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

[Bobbman]

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

Not saying Note 3 camera is the best. But really how many android phone cameras are better? And of those how much better are they really?

Posted via Android Central App

 

[LunatiqueRob]

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

Nobody's saying the Note 3 is the best. Let's not resort to any of the fallacies in logic as commonly seen in Internet debates/arguments.

I don't have the Note 2 and have only tried it briefly in stores in the past, so I can't do carefully controlled tests to compare the Note 2 and Note 3. If someone is willing to take the time and do a legitimate, controlled test like the one I did with the magazine/book covers in low light, showing not just the default shooting mode but also the Smart Stabilization mode, and compare the two phones's cameras's various shots and settings, then we can see exactly where and how Note 3 is different from the Note 2 in terms of camera and camera app. Is it just the oil-painting like post-processing done to remove the noise? Is it exposure level? Is it color rendition? List them all and let's get scientific about it instead of practicing debating skills. I'd be interested to see the test results, as would many others here.

I did include a link to dpreview connect's test--the one showing the low light shots from phone cameras, shooting their famous test setup. If you read the whole article you'd see it.

I also gave the reason why the 4K video can be very useful for the purpose of photography, not just video. It's the simple math of capturing many frames per second at a resolution that satisfies most people's photo needs, thus having a much higher chance of getting frames that got the shot just right, vs. taking one photo at a time. It's exactly like how some professional photographers machine gun their cameras when doing certain types of photoshoots.

Samsung is not forcing anything down your throat. The whole reason to be on Android is to have choices, and if you are not exercising your right to those choices and taking advantage of what's available to you on the Android platform (or you are too lazy to do so, or it's not important enough to you to set aside time to do it), then maybe it's not Samsung's fault? Samsung's marketing/business choices are to please who they think their target audience is--it is not personal, and not a betrayal to you. If you take it personally, then you're the one that's punishing yourself for something other people did. Just about all retail places allow exchange/return periods--usually up to a month. If you decided that the Note 3 as a whole was worth keeping, then own up to your decision because you deemed all the shortcomings acceptable--that's why you kept the Note 3 instead of returning it.

Companies cut features, add features, extend features, cripple features, and this is just how the world turns. It happens all the time, and whether you feel they made the right decisions is purely subjective. Your opinion is just one tiny drop in the ocean that is their customers, and if you want your opinions heard and have a direct effect on the products you care about, then contact the company. Write blog entries about it. Make Youtube videos about it. Do something that would really make a difference and get your voice heard. And if you feel that posting in forums will be equally effective, then be scientific about it and do comparison tests that are comprehensive and persuasive. One quality controlled test can trump a thousand words when it comes to something that's visual.

 

[DrSavant]

Just to address my dpreview comment - you are linking to a test vs the iPhone and etc, however I've been always referring to the Note 2 - nothing else.

Sent from my SM-N900W8 using Tapatalk

 

[CODRAGONJR]

People get too caught up in megapixels. As a photographer you should know it's the quality of the lense and how light passes through it. This is why iphone has the corner on a great camera. They're worried about the lighting and the end result. Not whose is bigger. I own the Note 3 and love it but the camera and resolution DOES suck. But it isn't about the megapixels. It's quality of lenses.

#QPRD

 

[z06mike]

People get too caught up in megapixels. As a photographer you should know it's the quality of the lense and how light passes through it. This is why iphone has the corner on a great camera. They're worried about the lighting and the end result. Not whose is bigger. I own the Note 3 and love it but the camera and resolution DOES suck. But it isn't about the megapixels. It's quality of lenses.

#QPRD

Take a look 1 page back. I posted photos from the phone (5s) that "has a corner on a great camera."

 

[LunatiqueRob]

People get too caught up in megapixels. As a photographer you should know it's the quality of the lense and how light passes through it. This is why iphone has the corner on a great camera. They're worried about the lighting and the end result. Not whose is bigger. I own the Note 3 and love it but the camera and resolution DOES suck. But it isn't about the megapixels. It's quality of lenses.

#QPRD

I haven't seen any evidence that the Note 3's lens is the culprit in any of the problems that people have noticed. I don't know if you read my articles/camera test, or any of the other ones that's floating out there on the web, but it's very easy to see that the culprit is Samsung's default camera app's heavy-handed processing of the noise removal, as well as the limitations of the sensor. The lens itself has never exhibited any issues that anyone's ever noticed--be it the average consumer, professional tech reviewer, or professional photographers.

 

[anon24860]

From the DPreview article about the Note 3:

"In good light, the weakest link in the image quality chain may be the lens. Our review unit frequently produced substantial softness on the left side of the frame. This wasn?t visible in every shot: some were sharp corner-to-corner. Weirdly, we observed the softness come and go in two shots of the same subject taken seconds apart. It?s possible that small shifts in the focus distance chosen by the AF system reveal the softness. It?s also possible (even likely) that not all Note 3?s will experience the same issue. Sample variation remains a problem in optics".

 

[LunatiqueRob]

From the DPreview article about the Note 3:

"In good light, the weakest link in the image quality chain may be the lens. Our review unit frequently produced substantial softness on the left side of the frame. This wasn’t visible in every shot: some were sharp corner-to-corner. Weirdly, we observed the softness come and go in two shots of the same subject taken seconds apart. It’s possible that small shifts in the focus distance chosen by the AF system reveal the softness. It’s also possible (even likely) that not all Note 3’s will experience the same issue. Sample variation remains a problem in optics".

Try not to read too much into that, because they're talking about corner sharpness. How many photos taken by most people require corner-to-corner sharpness? Most consumer grade lenses you can buy for DSLR's have corner sharpness problems--this is very common. Only the really expensive or well-designed lenses tend to have corner-to-corner sharpness. There are plenty of expensive professional lenses that don't have corner-to-corner sharpness, and they cost more than a thousand dollars.

As for AF consistency, even on my professional DSLR and lenses that together cost $5,000+, I get autofocus inconsistencies depending on how I'm operating the camera.

And they also stated that it could be just due to sample variation and not something that's been confirmed to exist in all Note 3's.

 

[anon24860]

Well, you said that nobody had any problems with the lens <shrug>.

 

[anon24860]

Plus, you've sort of misread the quote. They said "substantial softness in the left side of the frame" but that some were sharp "corner to corner". You're sort of falling for the same trap that others have had in this thread - trying to justify a position.

Personally, I like the camera in general and think it's in the top echelon. I'm somewhat skeptical about the claims about the Note 2, but I could see that as a result of the pixel packing. I would just rather see some examples of side by side.

 

[LunatiqueRob]

Plus, you've sort of misread the quote. They said "substantial softness in the left side of the frame" but that some were sharp "corner to corner". You're sort of falling for the same trap that others have had in this thread - trying to justify a position.

Personally, I like the camera in general and think it's in the top echelon. I'm somewhat skeptical about the claims about the Note 2, but I could see that as a result of the pixel packing. I would just rather see some examples of side by side.

I don't really have a "position" though. I don't think Note 3's camera sucks, but I don't think it's great either. I'd assume anyone who read the article I wrote would come to the conclusion that I think its quality/performance is pretty much typical of today's smartphone camera. In some ways it can be considered one of the better cameras on a phone, but only if its standout features matter to you (such as the 4K video), and it is certainly not the king of the hill as there are more photography-centric camera phones on the market. I do think the overall image quality gets better once you replace Samsung's default camera app with any of the ones that don't force the heavy-handed processing, but it's still just a phone camera at the end of the day, and I use it like one, never expecting it to do what it wasn't designed to do--that's why I'm not angry at it or at Samsung. I never had high expectations for phone cameras in the first place, so to me, Note 3's camera falls well within what I think a phone camera is capable of, and there's really nothing about it that falls outside of that range--good or bad.

I'm by nature, more of a 'doer" that likes to find solutions to problems, and figuring out how to do something better or work around limitations by being clever, resourceful, or developing my knowledge and skills. So I prefer to frame questions in the context of "How can I best use this tool, and how can I work around its limitations?" I don't dwell too much on being disappointed or angry at the tool, because that's not a productive use of my time. If I have suggestions for the manufacturer, I contact them directly and give them my list of feature requests, where I think they went wrong, and my suggestions for future improvements. I do this a lot with all the products I use--from software, to household electronics, to professional tools I use. I always get very appreciative replies from the companies I contact, because I make sure I know my stuff, have done the research and tests, and my suggestions are sound and reasonable, as well as insightful and beneficial to the companies. I also write public reviews where my voice can be heard and thus have some influence on the future development of the product.

I agree with you that the pixel-packing is likely part of the problem going from Note 2 and 3, but until someone posts a set of controlled tests, we don't have reliable data. It's even possible that once someone actually performs a scientific, controlled test, they realize all the differences they've noticed between the Note 2 and Note 3 were simply due to the fact the shots were not done in a controlled, scientific manner, thus the variations in the samples are perfectly normal, and not because the Note 2 is actually significantly better.

 

[anon24860]

I was mainly referring to the response to my posting of contrary info to your statement about lenses. It seemed a little defensive and trying to justify something that really didn't need to be justified.

I liked your approach and your work.

I know that there are issues with lower light shots. But that's the same with virtually every smartphone camera up to this point, with perhaps the exception of the Nokia, which I need to check out. You almost have a pinhole camera situation with smartphone cameras. You can actually produce fine photos with pinhole cameras if the conditions are perfect and the operator knows how to tailor the camera to the conditions. You can also make bad pictures with the most expensive camera/lens combos if you aren't careful. My point is that everything goes against the smartphone camera. Tiny lens/sensor combo is primary. I think we are at least a couple of generations away from solving the low light situation. That's not to say it it can't be solved by ingenious engineering, but there's a reason why glass has always been prized as a solution to photographic challenges. Still, Carter-Bresson proved that you don't need 4 inches of glass to make great photos. He STILL needed "great glass" and top notch build quality. There's a reason he used Leica and not a Browning.

