RichRMA: Jobs. "640k is enough memory for anyone." "No one is going to buy a big smartphone." Sure he was such a god visionary he's purported to have been?
not him either. a lot of famous people quotes are mis-attributed or completely fabricated.
Menneisyys: Still image quality key areas:
Photo Artifacts:Z2: 68 pts808: 89 pts
Noise:Z2: 84 pts808: 88 pts
Texture:Z2: 83808: 84
Color:Z2: 74808: 80
I don't really see a lead for Z2 here. Do any of you?
What did make the Z2 "better" overall? In addition to video (Z2: 73; 808: 68), autofocus (Z2: 84; 808: 73). Something that, assuming you have time for pre-focusing, has no effect on the overall IQ.
And something that is plain unacceptable and really questions the entire testing methology: Flash:Z2: 85 pts808: 81 pts
Only this is what I can agree with, knowing the relatively low DR of the 808:
Exposure and Contrast:Z2: 88808: 78
Nevertheless, in _all_ other still areas the 808 either beats the Z2 or has a dubious loss (see Flash above), autofocus aside. This is, however, only one area and, when shooting low-DR stuff and with plenty of time for repeating your shots, this won't really be an issue. In all other, key areas (color / texture / PA /Noise) the 808 wins.
i should've ended my earlier comment with "end sarcasm"
your assessment is inadequate, DXO mobile defines Image Quality as both stills and video because, y'know, scientific, bias-free, protocol.
Menneisyys: Speaking of the 808's flash, yesterday, I made tons of open-air "social" shots in the evening, with the 808. The subjects were typically at least 5-6 meters away. Everything was on auto, incl. the flash. I used CameraPro Qt in its 41 full-sensor Mpixel mode.
The 808 chose ISO 640...1000 for the shots. Of course, I did manual focusing before each shot. All the shots were good (again, if you carefully pre-focus, there won't be focus problems) and the subjects (people) pretty well lit by the Xenon flash. The, in addition to the (possibly) high brightness, other advantage of Xenon flash, namely, movement freezing, also worked just fine.
Now, do the same with the Z2's cr@ppy LED flash...
"DXO lost their credibility when they've ranked 808 1st" - Petrogel" i do too refuse to let a site guide me for what's good or bad product" - Petrogel
why mot argue with yourself?
tunitowen: Here's hoping LG can get close to Apple with this one. Not much is getting close to the iPhones for picture quality (Maybe Xperia / Lumia are getting there).
as someone once said - Time to take the tin foil hat off my friend
HappyVan: Cor Blimey!
All this effort to review a camera phone? Really?
Congratulations! You have just established which camera phone is best. But, are you buying a phone just for the camera?
"There must be a minority who think that DPR can do no wrong!" - way to go making another irrelevant assertion in an attempt to sidetrack people from watching how your unwarranted criticism gets easily dismantled
"I like the insights offered by the CNET guy" - then people like you are grateful that there are sites that cater to your specific intellectual needs. the rest of the world should consider themselves lucky to receive your deep wisdom on how DPR is doing things wrong.
"I question whether DPR should have a Connect site. They are not experts on handphones. Don't offer a comprehensive analysis of handphones." - your statement, while true, is irrelevant. DPR reviews cameras in phones only, no one said they look at all "handphones". show us another website that provides an 11-page comprehensive analysis of a phone's camera, and then tell us if you still question Connect's existence.
PaulDavis: Sharp looking camera. Sony should have added a left shoulder dial like this on the a7/r cameras.
what psam? http://stech1.firstpost.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/xt1leak_3.jpg
FocusPuller: Because what the world needs is YouTube videos of cats, babies, and people falling down in 4K? Thanks, Sony.
you must be purposely watching those kinds of videos. youtube's 4k lists have none of that. https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=4k+playlist
OneGuy: Make your own content. For TV the diff comes in at 60" diag (from the couch), but for a desktop systems I think you can see a diff on a 30" monitor. However, I doubt the slow (dirty?) optics of a phone camera will be able to resolve to 4k.
optics of fixed lens cameras are designed to resolve up to the maximum resolution of the sensor - it's no different with phones. if the phone offers 20mp images, 4k video is a piece of cake
jkoch2: Brilliant. A phone with a "me too" 4k video feature for people without any 4k displays, and before Sony offers 4k video on any of its traditional <$1.5k consumer Handicams or Cybershots. Granted, "me too" is a sort of trump argument. But the compulsion to add new imaging capacities first to phones tells us something about the eclipse of dedicated cameras.
Wouldn't people have more use for a phone that gives readings of temperature, humidity, altitude, or heart pace, blood pressure, HDL/LDL, triglycerides, and glucose? Or are such functions too mundane or depressing?
" readings of temperature, humidity, altitude, or heart pace, blood pressure, HDL/LDL, triglycerides, and glucose?" - weather apps do the first 2. gps can track altitude. watching your diet makes the rest of those measurements moot and shouldn't be standard features on a smart device anyway.
nikanth: "high frame rate movie mode with the option to apply slow motion effects." is the killer feature
except in the xperia, that crippled form is 1080p
tee1000: Just one question to those of you looking forward to more small 4k gadgets: What do you need this resolution for?
what do you need continous shooting mode for? think of it as 30 images per second, but with sound
gilo: I agree with brdeveloper that the best performer in daylight was Velvia and I disagree with Dean that the grain in film 'still looks downright ugly now that I’m used to silky-smooth digital'.Personally,I hate that silky-smooth digital look. Digital noise is ugly because it is computer generated and it's too regularly shaped.Film grain brings images alive because it is irregular.Pictures aren't supposed to be looked at in tiny cropped squares.Shooting film still gives you outstanding results and it is cheaper than digital as a film camera will last you forever and you will not need to upgrade.Apart from seeing your images immediately and clicking away, there is no real advantage to digital.Lastly, a well kept negative will survive all of us,but a hard drive which works for 20 years is still to be invented. So I will keep shooting film and use my smartphone when I want to snap away. Digital looks like plastic anyway and it is not worth spending a fortune every year to upgrade your DSLR.
a film camera may last you forever, but photographic film stock is inevitably being discontinued, and photographic prints fade especially in high humidity. do you also listen to vinyl records instead of cds because digital audio sounds like plastic?
KAllen: I shoot with Canon 1Ds II, III and X, I also have MF film cameras. I prefer the look of my MF cameras loaded with Portra film.Viewing images on screen for detail the Canons have it. Looking at prints I'd take the film any day for over all beauty.Besides I have more fun with ac Rolleiflex than I do the Canons and all the gizmos that go with them.I can't make a living with film but if I only shot for fun, I would happily stick with film, MF and LF.
then you agree that smartphones can be considered tools for serious photography.
Alan2014: When digital cameras first appeared, film shooters used to rubbish them and even today DSLR's are considered to be inferior to medium / large format. I guess smartphones face the same challenges versus DSLR's. However, they represent the future due to their small form factor, ease of use and sharing. Also because smartphones integrate so many other features such as wifi, GPS, etc. that are clunky bolt-ons for DSLR's. For prosumer use, the direction is clear. DSLR's and their larger sized cousins will be relegated to increasingly specialized niches such as architecture sort of like the space occupied by large format , film today
that's just a specific example of digital cameras eliminating film cameras.
"When digital cameras first appeared, film shooters used to rubbish them... I guess smartphones face the same challenges versus DSLR's (sic)" - that's not entirely accurate. regular 35mm film really was superior to the earliest digital cameras, but there are p&s sensors now that have surpassed them. typical consumers don't get SLR or MF cameras, whether it is film before or digital today. even though everyone nowadays gets smartphones, not every smartphone is going to be designed for photography, so there's no "relegation of DSLRs and larger-sized cousins" to specialized niches going on, the market for "prosumers" will never be occupied by smartphones.
Pete Holzmann: Hmmm... while there is a lot that can be done with technology, there are some limits built into the fabric of the universe, ie physics.
Light has a certain wavelength. Eventually, you get to the point where cramming more megapixels into a tiny space does no good because each pixel in a sensor is just too small and you get diffraction blurring. And that's where we are with phone-based sensors. Even the Nokia has pixels that are barely bigger than one micron -- this is what limits the useful aperture of phone cameras.
There's nothing that can be done about this physical/physics limit, other than using physically larger sensors.
What do you think? I wonder if perhaps future challenges will be less about technology and more about usability?
"each pixel in a sensor is just too small and you get diffraction blurring" -or, one can read nokia's pureview white papers to learn how they mated the optics to offset diffraction
AbrasiveReducer: I see a way which these phones have more in common with film than with digital cameras. With film, there was always a cost associated with taking a photo. It wasn't necessarily huge but at some point there would be processing and buying more film.
Digital cameras broke that cycle. Take as many pictures as you like. Good, bad, what's the difference. Unless the user wanted prints, the cost per photo was zero.
With phones, unlimited photos are free and people happily pay $700+ a year for the phone so you now have a camera that comes with a subscription.
the price difference of a phone versus a camera is not the issue in question. it's the silly notion that the usage of phone cameras is similar to film cameras due to the non-zero cost of replacing film being compared to the recurring phone bill.