I agree with a lot of what you say. I'll wait and see about the Isocell thing to see if it's the breakthrough promised. But it looks like it's going to be a 16 mp sensor, so the marketing people still have their fingers in the pie. Could this be one step forward and one step sideways? I'll reserve judgment. This seems like an intermediate step to me. The other technology you mention sounds far more promising.
Samsung Galaxy Note 3 - Does anyone else think the camera sucks?
- Thread starter amariem
- Start date
I certainly hope the megapixel race has run it's course because a phone does not need this much.Nobody uses a phone as a studio camera so it should be more speed and low light orientated like an action camera which is mostly what we do when we take a photo with our phone.
If Isocell promises 8 times greater sensitivity then I suppose a slight jump to 16MP may not dilute the technology that much.I am a skeptic though and I doubt in real world application,the new sensor will be 8 times more sensitive so we shall wait and see.
If Isocell promises 8 times greater sensitivity then I suppose a slight jump to 16MP may not dilute the technology that much.I am a skeptic though and I doubt in real world application,the new sensor will be 8 times more sensitive so we shall wait and see.
LunatiqueRob
Well-known member
I had the Fujifilm F10 and F30, and didn't bother with the F40 because some users who upgraded said its low light/high ISO wasn't as good as the F30. I went to the Panasonic Lumix LX5 from the F30, and the LX5 had far better low-light/high ISO performance. As shown in the test I did, the LX5 didn't exactly beat the Note 3 (if we don't count the image stabilization of the LX5). That to me, provides a new perspective on Note 3 as a camera.
It's easy to lose sight of where phone cameras sit in the grand scheme of things when you just focus on smartphone cameras, but when you compare them to dedicated compact or DSLR's, the phone cameras are actually pretty damn impressive in their own right, considering they are phones and miniature computers first and foremost, and the cameras are really just added bonus. It wasn't that long ago when everybody simply accepted the fact that phones took crappy photos/videos. "Sorry about the quality--I took it with my phone" was commonly heard during conversations. It's amazing that in such a short amount of time, our expectations has risen so much that we now expect our phones to be able to rival dedicated cameras. When you look at this whole thing from that perspective, it's hard to go back to being so picky and disappointed at how much the Note 3's camera "sucks." It really doesn't--not if we are being objective. Well, that's until someone posts the controlled scientific tests we've been asking for of a direct Note 2 and 3 comparison, I guess.
It's easy to lose sight of where phone cameras sit in the grand scheme of things when you just focus on smartphone cameras, but when you compare them to dedicated compact or DSLR's, the phone cameras are actually pretty damn impressive in their own right, considering they are phones and miniature computers first and foremost, and the cameras are really just added bonus. It wasn't that long ago when everybody simply accepted the fact that phones took crappy photos/videos. "Sorry about the quality--I took it with my phone" was commonly heard during conversations. It's amazing that in such a short amount of time, our expectations has risen so much that we now expect our phones to be able to rival dedicated cameras. When you look at this whole thing from that perspective, it's hard to go back to being so picky and disappointed at how much the Note 3's camera "sucks." It really doesn't--not if we are being objective. Well, that's until someone posts the controlled scientific tests we've been asking for of a direct Note 2 and 3 comparison, I guess.
Last edited:
I think it was indeed the F 30 that was the famed low light camera from Fuji. The successor wasn't nearly as good. I wish I had bought it at the time because I did a lot of concert shooting and needed some serious low-light capability.
LunatiqueRob
Well-known member
This is where it's vital that consumers get their voices heard. If you want a company to go a certain direction in their product road map, then make some noise. Write to them directly. Write open letters and post them publicly. Post product reviews at large retail sites. Make Youtube videos. Let the phone manufacturers out there know that low-light performance is far more important to us than all that superfluous pixel that 90% of the users never use anyway.
But with that said, I don't think the better cameras on the photography-centric phones are selling that well, since that's just one consideration in a complex mobile device. For many people, the OS, the screen, the form factor, the hardware specs, etc will be the main deciding factor. This is why it'll be hard to convince the phone manufacturers to do the right thing with their cameras, because they know the average consumer is ignorant about photography and will continue to think that "more is better." This is where educating the public becomes just as important as getting your voice heard. The more people know the truth, the more they'll demand for the end of the megapixel war. Just like the Loudness War in music production, it took many years of public education and awareness to finally start putting an end to it.
LunatiqueRob
Well-known member
Trust me, you didn't miss out on much. It didn't perform any miracles--not by a long shot. The Lumix LX5 kicks its *** any day of the week. I actually wrote about how bad the F30 was compared to the LX5 in this review: Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5 digital camera review « Ethereality News & Weblog
If you wanted serious low-light performance back then, a DSLR-sized sensor was absolutely necessary. If you ever start doing concert shooting again and want great low-light performance in a small package, you now have large-sensored compact cameras that are far superior than what the F30 was capable of back then.
I have to disagree that the LX5 didn't beat the N3 at 1600 ISO.The photo taken with the N3 using a better camera app clearly has way more noise and blotchy.
LunatiqueRob
Well-known member
I'm not as bothered by pattern noise in general, and in many cases, they help restore the impression of detail. The splotchy aspect is mostly only a problem if you look at the photo at 100%, but so rarely do people ever need to look at 100% zoomed-in view of photos.
Keep in mind that the LX5 examples contain Panasonic's own noise-removal algorithm that's automatically applied when shooting in JPEG mode, and it would be more fair to compare to either the processed version I did with Lightroom, or the version with Samsung's noise-removal (which as we already know, is kind of crappy). If I had shot the LX5 in RAW mode, there'd be far more noise.
Oh, I went that route as well. I just wanted something pocketable because you are often forbidden from taking dslr kits into shows. I had a Canon 20d that I used until one day it just stopped working (before that I had the 10d which, to my eye, actually took better images). I had the 1.4 prime and the 70-370 IS as my main lenses.
Now I have the Panasonic GF1 with the kit lens and the great 20 mm 1.7 pancake lens, which solves the pocketability and "non pro" issue (it looks like a point and shoot to the untrained eye). I can get the camera and 20 mm in a coat or cargo pants pocket and the kit lens in a different pocket. I don't have to carry a camera bag. Of course, the problem with shooting wide open and wide angle in low light from the audience is one of movement and depth of field (and getting a tight shot). You have to shoot a lot to luck into a little. You either get lots of blur, strange white balance due to the different forms of lighting, or razor-thin depth of field.
My favorite concert camera was actually a 2.1 mp Canon Pro 90 from the mid 90s. It had big honking glass in a fixed lens and had a range of 24 to 370! It looked a little like a camcorder. I got some great shots from that camera.
I occasionally used my Razr but rarely had good luck except in very ideal conditions. I'm interested to compare this camera with that. I'm not expecting GF1 quality though. That would be foolish.
Here's an old Pro 90 shot (I was able to use flash on this one - obviously no-flash is preferable, if not demanded most of the time):
http://www.pbase.com/teleburst/image/21004442
http://www.pbase.com/teleburst/image/21004442
Yes the photo from the LX5 does look processed but I still have a hard time believing that the N3 matches the LX5 for noise levels at 1600 ISO.The LX5 has pixels that measure 4.5 microns compared to the 1.1 microns on the N3.The LX5 also has an F/2 lens.What alien technology does the N3 have to match a camera that has a sensor 4 times larger and a brighter lens?
I agree the N3 doesn't suck but lets not get carried away.
This is interesting. This is by the free version of FV5. This is the same corner that I shot previously with both the stock camera and Pro Capture. Neither of them produced this very bad result. This is auto everything (but obviously no flash). I also tried going with 800 ISO and bumping up the EV. Pretty much the same.
I can't explain it.
Edit: ahhhh, I see. It bumped it up to 5000 ISO. Still can't explain why I would get the same (but less pronounced) "dusty" effect at 800.
Well, figured out that you have to adjust the shutter speed as well. When I shot this at the same shutter speed and ISO as the Pro Capture choose in auto mode (1600 and 1/10), I got a similar result, but it was a little different, which I found just slightly worse, but that's a personal choice. Does FV5 have something like shutter or aperture priority or is it entirely manual or auto?
