[Shanerredflag]

^^please see above^^....only took five pages to get here....thx THBW

[qbnkelt]

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.

Did you miss where I've got two Nikons for different needs?
I am talking about existing cameras and the photos produced on existing competing phones which is what this thread is about.

Sent from my SEXY HOT RED SGIII using Tapatalk 2

[THBW]

Did you miss where I've got two Nikons for different needs?
I am talking about existing cameras and the photos produced on existing competing phones which is what this thread is about.

Sent from my SEXY HOT RED SGIII using Tapatalk 2

You are missing the point. One picture doesn't tell you anything about camera performance and range. By your own logic, If this picture was better than your stand alone digital camera, then you should ditch them. But you don't because their performance and range is better. You have said so in your posting. So I think we are done here.

[qbnkelt]

You are missing the point. One picture doesn't tell you anything about camera performance and range. By your own logic, If this picture was better than your stand alone digital camera, then you should ditch them. But you don't because their performance and range is better. You have said so in your posting. So I think we are done here.

I am staying on point, comparing photos from different phones. So we are not done as far as the discussion of phone cameras and their photos is concerned.
Not while you insist on bringing stand alone cameras into a discussion on cameras on smartphones.

Let someone else submit comparison pictures that provide different findings. I would love to have photos from my z10 to rival my other phones.

Sent from my SEXY HOT RED SGIII using Tapatalk 2

[ubizmo]

Every discussion about phone cameras, in every smartphone forums I've visited, seems to devolve quickly to "If you want good pictures get a real camera." The fact is, phone cameras are becoming the main, and in many cases only, camera that people own and carry. As a result, people have higher expectations about how well these cameras should work.

Even so, as someone already pointed out, not having the best camera in class doesn't mean that the camera sucks. Each of us has to decide how good is good enough. For some people, the Z10 camera won't be good enough; for others it will be.

I notice that the colors in the photos in this thread are somewhat less warm/saturated in the Z10 photos. Interestingly, this has been true of BB photos all along, as has been shown in other threads about BB cameras. The Photoshop modification by duex noir shows that this, at least, can be corrected by software, and perhaps BBRY should consider tweaking the default settings to accomplish this. People tend to prefer warmer colors, and most people will take most photos with the setting on "auto", so it's important to optimize those settings.

[qbnkelt]

The Photoshop modification by duex noir shows that this, at least, can be corrected by software, and perhaps BBRY should consider tweaking the default settings to accomplish this. People tend to prefer warmer colors, and most people will take most photos with the setting on "auto", so it's important to optimize those settings.

Precisely. To simply say to get a stand alone camera does not address a solution to the problem, especially if not hardware related.

BB has got to get consumer expectations right and execute them properly if it is to take users away from other platforms, get back prior BB users who left, and stop the bleeding.

I don't want to put my BB away and take out my SGIII if I want to capture something on the fly and post it to FB or Twitter. I want to trust my BB to get it right for me.





Sent from my SEXY HOT RED SGIII using Tapatalk 2

[Snazy]

I did a test with my Galaxy S2 and the Z10, jumbled them up a little then popped them in my blog.
Can you tell which is which? And if you can, which images do you prefer?

A day in the life of....: BB10 Z10 vs Galaxy S2, Camera test, Round 1

[belfastdispatcher]

6 pages and only 2 photos we can compare, photos of.......stickers.

[mikeo007]

I did a test with my Galaxy S2 and the Z10, jumbled them up a little then popped them in my blog.
Can you tell which is which? And if you can, which images do you prefer?

A day in the life of....: BB10 Z10 vs Galaxy S2, Camera test, Round 1

Thanks for posting that. All of the photos on your blog look good, but they're also taken in some pretty ideal conditions. Judging by Kevin's review and others I've seen, the z10 camera doesn't seem to have problems when there's lots of light available.

Your blog post seems to re-affirm that notion

[qbnkelt]

I did a test with my Galaxy S2 and the Z10, jumbled them up a little then popped them in my blog.
Can you tell which is which? And if you can, which images do you prefer?

A day in the life of....: BB10 Z10 vs Galaxy S2, Camera test, Round 1

Thank you!!!!
1 & 3


Sent from my SEXY HOT RED SGIII using Tapatalk 2

[Snazy]

Thanks Mike, yeah I just thought I would try some shots that, at the time, I had not seen examples of. Contrasting bright light, and buildings in shadow etc, which worked nicely, and in the case of the house came out better than expected on the Z10.

I am however yet to get around to some other shots, but will try some close ups, and florescent lit shots a bit later at work, them some lower light stuff this evening. Early tests do indeed show though that the low light pictures from the Z10 are not great.

[zyad]

OK, So what is your point of comparison. Look at the photos carefully. Doesn't it strike you as odd that iPhone5 pictures are darker with a flash. Is this the anti-flash or something? And your explanation for this is what? I'll give you a hint, the defaults settings are different!!!!!!!!. This is a discussion that went no where.

No it's because of Apple's lack of flash support.

[mikeo007]

Thanks Mike, yeah I just thought I would try some shots that, at the time, I had not seen examples of. Contrasting bright light, and buildings in shadow etc, which worked nicely, and in the case of the house came out better than expected on the Z10.

I am however yet to get around to some other shots, but will try some close ups, and florescent lit shots a bit later at work, them some lower light stuff this evening. Early tests do indeed show though that the low light pictures from the Z10 are not great.

If you get a chance, I'd appreciate it if you could try a few indoor shots of a subject at a distance of around 5-10 feet. I'm interested in how well the phone performs in terms of image stabilization. My iphone seems to do a pretty good job, but my SGS has a lot if ghosting, even if i try my hardest to stabilize the phone. Guessing this has something to do with shutter speed.

Would also be interested in some close focus shots to see the depth of field.

