[DuexNoir]

Lots of questions around quality of camera.. so I thought I would start some tests to compare between my current iPhone 5 and the Z10. First one shows huge variation in the light conditions.. interested to know which you feel is best.

iPhone 5 / Z10 No Flash

(I had to upload the original from the OP onto Imgur as quoting the post only gave me a hyperlink and not an image)

I notice how in all the iPhone pictures the brightness/contrast configuration seems to be higher as reflected in the photo (I'm an avid photoshop user, so I noticed this).

So playing with the Z10 image (on the right in OP's post) in Photoshop. This is what I get:



Basically, it looks like the iPhone camera software is coded to set the brightness and contrast high and the colour balance leans toward a yellow tint.

If I just changed the brightness/contrast settings to match the iPhone image but not match the colour balance. Then this is what you get:



So if these are the only changes needed to basically match the Z10 photo to the iPhone photo, I wonder if the corrections can simply be done with a software update?

[belfastdispatcher]

How about more comparison photos and less arguing? One cannot make its mind up on a couple of random photos first ones using the wrong resolution too, which some seem to ignore.

[THBW]

I could not guess as to the reason. I will get a Z10 and I will test it against my iPhone 4S and my SGIII.

I agree....it's not rocket science. The pictures that I have seen on this thread of the Z10 are inferior to the pictures I have seen of the iPhone. To try to guess as to why is irrelevant. Only the OP knows the settings used, and I'm not going to second guess.

It is a digital camera and consequently software settings will determine outcome. That is how you control it. Camera maker vary these settings depending on the offering. This is not new.

[qbnkelt]

It is a digital camera and consequently software settings will determine outcome. That is how you control it. Camera maker vary these settings depending on the offering. This is not new.

Of course the settings determine the outcome. What I said was that to try to guess as to why the pictures were inferior is irrelevant because only the OP knows what settings he used.

[StampyBeaverbrook]

A few software tweaks will bring the pictures up to an acceptable standard for most people. But as it currently stands a portion of the market will see picture quality as another reason not to get the z10. I don't get why some people can't see this as a bad thing.
It's true that most people only use their phone camera for Facebook Twitter etc, but people often buy things based on their ,often, unrealistic aspirations of things they might do. How many SUVs do you see driving around in the city or people wearing diving watches that will never go deeper than a resort swimming pool?

[rapha194]

DuexNoir

You managed to significantly improve the brightness .. ... cor.e contrast.

However the definition and noise has not progressed.

Check straws .... In the IP5 to tell how many wires have the straw.

[Toodeurep]

There is a different amount of table space in front of the bear in the two photos. One must be slightly closer.

[Toodeurep]

You do know that RIM was the first of the major smartphone makers to have a browser.

I spit my drink out! I think my 7290 came out in 2004 and it has a browser on it.

[richardat]

I can see times....capturing a children's Christmas pageant at church, or wanting to take a picture of a sleeping baby without waking her up, taking a picture of a flash-shy pet.

EVERYONE: please NEVER EVER use a flash, or LED light on your cats big, sensitive, eyes.

PS. I don't use it with any amimal including wild ones. Survival in the wild is incredibly tough, especially with mankind destroying so much habitat. The last thing a wild animal needs is a blind spot, or any vision impairment. That could easily mean death instead of life.

[THBW]

Of course the settings determine the outcome. What I said was that to try to guess as to why the pictures were inferior is irrelevant because only the OP knows what settings he used.

It is not necessarily the OP. The specs of a digital camera are set by the manufacturer; software coding controls the digital array. To give a digital camera greater functional range, software is written to change the sensitivity of the digital array. That is what is going on with night mode, portrait mode, bright mode, etc. If you are in low light, you use night mode to enhance the sensitivity of your digital array. It is therefore irrelevant to compare the so called default settings of the two camera under low light conditions because they are not designed to operate optimally in this range. There was no point to this comparison.

[DuexNoir]

DuexNoir

You managed to significantly improve the brightness .. ... cor.e contrast.

However the definition and noise has not progressed.

Check straws .... In the IP5 to tell how many wires have the straw.

Those pictures the OP took in that post were not on the same resolution setting. Check some posts after that original post and you will see that issue being discussed and new sets of images were uploaded. In short, the Z10 picture was taken in a 16:9 ratio whereas the 4:3 ratio (if I recall correctly) gives better resolution. Also, there appears to be a difference in distance at which the images were taken.

And I wasn't comparing definition and noise, I was talking about brightness and contrast.