I can't explain it.
Edit: ahhhh, I see. It bumped it up to 5000 ISO. Still can't explain why I would get the same (but less pronounced) "dusty" effect at 800.
Well, figured out that you have to adjust the shutter speed as well. When I shot this at the same shutter speed and ISO as the Pro Capture choose in auto mode (1600 and 1/10), I got a similar result, but it was a little different, which I found just slightly worse, but that's a personal choice. Does FV5 have something like shutter or aperture priority or is it entirely manual or auto?
Last edited:
The free version of FV5 is limited to 0.3MP.Useless.You have to buy the full version to unlock all the resolutions.
look-fast
Well-known member
totally agree with you. photos really bad. the auto beauty mode sux too.... i didn't have a problem with note 2 or others' Iphones. pretty disappointed. bit slow to capture also.. not sure if it's due to pix being stored in to memory card....
Posted via Android Central App
The resolution isn't really the issue. Pro Capture was the same way. They had all of the various features that you could play with. I assume this is the same way.
I'm a little concerned that "auto ISO" defaulted to 5000, with a 1/30 shutter. While that seems reasonable enough under most circumstances (1/30 being considered the usual hand-held threshold), the Note can take clear still subject pics as low as 1/10 if you are careful. Pro Capture defaulted to 1/10 and 1600 ISO under the same conditions and got a reasonable result; actually far better than this. Certainly not perfect, but far better.
LunatiqueRob
Well-known member
LIke back2Dfuture said, the free version has restrictions, especially when you set the shutter speed past a certain threshold. I had the same problem when I tested the free version, and I couldn't figure out why it looked so weird at first. But once I figured out what the restrictions were, I shot around them and got much better results, and then decided to pay for the full version, which is much better as all restrictions are lifted except for the HD resolution only for really long-exposures (due to hardware limitations).
The Beauty Mode is only for smoothing human skin, so there's no reason to use it for shooting anything else, unless you want all the colors similar to flesh tones in your photo to be smoothed out.
Saving to a particular location has nothing to do with it--that isn't logical. I gave detailed explanations on what is causing the problem and how to work around it in the article I wrote. You might want to check it out:
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
"LunatiqueRob, LIke back2Dfuture said, the free version has restrictions, especially when you set the shutter speed past a certain threshold. I had the same problem when I tested the free version, and I couldn't figure out why it looked so weird at first. But once I figured out what the restrictions were, I shot around them and got much better results, and then decided to pay for the full version, which is much better as all restrictions are lifted except for the HD resolution only for really long-exposures"
So it's not just resolution reduction, unlike Pro Capture, which didn't cripple its features to my knowledge, only reduced the resolution. That way, you could still check out the features.
However, it shouldn't affect "auto" operation, should it? And that's what I'm concerned about in the instance of low light shooting.
Does the full feature version have shutter and aperture priority? This doesn't seem to have it. You can obviously adjust either manually but if you adjust one, the other stays the same, unless I'm missing something.
So it's not just resolution reduction, unlike Pro Capture, which didn't cripple its features to my knowledge, only reduced the resolution. That way, you could still check out the features.
However, it shouldn't affect "auto" operation, should it? And that's what I'm concerned about in the instance of low light shooting.
Does the full feature version have shutter and aperture priority? This doesn't seem to have it. You can obviously adjust either manually but if you adjust one, the other stays the same, unless I'm missing something.
LunatiqueRob
Well-known member
When I said the LX5 didn't exactly beat the Note 3, I considered more than just the noise-level. For example, the LX5 has more color noise, and its auto white balance is one of the worst I've ever dealt with (drastic shift to yellow in many tungsten lighting situations). I showed example of this in that LX5 review I posted, and you can see it in the test photo too. So while the LX5 had a cleaner/smoother result in general, it had its own issues that the Note 3 didn't have. Also, in the Lightroom processed version of the Note 3, I exercised a lot of restraint, so I didn't push the processing as much as what Panasonic did in theirs. If you want, I can shoot a RAW version with the LX5, and we'll be able to see what the result is like without any of the noise-removal processing, and then compare it to the unprocessed Note 3 version.
