Smartphone cameras

[SDK^]

So MKBHD has completed his annual ‘Blind’ Smartphone camera test with the Samsung 10’s taking the glory and the iPhone 11 Pro getting knocked out in the first round

His audience is tech savvy yet …..

• People voted for brighter photos, over photos showing more contrast and sharpness.
• People voted for photos with more of the scene in focus, over photos with ‘Pro’ depth of field.

Interesting what people choose when offered a side-by-side option.

 

[dbmzk1]

Makes perfect sense. All the added fake rubbish just hides what is otherwise a poor picture. They might look good on Instagram, but as actual photos they are crap.

 

[Squink]

Makes perfect sense. All the added fake rubbish just hides what is otherwise a poor picture. They might look good on Instagram, but as actual photos they are crap.

People like what they like. If that means artificially saturated photos, then so be it. And I thought most professional photographers manipulate their images, so this idea of a photo being a perfect reflection of reality isn't necessarily what you'd get from a professional with a pro camera setup anyway.

In my mind it's similar to the audiophile argument where purists believe an amplifier must have the shortest circuitry possible with no extras like bass/treble adjustment or loudness. I suspect to most people the 'pure' sound is flat and dull, so they crank up the treble and bass.

 

[jsmoke]

I seem to remember the iPhone took stunning photos years ago, as far back as 2010. Is the tech getting worse or are other competitors getting better.

 

[Malevolence]

I'm more than happy with the camera on my Realme X2, it does everything I want from a phone camera and it takes great looking pictures.

 

[chaparral]

So MKBHD has completed his annual ‘Blind’ Smartphone camera test with the Samsung 10’s taking the glory and the iPhone 11 Pro getting knocked out in the first round

But haven't samsung phones had better camera's then apple phones for years

 

[BananaDunka]

most professional photographers manipulate their images

RAW processing is not manipulation, it is an absolute must due to how a digital sensor captures an image in the RAW format (completely flat and devoid of any character to maximise dynamic range and reduce noise which is prepped for processing. A RAW image will typically not look like the scene when there in person because of this and it's up to the person doing the processing to apply their "look" if that makes sense which could be as close to natural as possible or a signature style like black and white, high key or whatever else.

This has always been the case since film. The type of film you put into an SLR and the chemicals + photo paper used create vastly different results from the same film negative.

 

[chaparral]

His audience is tech savvy yet …..

• People voted for brighter photos, over photos showing more contrast and sharpness.

Interesting what people choose when offered a side-by-side option.

Guess this also shows the reason why TV's for sale in shops are normally always set too there brightest setting

 

[FishLicker]

I seem to remember the iPhone took stunning photos years ago, as far back as 2010. Is the tech getting worse or are other competitors getting better.

The problem with this knockout sort of system is that a phone, say the iPhone, will take a photo that in one particular case might not look as good as a competitor, so its gets eliminated. This tells us nothing about what the camera is *actually* like, i.e. can it take pictures of moving objects without blurring, how often is it in focus, how will it do at night, zoomed in/out, and so on and so on. This competition is a bit of fun but its completely worthless.

 

[Squink]

This competition is a bit of fun but its completely worthless.

It's not worthless. It might not be scientific, but that doesn't mean the results can be discounted since you can draw conclusions from them about peoples' preferences.

 

[FishLicker]

It's not worthless. It might not be scientific, but that doesn't mean the results can be discounted since you can draw conclusions from them about peoples' preferences.

I must admit I've not watched it, although I have read about it, but isn't it the case they compared one photo and then decided which they prefer? Apologies if that's not the case but if it is, it's still worthless (IMO). If it had been a variety of photos then it would have been a more valid comparison as it would have demonstrated how good the camera is all round in a variety of conditions.

 

[Kanpai]

I must admit I've not watched it, although I have read about it, but isn't it the case they compared one photo and then decided which they prefer? Apologies if that's not the case but if it is, it's still worthless (IMO). If it had been a variety of photos then it would have been a more valid comparison as it would have demonstrated how good the camera is all round in a variety of conditions.

The whole point of this test is that you simply do not know which camera takes what, YOU have to decide which one you think looks best.

If YOU think X looks best, are you going to buy Y because it's supposed to be "better"?

It's a very good test as it takes away everything you might be bias towards in the build up.

 

[SDK^]

I must admit I've not watched it, although I have read about it, but isn't it the case they compared one photo and then decided which they prefer? Apologies if that's not the case but if it is, it's still worthless (IMO). If it had been a variety of photos then it would have been a more valid comparison as it would have demonstrated how good the camera is all round in a variety of conditions.

^ I agree with this. To make it worthwhile the test should be comparing several photos from different situations in each round.

The whole point of this test is that you simply do not know which camera takes what, YOU have to decide which one you think looks best.

If YOU think X looks best, are you going to buy Y because it's supposed to be "better"?

It's a very good test as it takes away everything you might be bias towards in the build up.

For sure, but the test shouldn't be based on a single photo for each round. see my comment above this.
As mentioned, the iPhone 11 Pro happened to get the White Balance wrong in the shot so it lost the round, when 95% of the time it would get the WB correct.

I'm not biased towards any camera phone because I don't use one. To me it's clear the iPhone 11 Pro is probably the best all round mobile camera at the moment, scientific test which others have carried out prove this, which means this test whilst interesting to see people's choices is mostly useless.

 

[FishLicker]

The whole point of this test is that you simply do not know which camera takes what, YOU have to decide which one you think looks best.

If YOU think X looks best, are you going to buy Y because it's supposed to be "better"?

It's a very good test as it takes away everything you might be bias towards in the build up.

My point is a sample size of 1 photo really isn't enough to determine the quality of a camera as there are many different shooting scenarios. Just saying a Note 10 is the best camera because a picture taken in broad daylight of a skyscraper (or whatever it was) looks subjectively the best does not prove that it has the best all round camera, not by a long shot.