Jostian

Jostian

Lives in South Africa Pretoria, South Africa
Works as a Development Specialist
Joined on Jun 30, 2010

Comments

Total: 397, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

soundimageplusblog: I've seen lots of positive reviews about this phone camera and I'm puzzled as to why. The images are poor quality and not even close to the latest iPhones. Specs. and a 3x zoom are pretty meaningless if the images disappoint. I was hoping it would be better, but sadly it's actually pretty poor by todays standards. Just what are these reviewers seeing? (Or more accurately NOT seeing!!)

iPhone IQ is mush, their over-processed approach destroys detail, detail looks like water colour paintings, read the DPR Review of the X, IQ is good but nothing special, and miles off the Pixel's IQ. Samsung and Huawei are also easily better than the current crop of iPhones... check out the crops here from GSM arena, iPhone X IQ is darn poor, https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4262844?page=2

Link | Posted on Apr 4, 2018 at 14:03 UTC
In reply to:

walker2000: What's the use of aperture blades on cellphone anyway, since there is no visible DoF difference, and e-shutter speed has a wide range?

@TrojMacReady yes you're right, I was a little overzealous in my conclusion.

Link | Posted on Mar 14, 2018 at 11:14 UTC
In reply to:

walker2000: What's the use of aperture blades on cellphone anyway, since there is no visible DoF difference, and e-shutter speed has a wide range?

Yes GSM Arena tested the S9+ vs the Pixel 2, Note 8 and iPhone X in low light with some interesting results https://www.phonearena.com/news/samsung-galaxy-s9-vs-iphone-x-pixel-2-xl-galaxy-note-8-lowlight-night-camera-comparison_id103088 from the S9, the F1.5 makes quite a difference in IQ, though there is more corner softness but the benefit is definite, using the F2.4 during the day for better sharpness across the frame and then using the F1.5 at night is definitely the way to go. In the test, overall easy win for Pixel 2, then S9+ then iPhone X and Note 8.

Link | Posted on Mar 13, 2018 at 07:16 UTC
In reply to:

cosinaphile: this notch nonsense is like an apple cancer spread to android wanna be phones

ive read speculation that this will have micro sd support and could have a headphone jack but i doubt it very much

i would avoid any device millions use to listen to music but refuses to include an industry standard headphone jack as simply a bit of manipulative cellular junk

the idiotic notch that moto and now these clowns emulate makes me nauseated

Think the Essential Phone PH-1 (Announced May 2017) that got released before the iPhone X (announced Sept 2017) was the first phone with a notch, so technically the notch was an Android thing... that Apple then used in the X.

Link | Posted on Mar 9, 2018 at 09:51 UTC
In reply to:

Elia Chiarucci: Am I the only one that would like to see a bigger sensor in a phone once in a while?
Like the 2/3" of the Lumia 1020, that continues to compete with modern smartphone's cameras.

I'm with you, although the Nexus 5X had 1.55 micron pixel size, which was great most new phones including the latest iPhones have a measely 1.12 micro pixel size, and it shows in the IQ. I reckon the 1020 doesn't compete with the plethora of newer phones but still sets the bar IQ wise I reckon :) , the only modern camera phone that offers similar natural looking photos (and not over-processed mush) are the Pixels.

Link | Posted on Mar 9, 2018 at 09:46 UTC
In reply to:

ecka84: Still not sure if this Tamron is any better than the cheaper OEM 70-300mm lenses.

@quarrycat, create a thread and show us.

Link | Posted on Feb 1, 2018 at 13:46 UTC
On article Apple iPhone X review (380 comments in total)

A quote from the review (on DPR) "Colors though are generally pleasing and images offer the perception of good detail at normal viewing sizes. If you zoom in to check out different parts of the scene, though, you'll notice that fine details really suffer"

Also, in conclusion they state the phone has good (not great or excellent) overall image quality...

Come on Apple sort out that crappy jpeg processing already!!

Link | Posted on Jan 31, 2018 at 10:13 UTC as 53rd comment
In reply to:

jackspra: Nice lens.Not the sharpest out there but with that great camera the shots look real good.

Dustin Abbit's review says a lot, the optics of the Tamron are stellar, this is not just a lens for amateurs [sic] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKEou9hTR1M

Link | Posted on Jan 29, 2018 at 10:37 UTC
In reply to:

ecka84: Still not sure if this Tamron is any better than the cheaper OEM 70-300mm lenses.

the IQ is way better, I had the 70 300 SP VC and the 100 400 is in a different league, especially from 200mm.

Link | Posted on Jan 29, 2018 at 10:34 UTC
In reply to:

jennajenna: In the very first top photo of the 2 wolves: the focus point is on the tree (very sharp). The wolves are fuzzy comparatively. Was that on purpose or did the lens misfocus?
Also no moving shots like "birds in flight". Can this lens not do decent C-AF?

I got a few of swallows in mid flight, AF-C is really good, surprised me.

Link | Posted on Jan 29, 2018 at 10:31 UTC
In reply to:

xiao_xiang: Note to self. When you see people throw around the criticism "pixel peepers", what they really mean is that they support mediocre equipment. Further, they probably have cheap, low quality gear and want to convince themselves it's just as good as the best.

We pay for pixels. Stop blaming those that want quality, clear, sharp images, for cropping or what ever they want it for.

this lens is great even for pixel peepers, I peep pixels sometimes and this lens is seriously good even when peeping pixels...

Link | Posted on Jan 29, 2018 at 10:30 UTC

Bought one 2 weeks ago, and am amazed at how good it is, great optically, well made, a no brainer. AF is super fast, and accurate, plus the lens has some weather sealing too.

Link | Posted on Jan 29, 2018 at 10:26 UTC as 33rd comment
In reply to:

lighthunter80: The Canon destroys the iPhone in skin tones...

@mick232 maybe but the difference is massive and the crops in the thread https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4247903 are only about 25%...

Link | Posted on Jan 28, 2018 at 19:43 UTC
In reply to:

lighthunter80: The Canon destroys the iPhone in skin tones...

it would have to be 10 blind people, see the crops here https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4247903 , the X detail is so smeared, looks horrid.

Link | Posted on Jan 26, 2018 at 12:04 UTC

just give us a bigger sensor and keep the variable aperture, fancy bokeh processing hokey pokey!

Link | Posted on Jan 26, 2018 at 06:36 UTC as 12th comment

See here for those interested in looking at the IQ a bit more, https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4247903#forum-post-60677329

Link | Posted on Jan 23, 2018 at 08:23 UTC as 71st comment
On article iPhone X sample gallery updated (188 comments in total)
In reply to:

jason3976: Best I can say for iPhone is noise is not blotchy, but it's still noisy.

just compare the eye/eyebrow region between the X and the Canon using the loupe facility in the gallery, X looks horrid, detail smearing, over-processed... no thanks, nice enough on a phone screen but people dont only look at photos on a phone, most will use a PC, monitor or laptop and on those the difference is easy to see.

Link | Posted on Jan 23, 2018 at 07:16 UTC
On article iPhone X sample gallery updated (188 comments in total)
In reply to:

dule: Small 1/3 sensor...nothing spectacular.

yes true, but most wont be keen for the tedium of processing a bunch of RAWs to get decent jpegs everytime... it does as you say give flexibility though, I just wonder why Apple's jpeg processing is so poor and far removed from the natural look of RAW.

Link | Posted on Jan 22, 2018 at 19:03 UTC
In reply to:

Jostian: Just click on each image in any of the comparisons, and compare the full size photos, the iPhone looks horrid... detail smearing, artefacts etc. a long way to go if Apple want to get something resembling decent IQ from their phones....all the fake DoF counts for nothing if the IQ is so poor!

Come on guys, look at the eyebrows/eyelashes, completely smeared, compare it to the canon photo, if you cant see that big a deficit... On a phone yes but most people will also look at the photos on a PC, or laptop etc. at some point in time, and then it does matter. The fact that the photos look ok on a tiny screen doesn't do anything to redeem the distinctly mediocre IQ imho.

Link | Posted on Jan 22, 2018 at 17:18 UTC

Just click on each image in any of the comparisons, and compare the full size photos, the iPhone looks horrid... detail smearing, artefacts etc. a long way to go if Apple want to get something resembling decent IQ from their phones....all the fake DoF counts for nothing if the IQ is so poor!

Link | Posted on Jan 22, 2018 at 14:08 UTC as 197th comment | 4 replies
Total: 397, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »