LG G2 Camera - not as good as the reviews say?

[glen]

I believe I remember reading reviews that said the LG G2 camera was one of the best- maybe the best beside all the others besides one other phone, I can't remember which one.

But, it seems like mine is not even as good as my old Samsung Galaxy 3. Am I crazy? Can there be camera differences between the same models?

Anyone else find the camera not as good as the reviews say? In specific, I find the color balance and saturation off.

 

[nOOky]

I hope you're not using the intelligent auto setting, it sux. I have no problems with my camera's images on the LG G2.

 

[Apex]

Have you tried Xdabbeb's camera?

http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=2548974

 

[jacktesterson]

I had the phone briefly and thought it was one of the best smartphone cameras I've used.

 

[tvdang7]

I thought it was pretty good as good or better than an s4 camera.

 

[Apex]

I thought it was pretty good as good or better than an s4 camera.

I found it easily better than my S4's camera, as well as my wife's HTC One's camera.

This being said, it is slow.

 

[mnewsham]

Besides the fact that it's slow it takes some of the best pictures for a phone I have seen save for the Nokia Lumia 1520 with a 20MP sensor or the Nokia Lumia 1020 with a 41MP sensor.

 

[dagamer34]

I believe I remember reading reviews that said the LG G2 camera was one of the best- maybe the best beside all the others besides one other phone, I can't remember which one.

But, it seems like mine is not even as good as my old Samsung Galaxy 3. Am I crazy? Can there be camera differences between the same models?

Anyone else find the camera not as good as the reviews say? In specific, I find the color balance and saturation off.

Keep in mind that the screen you are viewing the picture with alters your perception of the photo. In particular, Samsung has a bad habit of tweaking its AMOLED screens to be way outside of the standard sRGB color gamut to give them more "punch". Take a look at the CIE 1976 color chart here and you'll see the Galaxy S3 (what I assume you mean by Galaxy 3) has colors that are WAY off compared to the G2 or any other phone really. This one reason among many why you shouldn't trust much what you read one way or the other unless reviewers a) use a standardized gallery of things they shoot and b) make impressions based on a calibrated monitor, not what they see on their phone (The Verge during their main podcast is a big offender of this).

If a person is completely unaware of this, they might think that one camera takes better shots than another when color calibration of a screen matters a lot as well. On phones, manufacturers sometimes oversaturate colors. On laptops and desktop monitors, because they are cost-cutting, you have a smaller color gamut than the sRGB standard. Ultimately makes a huge difference in what you perceive seeing.

 

[glen]

Honestly, I think there are 2 problems:
1. In full resolution, the color balance seems off more than average, but otherwise everythign is pretty good.

2. I take a lot of picture for work in low 1M res. Those look worse than my old S3 low res.

Is there an app that will do color balance adjustments?
Should I take pictures at full res, and then use an app (which one?) to drop the resolution?

 

[glen]

Looks so dull to me. Muted. I am not sure why. Anything that would give it even half the punch I am used to from my Canon? I know - apples to oranges, but that is the idea.

 

[Spineshank]

It's the best Android camera I have ever used. And its very good in well lit areas. However, I felt overall, the iPhone 5 camera was still better.

 

[mnewsham]

Looks so dull to me. Muted. I am not sure why. Anything that would give it even half the punch I am used to from my Canon? I know - apples to oranges, but that is the idea.

try taking 10MP and then resizing them later if needed. I find that gives me the best shots, but I tend to be doing micro close up shots, so not sure if it'll work as well for what you need.

 

[foghorn67]

General rule with any camera...SLR, cameraphone...anything. Take in full resolution, downsize later.

 

[glen]

General rule with any camera...SLR, cameraphone...anything. Take in full resolution, downsize later.

I was wondering about that. So, what program/app do you use to downsize it?

 

[mnewsham]

I was wondering about that. So, what program/app do you use to downsize it?

MSPaint or gimp, or Photoshop, etc.

 

[Rdmkr]

It has a disappointing f/2.4 max aperture, which makes taking pictures during evenings/nights a major pain and ruins pretty much any shot with movement in it. Focusing under low light can take 4-5 seconds, if it manages to at all.

As a G2 user I agree that the quality is underwhelming. Definitely worse than that of the f/1.8 13MP Lenovo K900 I held for a while earlier. OIS seemed like less of a big deal than the aperture size.

IDK if it should be worse than Samsung S3 with f/2.6, though.

 

[CuriousMike]

Is the f/2.4 aperture on a camera phone the same as f/2.4 on a DSLR?

f/2.4 on a DSLR is a pretty big hole.

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

Is the f/2.4 aperture on a camera phone the same as f/2.4 on a DSLR?

f/2.4 on a DSLR is a pretty big hole.

It is. That's why I don't see why people are complaining about f/2.4 and f/2.0. Those are considered extremely fast by photographers. The difference between a phone and DSLR is that the DSLR has a Mich bigger sensor and so the hole is much larger, scaled for the sensor size (think optics in physics when the height of the projected image changes)

 

[Rdmkr]

As a non-expert on cameras I would speculate a smartphone camera needs a larger max aperture to compensate for certain weaknesses and lack of features it has in other areas.

The difference between the f/1.8 and f/2.4 cams was palpable, is all I'm reporting. OIS didn't hold a candle to it in terms of difference. In other respects the cameras were largely identical (both Sony 13MP Exmor BSI).

I'll make the comparison again when I have a Lenovo Vibe Z with f/1.8 in hands side by side with the G2; should be a few weeks from now.

 

[Kelvinz]

The LG G2 camera is actually one of the best smartphone cameras on the market.

Optical Image Stabilization (OIS), 13MP sensor and accurate color processing.

 

[Rdmkr]

yeah, then try photographing the movements of a cat at night (indoors). Focusing will take up to 6 seconds and even after all the trouble your shots will be ruined. Flash doesn't help much (and ask any photography expert, photo's with flash are poor quality by default).

Movement photography, largely the same story. I guess they thought they could get away with using a worse lens aperture since it has OIS, but in practice it seems things don't fly that way.

Honestly I experience this as a camera that makes good shots under ideal conditions only. dim the lights and introduce movement and the pretense falls apart. And it just so happens conditions like these cover 30-40% of the shots I take.

Am I expecting too much of a smartphone camera? Maybe. But I've seen ones in cheaper phones that could do it all just fine (Lenovo's 13MP f/1.8 offering in the K9xx series). It's also entirely possible that I have a lemon in hands of course. I know I paid way too little for it, lol.

 

[mnewsham]

yeah, then try photographing the movements of a cat at night (indoors). Focusing will take up to 6 seconds and even after all the trouble your shots will be ruined. Flash doesn't help much (and ask any photography expert, photo's with flash are poor quality by default).

Movement photography, largely the same story. I guess they thought they could get away with using a worse lens aperture since it has OIS, but in practice it seems things don't fly that way.

Honestly I experience this as a camera that makes good shots under ideal conditions only. dim the lights and introduce movement and the pretense falls apart. And it just so happens conditions like these cover 30-40% of the shots I take.

Am I expecting too much of a smartphone camera? Maybe. But I've seen ones in cheaper phones that could do it all just fine (Lenovo's 13MP f/1.8 offering in the K9xx series). It's also entirely possible that I have a lemon in hands of course. I know I paid way too little for it, lol.

Most of my shots come out excellent, but I mainly use the camera for very close up macro shots with lots of lighting, perfect for those shots though, very crisp and better then the digital point and shoot I had been using previously. I have no real need for DSLR quality and I can borrow a friends Cannon EOS 7D if I need professional shots.

 

[Rdmkr]

Is the f/2.4 aperture on a camera phone the same as f/2.4 on a DSLR?

f/2.4 on a DSLR is a pretty big hole.

It is. That's why I don't see why people are complaining about f/2.4 and f/2.0. Those are considered extremely fast by photographers. The difference between a phone and DSLR is that the DSLR has a Mich bigger sensor and so the hole is much larger, scaled for the sensor size (think optics in physics when the height of the projected image changes)

Read this:

The figure f/2.2 actually means a large amount of light per unit area. Given the tiny sensor in the iPhone 5, this means there is still a small amount of light overall being transmitted by the lens.

An f/2.2 lens has an entrance pupil (the apparent size of the aperture when looking through the centre of the lens) whose diameter is equal to the focal length divided by 2.2

The focal length of the iPhone lens is 4.1mm so the entrance pupil is 1.86mm, which is not difficult to achieve in a small package. Compare this to a 35mm f/2.0 lens for a DSLR, which has an entrance pupil which is 17.5mm in diameter!

http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/43043/how-iphone-5s-can-have-such-a-big-aperture-f-2-2

So, no. The figures are not comparable between DSLR and smartphone camera.

 

[Rdmkr]

Here's a whole thread full of people complaining about camera slowness and poor low light performance on the LG G2: http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=2525655

The difference between the f/1.8 and f/2.4 cams was palpable, is all I'm reporting. OIS didn't hold a candle to it in terms of difference. In other respects the cameras were largely identical (both Sony 13MP Exmor BSI).

I'll make the comparison again when I have a Lenovo Vibe Z with f/1.8 in hands side by side with the G2; should be a few weeks from now.

I've held a Lenovo Vibe Z in hands again and I have to say my memory was a bit more positive about Lenovo's cameras than the reality warranted. Photo's were noticeably less sharp than on the LG G2 under the vast majority of conditions. Fast focusing and good movement shots are possible on the Vibe Z, but you have to adjust the settings for it to minimize exposure time and increase the ISO rating, which are also things you can do on the LG G2 (though most people won't bother, and shouldn't have to, on either device).

I've gained some new respect for OIS after comparing these side by side again; although part of the difference may also simply be due to Lenovo's lack of experience on the hardware/software tweaking front. And other than the f/1.8 max aperture, their lens may well not be that great. There could well be a tradeoff between that aperture size and other quality aspects.

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

Read this:

http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/43043/how-iphone-5s-can-have-such-a-big-aperture-f-2-2

So, no. The figures are not comparable between DSLR and smartphone camera.

In terms of absolute size? They're not comparable. However, exposure itself is comparable. It's the same reason why you can use the same exposure settings on a smartphone and a P&S and a DSLR and achieve the same picture (roughly speaking).

It goes without saying that different sensor size results in a need for a different lens size and the aperture has to be changed, but f/2.2 gives the sensor as much light as f/2.2 gives a DSLR the same amount of light. Therefore, under a fixed ISO, both sensors would need the same shutter speed.

My comment had more to do with people who had very little exposure to photography but now look at aperture numbers the same way they look at megahertz or Antutu benchmark scores. "Omg f/2.4 = bad, f/2.2 = awesome." "33% more light!!!!11one" It's all marketing speak. If f/2.4 isn't giving you good pictures, it's unlikely f/2.2 will give you much benefit.