Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

China's Huawei Caught Faking DSLR Shots as Smartphone Pictures in a Commercial (theverge.com)

Posted by msmash on from the oops dept.

Smartphone cameras are better than ever, but sometimes there's just no substitute for a full-sized DSLR. Unfortunately, it seems that Huawei thinks so, too. From a report: A shot in the company's latest commercial for its new Nova 3 smartphone has been revealed by a behind-the-scenes photo to be a DSLR, not the smartphone as the ad alleges. As you can see about halfway through the ad, a bickering couple takes a selfie together apparently to show off how Huawei's AI and camera tech make it so that the woman doesn't need to put on makeup. But a since-deleted Instagram picture posted by Sarah Elshamy (the actress in the scene) reveals that instead of a fun selfie from the Nova 3, the shot in question came from a DSLR, shot by a professional photographer. In fact, the Nova 3 doesn't seem in be in the frame at all.

92 comments

  1. Lies. All Lies by mandark1967 · · Score: 1

    signed,

    The Great Leader

    --
    Sig Follows: "Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." -- Mark Twain
    1. Re: Lies. All Lies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Simulated photo

    2. Re:Lies. All Lies by ELCouz · · Score: 1

      Wrong!

    3. Re: Lies. All Lies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah but that young lady was kind to take a picture with the homeless young man.

    4. Re:Lies. All Lies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      signed,

      The Great Leader

      If President for All Eternity Xi says it was taken with a Huaiieieiei smartphone, then that's what it was, because the truth is WHATEVER he says it is. All praise to the great leader!

      Yeah, I'm glad I still live in a country where we (most of us, like, 57% of the country) still agrees that there's such a thing as objective truth, and if the fake, lying, fraudulent, failed, phony, so-called "president" (hahahah) Dipshit McFuckface says "Don't believe what you're hearing or seeing," or whatever that pile of shit said to his sycophantic submoronic fans, I'm pleased as punch that I can safely go and say, "The so-called, lying, fake, fraudulent, (etc., etc., etc.,) "president" (hahahah) is full of shit, as usual."

      In some places, like China, you probably get arrested for saying that, just like you probably will go to jail if you live in China, and you know about Huwaiaiaiai or whatever, faking their advertisements. So glad I don't live there... even if the Chinese food is better there. Or if not better, at least fresher. I mean, they don't have to wait for someone to bring it all the way to another continent and... what's that, now? I'm being told that's not how Chinese food works. THANK GOD!

  2. who cares? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    who the fuck cares?

    1. Re:who cares? by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 4, Interesting

      You would, if you were expecting a higher quality picture than what the phone actually produces.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    2. Re:who cares? by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      I remember when everyone was alleging Microsoft, Sony, and the lot were using high-end, pre-rendered digital graphics in place of gameplay to oversell their consoles.

      Are we still doing this?

      --
      Support my political activism on Patreon.
    3. Re:who cares? by Julz · · Score: 1

      There's plenty of fakes around as the marketing peeps aren't always happy with the results and take the "no one will care anyway" approach. Heck I'd almost wager that some of the stills and maybe even a video or two from the Mars missions, Moon landing and Hubble may have been tweaked or re-rendered to give a better appearance.

      --
      When shit hits the fan get some of these https://youtu.be/pY-GncsZ-UE
    4. Re:who cares? by ClickOnThis · · Score: 1

      This.

      What amazes me is that Huawei didn't just use the camera on the phone. Sure, camera phones are awkward tools for pro shoots, and will never be as good as DSLRs. But they are generally pretty good, and steadily getting better. (Unless, of course, Huawei's camera sucks.)

      Bad optics on this whole episode. Figuratively and literally.

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
    5. Re:who cares? by xSauronx · · Score: 1

      what surprises me is that everyone else hasn't gotten caught doing this. Modern phones can take great pictures but this seems to likely to be the start of a diesel-gate-esque revelation where even apple ends up saying 'ok ok ok ok...we used a dslr, but the ad looked good, right?'

      --
      By and large, language is a tool for concealing the truth. -- George Carlin
    6. Re: who cares? by UnknowingFool · · Score: 2

      Thereâ(TM)s a huge difference in post processing an image to get better results in things like color balance for example than implying that the camera on the phone took the photo when it didnâ(TM)t. If I remember right MS/Nokia got in trouble because photos and video shot âoefrom the Lumia 920â didnâ(TM)t actually come from the phone but from professional cameras.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    7. Re: who cares? by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      Microsoft got caught because you could see in the commercial a reflection where a professional video camera rig was used.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    8. Re: who cares? by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 1

      Please stop drooling while typing your slashdot comments. It drops on your keyboard, shorting it out, and this produces plenty of garbage characters.

    9. Re:who cares? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So I watched this YouTube video at 480p claiming that a camera can take pictures better than 480p. When I saw the picture on the screen, it looked more like 480p to me. It certainly did not look like a reasonable resolution DSLR camera.

    10. Re:who cares? by siege72 · · Score: 1

      what surprises me is that everyone else hasn't gotten caught doing this.

      With good light (natural or artificial) even smartphone cameras can take astounding shots.

      A few years ago photographer did a fashion shoot with the then-new IPhone 3GS. The pictures looked great, because he had thousands of dollars of lighting equipment helping the camera out.

    11. Re: who cares? by that+this+is+not+und · · Score: 1

      Also, really good photographers can take great photos with almost any equipment, because it's about the skill, not the equipment.

    12. Re:who cares? by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      So much for the "my phone takes pictures just as good as DSLR" trolls.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    13. Re:who cares? by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      With good light (natural or artificial) even smartphone cameras can take astounding shots.

      And Picasso could have made great art with even with crayons on foolscap. Thank goodness he went with oil paint on canvas.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    14. Re:who cares? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And Picasso could have made great art with even with crayons on foolscap.

      Actually, he did. Sort of.

    15. Re:who cares? by Hallux-F-Sinister · · Score: 1

      With good light (natural or artificial) even smartphone cameras can take astounding shots.

      And Picasso could have made great art with even with crayons on foolscap. Thank goodness he went with oil paint on canvas.

      Thanks for adding "foolscap" to my vocabulary. :)

      Had to look it up. I've heard of like, 10 kinds of material for drawing and painting on in my art class that I took, like bristol-board and newsprint and vellum, and learned what "tooth" was with reference to material choice... but I'd never heard of THAT one though.

      --
      Our reign has gone on long enough. Indeed. Summon the meteors.
    16. Re:who cares? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So much for the "my phone takes pictures just as good as DSLR" trolls.

      Mine does... but that's because I have an iPhone, not a Huawei POS. The Chinese CAN make a phone that takes pics as well or better than a DSLR, just not for Huawei, apparently.

    17. Re:who cares? by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      So much for the "my phone takes pictures just as good as DSLR" trolls.

      Mine does... but that's because I have an iPhone,

      As if we needed any more evidence that Apple owners are delusional.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    18. Re: who cares? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please fix the bugs in slashcode instead of whinging so many so ignorantly

    19. Re: who cares? by Malc · · Score: 1

      I have an iPhone and an APS-C DSLR (not a high end full frame one), and the iPhone doesnâ(TM)t even come close. Even comparing the photos on the small phone screen that hides the more obvious sensor noise, differences in clarity, etc. Apple do some amazing things in software, but they do not come close to the DSLR in any measure but convenience.

    20. Re:who cares? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What are your expectations when you go to eat breakfast, lunch, dinner, and supper at McDonalds? That the hamburgers look like they do in the advertisement? Do you even know how advertisement works?

      This is the standard anti-Chinese bullshit we see every day at Slashdot.

    21. Re:who cares? by fish_sauce · · Score: 1

      It is called false advertising. Like how the McDonald's burgers look so delicious on picture but is in fact a soggy mess.
      In some countries that is illegal. Sadly the law is selective. Which is why I make my burgers at home.

    22. Re:who cares? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, your iPhone doesn't. Signed: the owner of a Nikon D7000 that trounces any smartphone.

  3. Insane by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have a Nova 2i and it's camera quality is VERY good (better than iPhone 7 even) for a smartphone so it's insane they would think they need to do this.

    1. Re:Insane by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even my old ass G3 takes great pictures. I'd say better than 99% of all phones out today, thanks to its sensor and laser autofocus (PDAF is crap).

    2. Re:Insane by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I should try on my old G3. Does it turn out great on any G3 model? I got G3 Snow white iMac.

  4. OMG... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...you mean, a Chinese company lied about their products? Inconceivable!

    1. Re:OMG... by jellomizer · · Score: 2

      ...you mean, a company lied about their products? Inconceivable! FTFY

      Until we have some Truth in Advertising laws with teeth, it is still buyer beware.

      The key difference is that a reputable company only exaggerates vs lies.

      With all that said. Showing off your phone with an ultra-high resolution display on TV and Print will not normally show well or express the quality of the product, so they will normally green screen a doctored image to make the display seem sharp and bright on print, your TV or computer.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
  5. China was caught faking MISSILE shots by Spy+Handler · · Score: 0

    So faking DSLR shots is like, nothing.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/ne...

    1. Re:China was caught faking MISSILE shots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At least they didn't fake a moon landing.

    2. Re:China was caught faking MISSILE shots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who knows?

    3. Re:China was caught faking MISSILE shots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Buzz knows. You should be the next asshat Buzz slaps in the face.

  6. What Huawei (or any company) will take away... by PseudoThink · · Score: 1

    "We need to add a clause to our marketing contracts which prohibits on-set photography or video by anyone except the contracted entity."

    1. Re:What Huawei (or any company) will take away... by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

      Yeah, it's pretty funny that they got caught by a photo which was, apparently, actually taken with a phone...

      And the setup is funny too - you see the guy's arm sticking out there, holding nothing!

      --
      #DeleteChrome
  7. Trust us! by guygo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    But we'd NEVER put a backdoor in our phones. No no no. So just trust us because we are so above board and truthful.

    1. Re:Trust us! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Interesting fact: it has been proven (and indirectly admitted, as could be seen in the recent NSA/CIA leaks) that American telecom equipment, services and software has had backdoors inserted in them time and again, most commonly from Cisco and Juniper.

      Another fact: it has _never_ been proven that there are backdoors in any Huawei products. There are only rumors, started by American competitors and intelligence agencies, but no proof.

  8. Throw away those DSLRs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Throw away those bulky DSLRs. A smartphone can do it all.

    Why carry a bulky lens, let the phone use software zoom, it's just as good, even better!

    do away with that large sensor, the small one on the phone is just as good!

    do away with stabilized optics, software can do it!

    Never mind a flash, that tiny little LED is just as good!

    Never mind frills, like 3200ISO, f 1.4 lenses, better zooms, and all that crap, a smartphone is better!

    1. Re: Throw away those DSLRs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      DSLR is just a load of bull, just like gold plated digital cables.

    2. Re: Throw away those DSLRs by that+this+is+not+und · · Score: 1

      It's digital, but it's not a single lens reflex. Why they felt they needed to drag forward that acronym is unclear. SLR didn't historically mean 'real good camera' in the first place. SLRs were small portable medium-quality cameras. Good film cameras were Hasselblads and other larger format cameras, not cameras designed to shoot little tiny frames on what was originally motion picture film (35 mm).

    3. Re: Throw away those DSLRs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's digital, but it's not a single lens reflex. Why they felt they needed to drag forward that acronym is unclear. SLR didn't historically mean 'real good camera' in the first place. SLRs were small portable medium-quality cameras. Good film cameras were Hasselblads and other larger format cameras, not cameras designed to shoot little tiny frames on what was originally motion picture film (35 mm).

      Do you know anything about cameras? An SLR is a camera with a mirror that deflects light up to the viewfinder, then flips the mirror up when releasing the shutter. A DSLR is exactly the same, just replacing the film behind the shutter with a digital sensor. DSLR is an accurate description of the device.

      Moreover, the frame size on a 35mm still camera is substantially larger than on a 35mm movie camera, because the movie camera puts its frame across the film, but a still camera put it along the film.

      You are definitely displaying your ignorance.

    4. Re: Throw away those DSLRs by that+this+is+not+und · · Score: 1

      A 4 x 5, 5 x 7, or 8 x 10 sheet film negative is vastly larger than a little frame on a roll of film, whether the camera back is oriented portrait or landscape.

  9. Capitalism promotes fakery by AutodidactLabrat · · Score: 1

    in other news, dog bites man

  10. Mind=blown by Nidi62 · · Score: 1

    Wait, so you are telling me that all of those simulated images in commercials are, well, simulated?

    Most commercials will state in a disclaimer that images are simulated, but my reading ability for Arabic isn't what it once was (and even then it wasn't very good), so I am not sure if they had a disclaimer in that video or not.

    --
    The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    1. Re:Mind=blown by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Any picture taken on a phone is going to lose detail on a TV anyway.

    2. Re:Mind=blown by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Any picture taken on a phone is going to lose detail on a TV anyway.

      I can tell watching the TV commercial that those are not cell phone pictures. The depth of field is too great. The ability to capture low light images. The ability to stop water droplets without blur. All these things require a decent sized lens, which a cell phone can't have. Cell phones are fine with resolution. That's no the issue.

    3. Re: Mind=blown by LordKronos · · Score: 1

      I can tell watching the TV commercial that those are not cell phone pictures. The depth of field is too great

      I think you meant the opposite. Cell phones have great depth of field. Getting a shallow depth of field is the difficult part.

    4. Re: Mind=blown by that+this+is+not+und · · Score: 1

      I think you mean 'controlling the depth of field is part of the art.'

    5. Re:Mind=blown by Cederic · · Score: 1

      The ability to stop water droplets without blur. All these things require a decent sized lens

      I can tell you don't know much about photography. Freezing water droplets in the frame is a function of shutter speed and fuck all to do with the lens.

      More precisely anything quicker than around 1/500 of a second will give you water with no blur. My two year old phone can take photographs at 1/24000 second - rather better than my much more expensive professional grade interchangeable lens camera.

    6. Re:Mind=blown by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can tell you don't know much about photography. Freezing water droplets in the frame is a function of shutter speed and fuck all to do with the lens.

      Sigh. Really. You do know you can have a lot faster shutter speed with a bigger aperture, but thanks for the insults.

  11. Huawei cameras are shite by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In my experience the pictures taken by Huawei phones tend to be exceptionally bad.

  12. Can do better by SuperKendall · · Score: 2

    I have a Nova 2i and it's camera quality is VERY good (better than iPhone 7 even)

    Yes, but Apple is up to the iPhone 8 (and X) now... both with better cameras.

    Cameras keep evolving year to year, especially in mobile, so it's not a surprise some phone makers would crack and attempt to present more of a leap than they had.

    No phone camera is anywhere near DSLR (or mirrorless) quality.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Can do better by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And apple isnt even the best out of cell phones. Im sure apple is good enough but you can get even better pics with non-apple phones.

    2. Re:Can do better by houghi · · Score: 1

      I get that some people would need a high quality camera on their phone. The majority is that most people will take pictures of their phone of their cat, their lunch and their kids and those images will be seen on an other phone for 3 seconds.
      (Yes I know, person who is replying, that you are the exception)

      If you just point and shoot and then send it, the cheap phones have a good enough quality. If you seriously start manipulating the images you take, higher quality is indeed a must. But then you will have the phone as a second or third camera next to the DSLR you already own.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
  13. This isn't the first time that they have done this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is also the same company that got caught making counterfeit Cisco peripheral cards and flooding the market with them. They also tried to scrub the internet of evidence. Plenty of old trade magazine websites still have archive of this happening. Their Wikipedia page is completely erased of this incident. If you dig into the old changelogs, you can find this permanently detailed. According to the article, they've also detailed many other examples of their marketing mishaps.

    I know Huawei isn't the only one who has done things like this. I remember a while back, Nokia/Microsoft tried something similar to show off their smartphone camera back in 2012. https://www.theverge.com/2012/9/5/3294545/nokias-pureview-ads-are-fraudulent However, the moment they got caught, their PR department immediately try to make things right. I have yet to hear of Huawei making any kind of public apology for this. If somebody can prove me wrong, I would love to hear it.

    Note to Huawei. If you want to earn the trust of the public, you have to acknowledge that these things happened. Show a little humility, and stop trying to hide from this.

  14. Hardly the first... by xlsior · · Score: 4, Informative

    Nokia was caught in 2012 doing the same, where background reflections showed they had a full commercial camera + lighting rig shooting the supposed cellphone shot: https://www.theverge.com/2012/...

  15. News Flash! Advertising isn't real! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In further news those pictures of a Big Mac aren't real pictures of an actual Big Mac, but rather were made of paper-mache. That "milk" in the ad for your breakfast cereal was actually Elmer's glue. That super-hot model with the perfect complection? Airbrushed.

    Shocking... if this was 1958.

    1. Re: News Flash! Advertising isn't real! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bu..bu..but China is evil incarnate!

  16. In other news by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 3, Insightful

    In other news, food does not actually look as good as the picture on the package.

    Not saying that I like that, just wondering why start freaking out about it now.

    1. Re:In other news by nasch · · Score: 1

      just wondering why start freaking out about it now.

      So because it's happened before, it's not worth reporting on when it happens again? I've never understood these comments. Yeah other companies have done it too. That does not make this story not newsworthy.

    2. Re:In other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ‘food does not actually look as good as the picture on the package’
      First, the supposed fact that others also commit the sin doesn't make this behaviour just.
      Secondly, almost all the food in the supermarket in my borough comes in transparent packaging. All vegetables are sold separate, in plastic or in nets, all meat is covered with transparent plastic foil, drinks mostly come in transparent bottles, cookies and such tend to come in transparent plastic boxes. I admit that some foods do come in opaque packaging and some pictures will be doctored, sure, but most food packaging is actually quite transparent, literally so. The pea soup I had yesterday actually looked better in my pan than on the photograph on the tin; I suspect they reduced the colours in order to be able to use less different inks.

  17. Re:News Flash! Advertising isn't real! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In further news those pictures of a Big Mac aren't real pictures of an actual Big Mac, but rather were made of paper-mache. That "milk" in the ad for your breakfast cereal was actually Elmer's glue. That super-hot model with the perfect complection? Airbrushed.

    Shocking... if this was 1958.

    Yes, you are exactly right!

  18. Any reason for "China's" by Imazalil · · Score: 2

    So, any particular reason to include CHINA'S Huawei?? I don't recall there being too many of them to cause confusion?

    I don't recall reading that an American Apple iPad exploded recently, or that South Korean Samsung had some trouble with exploding phones a couple years back.

    1. Re:Any reason for "China's" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      These days Slashdot deals in blatant racism, hate comments, and anti-Russian and anti-Chinese rhetoric. It's an all-American website.

    2. Re: Any reason for "China's" by that+this+is+not+und · · Score: 1

      They didn't want to confuse it with Harlem's Huawei, which is a chinese food storefront with fairly good eggrolls, as long as you don't order them during the lunch rush.

    3. Re:Any reason for "China's" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One reason I can think of is that the USA doesn't own Apple, and nor does South Korea own Samsung. The same can't be said for Huawei, or any other Chinese company in which China has significant shareholdings and control.

      Of course, as is common in China, you won't find information pointing directly to China's ownership. Instead, you'll find a convoluted and impossible to dissect system of shareholdings, in which the shareholders must be Chinese in China, don't have any power, don't actually hold their shares, don't know how many shares they don't hold, are unable to sell their shares, and lose their shares on a whim for a compensation determined entirely by other parties. That is to say that China owns a controlling interest at something like 98.5% of Huawei.

