E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
John Brecher / msnbc.com
Daylight on a cloudy day as shot by Canon G10, HTC Amaze, iPhone 4 and iPhone 4S.
By John Brecher
As part of a joint product test with msnbc.com's Gadgetbox blog, I tested three cellphone cameras: iPhone 4S, iPhone 4, and HTC Amaze, a phone marketed for its photographic capabilities.
For comparison, I shot the same stuffed animals in four lighting situations:
- Daylight (cloudy)
- Indoor fluorescent lights
- Very dim LED lamp (exposure f/2.8 at 1/2.5 second, ISO 400)
- Built-in flash
I included a Canon G10 in the mix, because while we definitely want to know what the best phone camera is, the ultimate question is whether a phone can replace a good point-and-shoot camera.
A few easy conclusions: Overall, the iPhone 4S is decidedly better than the iPhone 4. In low light, both old and new iPhones are better than the HTC Amaze.
In terms of image quality, the iPhone 4S looks almost as good as the G10 in all but very low light conditions. Some of this is subjective — you may or may not prefer the iPhone's color saturation, for example.
As someone who's ruined plenty of shots by blowing out the highlights, I can say that the iPhone's smaller sensor does hinder it in some ways. Look for the abrupt transition from detailed to blown-out highlights on the 4S and iPhone 4 shots, compared to the far smoother highlight handling of the G10.
There's more to a camera, though, than the image quality it produces. It's also a matter of handling. It's great that iPhones running iOS5 let you use the volume key as a shutter button. HTC's Amaze also has a hard button. Tapping a touchscreen interface can introduce more camera shake.
Also, If you do want to override automatic white balance and exposure, a dedicated camera is the easiest and best tool. There are apps and tweaks for iPhone and other phones, but it involves a lot of tap-dancing with your fingers. And if you're trying to shoot lots of images in rapid succession, it's faster to use a real camera.
Still, the iPhone 4S comes the closest to putting run-of-the-mill point-and-shoots out of business. Your dedicated camera had better be high performance, like the Canon PowerShot S100, or somehow qualitatively different, to make it worth carrying along.
As for the test pictures, you can see our daylight comparative results above and the rest below. There's no HDR and no use of post-processing in Photoshop other than resizing. All cameras were shot on auto for white balance, exposure and focus.
John Brecher / msnbc.com
Daylight on a cloudy day as shot by Canon G10, HTC Amaze, iPhone 4 and iPhone 4S.
John Brecher / msnbc.com
Overhead fluorescent lights indoors as shot by Canon G10, HTC Amaze, iPhone 4 and iPhone 4S.
John Brecher / msnbc.com
Overhead fluorescent lights indoors as shot by Canon G10, HTC Amaze, iPhone 4 and iPhone 4S.
John Brecher / msnbc.com
Built-in flash indoors as shot by Canon G10, HTC Amaze, iPhone 4 and iPhone 4S.
John Brecher / msnbc.com
Built-in flash indoors as shot by Canon G10, HTC Amaze, iPhone 4 and iPhone 4S.
John Brecher / msnbc.com
Very dim indoor light as shot by Canon G10, HTC Amaze, iPhone 4 and iPhone 4S. Exposure was f/2.8 at 1/2.5 second at ISO 400 on Canon G10.
John Brecher / msnbc.com
Very dim indoor light as shot by Canon G10, HTC Amaze, iPhone 4 and iPhone 4S. Exposure was f/2.8 at 1/2.5 second at ISO 400 on Canon G10.
John Brecher has been a professional photographer for 15 years, and has shot for msnbc.com for the last five.
Leave a Comment:
You should have used a Canon G12, if you are going to compare the latest phone camera's against a real digital camera then it too should be the latest model IMO. I get far better shots out of my G12 than any of those you posted with the G10.
Vegas, I think you missed the point. He included a point -n- shoot just for comparisons. There are a million P&S cameras he could have used but he just used that one as a reference point.
What the author seemed to have failed to mention is; which camera came closest to the actual color as seen by the naked eye? Obviously the iPhone4s has the best color but is it due to pure saturation in the process or is it also the closest to what the naked eye sees? I didn't see that mentioned in the article. (or I missed it)
If I had to guess, I would say the Canon is the closest to the true color.
