In a Blind "Taste Test" the iPhone 5s camera blows major competitors away

[ZeroHour]

Yes, they were being quite selective, but that was the point I think. They looked at several of the most popular smartphones that people frequently take photos with, likely based off of data from Flickr (Top 6 Best Smartphones of 2013 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!).

 

What was the point if its based on popularity when that link clearly shows the Lumia listed.

So basically if you pay nearly twice the amount you will get better camera on your phone but if you want the best camera on a phone buy a Lumia or buy a cheaper phone and get a real compact for the same price.

Now to find a poll with a blind test that excludes the iphone 5S....

 

BTW RAW mode is off by default.

[seawolf]

What was the point if its based on popularity when that link clearly shows the Lumia listed.

 

As they stated in the original article, their previous comparison showed the Lumia won by a considerable margin. So, pitting against the same phones again would likely be pretty pointless. The Lumia also doesn't sell in nearly the same volumes as the other phones.

 

Camera Comparison: Nokia Lumia 1020 vs Galaxy S4, iPhone 5, Lumia 925, One

 

And, of course any article such as this is going to bring out lots of opinions as we've well and truly seen in this thread. That means lots of page views and that's always good for authors and publications.

 

 

BTW RAW mode is off by default.

 

But, what is the point in having it on a smartphone at all? Doesn't it just add to the cost and complexity of the device? Any opinion on this particular question?

[ZeroHour]

But, what is the point in having it on a smartphone at all? Doesn't it just add to the cost and complexity of the device? Any opinion on this particular question?

No I am not sure if it would, basically RAW is the literal data the sensor captures before any software post processing. It means you can apply much better algorithms for noise etc using a pc rather than the onboard software on the phone. @Ric_ knows more about the joys of RAW, I have never been luck enough to have a camera with support to have a play myself.

Edited March 20, 2014 by ZeroHour

[LosOjos]

No I am not sure if it would, basically RAW is the literal data the sensor captures before any software post processing. It basically means you can apply much better algorithms for noise etc using a pc rather than the onboard software on the phone. @Ric_ knows more about the joys of RAW, I have never been luck enough to have a camera with support to have a play myself.

 

Sounds about right to me but I don't claim to be an expert on the subject. Theoretically, RAW is less complex than a JPG as it's just a dump of the sensor data before it's been processed. The files are huge but give you a hell of a lot more room to edit. That said, I can still get about 800 shots on an 8GB memory card in RAW at 10MP, so file size isn't a great excuse for disabling RAW completely on a phone.

[localzuk]

I generally have my camera in RAW+High Quality JPEG mode most of the time, as it means if I need a photo super quickly, I can without fiddling, but I generally work with the RAW files.

 

There's only one time I turn RAW off - and that's when I need super-high speed shooting. IE. If I need to take continuous shots for quite a period of time, I can get more JPG than RAW in the same time.

 

I do wish more phones had RAW support to be honest. It'd make their photos more usable.

[Arthur]

what is the point in having it on a smartphone at all?

 

Google has confirmed that Android phones will be able to take RAW photos in the future. Google has given its camera API a complete makeover in an attempt to make app development easier for programmers. When the new API rolls out, it will allow apps to take photos in RAW as well as capture in a burst mode.

 

As we've seen with Nokia's DNG files, RAW photography helps fix some of the flaws common in smartphone photos. Digital noise can be reduced, white balance can be corrected and small adjustments can be made to fix exposure issues. Android's new burst mode can be beneficial for action shots, but it can also be used for HDR photography like the Nexus 5's HDR+ feature. (Source)

 

Doesn't it just add to the cost and complexity of the device?

It will force consumers to buy smartphones with larger amounts of onboard storage because RAW photos take up more space, thus making manufacturers more money.

Edited March 20, 2014 by Arthur

[LosOjos]

It will force consumers to buy smartphones with larger amounts of onboard storage because RAW photos take up more space, thus making manufacturers more money.

 

That's a very cynical way of putting it, especially as you quoted a source with various good reasons to use RAW: Digital noise can be reduced, white balance can be corrected and small adjustments can be made to fix exposure issues. EDIT:"small adjustments" is a bit ambiguous, I have found I can adjust my shots up to +/-2EV in RAW with no noticeable loss in quality, that's a pretty big adjustment!

 

It would be stupid to force RAW shooting (not even top end dSLRs force you to use RAW) so those that do use it would simply need to be aware of the space issue. That said, given that my 40D (which is 10MP) produces RAW files at ~10MB per shot, I can get around about 800 on an 8GB memory card. Most phones come with at least 16GB of internal memory these days and that's a hell of a lot of photos to be storing on your phone!

Edited March 20, 2014 by LosOjos

[seawolf]

That's a very cynical way of putting it, especially as you quoted a source with various good reasons to use RAW: Digital noise can be reduced, white balance can be corrected and small adjustments can be made to fix exposure issues. EDIT:"small adjustments" is a bit ambiguous, I have found I can adjust my shots up to +/-2EV in RAW with no noticeable loss in quality, that's a pretty big adjustment!

 

It would be stupid to force RAW shooting (not even top end dSLRs force you to use RAW) so those that do use it would simply need to be aware of the space issue. That said, given that my 40D (which is 10MP) produces RAW files at ~10MB per shot, I can get around about 800 on an 8GB memory card. Most phones come with at least 16GB of internal memory these days and that's a hell of a lot of photos to be storing on your phone!

 

But, I still ask why is there a push for RAW support on a PHONE? Do you think that even 1% of the users of smartphones would ever even use this feature? Adding feature after useless (or unused) feature just adds to the cost, complexity, and reliability of systems.

[Arthur]

I still ask why is there a push for RAW support on a PHONE?

On my Sony RX100, the JPEG compressor is a bit agressive so I always take photos in RAW format and convert them to JPEGs afterwards in Lightroom. I could definitely see myself taking photos in RAW format on a phone if it had a good enough camera.

 

Smartphones and tablets can already view RAW photos. Being able to take RAW photos is the next logical step.

[featured_spectre]

Do you not know how many people would love RAW support on their phones. I own a camera with RAW and one without (excluding my phone). I can edit the RAW images so they're nicer than the ones taken on my second camera.

 

RAW pictures are just that...raw....no filters, no after software editing anything quickly, no motion support or anything...just the raw unadulterated picture. With photoshop or aftereffects or any other image software you can make the pictures better without having to work through the gumpf.

 

Also I think a high chunk of modelled pictures are done from raw also.

[localzuk]

But, I still ask why is there a push for RAW support on a PHONE? Do you think that even 1% of the users of smartphones would ever even use this feature? Adding feature after useless (or unused) feature just adds to the cost, complexity, and reliability of systems.

 

Adding RAW support is not a complex feature. It is simply saving the data before it gets sent to the compression routines.

[seawolf]

Do you not know how many people would love RAW support on their phones.

 

The only people I have ever heard even requesting this are:

 

1. Photographers (professional and hobbyists)

2. Tech heads (i.e. The type of person who would be on Edugeek)

3. Tech writers trying to get maximum page visits or promoting maximum bloat of features on every tech product. If tech writers had their way, a smartphone would be able to cook your dinner and drive your car for you.

 

Other than that, the percentage of people who purchase smartphones and even know what RAW photos are would be in the low single digits if it were even 1%. Then there would be the people who would even care or use it, which would probably be a fraction of 1% of all users. In product development that is called an outlier use case.

[LosOjos]

The only people I have ever heard even requesting this are:

 

1. Photographers (professional and hobbyists)

2. Tech heads (i.e. The type of person who would be on Edugeek)

3. Tech writers trying to get maximum page visits or promoting maximum bloat of features on every tech product. If tech writers had their way, a smartphone would be able to cook your dinner and drive your car for you.

 

Other than that, the percentage of people who purchase smartphones and even know what RAW photos are would be in the low single digits if it were even 1%. Then there would be the people who would even care or use it, which would probably be a fraction of 1% of all users. In product development that is called an outlier use case.