Keep in mind, I'm not as interested in smaller relative differences--I'm more interested in significant differences. That's why I tend to lump small sensor cameras together and just call it the day--they all perform similarly enough to me that whatever differences there are just isn't enough to change my photography lifestyle. To me, there's no intermediate level of performance going from the Note 3 to the 5D Mark III. I don't think "Note 3 first, and if that looks horrible, I'll bust out the LX5, and if that's still not good enough, then I'll bust out the big gun (5D Mark III)" For me, I go from the Note 3 straight to the 5D Mark III, and the LX5 gets skipped completely. The only time the LX5 ends up in my hands, is during travels when I really don't feel like carrying a DSLR, but don't mind carrying a small compact on top of a smartphone.
If we look at both cameras as just photo-taking devices, then I would choose the LX5 because it has image stabilizer that works quite well, its reaction time is faster, and the sensor a bit bigger. But if we consider them more holistically, then I would pick the Note 3 (even if I disregarded the phone and non-photography apps). Within just the camera-centric aspect of the Note 3, the flexibility that comes with being able to use various camera/editing apps, send/receive files via Internet, the 4K video capability, the fancy video shooting modes that's available (slow-motion, time-lapse, etc), makes the Note 3 more compelling overall to me. And if we take a step back and consider how these devices fit into our lives, then there's no contest at all--I'd gladly take the smaller sensor of the Note 3, and gain a whole slew of capabilities that makes up a true "life companion device" that is so much more than just a camera. I can write my novels on it, compose/arrange music, paint/draw/design, communicate with others via phone, chat, text, web, play games, do my taxes, read the news, watch movies, listen to music, attend virtual business meetings, do project management,--the list just goes on and on, with more than a person can use it for in a lifetime.
So, no, I'm not disputing that the LX5 is a better camera--it's simply not better enough, and the Note 3 does well enough (and is so much more as a device) that it'll have to take very specific situations for me to pick up the LX5 instead of the Note 3 when I want to snap a few casual photos.
LunatiqueRob
Well-known member
The ISO 5000 is definitely not normal. I've never seen FV-5 do that. You might want to try rebooting the phone, or install the paid version, and if the problem persists and just doesn't work on your phone, you could ask for a refund. I've never had a problem getting a refund with any Android app to date (I've had to ask a few times for apps that just didn't work as promised).
As for the priority modes, I don't think any of the camera apps allow you to change the aperture. ISO and exposure compensation is what most allow, and FV-5 allows shutter speed, which isn't common at all.
I don't remember if the Image Stablization mode in FV-5 alters the results noticeably--you might want to test that.
To me, it's not just the controls of the FV-5 that makes it a worthwhile purchase and the best camera app available--it's also the GUI design, with a more ergonomic layout and instant access to the most important controls.
Make sure you read the user's manual too--it will likely answer the questions you have: Camera FV-5
As for the priority modes, I don't think any of the camera apps allow you to change the aperture. ISO and exposure compensation is what most allow, and FV-5 allows shutter speed, which isn't common at all.
I don't remember if the Image Stablization mode in FV-5 alters the results noticeably--you might want to test that.
To me, it's not just the controls of the FV-5 that makes it a worthwhile purchase and the best camera app available--it's also the GUI design, with a more ergonomic layout and instant access to the most important controls.
Make sure you read the user's manual too--it will likely answer the questions you have: Camera FV-5
Thanks. When the sun goes down, I'll try it again after rebooting.
I do like the camera-like layout. The shutter speed is a little weird, but having figured it out, I can live with it.
Yeah, I was freaked out about 5000. I figured that it really wanted to prioritize shutter speed but that seemed way extreme.
I do like the camera-like layout. The shutter speed is a little weird, but having figured it out, I can live with it.
Yeah, I was freaked out about 5000. I figured that it really wanted to prioritize shutter speed but that seemed way extreme.
Similar threads
Trending Posts
-
-
-
Where is sound setting for blocked calls and/or text messages?
- Started by nonAndroidUser
- Replies: 9
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram