They're certainly decent for a phone but it's pushing it to say they look anything like the snaps from an SLR. They still have that washed-out look you always get from phone cameras.
For me, my friends range from very good photographers, to very amateur. While these photos cannot compare to any good photographer with an SLR, they certainly match many of the amateur photographers who use almost exclusively the automatic settings and don't have a professional flash or terrific eye. It is far above the quality of nearly all the point-and-shoots under $250. There is no doubt this is a very good replacement for most people's base camera, very good for a cell phone, and absolutely decent for any on-the-go shooting. On the other hand, I have no idea how good the video is, as that YouTube video was very compressed. No zoom during video (I don't know if it does) would be disappointing too.
I would also like to see more low light photos (with flash) to see how the images look. After all that is what Steve was pushing when he talked about the camera, low light snap shots.
Any camera phone with a decent 3mp lens can take decent photos outside and in the sunlight.
Definitely better than most point-and-shoots, but the clouds are blasted. Not gonna replace an SLR any time soon. Still, hugely better than most phone cams.
But when you compare it to even a consumer compact it will be lacking, no optical zoom for a start. How it is for macros? How is it in shadow and poor lighting conditions? How does it handle different lighting (inside, outside, sodium, etc)?
But when you compare it to even a consumer compact it will be lacking, no optical zoom for a start. How it is for macros? How is it in shadow and poor lighting conditions? How does it handle different lighting (inside, outside, sodium, etc)?
I think some of you are expecting a little too much from a camera phone...
The reason the photos are washed out (the sky mainly) is probably because these were taken mid-day or early afternoon, which all photographers know is not a good time to take pictures. I'd like to see some taken in the evening/morning to see what it's truly capable of.
I'd like to see some interior shots too, and possibly some night time pics, but that would probably be brutal on any phone.
BTW, these are some pics I took with my Pre Plus, and they look a lot better then these to be honest:
State Capitol rotunda (Sacramento) - it even captured the sky through the top:
Exterior:
Being that these guys are in Prague, I'd rather see pics of historical buildings, etc.
Also, I'm curious what the compression artifacts look like, everything looks great scaled down, but most phones have such small sensors, the pics look pretty bad at full-res. (ie. good for e-mailing and basic web use).
Not referring to the quality of the camera, I quite like the pic you took. Where in England is that? Near the coast, I assume.
I assume these the original pics without them being resized or reduced in size for the web? Would that make a difference with the amount of detail?
The Scotland-England border on the A1 on the East Coast.
It has been resized for the web yeah, I guess looking at them in the original size would show some difference in quality with 5mp shot from iPhone 4 compared to the 3mp on 3GS?
I wouldn't say the pics look "amazing" but they do look REALLY good. One of the main reasons I am upgrading from a 3G is the camera. I can't even do video at present. I plan to have my new phone replace my camcorder and camera for most occasions. It seems like it can do that, other than the obvious storage concerns.
I'm no expert in any area regarding photography, but I do that an image and video has a psychological effect so I don't think can honestly judge the quality of the camera looking at various whole images until we can see side-by-side photos from different cameras shooting the same images and videos.
The reason the photos are washed out (the sky mainly) is probably because these were taken mid-day or early afternoon, which all photographers know is not a good time to take pictures. I'd like to see some taken in the evening/morning to see what it's truly capable of.
The tree picture looks like sunrise. The shadows are very long and the angle of the sun might explain yellow cast as well.
I'd like to see some interior shots too, and possibly some night time pics, but that would probably be brutal on any phone.
BTW, these are some pics I took with my Pre Plus, and they look a lot better then these to be honest:
State Capitol rotunda (Sacramento) - it even captured the sky through the top:
Exterior:
Being that these guys are in Prague, I'd rather see pics of historical buildings, etc.
Also, I'm curious what the compression artifacts look like, everything looks great scaled down, but most phones have such small sensors, the pics look pretty bad at full-res. (ie. good for e-mailing and basic web use).
I had no idea the pre plus took such good pictures.
No wonder Palm failed man. They simply didn't advertise stuff like this well enough.
Really, check out the original video file that comes directly from the iPhone rather than the compressed youTube version. It looks remarkably detailed! Bitrate is around 10Mbit/s so it's gonna fill up your storage pretty quick. 64GB would have been great. People are gonna shoot a lot of videos with this.
Yes, they're OK for a camera phone. But "stunning?" "Awesome?" Seriously?!
Look at the clouds ? they're completely blown out. The grass and trees are muddy and have almost no contrast. And this is taken at sunrise! Some of you folks need to get a grip. This is ten year-old 1st generation digital camera quality.
Yes, it's a HUGE step up from my 3G iPhone. But that's not saying much. So I'm not selling my camera gear anytime soon.
'The tipster said the new glass front and back prevented scratches, though they guessed that the stainless steel perimeter of the device could become scuffed up over time. The report also noted that the device received a GPS signal in a "surprisingly quick" fashion, obtaining a lock "almost immediately." '
One thing is certain after looking at the statement...................................IT's NOT ATT HE'S TALKING ABOUT. I've never heard the words ATT and QUICK CONNECTIVITY in the same sentence.
For me, my friends range from very good photographers, to very amateur. While these photos cannot compare to any good photographer with an SLR, they certainly match many of the amateur photographers who use almost exclusively the automatic settings and don't have a professional flash or terrific eye. It is far above the quality of nearly all the point-and-shoots under $250. There is no doubt this is a very good replacement for most people's base camera, very good for a cell phone, and absolutely decent for any on-the-go shooting. On the other hand, I have no idea how good the video is, as that YouTube video was very compressed. No zoom during video (I don't know if it does) would be disappointing too.
I'm sorry but even the most basic dSLR on Auto would not blow out the clouds like that. A $200 point and shoot probably wouldn't, either, unless the subject were very dark.
Yes, it's great for a phone, but a phone's tiny lens and tiny sensor simply can't compare to a dedicated camera. Reality check.
Yes, they're OK for a camera phone. But "stunning?" "Awesome?" Seriously?!
Look at the clouds ? they're completely blown out. The grass and trees are muddy and have almost no contrast. And this is taken at sunrise! Some of you folks need to get a grip. This is ten year-old 1st generation digital camera quality.
Yes, it's a HUGE step up from my 3G iPhone. But that's not saying much. So I'm not selling my camera gear anytime soon.
David
Take what the fanboys say, divide it by what you say and you're close to the actual reality.
Comments
They're certainly decent for a phone but it's pushing it to say they look anything like the snaps from an SLR. They still have that washed-out look you always get from phone cameras.
For me, my friends range from very good photographers, to very amateur. While these photos cannot compare to any good photographer with an SLR, they certainly match many of the amateur photographers who use almost exclusively the automatic settings and don't have a professional flash or terrific eye. It is far above the quality of nearly all the point-and-shoots under $250. There is no doubt this is a very good replacement for most people's base camera, very good for a cell phone, and absolutely decent for any on-the-go shooting. On the other hand, I have no idea how good the video is, as that YouTube video was very compressed. No zoom during video (I don't know if it does) would be disappointing too.
Any camera phone with a decent 3mp lens can take decent photos outside and in the sunlight.
Here's a pic taken from my 3GS in similar conditions, is the difference really as much as they are making out?
image: http://blogpress.w18.net/photos/09/08/03/460.jpg
(original pic
image: ]http://photos.appleinsidercdn.com/prague-100618-3.jpg
Not referring to the quality of the camera, I quite like the pic you took. Where in England is that? Near the coast, I assume.
I assume these the original pics without them being resized or reduced in size for the web? Would that make a difference with the amount of detail?
But when you compare it to even a consumer compact it will be lacking, no optical zoom for a start. How it is for macros? How is it in shadow and poor lighting conditions? How does it handle different lighting (inside, outside, sodium, etc)?
Good for a mobile phone / smartphone.
But when you compare it to even a consumer compact it will be lacking, no optical zoom for a start. How it is for macros? How is it in shadow and poor lighting conditions? How does it handle different lighting (inside, outside, sodium, etc)?
I think some of you are expecting a little too much from a camera phone...
The reason the photos are washed out (the sky mainly) is probably because these were taken mid-day or early afternoon, which all photographers know is not a good time to take pictures. I'd like to see some taken in the evening/morning to see what it's truly capable of.
I'd like to see some interior shots too, and possibly some night time pics, but that would probably be brutal on any phone.
BTW, these are some pics I took with my Pre Plus, and they look a lot better then these to be honest:
State Capitol rotunda (Sacramento) - it even captured the sky through the top:
Exterior:
Being that these guys are in Prague, I'd rather see pics of historical buildings, etc.
Also, I'm curious what the compression artifacts look like, everything looks great scaled down, but most phones have such small sensors, the pics look pretty bad at full-res. (ie. good for e-mailing and basic web use).
Not referring to the quality of the camera, I quite like the pic you took. Where in England is that? Near the coast, I assume.
I assume these the original pics without them being resized or reduced in size for the web? Would that make a difference with the amount of detail?
The Scotland-England border on the A1 on the East Coast.
It has been resized for the web yeah, I guess looking at them in the original size would show some difference in quality with 5mp shot from iPhone 4 compared to the 3mp on 3GS?
The reason the photos are washed out (the sky mainly) is probably because these were taken mid-day or early afternoon, which all photographers know is not a good time to take pictures. I'd like to see some taken in the evening/morning to see what it's truly capable of.
The tree picture looks like sunrise. The shadows are very long and the angle of the sun might explain yellow cast as well.
I'd like to see some interior shots too, and possibly some night time pics, but that would probably be brutal on any phone.
BTW, these are some pics I took with my Pre Plus, and they look a lot better then these to be honest:
State Capitol rotunda (Sacramento) - it even captured the sky through the top:
Exterior:
Being that these guys are in Prague, I'd rather see pics of historical buildings, etc.
Also, I'm curious what the compression artifacts look like, everything looks great scaled down, but most phones have such small sensors, the pics look pretty bad at full-res. (ie. good for e-mailing and basic web use).
I had no idea the pre plus took such good pictures.
No wonder Palm failed man. They simply didn't advertise stuff like this well enough.
http://senduit.com/673ff8
Here's a pic taken from my 3GS in similar conditions, is the difference really as much as they are making out?
(original pic
Yeah, that's exactly what I was talkin' about - with my 3GS I can take more colorful pics then this.
Maybe that iPhone 4 is just a pre-production model
Look at the clouds ? they're completely blown out. The grass and trees are muddy and have almost no contrast. And this is taken at sunrise! Some of you folks need to get a grip. This is ten year-old 1st generation digital camera quality.
Yes, it's a HUGE step up from my 3G iPhone. But that's not saying much. So I'm not selling my camera gear anytime soon.
David
One thing is certain after looking at the statement...................................IT's NOT ATT HE'S TALKING ABOUT. I've never heard the words ATT and QUICK CONNECTIVITY in the same sentence.
For me, my friends range from very good photographers, to very amateur. While these photos cannot compare to any good photographer with an SLR, they certainly match many of the amateur photographers who use almost exclusively the automatic settings and don't have a professional flash or terrific eye. It is far above the quality of nearly all the point-and-shoots under $250. There is no doubt this is a very good replacement for most people's base camera, very good for a cell phone, and absolutely decent for any on-the-go shooting. On the other hand, I have no idea how good the video is, as that YouTube video was very compressed. No zoom during video (I don't know if it does) would be disappointing too.
I'm sorry but even the most basic dSLR on Auto would not blow out the clouds like that. A $200 point and shoot probably wouldn't, either, unless the subject were very dark.
Yes, it's great for a phone, but a phone's tiny lens and tiny sensor simply can't compare to a dedicated camera. Reality check.
Yes, they're OK for a camera phone. But "stunning?" "Awesome?" Seriously?!
Look at the clouds ? they're completely blown out. The grass and trees are muddy and have almost no contrast. And this is taken at sunrise! Some of you folks need to get a grip. This is ten year-old 1st generation digital camera quality.
Yes, it's a HUGE step up from my 3G iPhone. But that's not saying much. So I'm not selling my camera gear anytime soon.
David
Take what the fanboys say, divide it by what you say and you're close to the actual reality.