I honestly don't care about camera. I don't need a great camera if I want to share photos on Instagram or Facebook, and I have a DSLR for true photography. For me, couple good performance, a responsive UI and good users experience and I have a good smartphone.
You need a good performing smartphone for the camera to work well in the first place
This is a pretty stupid question. Flagships these days have really good hardware but it's always the camera software that deter it. Ever since I've installed Open Camera (open Source camera app by Mark Harman), it's fixed everything wrong with my LG V20's camera. Performance is light-years more important than Camera.
This is the most pointless debate ever posted by GSMarena.
Comparing Apples to Oranges.
If you are going to Paris, You'll more than likely take a proper imaging device with you (a DSLR or a digicam of any sort) if you are going for sightseeing,as implied by the prominent editor. If you are kidnapped to Paris or are going for other espionage reasons, You'll have better luck with a phone.
Similarly, when it comes to performance, there aren't many phones that offer blazing camera performances.
for that matter, Camera hardware, like all hardware present in a phone, is part of a package nowadays. you won't find a blazing fast phone with a crappy, huffing camera. Software glitches are one thing, but a proper flagship phone's DxOmark 'poor' camera will outshoot a galaxy j3 or Redmi 5's appropraite for class camera.
the more dough you cough out the more performance you'd get, be it a SOC's or Camera's
simple as that.
Very very disappointed with the team. You should remove this article.
I go with performance over camera any day of a week. The camera is good enough even on a 100 euro phone to make photos to post in social media. If you like to make pictures more then you should go with a real camera that is made for taking pictures. The lens on the phone is just so small that you get what you get out of it and you really need to know what you do to get good picture quality out of them.
And well mostly it's placebo effect from where to squeeze more money out of the user. Without performance there is no good picture quality anyways.
A capable phone with normal camera plus superb dedicated camera (Sony RX100 or Panasonic LX100) cost half of the price of a phone advertised as "professional" shooter.
The only advantage of the AI assisted phone camera is it could help its owner to make better photos than with good camera. But it won't. Everyone knows that the natural stupidity easily beats the artificial intelligence.
Dante, 01 Apr 2018The thing that bugs me most is the ignorance of battery life. There are not enough options fro... more32GB is already a standard on low end market.There are phones that cost less then 200 euro but have 6GB RAM and 128GB ROM. On what you use that space if the camera on the low end devices are not much to talk about.
My vote goes to-up to $500 phone,and these days there are a lot of them with brilliant performance(Mi6,1+5,Honor series...),and another $500 for a great compact mirrorless digital camera(Fuji is my favourite),and for a grand you`ll end up with two excellent products,instead unload $1k for a phone that won`t perform as you expected...
There is no one or the other. Both should work comparatively well. I give a bit higher importance to the performance, but if the camera is totally bad I won't buy a phone even if it is the fastest in all other tasks.
Those who select Camera are not real smartphone users, which means they swap their smartphone as soon as another pops up; so, long-term slowness will never affect their handsets and also they want better advertised cameras to show-off.
Those who select Performance are smartphone users, which means they want to do tasks immediately. Long-term performance affects directly the cameras too. When you are at the limited time of clumsiness of your handset, you want to shot a sudden action; what will happen? the least performance issue will do the following. Either:
-Corrupt the photo during process such as the problem Sony Ericsson and Nokia Lumia had with photos stored in Stick Duo and mSD. (I personally experienced both with K770i and Lumia 640 XL)
-Fail to load the camera app at the right time to capture the scene. Pre 2014: PureView had good response in Lumia 920 (8MP) sensor, but 1020 (40MP) was a clear lazy in its category. Galaxy S III I9300(8MP) had performance issue to load the camera default app and iPhone 5 (8MP) with fastest response among them made people forget the not so good quality photos.
What bring us Camera?
Since 2014, cameras are good enough to capture photographs for print and put them in albums.
For photography enthusiasts, there are factors that must be considered:
1- Big Sensor for better quality.
2- Flawless lens for less distortion and later correction.
3- Bright focal length for better low light photography.
4- Bigger pixels for more correct light absorption.
5- Lens with better FOV helps the photographer to shoot far objects with real bokeh, not something so called it which are result of producing blur effect around main object with flaws in focus.
6- Super Zoom big sensor bright lens cameras are the only solution to shoot what is located in misty trees. Digital, Hybrid or Loss-less zooming is just what the camera itself pinch to zoom already visible seen in front of you which means cannot see other side of shallow mist.
6- RAW Shot with more Pixels for Big Sensor means future proof photographs (There is no physical negative for reproduction by scanners) as 8K resolution is coming closer and needs 7680X4320 pixels to show sharp Images as standard in the display (Over sampling and down sampling is not suitable for serious photographers). 40MP photographs with natural colors and very few natural noise in deep dark conditions is what photographers want, so they go for DSLR.
I personally prefer a fast, responsive, feature rich and handy smartphone with quality of at least Galaxy S6 edge (which is old enough to say today's smartphone cameras are more than good enough for a point and shoot style).
SD845, E9810 and A11 are my qualified chipsets which are both efficient and highly responsive in heavily loaded situations.
Upcoming HiSilicon's Kirin 9-series and MediaTek's Helio X-series must be as responsive as the other three, in order to be in competition.
Never forget that even the most advanced professional cameras in any form-factor, in their first place benefit from a tremendously specialized in-house RISC chipset, to guarantee the performance.
Neither. I value user experience as a whole/details. Goog battery, good speakers and reception, stable and lexible software/rom, low heating, 3.5mm jack, sd slot, no notch.
That's why i'd never buy any of the current flagships even if they costed as much as the mid-rangers. Snapdragon 625 is more than enough for performance with no compromises if you don't play games.
I don't care about the camera either as long as it does the job.
AnonD-63339, 01 Apr 2018You're just spoilt if you think phones these days lack performance...I would be more than sati... moreThere are many phones performing worse than the G3. Just take my Xperia M4 Aqua as an example.
You're just spoilt if you think phones these days lack performance...I would be more than satisfied to have the performance of my old LG G3 even now...a better camera is way more important to me than performance...
I don't care much about the camera, especially since I figured out that is part of the reason why smartphone prices are ridiculously inflated. Performance is what I care about most.
r33fd, 01 Apr 2018A phone with a bad camera can still have great performance (example oneplus) but a phone with ... moreI still carry my pureview when I want to take amazing photos...best camera even now after years hands down. But as a smartphone pureview is bad.
If you want to stay at home and play games, performance. If you want to go outside, camera.
Well, I like a balance between both. But if I had to choose one, it would be performance.