Slashdot Mirror

For some reason Apple phones always have a red tint to their photos. You can see it very clearly in this comparison: https://www.dxomark.com/huawei...

Also look at the low light performance. If you like doing night time city shots (I do) then the iPhone's performance is lacking. There is a lot of bloom, artificial smoothing, the colours go completely weird and the highlight/lowlight detail is very limited.

If you really need iOS then okay, your choices are limited, but otherwise there is still a lot of competition among smartphone cameras and the differences are significant enough for people to care.

Take a look at this review of the Pixel 2 and the example photos in it:

https://www.dxomark.com/google...

That's not a snapshot camera. The results are excellent in a variety of difficult conditions. And presumably the Pixel 3 will be even better.

Then go with someone more respected: https://www.dxomark.com/catego...

Odd, that you think a phone rated below 7 others, including the Pixel 2, is "at the top."

https://www.dxomark.com/huawei...

I think the idea is you have more noise, but the noise is smaller than the details you're aiming to capture.

Then you average several pixels and make the best-scoring phone camera there is. The P20 pro only puts out a 10MP image... I bet this one will be used such that it puts out 12MP. Totally reasonable.

Sam

https://www.dxomark.com/huawei...

Not necessarily, but it can be.

The Huawei P20 Pro scores the highest of any phone on dxomark... 40MP sensor, but averaged 2x2 with averaging to take great night shots for an apparent 10MP output. Apparently the 2x2 binning of smaller sites produces superior results to larger sites without the averaging.

I would guess this 48MP phone sensor would be the same deal... 2x2 averaged for 12MP output.

Sam

Digital sensors surpassed film's dynamic range many years ago. 35 mm film peaked at around 13 stops, while current digital cameras peak at almost 15 stops. Even my old D7000 surpasses film: https://www.dxomark.com/Camera...

A faster processor or The best cellphone camera Dx0mark has ever reviewed?

It's a score of 89 on the DxO Mark Mobile, which is presently the highest for a smartphone. See complete review here: https://www.dxomark.com/Mobile....

iPhone 7 was reviewed by them earlier, and it scored 86. https://www.dxomark.com/Mobile...

who has mysteriously NOT reviewed the iPhone 7 yet, even though it has been released.

Strange, since they gave it an 86.

Worth noting is that is scored 88 in DxOMark, which puts it in a split first position together with Samsung Galaxy S7. Seems they really delivered on the camera: http://www.dxomark.com/Mobiles

Someone asked why the 300mm/2.8 lens was significant. The reason for it is the 300mm/2.8 and the 70-200mm/2.8 lenses are pretty much lenses that set the bar or standard for optical clarity, so to speak, for both the Nikon and Canon camps.

According to DXOMark, the top scoring lenses for both the Canon 1Dx and the Nikon 810E are both made by Carl Zeiss-- e.g Carl Zeiss Apo Planar T* Otus 85mm F14 ZF.2.

The top scoring Canon is, indeed, the 2.8 300mm. But Nikon's best lens is the 2.0 200mm. Now, it has a 2.8 400mm and 2.8 300mm that are almost as good-- but it has a number of portrait lenses up there as well.

(The 70-200mm zooms are almost second rate in comparison. Besides, people have accused the Nikkor of being slightly short.)

If you're a sports photographer, I suppose I understand why you might judge a lens manufacturer on the basis of its 300mm f 2.8. But that's not necessarily the most exquisitely designed lens in the lineup.

Someone asked why the 300mm/2.8 lens was significant. The reason for it is the 300mm/2.8 and the 70-200mm/2.8 lenses are pretty much lenses that set the bar or standard for optical clarity, so to speak, for both the Nikon and Canon camps.

According to DXOMark, the top scoring lenses for both the Canon 1Dx and the Nikon 810E are both made by Carl Zeiss-- e.g Carl Zeiss Apo Planar T* Otus 85mm F14 ZF.2.

The top scoring Canon is, indeed, the 2.8 300mm. But Nikon's best lens is the 2.0 200mm. Now, it has a 2.8 400mm and 2.8 300mm that are almost as good-- but it has a number of portrait lenses up there as well.

(The 70-200mm zooms are almost second rate in comparison. Besides, people have accused the Nikkor of being slightly short.)

If you're a sports photographer, I suppose I understand why you might judge a lens manufacturer on the basis of its 300mm f 2.8. But that's not necessarily the most exquisitely designed lens in the lineup.

39 usable megapixels will always be expensive. High end lenses are damn expensive, and if your lenses do not have the required resolution, you're better off using 16 megapixels. For $1000, glass included, you won't get more than 16 real megapixels. And if you do not believe me, have a look at http://www.dxomark.com/ .

Okay, I'll bite.

several FF CaNikons fall victim

Several? Try zero!
According to http://www.dxomark.com/ every Nikon (D700, D3, D3X, D3S) and every Canon FF camera (5d, 5dii, 1d...) have higher "low light ISOs" scores than the K5.
The K5 is a great camera, and it has very good High ISO performance for an APS-C camera. It seems to be on par with the D7000.
But even 3 years old full-frame cameras have the edge on 2011 APS-C cameras.

Finally, you don't have to buy *new* prime lenses for CaNikons. 30 years old AI lenses still work flawlessly on Nikon bodies.

The thing has the same size sensor as a DSLR, and seems to have a better-tuned JPEG noise reduction algorithm than the "full-size" Olympus bodies; apparently they have a new magic algorithm, and the E-P1 is the first camera to get it.

It's a micro four-thirds camera. The sensor is the same size as in a four-thirds SLR (e.g. an Olympus) but most dSLRs use a larger APS-C sized sensor. There are also a few full-frame dSLRs with full-frame (i.e. 24x36mm) sensors.

The low-light performance of the EP-1 seems to be quite good for its sensor size -- but that's definitely a serious qualification. To put things into perspective (no pun intended), consider the DxOMark tests. They don't have test results for the EP-1 yet, but they do for the Panasonic DMC-G1 (another recent micro-four thirds body). For low-light ISO performance, the DMC-G1 gets a rating of 463. For comparison, the Sony Alpha 900 (which has been panned for its relatively poor low-light performance) gets a rating of 1431. The best low-light performance currently available (by their tests, and probably in real use as well) is the Nikon D3, with a rating of 2527.

Note that DxO is primarily a vendor of raw-conversion software, so they start strictly from raw data, not a JPEG. While it seems likely that the JPEG conversion built into the EP-1 will do quite well compared to most other in-camera conversions, I'd consider it quite unlikely that it would beat the best separate raw conversion software. I'd add that I don't think DxO's is the best, but it's still quite a bit better than any in-camera JPEG software I've seen or heard of. The bottom line is that while DxOMark won't reflect the quality of the in-camera JPEG conversion, it does seem to give a fairly reasonable idea of the camera's image quality as long as you don't try to read too much into small differences.

The bottom line is that even if the EP-1 performs almost unbelievably well for its class, that's only likely to put it about even with relatively old APS-C dSLRs with relatively poor low-light performance (e.g. the Sony Alpha 700). Of course, in fairness, that's not necessarily a terrible thing -- few people really have much use for the low-light performance of a current APS-C dSLR, so coming reasonably close, with the size and weight of a micro four-thirds camera, is pretty impressive. Nonetheless, there's not really much chance of any micro four-thirds camera competing directly with a high-end dSLR any time soon.

It amazes me how many people will drop $1k+ without bothering to do some basic research on what they're buying. Ignorance is bliss I guess

Crikey, yes. Look at all the people who drop $40+k on an SUV "for safety", even though they're not only far more dangerous for everyone else on the road, but also for their occupants! It's amazing how few people do any reading before spending that kind of money. And then they read consumerreports to help them choose bottled water.

6 megapixels is fine for almost everything I do. But of course 24 megapixels is sort of like 6 mp with a 2x zoom--you can crop without losing resolution. Of course, you lose on noise...

But a 24mp image downsampled to 6mp is apparently going to be cleaner than a 6mp image... there's a good article about this hiding somewhere on http://www.dxomark.com/

What resolution you need depends on what you do, but making larger prints does not mean you need higher resolution--it just means you look at it from 5' away rather than 1'. A well-composed photo usually looks best when it takes up a fixed amount of your visual field!