In low light, you can really see how all the cell phones use a really high ISO setting, they're terribly noisy. Most cheap cameras can take pretty good pictures in good light, but low light is where they will really start to choke.
Sadly in this world of over-processed photos I'm almost ashamed to say that I don't care for most of the pictures taken with the genuine point-and-shoot. Although it is far and away the best in the low light pictures. Based on these pictures I would have to agree that the 4S produced the best pictures in automatic mode. I personally have the Amaze and I've become a fan of the "ClearShot HDR" mode that takes a slightly longer exposure and processes the hell out of it. It's not ideal, but the results are often excellent.
i4 and 4S overexposed all the pictures.
I agree that the iPhone photos are over-exposed. However, they're not trying to sell the camera to photographers, they already have far superior cameras. They're selling to the masses, and what the masses want are over-exposed, saturated, high contrast photos. It's the same concept when you go to buy a television.
The Canon is the best, followed by Amaze, both better than either of the iPhones which look over saturated and have loss of detail.
But the real question is, why is anyone using a cell phone camera -- any cell phone camera -- at all? Okay, maybe they're fine for simple snapshots or "I need a picture quick and don't have access to a real camera" situations, but to rely on a cell phone for vacation photos? Birthdays? Anything important or memorable? Why use something so terrible as a cellphone camera? Even a cheap p&s is better than even the best cell phone camera lens. All the megapixels in the world won't overcome a dinky, low quality lens.
It amazes me that we live in an age where megabytes are cheap and super high quality is easy, yet people are satisfied with increasingly low-quality pictures, movies and music.
Are you looking at the same pictures I'm looking at? In no single set of conditions did the HTC Amaze produce more detailed pictures than the iPhone 4S, and indoors the difference in lighting was astronomical in scale. The difference in detail was so immense (to the iPhone 4S' favor) that even if you strongly dislike its oversaturation, it more than makes up for it with more detail. If you don't see that, I suggest that you get a pair of eyeglasses.
What amazes me is that you didn't open your comment with a classic "Apple fanboys will always blah blah blah." It's hard to see an objective piece of negative criticism against an Apple product nowadays.
And of course dedicated cameras are better than cellphone ones. That's not the point. The point is that six years ago cellphone cameras were barely passable for contact-info pictures, and today the best one (arguably the 4S camera) rivals an AVERAGE point-and-shoot camera for most purposes. Nobody's saying it can replace an SLR camera, but at this pace, they will begin to rival them very shortly.
same could be said for Music....people love MP3's why because they easy to carry around and cheap, the death of music, quanity over quality....greed is all it is.....Digital and or Analoge will always be a lame debate, because it boils down to what the masses want over few artist view points any day.....for most people a camera is a camera as long for those who are viewing said art...it will always be subjective....Thus the phrase..."Beauty Is In The Eye Of The Beholder".....
@AndresTM
Buy a better monitor. The iPhones all look bad. In fact they all look bad period. Even at that anyone with 20/20 vision can tell the Canon , HTC look better than the iPhone 4/4s by every stretch of the word.
Maybe indoor flash , maybe iPhone 4s, but again that could be related to any number of external factors.
Steve, it sounds like your monitor is the one that needs updated. The HTC just flat sucked at most all of the photos. The Canon was better at low light (which it should be)...but "all the iPhones looked bad"?? Sounds like an anti-apple person speaking rather than an objective observation.
Or consider going to an optometrist for that "20/20" of yours.
iPhone 4S is the clear winner among all the camera phones. It oversaturates a little, but that can be corrected in post processing. The lack of detail with the Amaze's photos cannot be corrected in post. Also, the saturation level with the iPhone is a simply software-related adjustment, while the Amaze is working with lower quality lens and sensor elements from the get-go.
megapixels????????????????????
Who cares? Probably the least important specification when it comes to picture quality.
@Cameron Ford: Amaze is better? Seriously? The iPhones provide far better detail and handle real world scenarios (under fluorescent lights, for example) better than the Amaze.
I, myself, am a photographer and I wouldn't hesitate to use my phone in a pinch nowadays. I won't carry an extra camera around everywhere. For all its quality, my DSLR and pro lens is a bit much to always keep on hand.
The best camera is the one you have on you. If you know how to use it, you can take some amazing photos with even a phone.
I am in total agreement with WVMikeP!
Which picture represents the real color shade of the bear as seen by the naked eye?
@ Cameron Ford
How can you say the Amaze took better photos than the Iphone(s). One example would be look at the cloudy day picture and the built in flash picture. The Amaze got beat both times there.
Some of these shots are taken more close-up than the others (such as in the last set of photos), so the details may disappear due to the change in distance versus other pictures in the same set shot at a different range. The pictures taken at the same distances are a fair comparison, but you can't say the tests are fair if the shots are zoomed differently.
Also, was the flash used in all shots (or the better question is, do all of the phones even have a flash)? Again, distance plays a role in whether the flash will have an effect on the photo or not.
Articles like these make you question how intelligent msn staff is out of concern. There's a huge setback with this article; No one knows what these stuff animals look like in person. The camera shot is all about lighting. So to compare these photo's to which has the best camera is a total waste of time. Because all your comparing is lighting, so this article is completely bogus.
I can only assume they want us to compare how well these camera's compare in their shot, which seems to be in flash. Although it's clear what the purpose of this article is, it's execution is fairly poor. It asks you to compare just photo's to the original image...There is no original image available.
~Mr. Wolf
Purple dude on the right is Bosco Whipple. I'd stake my personal reputation on it! o.o
The article knocks "tapping the screen" software, but who doesn't know all you have to do is HOLD THE SHUTTER BUTTON and the image is created when you smoothly release your finger producing a shake free image.
I think that escapes a lot of folks.. that and accessing the Caps lock function. The introduction of incorporating one of the hard buttons on the iPhone is a nice addition either way.
I remember when my brother got his Evo, and I had just gotten my iPhone 4. We each took video at his daughter's birthday party, in a very low light setting, while she was blowing out the candles. When playing back the videos, the iPhone looks FAR better, and has a much higher frame rate. The Evo video is choppy, grainy, and not even worth watching. 1-2fps at the best.
People may knock Apple for their communistic practices, but when they focus on something specific, they seem to do a pretty damn good job of doing it right. Even in this case, an old phone's camera beats that of a brand new phone. Sad.
The Droid is AWESOME.
Should have used a model(s) so we could compare flesh tones and other details more naturally than stuffed animals.
This test is pretty moot for making critical comparisons.
Ah, darn, I wanted the amaze -before the specs of Nexus Prime - but after this and the engadget review of bad battery, suppose I will just wait.
I took my iPhone 4 to Rome for navigation purposes, one night when I left my camera at the apartment, I used my iPhone 4 camera instead. The camera worked so well, I took more pictures the next day. The pictures are fabulous, I would upload them on this site if I could. The article may be poorly written, however they are basically saying that a camera on certain smart phones renders a point and shoot camera obsolete. I believe they are correct in their assessment. Add an app like Camera Plus or CP +Pro and there is practically no need to carry a point and shoot camera. I have since upgraded to a moderate priced DSLR camera, only take pictures for fun and family gatherings.
I don't think there is that much difference between the cellphone cameras to warrant this article. They all take acceptable clear photos.
The IMHO 2 most important aspects weren't mentioned, shutter lag & if you can see the image you are trying to shoot in sunlight.
Two different iPhones and an Android Phone?! Put a Windows Phone in there and then we'll see who the winner is!
Cell phone cameras?? Mmmmm, nah, not for me; I can't see myself trying to dial a number on my Nikon D2Hs or my Canon 50-D, just my two cents.
My camera says Nikon on the front. My telephone says "Property of the Bell System" on the bottom. Both work better than any of these cellphones, as a camera or as a telephone.
Hell yeaaaaaah!!!!!! it's what I'm talking about, JohnCarter ;-D
I'm a big fan of the iPhone 4S camera.
I'm a big fan of the iPhone 4S camera. The accessories you can get for it are amazing too. The <a href="">Olloclip</a> is genius!