CptPower, 05 Nov 2019Having a xiaomi device for 250-300 bucks with same camera or having a S11 flagsship for 1200 w... moreIt won't be the same camera. It will be a newer model with a bigger sensor and with a software similar to apples "deep fusion tech"......Read a little. Same goes for everyone else in this comment section
Noki, 05 Nov 2019Just a fad a marketing gimmick using that cam. It's of no use to common users. Rather a better... moreIf there are no substantial improvements in the camera, why would anyone pay $1000 for batteries. These are worse idiots. And if you want better batteries, only way now is to increase the size of the device and use mediocre camera, the device is already available. It's call a tablet.
Having a xiaomi device for 250-300 bucks with same camera or having a S11 flagsship for 1200 with same camera.
Anyone easily pick xiaomi for a very simple reason.
Price is only thing that matters rest have no value.
I think I figured a way to improve low light by 200-300% and detail by about 200%. I could tell Samsung if they Patent it and ensure nobody else uses it, atleast for a few iterations.
The improvement in low light could be significant. But Samsung had to Re-Work its Noise Reduction Algorithms and its HDR, if it wants to substantially improve what we already get from the top end 12MP sensors and the 48MP and 64MP ones. I am hoping they have taken this nee Quad Bayer pixel with one white set of pixels to substantially improve low light.
Hopefully Samsung also has super sharp glass for the lens, and pushing the fstop to f1.4 could help further.
Nope they will stick to their 12mpx unit since february 2016 (galasy s7) :) A lot of phones are better camera performers than Samsung these days.
Long gone are the times when if you wanted best camera you buy Samsung
Anonymous, 04 Nov 2019Cameras have dedicated image processor, while cellphones rely on ISP inside the cpu.
Pocket c... moreI see that you're being very confused with all those terms. ISP is an image processing chip that is INDEPENDENT from CPU. An image processor inside the camera is usually an ISP or a pair of ISP and SoC (or CPU in this case since image processing only involves ISP and CPU in dedicated camera) on the same chip. For instance, Sony's old BIONZ image processor only consists of Sony's custom ISP, whereas newer BIONZ X is a combination of their ISP and quad core Cortex-A5 SoC.
Some compact cameras with 1 inch sensor or smaller one show noticeable oil painting effect in SOOC jpeg due to poor optimisation of the processing algorithms, but because of the better raw output from the sensor the software does not need to alter the image as much as it does on a phone's camera, hence the effect tends to be LESS noticeable as a result.
"Companies like Sony and Canon still making pocket cameras with 1/2.3" sensors"
Yeah, for people who can't spend more money on a premium compact camera with a lot larger sensors. The image quality on those cheap pocket cameras are generally downright terrible and there's not much point of using it over a phone camera unless you really need a smooth, consistent optical zoom for your usage.
Anonymous, 04 Nov 2019Cameras have dedicated image processor, while cellphones rely on ISP inside the cpu. Pocket c... moreMy Canon compact camera with 1/2.3" sensor and f2.8 aperture has oil painting effect. Corners and sides are extremely soft. My smartphone with a 1/3" sensor and f1.7 aperture definitely beats my compact camera.
I'm amazed that people actually complain on new features...
Anonymous, 04 Nov 2019Do not compare the cooling of videocameras with "gaming cellphones". Those cameras used by m... moreNowadays the reason why some smartphones limit the high resolution/frame rate video recording at 10mins is due to the fact that it takes up a huge amount of storage in very short period of time, overheating of the sensor itself not really a huge deal here. Phones have typically much smaller sensors than those found inside dedicated cameras therefore heats up considerably less while recording.
Buxz777, 04 Nov 2019Honestly ... the rx100 , the Ricoh grii , the Fuji x70 , the canon g7 , the Panasonic lx10 all... moreID: LQw was clearly talking about how his compact camera with a 1/2.3" sensor and slow F3.5 lens can beat out smartphones in image quality, why are you bringing up those premium compact cameras that have much larger sensors than smartphones?
Buxz777, 04 Nov 2019Honestly ... the rx100 , the Ricoh grii , the Fuji x70 , the canon g7 , the Panasonic lx10 all... moreWhy buy a pocket camera since we can get a mirrorless camera for the similar price? Pocket cameras are shit. Just buy dslr or mirrorless.
You are also using Quad Bayer technology. It's shame on you giant company. Use direct 108MP.
Anonymous, 04 Nov 20191) I used LG as example because it is only brand that uses glass lenses. I know all other bran... more1) Sorry if I made you confused, I was trying to say that there are other phones that do LG's in terms of lens quality, not the image quality.
2) In order to achieve very detailed 2x hybrid zoom the lens has to be extremely sharp in the first place, and no software trickery or sensor features would help if the lens cannot resolve enough resolution. In fact Google stated in their interview that they had to design sharper lens for Pixel 3 since they wanted to do the Super Res Zoom with it, which explains why the feature never got ported back to Pixel 2 even after the camera app update.
3) If you're talking about a typical compact zoom camera with small 1/2.3" sensor... that's some utter nonsense you're spewing right there. Right now I'm seeing bunch of sample photos from those compact cameras and the lens quality is pretty bad with some pretty bad fringing towards the frame as well as some noticeable corner softness. An image chip on a dedicated camera is nowhere near as powerful as the combination of ISP and DSP (and sometimes NPU) that high-end smartphones use, and your pocket camera with a F3.5 lens somehow beats out Pixel 3 and iPhone 11 Pro in low light? That's not even funny even if you were saying it as a joke.
4) Can you just take a look at Mate 30 Pro's image sample first before saying anything ffs?
5) How is this anything to do with what we're discussing right now?
Just a fad a marketing gimmick using that cam. It's of no use to common users. Rather a better battery that lasts 3 days and better charging that charges in 1 hour , is the tech that would be appreciated.
Buxz777, 04 Nov 2019Honestly ... the rx100 , the Ricoh grii , the Fuji x70 , the canon g7 , the Panasonic lx10 all... moreYou can find smartphones under 200$ that can record 4k video. And as for most expensive smartphones, none of the cameras you mentioned can even come close to them. In fact, they can't even compare to the same priced smartphones and all the features those smartphones offer. They can't even compare to the output quality.
You can find Samsung Galaxy S9 for the price close to those cameras you mentioned.
You get better video camera, 60fps 4k video, a phone, and a memory all in one.
There is also Meizu 16s Pro, that costs less than 400$(costs less than the cameras you mentioned) and records 60fps 4k video, and takes awesome photos. I always prefer video quality over a photo quality. But this one kills it at photos as well as it does in a video.
Xiaomi Mi 9T costs less than 300$ and has 4k video 30fps.
Meizu M6 Note costs less than 200$ and has a 4k video 30fps.
Iphone 8 costs less than 350$ and records 60fps 4k video.
Huawei nova 5z also sounds promising.
I prefer video quality over photo quality, and video focused smartphones are way better for video recording than any pocket camera, assuming the same price. They are on the level of DSLR, with the disadvantage being small angle of view on a smartphone.
Pocket cameras have tons of disadvantages compared to smartphones:
1) You have to use a memory card. In smartphones, you don't. Ultimately, smartphones have more memory.
2) You think you are paying less if you buy a pocket camera? Pocket cameras cost you way more assuming you are also buying a smartphone. If you are buying smartphone anyway, paying additional 500$ for a pocket camera means that price of a smartphone you own is added to a price of a pocket camera you buy as a total cost. So for all that money in total, you could have just bought a better smartphone instead, it would replace pocket camera, and in the end, the price would be the same and you would get more out of it.
3) The joy of showing photos to someone on a smartphone, or just viewing them yourself, can never be matched by viewing them on a tiny pocket camera screen or a computer screen that you can't hold in hand comfortably.
4) In order to use photos from pocket camera well, you have to transfer them to a computer or a smartphone. Pocket cameras can't even work on their own. You need computer or a laptop or smartphone to use pocket cameras. With smartphones, you can use photos right away, post them right away, see them comfortably right away with smartphone alone.
5) So many camera apps can be installed on a smartphone. That adds all kinds of effects to photos and videos. With pocket camera, this is not so.
6) Pocket camera is extremely limited when compared to smartphones. Pocket camera is only good for taking photos. And even at that part there are smartphones which will be equal in quality of photos for the same or lower price, and definitely better at video quality.
The trick with smartphone for good photos is: Don't shoot on auto, but experiment with settings and modes. Take 4-5 photos from one angle, then change angle.
And let's not forget all those experiments where most of the people couldn't tell the difference between photos and videos taken by DSLR and smartphone, and those that did guess it right couldn't really explain which one is better. So if DSLR can't beat smartphone in the same price range, you can imagine that a pocket camera is going to get killed.