you're ASSUMING that is what they WOULD say. So it IS an ASSUMPTION on your part. I hope I explained the meaning of assumption clearly enough.

You Sir, are NOT a god/psychic/fairy/time machine. What you THINK they WOULD say is NOT what's going to happen, it's just an assumption on your part. Good day.

Have a great night.

 

[jim_h#AC]

Can't remember who commented above on the HTC One X camera, but I can tell you that it was atrocious. Shockingly bad doesn't begin to cover it. I came from a HoX to the N3 - no comparison imho where the camera is concerned. That's my opinion and not a fact, before anyone starts kicking off

 

[shanghaichica]

Can't remember who commented above on the HTC One X camera, but I can tell you that it was atrocious. Shockingly bad doesn't begin to cover it. I came from a HoX to the N3 - no comparison imho where the camera is concerned. That's my opinion and not a fact, before anyone starts kicking off

Interesting. So HTC have had 3 sub par cameras in a row. I guess they don't care too much about their camera technology then.

 

[anon24860]

Don't know about HTC specifically at this point, but different manufacturers place emphasis on different areas. For instance, I had the Eris, the OC Droid, and the Droid X for a span of about 5 years. Each of those phones had a mediocre camera compared with some of the competition. For the HTC Eris, this was made up for by other aspects that made it one of the best phones on the market at the time. For the Moto phones, it was made up for by superior radios which gave them superior reception and the build quality was second to none.

This is my first Samsung phone and the quality of photos compared with Moto is far greater. I wouldn't compare with the Eris because that wouldn't be fair since that was over half a decade ago.

My guess is that Samsung has a higher interest (and better internal R&D) because of their long involvement in the camera market, even though they haven't really done high end cameras.

The Note 3 camera is far from perfect, either stock or with 3rd party apps. There are threads on here that show this, especially for low light. If you search for my posts, you'll find some posts that have direct comparisons personally shot that show the improvement that 3rd party apps make, and is indisputable and even no subjective opinion can plausibly state otherwise. And yet, even then, another poster has posted side by sides on a website that show that the iPhone is yet superior in low light situations even with 3rd party apps for the Note 3.

One of the problems that the Note faces vs recent earlier Samsung is pixel packing. By adding more pixels in the same sensor real estate, you add noise. This could negatively impact image quality over earlier models. I'm not saying that this means that the S3 can make a better picture because I have no experience with the camera nor any interest in checking out comparisons at this point (I only have so much time for such things). But it is a factor that nobody has mentioned.

The cell phone camera is basically a very sophisticated pinhole camera. It is limited by glass and size. It's amazing that we're at the point that we are at. Samsung seems to be on the right track with its current R&D (worth the exception of the pixel race that the bean counters and marketers insist on) but until we get away from the "more pixels is better" mantra, we will be constantly be one step forward and one step backward. 8 mp seems to be a sweet spot for the size sensor that is common. Obviously Nokia has devoted more real estate for their phone and this is good. But let's remember that anything over 8 mp is really only useful for blowing up prints past 8X10 which is something that really won't be all that pleasing with cell phone shots. You just don't have the resolving power of such small lenses.

So, the main advances will be in smarter algorithms, post processing that addresses inherent flaws like limited apertures and lens distortion (even top dollar lenses with big glass and sophisticated internal workings suffer from these distortions to varying degrees).




Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

 

[shanghaichica]

Don't know about HTC specifically at this point, but different manufacturers place emphasis on different areas. For instance, I had the Eris, the OC Droid, and the Droid X for a span of about 5 years. Each of those phones had a mediocre camera compared with some of the competition. For the HTC Eris, this was made up for by other aspects that made it one of the best phones on the market at the time. For the Moto phones, it was made up for by superior radios which gave them superior reception and the build quality was second to none.

This is my first Samsung phone and the quality of photos compared with Moto is far greater. I wouldn't compare with the Eris because that wouldn't be fair since that was over half a decade ago.

My guess is that Samsung has a higher interest (and better internal R&D) because of their long involvement in the camera market, even though they haven't really done high end cameras.

The Note 3 camera is far from perfect, either stock or with 3rd party apps. There are threads on here that show this, especially for low light. If you search for my posts, you'll find some posts that have direct comparisons personally shot that show the improvement that 3rd party apps make, and is indisputable and even no subjective opinion can plausibly state otherwise. And yet, even then, another poster has posted side by sides on a website that show that the iPhone is yet superior in low light situations even with 3rd party apps for the Note 3.

One of the problems that the Note faces vs recent earlier Samsung is pixel packing. By adding more pixels in the same sensor real estate, you add noise. This could negatively impact image quality over earlier models. I'm not saying that this means that the S3 can make a better picture because I have no experience with the camera nor any interest in checking out comparisons at this point (I only have so much time for such things). But it is a factor that nobody has mentioned.

The cell phone camera is basically a very sophisticated pinhole camera. It is limited by glass and size. It's amazing that we're at the point that we are at. Samsung seems to be on the right track with its current R&D (worth the exception of the pixel race that the bean counters and marketers insist on) but until we get away from the "more pixels is better" mantra, we will be constantly be one step forward and one step backward. 8 mp seems to be a sweet spot for the size sensor that is common. Obviously Nokia has devoted more real estate for their phone and this is good. But let's remember that anything over 8 mp is really only useful for blowing up prints past 8X10 which is something that really won't be all that pleasing with cell phone shots. You just don't have the resolving power of such small lenses.

So, the main advances will be in smarter algorithms, past purposing that addresses inherent flaws like limited apertures and lens distortion (even to dollar lenses with big glass and sophisticated internal workings suffer from these distortions).




Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

I had the iPhone 5S for 28 days at the start of the year before selling it and getting the note 3. The iPhone 5S takes better pics in low light. No question about it. In good lighting, with the right settings the note 3 takes better pics. The note 3 images simply have more detail. The camera on the 5S is a lot easier to use and is the true definition of a point and shoot camera. The note has more of a learning curve but in good lighting takes better pics. It's not the best camera on a phone but aside from the 2014 flagships it's up there with the best of them.

Posted from my galaxy note 3

 

[anon24860]

The only problem that I see with normal lighting shots is the sometimes over-aggressive sharpening. Still, I suppose that's preferable to the alternative of too-soft shots. It's easier to soften than it is to sharpen, at least when it comes to getting the best image quality. Canon has always employed the opposite strategy. Their shots are softer out of the box so that they can be tweaked in post processing. They think that is is preferable to the alternative. I'm not so sure. It's a lot of work. Nikon seems to get the sharpening right out of the box better, at least with their DSLRs.

And I've been a Canon user for some years now.

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

 

[z06mike]

I had the iPhone 5S for 28 days at the start of the year before selling it and getting the note 3. The iPhone 5S takes better pics in low light. No question about it. In good lighting, with the right settings the note 3 takes better pics. The note 3 images simply have more detail. The camera on the 5S is a lot easier to use and is the true definition of a point and shoot camera. The note has more of a learning curve but in good lighting takes better pics. It's not the best camera on a phone but aside from the 2014 flagships it's up there with the best of them.

Posted from my galaxy note 3

Was it better looking at the iPhone screen or looking at it on a computer monitor?? Many people believe that the picture looks better than it does because of the lower resolution on the 5/5s screen. While the screen may look very good, the physical resolution is just not there. Have you looked at a small thumbnail on your monitor and it looks incredible and then you blow it up and it's... meh! I'm not saying the iPhone doesn't take good pictures, but I believe that is why many think it is sooooo good. It is also harder to see the motion blur on the smaller screen (thumbnail) than it is when you see it larger.

 

[anon24860]

But that's the same with every smartphone camera.

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

 

[iN8ter]

But that's the same with every smartphone camera.

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

True, but you can resize a 13MP image to 8MP and mask a ton of the noise in the image. Not sure many people want to resize their 8MP images to 4MP or whatnot, though. The higher pixel count coupled with better sensor does afford you some benefits over a lower MP image.

As for the iPhone, Apple's processing is too damn aggressive for me. I couldn't crop much because it softens too much especially in dubious lighting. Background details looked like a watercolor painting. The Note's images are more detailed. I get some fantastic crops out of this camera.

The iPhone's camera is faster, though. The face tracking and focus/shutter speeds on that phone are very impressive. I'd recommend it to any person who isn't a gadget geek but wants a good camera phone - over practically anything on the market these days except maybe a Lumia Icon or something similar.

The iOS/Windows Phone camera software is just more approachable for the average person than what Samsung/HTC puts on their phones. But, I requite a bit more flexibility due to the way I use my device and what I use it for.

 

[jim_h#AC]

Interesting. So HTC have had 3 sub par cameras in a row. I guess they don't care too much about their camera technology then.

It got to the point where I bought a couple of the commercial camera app replacements to try and improve things, but it didn't really help. Even in sunshine, the pics were sub par with chromatic aberration, terrible compression artifacts and various other faults. The pics looked reasonable until seen on a PC monitor or magnified on the mobile screen.

With CameraZoomFX, the Note3 takes far better pics than the HoX ever did. But, even so they still don't compare to even a fairly cheap dedicated point and shoot camera. This is why I never could understand the arguments raging in forums like this about cameras on phones and quality of images. In the end, a camera on a phone is a bit of a gimmic. Without the decent optics and larger sensor (which you don't have room for inside a mobile anyway), pics taken with a phone will always be merely snapshots and nothing more.

 

[iN8ter]

We're well aware that phones don't compare to dedicated cameras. But this is not a camera forum it's a smartphone forum. And we're Comparing the phone to another phone not a camera.

Lol

HTC has always tended to compress their images more than Samsung. That was one of my biggest complaints with them before they put that Ultra pixel camera out and trumped that.

Sent from my Galaxy Note 3 using Tapatalk

 

[jim_h#AC]

We're well aware that phones don't compare to dedicated cameras. But this is not a camera forum it's a smartphone forum. And we're Comparing the phone to another phone not a camera.

The thread is about cameras (on smartphones). If you think there shouldn't be discussion on a smartphone forum about cameras, perhaps you should report the thread? I was merely pointing out that people getting their knickers in a twist over the quality of a smartphone camera should bear in mind that it's an addon to the phone, not a dedicated camera. Sigh. NM.

Lol?

 

[mariaandreson]

Buy Nokia Lumia ....

- - - Updated - - -

Lumia Nokiaaaaa is best I think.

 

[iN8ter]

The thread is about cameras (on smartphones). If you think there shouldn't be discussion on a smartphone forum about cameras, perhaps you should report the thread? I was merely pointing out that people getting their knickers in a twist over the quality of a smartphone camera should bear in mind that it's an addon to the phone, not a dedicated camera. Sigh. NM.

Lol?

Many people don't own dedicated cameras. They use their phones. Have you been keeping up with the camera market and seeing how sales have been progressing compared to cameraphones?

people are ditching them for smartphones everywhere. Cause the phones are good enough.

The issue is whether or not a flagship measures up to what people expect from it in terms of camera quality, not whether it's better than or as God as a dedicated camera.

And it's not a supplement to a lot of people. To many. It is their camera. I'm one of those people and I don't care to own or get anymore equipment to carry around. Thank you.

Sent from my Galaxy Note 3 using Tapatalk