[THBW]

I am staying on point, comparing photos from different phones. So we are not done as far as the discussion of phone cameras and their photos is concerned.
Not while you insist on bringing stand alone cameras into a discussion on cameras on smartphones.

Let someone else submit comparison pictures that provide different findings. I would love to have photos from my z10 to rival my other phones.

Sent from my SEXY HOT RED SGIII using Tapatalk 2

Ask yourself a simple question. Why do you have a stand alone camera? Because the range and functionality of the digital array and optics is better. The consequence is that you can get better quality pictures over a wider variety of settings. A smartphone camera is for convenience and in the process we sacrifice quality. The quality issue for all phones is not about to change anytime soon unless there is some major advancement in optical physics.

[qbnkelt]

OK THIS IS FUN!!!!!! :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-)

By the way I'm at work listening to someone coming on and on.

My response are the pics I liked.

I want whatever camera took that #3....that sky is AMAZING.

Do greens!!!!!!! :-)



Sent from my SEXY HOT RED SGIII using Tapatalk 2

[mikeo007]

Thank you!!!!
1 & 3


Sent from my SEXY HOT RED SGIII using Tapatalk 2

4.jpg looks like it captured more detail, but 3.jpg looks better because the lens flare is less pronounced.

Colour is better in 2.jpg, but 1.jpg captured more detail.

I'd have to go with 1 and 4 since the lens flare and colour can always be cleaned up

[dtango]

Iphone seems to be dominant winner here.

[Snazy]

4.jpg looks like it captured more detail, but 3.jpg looks better because the lens flare is less pronounced.

Colour is better in 2.jpg, but 1.jpg captured more detail.

I'd have to go with 1 and 4 since the lens flare and colour can always be cleaned up

Misery over. Using the image names and not their positions on the page, images 2 and 3 are indeed the Z10, while 1 and 4 are the Samsung Galaxy S2. The Z10 was also shot in aspect ratio 16:9 so you can see the size differences on the images.
With absolutely no bias, 2 and 3 are my favourites, as the detail in both is better, and the facia of the building it clear and detailed.
The church appears darker, but up close the individual stones are easier to see, and more depth to them.

My response are the pics I liked.

I want whatever camera took that #3....that sky is AMAZING.

Do greens!!!!!!! :-)

The Z10 took image 3, and I agree, if the picture was just about the sky, it is indeed awesome

Mike, no worries, I will try and grab some size by side shots asap and will blog and post them
Curious myself to see how it goes.

[Snazy]

OK I have confused myself now, to clarify ...

in order of appearance, images 1 and 4 are the Z10
Images 2 and 3 are the Galaxy S2

By image name, images 2.jpg and 3.jpg are the Z10
1.jpg and 4.jpg are the S2

Phew! Who ever knew numbers could be so complicated!

[howarmat]

1 and 2 for me if i wasnt going to run them thru any post processing, so i was split

[Snazy]

I have to admit that this image surprised me no end, with its colour contrasts, and depth of field. Really wasnt expecting this much from the Z10

[Snazy]

1 and 2 for me if i wasnt going to run them thru any post processing, so i was split

Sorry to ask, position 1 and 2 or image names 1 and 2 lol. I should have given them other names really eh.

[qbnkelt]

OK I have confused myself now, to clarify ...

in order of appearance, images 1 and 4 are the Z10
Images 2 and 3 are the Galaxy S2

By image name, images 2.jpg and 3.jpg are the Z10
1.jpg and 4.jpg are the S2

Phew! Who ever knew numbers could be so complicated!

LOL!!!!! So I'm split!!!!!! I loved that blue in whatever this is. Which is it?

And this one. Whichever this is!!!!!!

Sent from my SEXY HOT RED SGIII using Tapatalk 2

[rapha194]

photo 1 and 2 because they are clearer, sharper and more fully believe it is the Galaxy S2

Photos 3 and 4 are dark with no lives .. bad photos compared to a phone 2 years ago

blackberry missed a 3-point major phone

Camera ... screen .. battery.

Still missing apps and some basic recuros that softaware not have.

I still think this phone with better usability, but these deficiencies with the company will not get out of the hole.
He only gains in usability. the rest he is worse than S3 and IP5

[DuexNoir]

Misery over. Using the image names and not their positions on the page, images 2 and 3 are indeed the Z10, while 1 and 4 are the Samsung Galaxy S2. The Z10 was also shot in aspect ratio 16:9 so you can see the size differences on the images.
With absolutely no bias, 2 and 3 are my favourites, as the detail in both is better, and the facia of the building it clear and detailed.
The church appears darker, but up close the individual stones are easier to see, and more depth to them.



The Z10 took image 3, and I agree, if the picture was just about the sky, it is indeed awesome

Mike, no worries, I will try and grab some size by side shots asap and will blog and post them
Curious myself to see how it goes.

I was actually going to guess that 2.jpg and 3.jpg (first and last position) were taken by the Z10, and this coming from someone who's never had a SG3. I based my guess on Peter's thread where he took outdoors pictures as well, and the Z10 seems to work really well when taken against the sky and glaring light. Personally, I do prefer the first and last positioned pictures (not because it was taken by the Z10) because the ones taken by the SG3 appeared either too washed out or too dark.

photo 1 and 2 because they are clearer, sharper and more fully believe it is the Galaxy S2

Photos 3 and 4 are dark with no lives .. bad photos compared to a phone 2 years ago

blackberry missed a 3-point major phone

Camera ... screen .. battery.

Still missing apps and some basic recuros that softaware not have.

I still think this phone with better usability, but these deficiencies with the company will not get out of the hole.
He only gains in usability. the rest he is worse than S3 and IP5

I think you may have mixed up the pictures (only half right). Refer to my response above to see which picture was taken by which device.