keyurforyou, 10 Mar 2018Hi friends. I need some advice for my next phone. I have a iphone se and looking to upgrade. H... moreiOS if you have a lot apple product and for longer continuous "cough" update "cough", android for freedom and fine about thinking much. IMO 5 years for a phone is asking too much (or get boring at least), get mid tier and replace each 2 years.
Hi friends. I need some advice for my next phone. I have a iphone se and looking to upgrade. Here in India iPhone 8 64gb and Galaxy S9 both are available at same price of around Rs52000. I know specs wise and features wise iphone 8 looses big time against S9, but i also know perfomance wise and security wise iphone 8 should last 4 to 5 years as against around 3 years for the S9. What should I buy. I am comfortable with any OS, so thats not an issue. I am looking more from value for money and longevity as i am not going to spend 50k every few years so my phone should last me around 4 to 5 years if i spend so much.
DarkJava, 10 Mar 2018And apple has been "falling" for nearly 2 decades now :/Apple os genuinely doing new things despite the detractors. Samsung used to sas well... she doesn't anymore. She's another copycat company with old hardware.
Omg !!! Sony really improved motion eye camera for low light
Sony is back
Guys check out
Go to tool and find camera compare
I am laughing, 10 Mar 2018The most mediocre flagship device released by samsung ever. The lack of enthusiasm in all the ... moreThe same they said when they found out that S8 had worse battery endurance than s7E. They won't care.
In the primary 3 (endurance, performance, ergonomy) S7E is Samsung's peak (in S series at least). Best battery, most apps in ram, easy to use fingerprint, 16:9 screen. That says a lot. 2 year old phone wins over any other...
battery life = lol
Benchmark = Xperia XZ2 is better than S9 and IPhone X
Still crappy selfies...
How can it overexpose background if it has HDR?
My 2015 phone does better..
kakouille, 10 Mar 2018You need help. "When the light goes down, the S9 imaging skills become even more exceptional.... moreWait, 1/4 shutter speed? I think other flagships smartphone not really need 1/4 shutter speed to great low light photography.
Max..Payne, 10 Mar 2018Do you guys took the low light shots at f/2.4? cuz there's no way they should be worse than s8.All shots of photo tool are on auto. If they are f2.4 or f1.5 , choice made by the phone...
Funny how some people argue for a phone. It's not a special phone and it ain't that nice or that distinctive from the rest. It's just a phone, another phone.
Do you guys took the low light shots at f/2.4? cuz there's no way they should be worse than s8.
kakouille, 10 Mar 2018You need help.
"When the light goes down, the S9 imaging skills become even more exceptional.... moreHi @Kakouille
What he is saying is true... The low light samples of S9 available to compare have ISO 250 e SS 1/14s.
The samples of XZ2 show ISO 200 and SS 1/8s.
I have now idea how it is possible, because Sony trades off OIS for high ISO to prevent blur. All Xperia were supposed to shoot at 600+ in this situation.
Samples of XZ1 have ISO 700 or 800..
"F/1.5 will allow for low ISO shooting, which will translate into less noise"
In most cases noise doesn't depend much on the Iso. In fact a higher Iso decreases(!) the captured noise, if shutter speed and aperture are the same. Yes, at Iso 6400 f/1.8 1/10s a sensor captures less noise than at Iso 100 f/1.8 1/10s. The higher Iso only makes more noise visible(!) due to the brighter image, but it doesn't increase the actual captured noise. A higher Iso even leads to slightly less captured noise.
Panino Manino, 10 Mar 2018"1) the XZ2 has much better quality than the S9 in the low light scene."
This XZ2 impressed m... moreYou need help.
"When the light goes down, the S9 imaging skills become even more exceptional. The OIS, the bright F/1.5 lens, the large 1.4um pixels, and the Multi-Frame Image Processing all combine to produce unmatched low-light shots.
Where most of the current flagships with F/1.7-F/1.8 and OIS shoot at ISO 400 and, say, 1/4s shutter speed, the Galaxy S9 chooses and ISO between 250 and 320, and a shutter speed of 1/10s. The result - great low-light images with lots of detail, little noise, and no blurry spots."
Gsmarena writes about the camera:
"But then there is also the shallow depth of field, which can lead to corner softness and overall softer images with less intricate detail."
Sorry, but this is not true. It's softer at f/1.5, yes, but this has nothing to do with depth of field. It just means that Samsung wasn't able to make the lens perform well at f/1.5. That's not unusual for camera lenses. For example you can buy an f/1.4 lens that is very bad until you stop down to f/2.8. Therefore I think that Samsung's decision is not very useful at all. A sharp f/1.7 lens is better than a soft f/1.5 lens. Furthermore the 28% light advantage of f/1.5 over f/1.7 isn't much. A significant improvement is 100% or 200%. Most photographers wouldn't really care whether it's f/1.7 or f/1.5. On the other hand f/2.4 captures 50% less light than f/1.7. So you capture less light whenever the phone chooses f/2.4, in this case you either get a slower shutter speed or more noise.
The most mediocre flagship device released by samsung ever. The lack of enthusiasm in all the reviewers about this phone is so apparent. Battery life of S9 is utterly pathetic. I know some die hard Samsung boys complained about Phonearean's low battery rating about S9, I wonder what they will say now that gsmarena also rated it lower than S8.
Xiaomi has taken over samsung in India. Nokia is back with some really strong phone. Is this the beginning of End of Samsung dominance in Android market? I sure hope so.