Samsung Galaxy Note 3 - Does anyone else think the camera sucks?

[anon24860]

And now, a shot under the same conditions as the last, only I clicked the shutter and moved before it was ready. We're only talking a fraction of a second but you can see the difference it makes.

 

[xderiwx]

Nice tele!

Anyone pick up the suggested camera fv5 app? I was on my way to do it until heading into the reviews. There seems to be a ton of negative reviews about performance and crashing?

Posted via Android Central App

 

[minnieusa]

My note 3 camera is horrible. Usibg standard settings with auto

Sent from my SCH-I535 using AC Forums mobile app

 

[rusty502]

I'm of the opinion that the camera is horrible. Same as my wife's S4. We know low light is bad but the issue i'm having is the majority of my photos are blurry. If i'm not still as a statue the photos just will not come out. In that regard it's the worst camera on any phone i've ever owned. They really should be a simple point and shoot. If i'm going to tweak settings all day i'd just use my DSLR.

So if there is some sort of a settings i'm missing that would help I sure would like to know.

If it has already been mentioned I apologies, but let's not forget this is a 13 mp camera with a very high pixel density, the high resolution will make it much more susceptible to camera shake than other cameras with much lower resolution.

 

[runamuck0870]

http://img.tapatalk.com/d/14/01/16/ne6eju3u.jpg

I just took this low light shot. Obviously, white balance is an issue. That can be fixed in post if necessary. The only light was a 100 light bulb a foot from my left shoulder under a brown shade (hence the tint). But, you can see that it's not too blurry. A little, but only because I didn't let the camera focus on the guitar. The picture and far wall ended up being the focal point. But this was a true low light shot.

Any photo taken within 10 feet of a 100 Watt bulb is most definitely NOT low light. Most living rooms with a single reading lamp running a 60 watt incadescent.....that's a little more like it.

 

[anon24860]

I would argue that when that bulb is behind a beige lampshade and in between the object and the light is the side of a brown 6 ft. bookcase AND an acoustic guitar leaning against said bookshelf which you can't see, not to mention the ugly brown carpet, it's low light. That is a dim corner. I just took this similar shot with the ProCapture app, which saves the ISO and shutter speed info and it defaulted to 1600 and 1/10 in non-flash auto mode. That's low light. I forgot to mention that the tv was on, which you can see a slice of in this new shot and which obviously adds a little light. But the corner that constitutes this shot is definitely low light. Trust me.

 

[anon24860]

You can also see the increased noise, but less aggressive noise reduction with the ProCapture app. The original was taken with the smart stabilization.

 

[anon24860]

If it has already been mentioned I apologies, but let's not forget this is a 13 mp camera with a very high pixel density, the high resolution will make it much more susceptible to camera shake than other cameras with much lower resolution.

I'm not sure that this is as much of a factor (if at all) as focal length and shutter speed. The longer the focal length, the more chance there is of shake affecting the shot. While not an issue with a cameraphone, some of it is the wobble you get from an extended telephoto lens (physically it's harder to keep it still). But a lot of it is due to the fact that the narrower the angle view is, the more that shake is exacerbated. And shutter speed is a no-brainer.

 

[back2Dfuture]

You can also see the increased noise, but less aggressive noise reduction with the ProCapture app. The original was taken with the smart stabilization.

If ProCapture defaults to 1600 ISO then the lighting must be quite dim.I much prefer to have some noise rather than the over processed look using smart stabilization.I think ProCapture gets the best balance at ISO 1600.There is some noise reduction compared to say camera zoom fx or shot control at 1600 which are very grainy but not overly so as to look washed out.

In that picture using ProCapture,the little bit of graininess doesn't really make the photo look too bad.

 

[anon24860]

Yes, quite dim indeed. It's a function of where the main light is placed. There is very little direct light, even though there is a 55" tv three feet away and a 100 watt bulb about 7 feet away. It's blocked by an unseen acoustic guitar and a bookcase that you can't see (it's the same height as the tall one in the picture). The lighter color short one is in between the two taller ones. If I take the lamp and move it two feet into the room, I get more direct light, but ProCapture still defaults to the same readings. There's just a lot less noise. Don't judge the focus though as I was holding the lamp in my left hand and shooting with the Note 3 with my right. Notice that it's not THAT blurred though.

 

[anon24860]

 

[anon24860]

One slight downside (for me) to ProCapture is that it values ISO over shutter speed. This shot is clearly in bright light (the window is blown out, which I can live with), but the shutter speed is still 1/15 at 160 ISO. Fortunately this was a still life, but imagine some kids or pets moving around. Maybe movement would trigger a faster shutter speed and/or a higher ISO, but I think that 1/15 should be reserved for true low light situations. Using my "real cameras", I have trouble getting a clean shot at that speed unless I am braced due to the weight of the camera (and my GF1 would never default to those settings - not even close). This is where the size of the phone comes in handy. If you can hold it steady through the actual shutter actuation (the white border), you can shoot non-moving objects pretty clearly down to 1/10. That's pretty impressive if you ask me.

 

[LunatiqueRob]

I have been using the camera FX app and just now bought the Camera FV-5 app. I'm still getting blurry or soft images. Even being as still as I can.

Did you read the article I wrote? I gave detailed information on the causes of blur in photos, and techniques to counter the various factors, as well as the important features of Camera FV-5 and why they help you shoot better photos.

 

[LunatiqueRob]

I went ahead and broke the article into parts, so it's easier to read and find exactly the information you want. It's now in three parts:

Part 1 - Switching from iOS (iPhone 4) to Android (Galaxy Note 3) & my favorite Android apps / accessories recommendations

Part 2 – Samsung Galaxy Note 3′s camera test & recommendations for best Android camera apps

Part 3 – How to take better photos (technical and artistic tips for beginner and intermediate photograph

 

[heyjohnnybravo]

Inside shots are horrendous with this camera but I may chalk that up to software. It's low light rendering is terrible unless your hands have the stability of a tripod haha.

Outside shots look great however! But I know exactly what you mean by the blur.

Posted via Android Central App

 

[DrSavant]

There seems to be a lot of confusion in this thread, between soft and blurry images. There is a big difference.

My personal complaint has always been the oil painting deal, which is something that bothers quite a few people. I've also repeatedly said, that this must be a software, rather than a hardware issue.

While LunatiqueRob deserves a loud round of applause for such a huge article, and so many bases covered (and I definitely want to take the time to read other sections), I would have to vehemently disagree with a few points in it (all regarding the camera).

The statement of "You cannot expect it behave like the Note 2", is borderline preposterous - if I can't expect it to "perform like", then I need to expect it to perform better, or AT LEAST like the Note 2, because the Note 3 is supposed to be an UPGRADE. If the Note 2 produced better low light images, then there is something fundamentally wrong from a marketing standpoint - a newer model should not mean compromise - it should mean progress.

The app suggestions are greatly appreciated, and I'm busy trying them one by one, however again, it is very irritating (but thankfully it's Android, so there is freedom), that you need to go a 3rd party route, to fix something that was broken.

The "professional" comparisons you are quoting - I would hardly call gsmarena a professional resource on photography. If it was dpreview, then we'd be talking, however these are not people to rely on. Your personal tests, hold more merit, in my opinion, than theirs.

The 4k argument is weak - most people don't have 4k television sets, nor they are going to own one, in the next 10 months, until the Note 4 (or whatever it may be) comes out. It's great that they put it in, but it is mostly marketing - if you can't properly enjoy it, then what's the point?

My biggest qualm here, is that Samsung is slowly turning into Apple, and buying a Note 2, when it came out, for me, was a way out of the Apple world. Now I'm being told what to like.

Also, the Note 3 has seen downgrades in other areas, like S-Note (all you S-Note users know exactly what I'm talking about), and a wide variety of bugs, including some very annoying Bluetooth bugs.

Would I go back to the Note 2? It's too late now, however had I known all that I know now, I may have held off until either Note 4, or all other bugs being ironed out. Well, who am I kidding - I always must own the latest stuff And the leather back has really grown on me.


Let the flaming begin To all the fanboys, screaming and yelling how their Note 3 camera is the best - keep doing so - you are entitled to an opinion

 

[anon24860]

Did you read the article I wrote? I gave detailed information on the causes of blur in photos, and techniques to counter the various factors, as well as the important features of Camera FV-5 and why they help you shoot better photos.

Edited because I thought that I was the one being addressed. I wasn't.

 

[anon24860]

"The statement of "You cannot expect it behave like the Note 2", is borderline preposterous - if I can't expect it to "perform like", then I need to expect it to perform better, or AT LEAST like the Note 2, because the Note 3 is supposed to be an UPGRADE. If the Note 2 produced better low light images, then there is something fundamentally wrong from a marketing standpoint - a newer model should not mean compromise"

I'd take issue with this in that the PHONE is supposed to be an upgrade, not necessarily the camera. While I understand where you're coming from on a couple of levels, I still haven't seen side by side comparisons of the Note 2 vs the Note 3. I hear all sorts of chatter about it, but until someone comes up to bat, I'll reserve judgment. And there's the better video quality that's pointed out. That might very well trump the "low light" deficit in terms of the engineering. Perhaps THAT'S the reason for upping the pixel count...I dunno.

I think the ******** about some slight slippage in low light ability is a bit funny. Every camera, EVERY CAMERA, compromises in one area or another, even subsequent models have issues of feature and quality tampering (I gave an earlier example of the Panasonic GF/GM line). But this isn't just a camera - it's a smartphone with a camera. It's a far better phone camera than 99.9% of phone cameras out there. And they have made some decisions that MIGHT have adversely affected one aspect of one aspect of the operation of their phone. I can't even evaluate how badly they've done it because no one is willing to post comparisons.

 

[anon24860]

http://m.connect.dpreview.com/post/3690994318/samsung-galaxy-note3-first-look-review

A good look at the pluses and minuses. You should compare this with the review of the Note 2. Many of the same low light quibbles.

 

[z06mike]

Since soooo many people swear the camera on the Note sucks, feast your eyes on these beauties!!! (All taken with the MIGHTY iPhone 5s)