With the new iPhone 4S coming with a better camera, I got curious and wanted to see what the Exif was like on the previous model vs the Galaxy S.
To use as a comparison, I took photos Colin and I both took during dinner last week w Alron.
Colin's Snap
My Snap
Looking at the photos alone it seems that the SGS has better white balance but not as much pop as the iPhone 4. From experience the SGS generally takes photos with rather accurate white balance, but often enough lack the vibrance you'd get out of its pictures.
With it's backlit sensor, at iso500, the iPhone 4's camera produces little noise, while the SGS tries to keep it's image noise down by lowering it's iso to 250 and extending it's shutter time.
This means the iPhone has a lower chance of producing a shaky image compared to the SGS since it can increase it's shutter speed by upping it's iso without ruining picture quality.
Data aside, looking at the image alone you can tell that Apple has clearly invested well in Optics, something Nokia used to excel in when they invested in Carl Zeiss lenses for their pre-iPhone handphones.
At f2.4 for the newer iPhone 4s, and a much better sensor, other companies will need to step up if they intend to overtake Apple in the camera department.
Looking at what it's current camera has to offer, you can see why Apple's truly excited about the camera function for its upcoming 4s.
11 comments:
I have seen really brilliant photos from SE phones, better than iPhone.
Cool! From the cybershot series issit? I had their cybershot phone before my current phone but it was no smartphone though
Don't know leh but comparable to point and shoot camera.
should do a proper shootout!
-portraits
-landscapes
-low-light
lol between the two? no need la even I think iPhone's taking the prize for this one
I read these two reviews before where they compared the iPhone 4 to the Canon S90, the Canon performed better but you can't deny for a camera phone, Apple wasn't far off at all.
http://gizmodo.com/5572766/test-notes-iphone-4-camera
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ipodlounger/sets/72157624349525156/
If the Galaxy S II's camera is already said to be that good, I'm sure the Nexus prime will be equivalent or better also. At the end of the day, the differences might not be that huge afterall.
http://www.allaboutsymbian.com/features/item/13021_5_Top_Smartphone_Cameras_pitch.php
I dunno about the camera, I actually never really thought about it, most of the time I take my photos on my phone in the lowest res possible cause it's mainly for blogging.
I doubt the SGS II is as good as the guy makes it out to be though...seems like every other phone in the market is trying to join the ghz and OS race that they aren't paying much attention to the other things Apple has been slowly addressing.
Why for blogging need to take in lowest res possible?
Mainly to help speed up my uploading of the image from the phone.
Plus I think last time Picassa's 1gb limit applied to any images regardless of resolution so when I managed to hit 36% full on my blogger account from previous blog entries I decided to reduce the file sizes.
Now it's become a habit.
Also heard that lower res helps make the webpage load faster on a slow network though...am not sure how true it is, anyone can attest to that?
You use the email to blog feature right?
Doesn't your email give you the option to email out a compressed photo?
When you blog low res or high res, blogger will still create a compressed "preview" first. The cover image is independent of the resolution, it only matters when you click to see the full size view.
I'm actually using a third party Android App cause blogger for Android and email app do not seem to allow me to set image to be centre of entry.
Just checked the email app, nope no compressed option either. Blogger app and the third party one I'm using does have this function, though I never thought to use it since I didn't really expect myself to be keeping my phone images large.
Thanks for the tip though!
Post a Comment