    4. Re: Any reason for "China's" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gah, thank you. Couldn't have said it better.

      But hey, all the commie sympathizers, will ignore this and cry "muh racism" and shit on America. That's cool.

  19. Obvious fakes by PPH · · Score: 1

    The pictures weren't even vertical.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  20. Trump the man by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See now you know why Prez Trump saved the company some munths back.

  21. BFD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just like how the food in food commercials aren't even edible in many/most cases, who cares? We all know that the images in ads are all just representations. Now if they had offered those files on their website and tried to pass them off as being real, then there would be a valid false advertising complaint.

    As it stands now, this is just another big nothingburger.

  22. Everyone lies by nehumanuscrede · · Score: 1

    Which is why I wait for real world reviews / benchmarks before making a decision.

  23. It's only fair by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For years, DSLR manufacturers used Medium Format shots as a stand in for images from their cameras...

  24. America's McDonalds caught faking hamburgers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    in every god damned commercial and advert for the last 50 years. Do you know how advertising works? Have you fuckers at Slashdot got even a single working brain cell?

    1. Re: America's McDonalds caught faking hamburgers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good point

  25. Megapixels? Real ones or software interpolated by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sssh! Don't let that consumer know that the 12 megapixel camera in the phone is just that 10 megapixel camera that the phone manufacturer interpolated in their app software a little bit

    And don't let the phone manufacturers know that the camera hardware they are buying for their swanky new phone design isn't really a 10 meagpixel camera, but actually an 8 megapixel camera

    It's rife. I'd love to see a fucking test that could check and test actual defined pixels on a CCD to see how much lying is going on.

  26. if I was photographer by avandesande · · Score: 1

    If I was photographer putting together their ad I wouldn't want to use their shitty phone camera either.

    --
    love is just extroverted narcissism
  27. Microsoft by stooo · · Score: 1

    a few years back, MS did the exact same thing with their surface phones.

    --
    aaaaaaa
    1. Re:Microsoft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A Microsoft has never released a "Surface" phone.
      ID10t detected.

  28. Woof by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    DSLR photo or not, if this is representative of the tech, then I'd pass. Not just the woman, but also the dude in the shot look to have been heavily made up and then had any detail on their faces gaussian blurred into oblivion.

    They make Barbie and Ken look realistic.

  29. Own an Honor 6x, good photos, but a $120 PnS bette by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I own an Honor 6x. It takes good photos, but a $120 PnS camera is better, by far for almost all photographic needs.

    Except when I don't have a PnS with me. Whenever I travel or go anywhere I plan to take photos, I take a PnS Canon (1/2.3" sensor) with me. New this PnS was $350, but it is available used for $120-ish today. It has lots of optical zoom, which matters for birding and other nature/landscape shooting.

    Sensor size matters. Look at the differences.
    https://newatlas.com/camera-se...

    No, your iPhone isn't better than a $300 PnS camera either, though it is better than most cheap PnS due to the 1/2.0" sensor and F1.6 capabilities. Lacking optical zoom is a bad thing in my book.

    But the old rule that the camera you have with you is the one you use still applies.

  30. Aw, c'mon by lebean · · Score: 1

    That photo in ad is so obviously heavily professionally retouched, nobody would see that an think, "Boy, that phone takes great pics!"

  31. Data General? by seven+of+five · · Score: 1

    This phone is a Data General Nova 3 emulator, right?

  32. Rules already for fools by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Chinese believes 'rules are for fools' so no surprise in this kind of false advertising

  33. how bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Next thing you know they will be photo shopping those Victoria Secret models, Come out the drinking Bud will not get you that hot chick...

    1. Re:how bad by jaa101 · · Score: 1

      Next thing you know they will be photo shopping those Victoria Secret models.

      Which would matter if we were buying the models.

  34. What do you expect? by Wolfier · · Score: 1

    It's a mainland Chinese company.

  35. Marketing doing marketing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    News at eleven.

  36. Like all of China's firms, anything is OK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Unless you get caught.
    Then you apologize and keep doing it with a lower profile.