"pathetic camera team" ?...aren't you going a bit to ham on them?
...besides the fact that the camera is among the best in the smartphone market so not really "pathetic" in any way.
Quick Camera Comparison 950XL vs S6 Edge
- Thread starter HiroEX
- Start date
"pathetic camera team" ?...aren't you going a bit to ham on them?
...besides the fact that the camera is among the best in the smartphone market so not really "pathetic" in any way.
Really interesting that they have included ISO and shutter speed info for all pictures except for the comparison ones. LOL.
Without knowing the settings used this 'comparison' is meaningless.
ISO 12800 for such a small sensor is also meaningless. I sincerely hope they will not fake ISO values like they did with the Lumia 1020, wich has a maximum theoretical ISO of 4000, with an actual maximum of around 1000.
Shooting RAW makes a huge difference, at least on my Lumia 930. I use to resize my pics to 8 Mp after treating them with Adobe Camera Raw.
Regarding the Microsoft team, I more or less agree with you. After Damian Dinning has departed from Nokia, their approach to image processing has been terrible.
jammersplace
New member
- Oct 6, 2014
- 7
- 0
- 0
If you look closely the Edge did use the flash you can see it in the reflection on the glass. The 950 did not as in just looking at the images. I think the 950 will out perform it but will need a full release of win10 along with some updates to the camera to push it 100% on top. Other than that honestly I would have to put both cameras on par unless more pics were taken in multiple environments.
Rodrigo Mendes
New member
- Jul 9, 2013
- 676
- 0
- 0
I don't think that Denim bring us a terrible post process. For me only make the things worst than never! It was very bad on first day and only gets worst on Denim + New Lumia Camera.
Clearly Lumia 950 Series have same problems that 930, 1520 and 830 have. Looks like a lot less, but same problems. I think Microsoft put on camera software team guys that understand absolutely nothing about photography. Lumia camera are greats, the best in the market by VERY FAR. But with these poor algorithms? Looks like a potato taking shots. Bad clarity, even worse skin tones, bad tones at all, etc etc and etc.
But everything changes when we see RAW file, that have no software manipulation. Beautiful pictures, really beautiful, showing all the potential of wasted on Lumia 930 or Lumia 830.
Really sad see all this potential been destroyed by guys that understand nothing about photography. All the effort from Microsoft and hardware guys to bring us a masterpiece goes to the garbage.
Last edited:
Lumia cameras are indeed great, but I had two 930 returned due to unbelievably soft lenses on landscape shots.
The common user will not even notice that, but it's just horrible and certainly not up to Zeiss reputation.
RAW is Lumia's salvation.
Don't forget that Nokia sometimes use to fake ISO values in order to make the sensor look more sensitive than is actually is. The 1020 is one example. This publicity of ISO 12800 on the new 950 is just rubbish. Pure gimmickry.
In my opinion the only great thing about these new models is the wide aperture.
I wonder if they can make a better video mode. It surely has improved, but it still lacks options, like saturation, contrast, sharpness, noise and video bitrates.
The new Microsoft Camera app has introduced 4K, but at a lower bitrate than we got with the 930.
Other than that, I guess we're still talking about the best cameras on the market. I quit the Sammy S line to get back to Lumia mainly because of that.
The common user will not even notice that, but it's just horrible and certainly not up to Zeiss reputation.
RAW is Lumia's salvation.
Don't forget that Nokia sometimes use to fake ISO values in order to make the sensor look more sensitive than is actually is. The 1020 is one example. This publicity of ISO 12800 on the new 950 is just rubbish. Pure gimmickry.
In my opinion the only great thing about these new models is the wide aperture.
I wonder if they can make a better video mode. It surely has improved, but it still lacks options, like saturation, contrast, sharpness, noise and video bitrates.
The new Microsoft Camera app has introduced 4K, but at a lower bitrate than we got with the 930.
Other than that, I guess we're still talking about the best cameras on the market. I quit the Sammy S line to get back to Lumia mainly because of that.
Actually the fact that they are proud of going up to 12800iso shows how little they know about photography. You use iso only when you have to. Only professionnal dslr can handle high iso properly. Having that on such a small sensor makes no sense. Improving the post treatment, shutter speed, aperture, focusing etc are important, increasing iso is not a priority.
Keeping the lens open for a long time or increasing the iso is not the right way to capture more light if the end result is blurry or crippled with digital noise.
The 950 could be impressive and i hope it will be but looking at the demo during the ms event, i have only seen pre captured shots which are not even confirmed they were actually taken with the 950. They fooled us once with the 920 and shots that were taken with a dslr for their demo... The live demo with the illusionist wasn't impressive as the end result actually was blurry (his hands). Therefore, unless we get a clear unbiased review and comparison of the camera, i won't trust the demo pics.