 

There are a whole host of less useful, more complex features built in to phones. Adding a checkbox to an options menu for the camera is not going to break the R&D budget. It's a simple modification (so simple I don't see why it couldn't be done in a simple software update) that would please a lot of people (amateur/professional photographers alone are in to the hundreds of thousands in the UK alone). Not having the option to save RAW photo data needlessly disappoints a lot of people.

[SYNACK]

Yes, 1%, but the 1% that will pay the extra for it and the 1% that probably has cred with others as a tech expert. Even the pretentious arty lot that have a sway in some coffee shop type social groups... wait, how does the iPhone not have RAW... have they not 'invented' it yet

[sparkeh]

Really can't see the issue against having a RAW option. The data is there, just save it rather than process it. Its no big deal.

If you don't want it, don't enable it.

[spadam]

Yes, 1%, but the 1% that will pay the extra for it and the 1% that probably has cred with others as a tech expert. Even the pretentious arty lot that have a sway in some coffee shop type social groups... wait, how does the iPhone not have RAW... have they not 'invented' it yet

 

^ Exactly this

[ZeroHour]

Points at > http://www.edugeek.net/forums/netbooks-pda-phones/134602-blind-taste-test-lumia-1520-camera-blows-major-competitors-away.html

[nathan]

This study was about the iPhone's major (and actual) competitors. With a market share of almost zip, there is NO Windows Phone that can be considered a major competitor to the iPhone. If it was a study about the best camera that happened to be attached to a smartphone, one of the Lumia models would almost certainly have won. But it wasn't. This was a study of the cameras in the phones that most people in the world are likely to have on their person.

 

What a silly argument, excluding products in the same category because they don't sell enough to declare another victorious.

[seawolf]

What a silly argument, excluding products in the same category because they don't sell enough to declare another victorious.

 

Why is it silly to set parameters for a comparison? Most every comparison has some parameters otherwise it would take years to do the comparisons after which time no one would care as all of the products would be obsolete (but we would know the best one). Editorials do it all of the time "We've compared the most popular and here are the results...".

 

If this wasn't common practice, then you would never see articles such as these:

 

MSI X340 Slim: The best laptop you've never heard of - TechRepublic

The Best Laptop That You Don't Know Exists - Tynan

http://www.couriermail.com.au/travel/australia/revealed-best-aussie-beaches-youve-probably-never-heard-of/story-fnjjuyva-1226800984251

15 new cars you've probably never heard of - MSN Autos

 

But, in any case this same mag have done comparisons that didn't set the "most popular" parameter as well, as ZeroHour made reference to in previous post.

[Jwzg]

Gotta disagree here, seawolf. Windows Phone market share is almost 12% in the UK and growing in most other markets. For the real skinny look here. There was no need to exclude any phone with an awesome camera that could be considered an iPhone competitor other than "fanboy-ism". That said, my Lumia 920 does take better pictures overall than my iPhone 5 which was released around the same time.

[featured_spectre]

With the exception of Australia and Spain, there is a decline of iOS, BB and Other (symbian, flashOS etc) sales across "westernised" or "modernised" nations.

 

Droid Sales are UP - 4.81%

iOS Sales are DOWN - 4.16%

WP Sales are UP - 3.96%

BB Sales are DOWN - 2.15%

"Other" Sales are DOWN - 3.37%

 

This is going off the top 20 nations phone operating system sales and is based from October 2012-October 2013.

 

If I factor in to today

Droid Sales are UP - 4.83%

iOS Sales are DOWN - 4.21%

WP Sales are UP - 4.01%

BB Sales are DOWN - 3.62%

"Other" Sales are DOWN - 3.92%

[nathan]

Why is it silly to set parameters for a comparison? Most every comparison has some parameters otherwise it would take years to do the comparisons after which time no one would care as all of the products would be obsolete (but we would know the best one). Editorials do it all of the time "We've compared the most popular and here are the results...".

 

If this wasn't common practice, then you would never see articles such as these:

 

MSI X340 Slim: The best laptop you've never heard of - TechRepublic

The Best Laptop That You Don't Know Exists - Tynan

No Cookies | The Courier-Mail

15 new cars you've probably never heard of - MSN Autos

 

But, in any case this same mag have done comparisons that didn't set the "most popular" parameter as well, as ZeroHour made reference to in previous post.

 

It's not silly to set a few parameters (i.e in this case is it primarily a phone and does it have a camera), but to then say it has to of sold x amount to enter the competition is daft. The amount it's sold has no reflection on what is being tested, the camera.

 

It's like testing for the fastest car in the world but excluding hyper cars because they don't sell as many as a focus rs.

[seawolf]

You know, it's just astonishing how an argument is still being made here that it's illogical to decide to test the "most popular" individual smartphones (as in units sold) and then to exclude a phone (Nokia) that has a small percentage of the total market sales (few units sold). When, what would be illogical would be to include a phone that is not among the most popular by sales figures and include it in a most popular comparison.

 

We've already been through the whole market share argument, and what seems to still not sink in is the facts. The market share of a Nokia running WP might be 99% in some random suburb somewhere in the world. However, this is what the actual sales figures worldwide show, which is that WP (the OS not a particular phone) has a 3% market share.

 

2013 FULL YEAR OPERATING SYSTEM MARKET SHARES

 

Rank . . OS . . . . . . . . . 2013 units . . share . . .2012 units . . share . . 2011 units . . share

1 (1) . . Android . . . . . . 767.3 M . . . 78% . . . 452 M . . . . . 65% . . . 208 M . . . . . 43%

2 (2) . . iOS . . . . . . . . . 153.4 M . . . . 16% . . . 136 M . . . . . 20% . . . . 93 M . . . . . 19%

3 (6) . . Windows Phone . 33.3 M . . . . 3% . . . .16 M . . . . . . 2% . . . . 5 M . . . . . . 1%

4 (3) . . Blackberry . . . . . 23.0 M . . . . 2% . . . 33 M . . . . . .5% . . . . 52 M . . . . . 11%

Others . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.3 M . . . . 1%

TOTAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . 990.0 M . . . . . . . . . . . 695 M . . . . . . .. . . . 486 M

 

Communities Dominate Brands: Final 2013 Smartphone Market Share Numbers - Full year and Quarterly Q4 data by Top 10 brands, plus OS shares, plus installed base

 

Nokia as a company has 2.9% market share as of the end of 2013. So, at best a particular Nokia phone is going to have less than a 3% market share - if they only sold one phone. Which they don't.

 

What this comes down to is that the league of anti-fruits don't seem to like it when anything to do with the company named after a popular fruit is mentioned in a positive light, so the barbs come out and all rational thought seems to disappear in an instant.

 

As for me, I think Windows Phone has a lot going for it. It's original, quite intuitive, and Nokia is making some great phones lately. I'm not surprised they are steadily increasing their market share. The fact still remains though, that WP does not have a large market share and a particular Nokia WP even less so. So, deal with it. And, feel free to take a look at the sister review of smartphone cameras that did include the Nokia (with its 40MP zoom lens) - linked to by @ZeroHour - where it crushes all of the competition.

Edited April 2, 2014 by seawolf

[mac_shinobi]

Personally I buy a phone because I want to use it as a 'Phone' ie making calls / sending text messages etc, don't get me wrong it is great that they have a lot of other features regardless of being android / iphone / nokia ( or whatever else ) with regards to music players, video players , browsing the web, using it like a camera as the phones improve over time etc but for me the camera side of a mobile phone is more a convenience thing so if I didn't have an actual camera on me and I wanted to take some photo's or video footage etc then I can still do so using my phone.

 

Doing all these comparisons on camera / photo quality and whatever else between phones, I know how anti apple most people on edugeek are and prefer android or something else. Personally I have an iPhone, mostly due to already being in the iOS / Apple eco system. Not overly keen on android just yet so just stucking with apple for now, yeah yeah I know locked in a box etc meh

 

Anyway carry on with the debate or whatever ......

[abillybob]

Surely this 'debate' has to be over, I think we should all agree to disagree and send me some eduhobnobs because I'm poorly!!