Anonymous, 28 Aug 2015Did you know that Z1/Z2/Z3/Z3+ takes 8 MP pictures at default?Yes, I'm well aware of the so called superior auto mode.
That doesnt help the fact that if you set it to full resolution, it can't capture that many pixels.
The superior auto mode supposedly uses all those pixels and downsamples it with some "fancy" algorithm. It does use the whole sensor, as the field of view is the same, in manual and 8MP mode, but you need to set the aspect ratio the same to see that.
For this downsampling to get optimal result you would still need the camera to be able to capture the actual full resolution, otherwise you are just mixing in useless information, for the algorithm to process out of it.
The pixels are as small as they are, that means, that the optics has to be good enough for so small pixels, even if it would just use 8MP of the pixels avalible.
Anonymous, 28 Aug 2015Xperia Z3 has one of the best low light performance, ISO 12400. Also, its unknown what image s... moreWe are given the resolution and the size of the sensor.
Do you think that they magiacally fitted bigger pixels on it?
Anonymous, 28 Aug 2015I like it how Sony haters like you already concluded that Z5 has a terrible camera, even when ... moreI own a Z3. Be it that I got it cheap. I've also owned a couple of SonyEricsson devices and a bluetooth handsfree.
I'm no sony hater, but a realist.
They have despite 4 generations of hardware, in the Z series (z1 and on), and several of software updates, still not managed to impress with their camera performance. Their camera specs seemed impressive when they release the Z1, but the imagequality never lived up to it.
Making the pixels even smaller will hardly be what helps them over the edge.
Also understanding the limitations of optical technology avalible for this small devices, in this priceclass, can tell us, that it's very unlikely that the actual optical resolution of that lens system will even be good enough for the 20.7MP they used to have, so why then increase the resolution?
That tells us they are upping the pixelcount for marketing purpose, rather than trying to deliver better performance.
Even if it does better than the Zs before it, it still wont do as good as it could have.
Wouldnt you rather have a Sony with a realistic pixel count, that the optics could actually deliver, that did better in lowlight, than a Sony Z with a resolution that is there just for marketing, thus taking a toll on lowlight performance?
Just because you critizie you are not a hater, that is however typical fanboy behaviour to accuse people for beeing hater, just because they critizie, not trying to understand what the critique was all about.
Nokia made some odd claims back in the 808 days that they could supersample pixels next to eachother, to give a combined surfacearea equal to much bigger pixels. Well that doesnt really work, since you can't combine the sensitivity. Nearly the same amount of light would hit all those pixels (there is some space between the pixels), as if they were one combined so far so good. But the pixels still need enough time to expose, and a single pixel of the same size would be more sensitive to light, thus expose quicker, so then not true afterall.
What you can to is to up the iso and end up with lots of noise, then downscale to remove some of that noise. But small pixels have much worse ISO performance, meaning that you wont get anywhere near the same result. Even if you compensated the smaller pixel with longer exposuretime so that it would get as much light, as the bigger pixel it would still have higher ISO noise. So when you claim you combine them, if you then set an exposuretime that is the same as one bigger pixel, it would be even noisier.
That was just marketing trick by Nokia.
Sony already kinda did that with the extended ISO mode that my Z3 has, and the result is an image of pathetic amount of resolved details. You can see in the Z3 review, the picture looks ok as a thumbnail but that is about all it's good for. If sony had actually limited the resolution of the image to a size where it looks ok, and said so when taking the picture that this is 1.3MP or whatever it's good for, then that would have been a different thing. Then I would have trusted them to know what they are doing. But they rather try to still brag about resolution, even when that resolution is mostly made up of ISO noise.
I like sony. If I were to get a fullframe DSLR i would probably choose Sony, thanks to the OIS. And that I like a couple of the zeiss lenses.
If I were getting a compact camera to put in my pocket, I would get the RX100 (but I think they could improve it, the latest version is too thick, and the first version that they were at least selling untill recently that actually could fit in a pocket, has a outdated sensor and lacks wifi)
Sony makes some good home cinema projectors. Now when 4k is too expensive I would not buy a sony, even if their full HD projectors are really good, it would be too much of an investment when you would soon make the switch to 4k anyway.
I'm not a gamer, if I were, i would probably get the latest PS over microsofts offerings... well I do have a PS2, that I almost never used.
They have some good TVs, but they dont have the best price/performance ratio, so I would probably not pick a Sony. But I do have an old 32" Sony LCD.
If you dont know, Sony is the largest producer of cmos sensors. Iphone, some samsung phones, almost all chinese phones own sony sensors and almoast all cameras. So I gues it is not so bad. I own xperia Z2 and I can say it is very good phone. The design is perfect and the battery rulles. My friends owns S6 edge and the battery is a crap. I love Sony and and I really dont care if it is 4 or 8 core, full hd or 4k, because I think nobody dont need it. My opinion only.
Sony, be aware Soc 810 has been badly defamed, pls use next 820 to make a impact. Its a futile attempt to repeat past mistakes' as LG HTC many other, maybe 2nd or 3rd batches all are cursed. Companies have under clocked it not to heat, but failed. Rest its your money. See you have failed Z3+ Z4 models. Now don't jump into a inferno.
no one think about this. with the 23 mpx even if the default resolution is 8 mpx, you can zoom in without losing the quality. It is same with Xperia M5 camera technology which is can zoom in until 5x without losing quality of the taken picture
That is fantastic,all phone use sony sensor,but this will be a flagship of cameras on mobiles.
ithehappy ko chodo, 28 Aug 2015So here we are again. The megapixel war is not going to an end.yeah.
EugeneOnTheEdge, 28 Aug 2015Higher res = good! No OIS = not gonna make any differences from 20MP cam. No software proces... morehttp://www.dxomark.com/Mobiles...ion/Ranking. The crappy 12 MP sensor you're talking about is nowhere to be seen here.
Wow, perfect Z5 I love the design. Haha Great Sony, Love You, but don't forget to careful your system this time, software is important My love Sony, wish you got all the best. Love Sony.
JonHolstein, 28 Aug 2015I also think that 12 megapixels or so is a good balance.
As I also mentioned in another pos... moreXperia Z3 has one of the best low light performance, ISO 12400. Also, its unknown what image sensor is used in this phone. There isn't a Sony sensor with 23 MP. And don't forget that this is just a leak. After Z5 releases, then we'll talk about the camera :-)
Adi T., 28 Aug 2015Only 23 MPx? lol Welcome to late 2013/early 2014, Sony! Nice "flagship".Only 23 MP? S6 has 16 MP, while iPhone still with 8 MP. And Sony Xperia Z5 with 23 MP camera is 'only that much' for you. More megapixels doesn't mean better camera though.
JonHolstein, 28 Aug 2015Where is the aperture info from? It does not say on the device. I had to google, GSMarena ... moreI like it how Sony haters like you already concluded that Z5 has a terrible camera, even when it hasnt been revealed nor anyone knows much about the Z5. Can't you just wait for the Z5 to release? Then we'll talk about how good or bad is the camera.
pescarolo, 28 Aug 2015I think that is what he meant. It's true that Sony knows how to manufacture a sensor. But in t... moreOIS does make a difference.
OIS means the camera can set longer exposuretimes, since it wont be as sensitive to the small shakes of your hand, that means the sensor will have longer times to collect light, and in low light situations that makes a big difference.
OIS might not make a hugh difference for video recording, where the resolution is lower than the sensor, so that digital stabilization can be used. However when using digital stabilization, the field of view the width and heigt of what is included in the picture will be lower than what the camera is actual capable of, so depending on what you want to record on video you might find that you cant fit all that you want in the picture.