 

[anon24860]

But there are also things that work in the favor of smartphone cameras. You don't have to struggle as much against the weight of the camera. As I pointed out earlier, it's very hard to get a presentable image at 1/10 with a conventional camera unless you are braced or on tripod. The smartphone camera with the Note 3 can produce such an image without much problem. Is it perfect? Nope. Is the Note 2 better? I dunno. But it's better than I can get with my 1.7 pancake lens on my Panasonic, or even my prime (but non L) 1.4 Canon 50mm. It's just too hard to keep the lens/body stable enough to prevent serious camera shake.

 

[LunatiqueRob]

But there are also things that work in the favor of smartphone cameras. You don't have to struggle as much against the weight of the camera. As I pointed out earlier, it's very hard to get a presentable image at 1/10 with a conventional camera unless you are braced or on tripod. The smartphone camera with the Note 3 can produce such an image without much problem. Is it perfect? Nope. Is the Note 2 better? I dunno. But it's better than I can get with my 1.7 pancake lens on my Panasonic, or even my prime (but non L) 1.4 Canon 50mm. It's just too hard to keep the lens/body stable enough to prevent serious camera shake.

Very true. That photo of the frost on the leaves I showed in the article--the Note 3 did a far better job than my $5,000+ professional DSLR rig when shooting that scene. It was almost comical, but as they say, horses for courses. There are plenty of other situations where my DSLR rig will eat the Note 3 for breakfast.

 

[anon24860]

True dat.

 

[anon24860]

This is a good example of a shot that would be impossible with the Note 3 but which is pretty easy with a 1.7 pancake lens on a Panasonic 4/3 camera.

 

[back2Dfuture]

I doubt we are going to wait a few generations for great low light smartphone cameras.As we speak,graphene sensors are being developed that are 1000 times more light sensitive than current sensors.

 

[mfldmike]

For some reason I get better pictures from the 8mp setting rather the man going full resolution


Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

 

[anon24860]

I doubt we are going to wait a few generations for great low light smartphone cameras.As we speak,graphene sensors are being developed that are 1000 times more light sensitive than current sensors.

If they are just being developed, it will probably be a few generations before it gets perfected in a phone. Note that I'm not saying years and years, but generations now are about 9 months. And look what you're saying about the Note 2 vs the Note 3. Sometimes marketing gets their way. Just because they succeed with this new technology in the lab doesn't mean that it will translate in manufacture. Product design (sometimes geometry or competing engineering issues get in the way even down to the physical placement of other components), scaling the technology, protecting the patent, all of these things are factors. That's why I think that it will be a little while. I wouldn't be surprised if Apple were the one to figure it out since they were the first to have a really good camera in a cellphone.

Fuji had a portable camera 4 years ago that was supposedly the best for low light in point and shoots (it was called the f40 or something). It became a cult classic. And yet, the follow-up camera wasn't as good and they never were able to duplicate the low light success. Obviously something got in the way. Maybe it didn't sell as well as they thought based on that one feature despite the hullabaloo in the press.

I really do wish that Foveon would get involved in the cellphone sensor biz (maybe they ARE involved, I dunno). Not sure how good their proprietary sensor arrangement is for low light but the output is sure sweet. Tying their fortunes to one company, Sigma, has been a mistake IMHO.

 

[back2Dfuture]

If they are just being developed, it will probably be a few generations before it gets perfected in a phone. Note that I'm not saying years and years, but generations now are about 9 months. And look what you're saying about the Note 2 vs the Note 3. Sometimes marketing gets their way. Just because they succeed with this new technology in the lab doesn't mean that it will translate in manufacture. Product design (sometimes geometry or competing engineering issues get in the way even down to the physical placement of other components), scaling the technology, protecting the patent, all of these things are factors. That's why I think that it will be a little while. I wouldn't be surprised if Apple were the one to figure it out since they were the first to have a really good camera in a cellphone.

Fuji had a portable camera 4 years ago that was supposedly the best for low light in point and shoots (it was called the f40 or something). It became a cult classic. And yet, the follow-up camera wasn't as good and they never were able to duplicate the low light success. Obviously something got in the way. Maybe it didn't sell as well as they thought based on that one feature despite the hullabaloo in the press.

I really do wish that Foveon would get involved in the cellphone sensor biz (maybe they ARE involved, I dunno). Not sure how good their proprietary sensor arrangement is for low light but the output is sure sweet. Tying their fortunes to one company, Sigma, has been a mistake IMHO.

It's not just graphene sensors in the works but Samsung will be using an Isocell camera sensor in their next generation of high end phones.This technology promises 8 times more light sensitivity so we maybe seeing a big leap in low light performance in the next generation of phones.

The last five years has really been a race for more megapixels.The sensor technology has not changed much so that with every increase in megapixel we see a degradation in low light performance.That was basically what happened with the Fujifilm f40fd and the next model.It went from 8MP to 12MP without an increase in sensor size.The same has happened with the N2 and N3.

In the DSLR world,the low light champion is still just a 12MP camera(Nikon D3S).It almost has night vision capability.Most DSLR's are over 25MP these days and some over 36.