[richardat]

these responses are absurd. seemingly a great number of respondents say that a great picture is necessary. if pictures are THAT important, buy a damn camera that takes great pictures. because before the first mobile phone to offer a camera was available, NO one complained about what they didn't have. all of a sudden, you cannot live without a phone that doesn't take print worthy pictures. WTF?!?!?!? SERIOUSLY?!?!?!?!? apparently the problem doesn't lie with the Z10's inability to take editorial type pictures (matter of opinion), it lies with most of you LOOKING for a reason NOT to like the phone. I guarantee if it's NOT the camera, it WILL be something else. and since that's the case, please go back to the Lumia, iphone, or whatever else it is that takes these magnificent pictures you so desperately need, yet fail to give you in most other aspects of a "smart" phone. and if you're a die hard BB fan like some of you claim (or at least that's what your actions say by being a part of the Crackberry community), wait to see what the company will do with the phone and it's camera. and if you're tired of waiting, go to a company that doesn't make you wait. I'm so tired of people nit picking the damn phone. IT'S A PHONE!!!!!!!!! it's not your lover. it doesn't make you breakfast in the morning or f**k you when you're horny. IT'S A PHONE!!!!! a man made, infallible device. if you don't want to invest your hard earned money in the product due to it's lack of all things perfect, DESIGN AND MANUFACTURE YOUR OWN!!!!! NOTHING, and I assure you, NOTHING in this world will EVER meet 100% of your needs...and that includes the Z10 and it's "sub-par" camera. someone even said they don't want to carry around a camera, even though pictures are their "priority". well how about this...you carry a purse don't you? stick the damn CAMERA, along with the PHONE, in your purse. everything else is in there, right?

btw...the camera comment wasn't just geared toward women, it includes the men that are complaining about the phone as well. this s**t is ridiculous.

Definitely a First World problem, but I will play along. Can you see the image you want? If yes, then move on. It's a phone. It's a phone. Did I say it's a phone? Jack of all trade, master on none. I am sure if you play with the settings, you may obtain the look you want......but wait, there are filters to think about, so the original shot becomes less important, in some cases. I think it's me. I am not getting this phone, expecting it to take pictures like a.... dedicated camera. It's all fun and games until we take it so seriously. Now a camera that was able to make phone calls.......that's a different story.....

These two people, definitely need to buy the most basic feature phone available, and stop going to forums wherein smartphones, or "advanced" feature phones are discusses, OR rethink the rationality of their rants.

One side note, it is not a good argument to say: well, I could alter the image to make it look like the one from the better camera! (in that same vein: maybe it's the software?)

Yes, software processing IS a large part of what's being tested. THat IS the ESSENCE of a DIGITAL camera. In theory, I could alter any image to look like any other, it is just recorded binary values. In reality, I could also do this, being familiar with image processing to some extent, and having sold "hobby" photos. A large part of any digital testing IS, how well the software does in producing the image, of course, we could go and post-process all the images....the point is that this will hopefully be unnecessary with a "good" camera.

As Mike007 and some others pointed out, the other crucial components are the sensors and lens. (particularly the lens) in my opinion. Mike is correct....THIS cannot be fully compensated for in later processing no matter what you do. It takes the right images to discern these differences (and the right eye). Most of what is attracting people here are indeed correctable with manipualtion....but of course, as I said, that is a cop-out.

As to the images, the z10 images here do appear to have problems in white levels, contrast, etc. Resulting in rather dull, flat images. I'm looking forward to getting around to seeing some of the big images from reviews, but the general consensus that the camera is behind the leaders seems to be correct. People can weight that in their decisions.

[m0de25]

One side note, it is not a good argument to say: well, I could alter the image to make it look like the one from the better camera! (in that same vein: maybe it's the software?)

Yes, software processing IS a large part of what's being tested. THat IS the ESSENCE of a DIGITAL camera. In theory, I could alter any image to look like any other, it is just recorded binary values. In reality, I could also do this, being familiar with image processing to some extent, and having sold "hobby" photos. A large part of any digital testing IS, how well the software does in producing the image, of course, we could go and post-process all the images....the point is that this will hopefully be unnecessary with a "good" camera.

As Mike007 and some others pointed out, the other crucial components are the sensors and lens. (particularly the lens) in my opinion. Mike is correct....THIS cannot be fully compensated for in later processing no matter what you do. It takes the right images to discern these differences (and the right eye). Most of what is attracting people here are indeed correctable with manipualtion....but of course, as I said, that is a cop-out.

As to the images, the z10 images here do appear to have problems in white levels, contrast, etc. Resulting in rather dull, flat images. I'm looking forward to getting around to seeing some of the big images from reviews, but the general consensus that the camera is behind the leaders seems to be correct. People can weight that in their decisions.

The point is that the software in the phone that is processing the RAW camera data into viewable JPG's needs tweaking to correct white balance, brightness levels, and colour saturation. Every modern digital camera post processes the RAW files and it appears that BlackBerry didn't think it was important enough to get this done right (at least at launch).

Apart from bad processing, PERHAPS the hardware is inferior to the competition. I don't see evidence of that just yet unless there are specs and OEM information out that I haven't seen. The images appear to be noisy in low light, that suggests a smaller sensor compared to the others.... but how much bigger and/or better can the others have? Again, we are talking THIN SMARTPHONES and not DSLR's... at this level, most of this "quality" difference can be dealt with by the software output, in my opinion.

[Mikethaler]

The whole camera thing is weird for me. I was in a similar situation. I had an HTC AMAZE, and it had an AMAZING camera. (AMAZE, get it). Its flash shots were a little off but I didnt care about that. Took some of my best photos with it. Sadly, I hated HTC. ( Wifi calling issues that I rely on) and there were 2 many bugs, so I was givin the option at the time to switch to the Samsung GS2. The GS2 blew away the HTC in many ways, including call quality and weight, which was important to me. Except for the camera. The camera was worse then the Amaze. In the end, the GS2 photos came out " ok/good ", but no where near GREAT. The Amaze photos came out great period, without doing anything.

So maybe in the end, some people really do value how a photo looks when buying a smart phone. I know I'm one of them.

My wife got the HTC MyTouch 4G Slide when her 8900 died and the 9900 was designed to have a barely functional camera.. T-Mobile didn't carry the 9810. She won't go back to BB altho there are plenty of glitches that make her reboot the HTC frequently. She can hear texts read to her, and the dictation feature seems ok - altho I don't think she uses it much. I know some missing apps can probably be accessed via browser - but I don't think it would have full functionality. Anyway, since it will be 2 months here in the U.S. before the 10 series comes out - I'll have plenty a chance to read reviews from Canada, England etc.

[HollyWOOD1906]

These two people, definitely need to buy the most basic feature phone available, and stop going to forums wherein smartphones, or "advanced" feature phones are discusses, OR rethink the rationality of their rants.

One side note, it is not a good argument to say: well, I could alter the image to make it look like the one from the better camera! (in that same vein: maybe it's the software?)

Yes, software processing IS a large part of what's being tested. THat IS the ESSENCE of a DIGITAL camera. In theory, I could alter any image to look like any other, it is just recorded binary values. In reality, I could also do this, being familiar with image processing to some extent, and having sold "hobby" photos. A large part of any digital testing IS, how well the software does in producing the image, of course, we could go and post-process all the images....the point is that this will hopefully be unnecessary with a "good" camera.

As Mike007 and some others pointed out, the other crucial components are the sensors and lens. (particularly the lens) in my opinion. Mike is correct....THIS cannot be fully compensated for in later processing no matter what you do. It takes the right images to discern these differences (and the right eye). Most of what is attracting people here are indeed correctable with manipualtion....but of course, as I said, that is a cop-out.

As to the images, the z10 images here do appear to have problems in white levels, contrast, etc. Resulting in rather dull, flat images. I'm looking forward to getting around to seeing some of the big images from reviews, but the general consensus that the camera is behind the leaders seems to be correct. People can weight that in their decisions.

I'm sorry...but I seem to be missing the relevance of including my response in your post. never did I once suggest that a basic phone is what people need. if that was my purpose, what am I doing here on Crackberry anxiously waiting for the Z10 to hit the US? my point was that the camera is just ANOTHER facet of the Z10 people will find to complain about. obviously they couldn't find much to pick apart about the phone, like, let's say...the UX, so the camera was the next best thing to focus on to nit pick about. if the camera is THAT important, to ANYONE, GET A NIKON OR CANON! the purpose of the Z10 is not MERELY to take pictures, ESPECIALLY when it's a PHONE and does SOOOOOOOO many other things well. the camera is merely ONE aspect of the phone, NOT the other way around. so again...what was the point in mentioning my post in your response?

[mikeo007]

Those pictures the OP took in that post were not on the same resolution setting. Check some posts after that original post and you will see that issue being discussed and new sets of images were uploaded. In short, the Z10 picture was taken in a 16:9 ratio whereas the 4:3 ratio (if I recall correctly) gives better resolution. Also, there appears to be a difference in distance at which the images were taken.

And I wasn't comparing definition and noise, I was talking about brightness and contrast.

Resolution argument might make sense if the pictures were displayed at their original resolution. But they've been substantially resampled down. Any difference in image data from the missing pixels is long gone after the resampling.

[DuexNoir]

Resolution argument might make sense if the pictures were displayed at their original resolution. But they've been substantially resampled down. Any difference in image data from the missing pixels is long gone after the resampling.

I'm not knowledgeable in this area so I may be incorrect but I would assume that the resolution ratio between the iPhone image to the Z10 image will remain the same after resampling. That if the original image had good resolution to begin with, this will still be reflected in the resampling (even though the resolution will go down, it will still be better than if the original had poor resolution to start).

[richardat]

The point is that the software in the phone that is processing the RAW camera data into viewable JPG's needs tweaking to correct white balance, brightness levels, and colour saturation. Every modern digital camera post processes the RAW files and it appears that BlackBerry didn't think it was important enough to get this done right (at least at launch).

Apart from bad processing, PERHAPS the hardware is inferior to the competition. I don't see evidence of that just yet unless there are specs and OEM information out that I haven't seen. The images appear to be noisy in low light, that suggests a smaller sensor compared to the others.... but how much bigger and/or better can the others have? Again, we are talking THIN SMARTPHONES and not DSLR's... at this level, most of this "quality" difference can be dealt with by the software output, in my opinion.

Yes, i agree.

[Mikethaler]

I'm sorry...but I seem to be missing the relevance of including my response in your post. never did I once suggest that a basic phone is what people need. if that was my purpose, what am I doing here on Crackberry anxiously waiting for the Z10 to hit the US? my point was that the camera is just ANOTHER facet of the Z10 people will find to complain about. obviously they couldn't find much to pick apart about the phone, like, let's say...the UX, so the camera was the next best thing to focus on to nit pick about. if the camera is THAT important, to ANYONE, GET A NIKON OR CANON! the purpose of the Z10 is not MERELY to take pictures, ESPECIALLY when it's a PHONE and does SOOOOOOOO many other things well. the camera is merely ONE aspect of the phone, NOT the other way around. so again...what was the point in mentioning my post in your response?

Yes, we could carry separate cameras, carry paper maps instead of phones that can use Google Maps, an old transistor radio, rather than a phone with a Pandora or other music app - but why should we have to in this day and age?

[richardat]

I find your post fractured, with a lot of disparate, and sometimes inferentially contradictory tangents, but I'll try to respond directly.

I'm sorry...but I seem to be missing the relevance of including my response in your post. never did I once suggest that a basic phone is what people need. if that was my purpose, what am I doing here on Crackberry anxiously waiting for the Z10 to hit the US? my point was that the camera is just ANOTHER facet of the Z10 people will find to complain about.

Correct. The camera is ANOTHER Facet of the z10 which people can, and will, evaluate.

obviously they couldn't find much to pick apart about the phone, like, let's say...the UX,

Saying "obviously" does not make it so. You will find analysis about the UI, the screen, email capacity, the apps, the battery, and many other facets. Some are laudatory, some are critical, some are lukewarm.

so the camera was the next best thing to focus on to nit pick about.

Good, I'm glad we agree that the camera is an important facet.

if the camera is THAT important, to ANYONE, GET A NIKON OR CANON!

They could, or they could get one of the phones that they think has a better camera, if they feel that will be sufficient for them. That's exactly why they are discussing it. For some people, the need to carry an extra device - should they judge this camera insufficient for them - is a consideration in spending a large sum of money on this phone. Others, even if they deem this camera "sufficient" may still not feel it ideal to have a lesser camera; so they too may wish to weigh and discuss this.

the purpose of the Z10 is not MERELY to take pictures, ESPECIALLY when it's a PHONE and does SOOOOOOOO many other things well.

The second part of this sentence is irrational and does not follow the first part of this sentence. Unless you presume that the "purpose" of a product if formed AFTER one assesses what it can do "well". (for the time being, I'll ignore the unsubstantiated claims about "SOOOO" many things). This of course isn't the case. The designers, and the corporation presumably had purposes in mind for their product, as does the consumer. Indeed, a user could decide that BECAUSE the camera does not meet his/her standards that the purpose of the phone is no longer a camera for him/her, however, that is a damning conclusion of the z10.

the camera is merely ONE aspect of the phone, NOT the other way around.

Correct. The phone is not one aspect of the camera, though used this way, the statements are really just semantic nonsense, and hold little value beyond rhetoric that could only convince if one doesn't think about the statement at all.

so again...what was the point in mentioning my post in your response?

I think it's very clear. If as you have again asserted, you do not believe people should evaluate the camera, and if, as you have emphasized repeatedly it is a"phone" (whatever that term specifically means to you), then perhaps you need to avoid discussions about smartphones, as I think you will find most people feel a camera is an integral part of smartphone, and thus, a reasonable- if not important - thing to discuss. Those that don't think it's important, can simply avoid threads about it.

[agp101]

Idk if it's just me, but I'm extremely confused and can't tell which picture is which. The way you are labelling them doesn't make any sense. I appreciate your efforts though, I'm really curious about these results.

[Gla1ze]

You missed my point again....let me state it again. I do not want to carry a camera. I've got cameras.

This thread is a comparison of pictures taken with two different phones. The response from people who feel the camera is good enough is to buy a camera. This misses the point that flagship devices with whom BB is competing have superior cameras. I am making the argument that BB needs to match or excel those cameras.

And I will decide for myself what is the proper phone for me. But more to the point....BB should give no consumer any reason to choose another phone. And they did.

I'm sorry but what you're saying here is IMPOSSIBLE !!!! There will always be something that one phone will have better than another, that's the nature of the beast ! This is why we have choice and competition in phones ! And the reality is, that any phone, Z10 included, can't please everyone !!!

[qbnkelt]

I'm sorry but what you're saying here is IMPOSSIBLE !!!! There will always be something that one phone will have better than another, that's the nature of the beast ! This is why we have choice and competition in phones ! And the reality is, that any phone, Z10 included, can't please everyone !!!

When a company chooses lesser hardware, software, or features than its competitors it cedes ground. In this discussion we are focusing on photo quality and for this feature there are competitors who have chosen to compete. For this feature or functionality or hardware or software, whichever component you wish to choose, BB failed to compete aggressively

As far as the phone as a whole, I have grave concerns based on what I'm reading. When I have it my hand I will know for myself whether those reports of lesser functionality in other areas will impact me. I can already tell you it is impacting one loved one.

Sent from my SEXY HOT RED SGIII using Tapatalk 2

[THBW]

[QUOTE=mikeo007;7930480]Resolution argument might make sense if the pictures were displayed at their original resolution. But they've been substantially resampled down. Any difference in image data from the missing pixels is long gone after the resampling.[/QUOTE

There is no means of making any comparison unless you know the properties of each digital camera and have some idea of how the software treats the captured information. Your comparing a chair with a cup and then arguing which one you like better.

Each digital camera is developed differently. To test camera performance or perhaps more importantly its range, one can create a series of lighting and distance conditions and then play with the setting modes and see what you get. Sort of a rough relative comparison. Each camera will have its strengths and weaknesses.

If you have two camera with equal range, and you design one to work better under low light conditions, you will have to sacrifice performance at the other end. You can't get around it. Could this explain why the iPhone to this day has performance problems with bright conditions. Remember the camera flaring issue with the iPhone5? It is the result of a saturated digital array. Really, it is pretty straightforward.

[THBW]

When a company chooses lesser hardware, software, or features than its competitors it cedes ground. In this discussion we are focusing on photo quality and for this feature there are competitors who have chosen to compete. For this feature or functionality or hardware or software, whichever component you wish to choose, BB failed to compete aggressively

As far as the phone as a whole, I have grave concerns based on what I'm reading. When I have it my hand I will know for myself whether those reports of lesser functionality in other areas will impact me. I can already tell you it is impacting one loved one.

Sent from my SEXY HOT RED SGIII using Tapatalk 2

The previous pictures do not in any manner of speaking test the overall performance or range of a camera. Someone took two pictures and found they were different. Well, of course they were. As to hardware, smartphone cameras are very limited. It doesn't matter what you buy, trades offs have to be made. Look at Apples issue of camera flaring under bright light conditions. As noted above, you have likely saturated your digital array. This likely happened because Apple chose a camera to work better under low light conditions. That is fine but sacrifices were made at the other end. If you want great performance, one buys a real digital camera with a proper set of lens. Three grand should do the trick.