Keeping the lens open for a long time or increasing the iso is not the right way to capture more light if the end result is blurry or crippled with digital noise.
The 950 could be impressive and i hope it will be but looking at the demo during the ms event, i have only seen pre captured shots which are not even confirmed they were actually taken with the 950. They fooled us once with the 920 and shots that were taken with a dslr for their demo... The live demo with the illusionist wasn't impressive as the end result actually was blurry (his hands). Therefore, unless we get a clear unbiased review and comparison of the camera, i won't trust the demo pics.
You see, they already started on the wrong path.
Take a look at the S6 comparison shots. They actually erased all EXIF info on those shots. This already raises a bad suspicion. They could well have set the S6 to high ISO and the 950 to low ISO.
I just wish Damian Dinning were still ahead of their imaging team.
Except that they didn't. The source files are at:
Samsung: http://az648995.vo.msecnd.net/devices/2015/10/20150923_1936331.jpg
Microsoft: http://az648995.vo.msecnd.net/devices/2015/10/WP_20150923_19_37_24_Pro-1.jpg
We can see that they have EXIF data. And we can see that there are just a few differences.
Exposure is longer on the Lumia (1/7sec vs 1/10sec) and brightness is higher (0 vs -3.25 on the Galaxy).
Are you saying that these files aren't the right ones (which is totally possible because I just read that there ARE the originals -- I don't actually have first-hand knowledge of that) or that the EXIF info was edited after the picture was taken?
Samsung: http://az648995.vo.msecnd.net/devices/2015/10/20150923_1936331.jpg
Microsoft: http://az648995.vo.msecnd.net/devices/2015/10/WP_20150923_19_37_24_Pro-1.jpg
We can see that they have EXIF data. And we can see that there are just a few differences.
Exposure is longer on the Lumia (1/7sec vs 1/10sec) and brightness is higher (0 vs -3.25 on the Galaxy).
Are you saying that these files aren't the right ones (which is totally possible because I just read that there ARE the originals -- I don't actually have first-hand knowledge of that) or that the EXIF info was edited after the picture was taken?
You are missing the whole point. These are phone cameras shoved into ridiculously thin frames. They are never meant to replace a full-fledged DSLR. Sure, at ISO 12800 only a DSLR can have good quality image with little noise. But having this option at least allows you to be able to capture an image albeit a noisy one. The alternative is a totally pitch black one, which one is better? Same goes with optical image stabilization and long shutter times. Sure, if you are capturing a lowlight action shot it won't be of much help, you need a DSLR with fast lens for a good image. But at least it will help with a static scene. Having good image stabilization will reduce the blurriness from camera shake.
They didn't "fool" you on the 920. It was clearly meant to illustrate the effectiveness of the optical image stabilization although the method used was questionable. Some high level marketing exec already paid the price for this. I have seen far worse representations by other camera manufacturers.
Of course it is always a good idea to have a certain level of skepticism on anything. For example, it would be fair to ask whether the actual lighting condition was ideal, whether any post processing was done, etc. But when the head of imaging himself showed samples which he said are personally taken with his 950XL, there is no need to cast aspersion on his character or honesty by linking it to an unrelated event (of which he was not even personally involved with). How cynical do you have to be?
I never said the phones were meant to replace a DSLR... Please quote where I exactly said this. I have a lumix G2, I know the difference between the two. They are two different devices for different use cases.
I said that high ISO is only handled correctly on DLSR or high end hybrid cameras. On a phone, having such a high ISO option is useless. They should improve other stuff first. That's what I said. Where did I miss the "point"? I'm strictly talking about photography here. Having an option that will end up being unusable is not an actual option. They should actually limit the ISO level but improve the digital noise treatment. It's better to have a clean pic at 800 ISO than a ****ty one at 12800 because we can. If the average lighting conditions are not met, even with a high end DSLR, just accept it. There are things that goes well beyond hardware. However, when lighting conditions are acceptable, I'd rather be able to have an auto mode that won't prioritize ISO (like lumia camera does right now) with a risk of taking pics at a very high ISO each time the light goes down. Therefore, and that's what I already said, they are not meant to replace a DSLR. However, there are room for improvements but not on the ISO level. its treatment however...
And I agree with you, stabilization needs to be improved to reduce blur from camera shake, but shutter speed as well.
If you claim the photos that you are showing during an official keynote are the ones taken with the phone you have in your hand but actually those pics were taken with a DSLR... sorry, that's a lie. Therefore, they tried to fool people with fake pictures taken with a different device. If you want to illustrate the concept, simply say: "the footage was captured by xxx camera and not the phone". Is it what they did back then? Anyway, I don't think image stabilization actually needed explanation either... what was needed was a clear representation of what the phone could actually do, and that's not what they showed. FYI, I owned a 920. Despite being a great phone, the camera did not live up to the high expectations they actually generated.
As you said, some people paid the price for this... for a reason. That was a huge mistake that affected their brand image. Of course everyone lies, in what world are you living in? However, Canon or Nikon are showing pictures actually taken with their cameras and sensors... even if post-treated for a better result. Which is not the same than using a completely different device and claim it's yours.
Of course he is going to say it's taken with either its personal phone or one of the demo unit. Saying otherwise would be studid. However, do you have any real proof that what he said is 100% true?
He is promoting his technology, he is going to say good things about it. They maybe even degraded the image taken with the S6 to increase the gap between the pictures shown, who knows. Now, there is of course a chance that what we saw was the actual end result of shots taken with a 950. I keep an open mind. But, unless it comes from a non-MS person, I won't believe it.
To my knowledge, the event was related to a Nokia (lumia 920) presentation where he was already in charge of the pureview technology... So was he completely uninvolved? I don't know. Waiting for an unbiased review instead of believing blindly an official spokeperson is not being cynical, it's being realistic.
Of course everyone will prefer to take pics at 800 ISO than 12800 given the choice. Who doesn't know that? When your image is already at 800 ISO with 4 sec shutter speed (on tripod of course), and it still comes out pitch black, then that extra ISO option comes in useful. Sure, that is not a common scenario and it is not ideal either but I will take it as an improvement nonetheless, and it is a beneficial use case that should be acknowledged (and it is not the only thing they improved so your point about this being low priority is moot). And for you to come out all pompous belittling other people's knowledge of photography because of that additional ISO option, while it appears your own knowledge of photography doesn't seem to be all that great.
If you are using the 920 as you claimed, you should know that the 920 does NOT prioritize high ISO. It actually has a greater tendency to use a lower ISO and keep the shutter open longer. Of course this is all a matter of subjective preference but that is EXACTLY the point of the Lumia cameras giving that manual option.
That is also an obvious point. Who said that the max ISO is the only thing they did? How about that half-stop improvement in aperture from f2.4 to f1.9? What about all the other software enhancements (e.g. dual capture with different shutter speeds)? And using a slightly larger sensor? You picked on one particular minor aspect of improvement and then make a sweeping statement about their supposed lack of knowledge of photography.
As far as I remember from that keynote, there was no such claim, rather it only states "OIS=ON" as the intention was to demonstrate the benefits of OIS. Sure, you can say it might be misleading but that is far from the claim that these photos were taken with the phone.
Besides, that is all water under the bridge now and I don't see the point of bringing up something from 3 years ago involving a different company and different people.
Maybe everyone lies all the time in the world you live in. Speak not for others please.
You don't seem to understand the difference between an engineer and a marketing/advertising personnel. But then again perhaps in your world everyone is a liar.
Of course. I agree it is always a good idea to have healthy skepticism and keep an open mind about things. But you gotta be an extreme cynic that when Juha said "see this photo I took with the 950" you suspect he might have used a DSLR and blatantly lying about it. But hey, what do I know about the world you live in...
I'm not here to start a fight or to "win" an argument as the goal of an argument is not to win but to come to an understanding. Which we clearly won't according to your tone and one way view. I try to always use conditional form to keep the discussion open while you take my words for affirmation.
to be honest, I don't care what anyone thinks about my own knowledge regarding photography as I'm not a pro, far from it actually. But a professional will never claim cranking up the ISO is a good thing unless they have too and even so, if the end result is actually bad, the option won't even be used. A photographer will always favour the end result over the software/hardware options given, especially if these are detrimental to the photo they want to capture Better no picture than a crappy one. That's the first point I made.
Of course, the ISO is not the only thing they have changed. f/1.9 is great to capture more light and that's a great improvement. I'm now very impatient to see what the result will be regarding DOP and focal point. I simply hope they won't crank up the sharpening algorithm to make up for the lack of details captured, especially for landscape pics. I'm focusing on that aspect simply because the ISO, if not well handled, is the main item that can destroy a picture, not matter what the conditions are.
Yes, you are right the 920 does prioritize long exposure, especially in daylight which was completely stupid. However, as soon as light goes down, the ISO automatically goes up like crazy instead of trying to find the right balance between exposure and ISO. I usually get that on my 930, especially with the latest version of Lumia Camera.
I'll just leave this here for your information: Nokia admits to faking Lumia 920 ad | ZDNet
Once again, I won't be commenting on these facts as I'm not here to start a fight, just to explain why I'm skeptical.
Juha was Nokia's head of imaging when this happen and Nokia was under Elop who actually came from MS. Besides, MS bought Nokia. Different companies? yes and no.
Figure of speech, understanding, common sense... I thought you would understand what I was meaning but apparently, you like to literally take things and not figuratively. No need to spend more time on non-sense.
Well, considering my job is to actually help engineers and project managers who are requesting a grant to innovate and to secure their funding in front of the european commission... and yes, you are right to a certain extent. Marketing people are the worst. It doesn't mean engineers always tell the truth. When I challenge tech people before they enter a project and business review with the European commission, most of them lie. For a very simple reason. When you ask for a funding between 2 and 10 million euros, their company is definitely not okay to let that money go away. Same goes when you launch a new product on behalf of the company that actually hires you. You'll say whatever you have to, to make a good impression, even if you have to lie for that.
Now, the reason why I'm skeptical:
1. He shows a picture that he personally took with the 950. 2 options:
1. you either believe it, literally
or 2. you decide to be skeptical but keep your mind open.
He may have actually taken the pic with the 950 but once again, unless we have a clear proof of that, what forces me to believe him? I'm always using the conditional form, mind you. I never said he was blatantly lying. That's your saying, not mine. I'm saying that they MAY have tricked the pictures, but I'm not sure, I may be completely wrong.
Then he zooms in and show us how great it looks. I have to say, if that's really a pic taken with the 950, that's super impressive and I'm thrilled for the people who are going to buy the 950... and he shows a galaxy S6 pic. This is where I start to be skeptical... from all the tests from unbiased reviewers all over the web, none have reported such a bad image quality from the S6. So yes, I'm skeptical. But hey, I can't find any reasons why they would try to make the competition look bad...
2. 2nd point that makes my skepticism grow even more. He actually takes a picture with the 950, in front of the camera. It was the perfect occasion to actually prove us that the 950 was able to capture a lot of details, especially in low light, but no, he decides not to zoom in and doesn't spend much time on this pic. The question is: why?
a) Because he knew it was out of his control? Was the other picture staged to optimize the end result?
b) It wasn't part of his demo, therefore the rest of it is simply part of a rehearsed speech?
c) He knew the quality would not meet the level of the sample he previously showed and decided not to show us the actual details of that pic?
d) Or easy answer, he didn't think about it.
When the reviews get out and I'm wrong, I have no shame to come here and say it's a great device. Until then, I don't believe any official representative, engineer or not. BTW, this goes for MS, google, Apple, Samsung and so on...
End of the silly argument that will go round and round. I'll wait for the reviews now.
vlad0
New member
- Oct 9, 2012
- 1,069
- 0
- 0
There is only one device that captures what Nokia was trying to get across with that name.. the 808. Everything since then has been more marketing than substance, with the 1020 being the only exception.
psiu_glen
New member
- Dec 26, 2011
- 943
- 0
- 0
It makes me sad knowing that while we get some advances in technology in the new cameras, it is mostly just vendor upgrades.
Would have liked to see the next step after 808/1020, marrying some of the various Pureview/reframing, intelligent lighting (post adjustable HDR), xenon/LED flash modules where the phone could use software advancements to pick the appropriate one (maybe use LED for fill-in when outside if bright enough, use different strengths of flash, etc). Just having the one phone completely pushing the envelope (even as a niche device) and the others in the line reaping those R&D benefits.
That's really the sad thing about it all.
:/
Captpt
New member
- Sep 16, 2015
- 373
- 0
- 0
Both photos look pretty good BUT I'm curious, are the display boxes (such as the far one the says Office 365) red or orange??? Clearly the first one has them as red where the brighter photo they are orange?? You would think by this photo the boxes are as orange as the that guys shirt in the photo.. Says a lot about color accuracy, the darker photo was the 950XL correct?
Similar threads
Trending Posts
-
https://support.google.com/admanager/thread/322517131/dela-y-run-way-exico-what-are-the-aeromexico-delay-rules
- Started by dddddddddddddddd
- Replies: 0
-
W11_x64 24H2 b:26100.3037 Enterprise LTSC-IoT - Bypass Skype Installation limit
- Started by Xogroroth
- Replies: 0
-
Call of Duty launches an end-of-day update to address Season 2 launch issues, but many persist- Started by Windows Central
- Replies: 0
-
Microsoft is killing its “free” VPN with Microsoft 365 subscriptions, just days after increasing prices
- Started by Windows Central
- Replies: 4
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram