http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=2548974xdabbeb said:
I haven't tested this mod extensively, but so far the results have been looking very good.
thescreensavers
Diamond Member
- Aug 3, 2005
- 9,916
- 2
- 81
The G2 pictures are good. I dont get why all the fuss over a camera phone? Its not a replacement for a real camera.
My take. Warning: Strong opinion follows.
The G2 is not a good camera. Those of you saying it is are either enticed by the spec sheet or haven't shot a lot.
Saying well use a real camera if you want real shots is apologist and diversionary. The point is how it compares to other smartphones when it comes to practical real world shooting.
The best specs in the world dont make a difference when the software is not done well. I'm not talking about functions or cool features. I mean tuning and intangibles. This is where LG and Samsung differ hugely. LG is excellent at taking great hardware and mucking it up with terrible software and UX decisions. You could say Samsung does the same and I wouldnt argue, but they are making much better progress than LG.
I say this because LG's decisions have messed up a good piece of kit. There's no reason the G2's camera should take more messily compressed, less closeup friendly shots than an old S4. There's also no reason why the S4 and pretty much any other phone from the last year or two outperform the G2 in low light.
I dont mean ISO or noise, I mean practical shooting. Those of you saying it's fine at night either dont shoot a lot at night, don't shoot people or events going on, or havent shot a lot of the same with other phones.
The G2 is atrocious to shoot with in anything but good light. Why? Because as mentioned it seems they decided to tune it so the OIS is expected to make a good shot, and the focus assist light comes on incredibly long, and the supposedly capable autofocus takes longer than phones from several years ago (i.e. take your old HTC One X / Evo LTE etc and shoot a night or bar scene with it vs the G2 - one is way better at shooting than the other) and hunts for 5-8 seconds. All told your subject needs to hold still or be posed for what, 8-12 seconds in total sometimes, no joking. And no it's not a bad individual unit, i've used several.
LG has taken capable camera hardware and made it bad through bad camera software /lack of expertise.
-overreliance on OIS
-over aggressive compression and smoothing dumbs down detail in photos, making prior-generation phones' photos actually better in preserving detail
-extremely poor low light tuning; focus hunting, incredibly long focus assist process, often even after 5-8 seconds STILL shoots with improper focus / subject blurry,
I shoot event photo with a real camera frequently. I shoot lots of photos with different phones for a number of reasons. I shoot with a P&S. I shoot at day and I shoot at night and I shoot at nightlife events.
I can tell you that the G2 is very untrustworthy as a camera to shoot with when you are out on the town or shooting living/moving things at night. I have used 3 different G2s all the same. When on a whim I take an old Nokia 920 with me when I'm out (point and shoot is on loan right now) and it shoots better focused, better exposed, shots of people where their faces arent blurred due to the G2's slow shutter speed at night in all modes, and all without annoying the hell out of my subjects like the G2 does by making them stand there for 8-12 seconds as it fires the focus light, tries to focus, finally does, and then shoots the photo (and often not focused right), then there is a problem.
Samsung and Sony and HTC have better overall mobile imaging expertise and maturity than LG, it's not even close. And of course Nokia without a doubt.
LG should spend less money on useless software features like Slide Aside etc and spend it on imaging and UX expertise.
LG is the worst of the top smartphone vendors when it comes to camera hardware. Oops actually I'll give that to Moto, though the Moto X to be fair shoots clearer/quicker/better-focused/less annoying night shots than the G2. The last two Nexus phones (LG made) have weak cameras compared to competition.
In real world shooting, closeups, and especially ANYTHING involving low light, nightlife, people/animals/moving things in low light, the G2 is not as good as its peers.
Color balance is generally fine. and though they are soft and overprocessed, daytime shots are pretty good. But any camera can do well in great (lots of light) conditions. It's in other conditions where LG's lack of imaging maturity shows and the G2's camera abilities become to come apart.
If you plan on doing any shooting with your phone at night or out with friends be aware that unless you root and use one of the dev-built camera mods the G2 will annoy the hell out of you and your friends you try to take photos with, with slow performance, long wait times for the shot, and crappy shots where frequently any small movement of people during the pose blurs them or their face due to LG using a slow shutter speed even with the flash firing. S4/HTC One M7/Moto X/Nokia 9XX are all actual better *practical* shooting devices at night and low light.
just my rant.
The G2 is not a good camera. Those of you saying it is are either enticed by the spec sheet or haven't shot a lot.
Saying well use a real camera if you want real shots is apologist and diversionary. The point is how it compares to other smartphones when it comes to practical real world shooting.
The best specs in the world dont make a difference when the software is not done well. I'm not talking about functions or cool features. I mean tuning and intangibles. This is where LG and Samsung differ hugely. LG is excellent at taking great hardware and mucking it up with terrible software and UX decisions. You could say Samsung does the same and I wouldnt argue, but they are making much better progress than LG.
I say this because LG's decisions have messed up a good piece of kit. There's no reason the G2's camera should take more messily compressed, less closeup friendly shots than an old S4. There's also no reason why the S4 and pretty much any other phone from the last year or two outperform the G2 in low light.
I dont mean ISO or noise, I mean practical shooting. Those of you saying it's fine at night either dont shoot a lot at night, don't shoot people or events going on, or havent shot a lot of the same with other phones.
The G2 is atrocious to shoot with in anything but good light. Why? Because as mentioned it seems they decided to tune it so the OIS is expected to make a good shot, and the focus assist light comes on incredibly long, and the supposedly capable autofocus takes longer than phones from several years ago (i.e. take your old HTC One X / Evo LTE etc and shoot a night or bar scene with it vs the G2 - one is way better at shooting than the other) and hunts for 5-8 seconds. All told your subject needs to hold still or be posed for what, 8-12 seconds in total sometimes, no joking. And no it's not a bad individual unit, i've used several.
LG has taken capable camera hardware and made it bad through bad camera software /lack of expertise.
-overreliance on OIS
-over aggressive compression and smoothing dumbs down detail in photos, making prior-generation phones' photos actually better in preserving detail
-extremely poor low light tuning; focus hunting, incredibly long focus assist process, often even after 5-8 seconds STILL shoots with improper focus / subject blurry,
I shoot event photo with a real camera frequently. I shoot lots of photos with different phones for a number of reasons. I shoot with a P&S. I shoot at day and I shoot at night and I shoot at nightlife events.
I can tell you that the G2 is very untrustworthy as a camera to shoot with when you are out on the town or shooting living/moving things at night. I have used 3 different G2s all the same. When on a whim I take an old Nokia 920 with me when I'm out (point and shoot is on loan right now) and it shoots better focused, better exposed, shots of people where their faces arent blurred due to the G2's slow shutter speed at night in all modes, and all without annoying the hell out of my subjects like the G2 does by making them stand there for 8-12 seconds as it fires the focus light, tries to focus, finally does, and then shoots the photo (and often not focused right), then there is a problem.
Samsung and Sony and HTC have better overall mobile imaging expertise and maturity than LG, it's not even close. And of course Nokia without a doubt.
LG should spend less money on useless software features like Slide Aside etc and spend it on imaging and UX expertise.
LG is the worst of the top smartphone vendors when it comes to camera hardware. Oops actually I'll give that to Moto, though the Moto X to be fair shoots clearer/quicker/better-focused/less annoying night shots than the G2. The last two Nexus phones (LG made) have weak cameras compared to competition.
In real world shooting, closeups, and especially ANYTHING involving low light, nightlife, people/animals/moving things in low light, the G2 is not as good as its peers.
Color balance is generally fine. and though they are soft and overprocessed, daytime shots are pretty good. But any camera can do well in great (lots of light) conditions. It's in other conditions where LG's lack of imaging maturity shows and the G2's camera abilities become to come apart.
If you plan on doing any shooting with your phone at night or out with friends be aware that unless you root and use one of the dev-built camera mods the G2 will annoy the hell out of you and your friends you try to take photos with, with slow performance, long wait times for the shot, and crappy shots where frequently any small movement of people during the pose blurs them or their face due to LG using a slow shutter speed even with the flash firing. S4/HTC One M7/Moto X/Nokia 9XX are all actual better *practical* shooting devices at night and low light.
just my rant.
cronos
Diamond Member
- Nov 7, 2001
- 9,380
- 26
- 101
I see that in your 'review' you keep repeating the same usage over and over, and (intentionally?) avoiding any other legitimate usage of a phone camera.
Basically you are saying that the G2's camera is only bad at night and/or low light situations. Ok, so now what about for people who would never ever use the camera at night and always have a well lit environment when taking pictures and don't have any intention in taking pictures of night events/people partying in the bar/etc?
I understand that these things are important for you, and therefore the poor performance is a terrible fit for you and people like you, but how about for people who use the camera for other things completely different? Food pictures, selfies on the beach, hiking pictures, kids in the park, flowers, spider/other bugs macros, etc.? Is it good then?
(It is okay to say that you don't know)
Basically you are saying that the G2's camera is only bad at night and/or low light situations. Ok, so now what about for people who would never ever use the camera at night and always have a well lit environment when taking pictures and don't have any intention in taking pictures of night events/people partying in the bar/etc?
I understand that these things are important for you, and therefore the poor performance is a terrible fit for you and people like you, but how about for people who use the camera for other things completely different? Food pictures, selfies on the beach, hiking pictures, kids in the park, flowers, spider/other bugs macros, etc.? Is it good then?
(It is okay to say that you don't know)
mnewsham
Lifer
- Oct 2, 2010
- 14,539
- 428
- 136
Pretty much what I was thinking too, for MY usage scenario, which is mostly very close up macro shots and well lit landscapes (i go hiking a lot). It is great. Well lit situations this camera is amazing.
WelshBloke
Lifer
- Jan 12, 2005
- 32,883
- 11,026
- 136
mnewsham
Lifer
- Oct 2, 2010
- 14,539
- 428
- 136
That's not true at all, My S3 sucked at macro shots, it couldnt focus on anything that close up.
WelshBloke
Lifer
- Jan 12, 2005
- 32,883
- 11,026
- 136
Thats a random shot from my S3, looks ok. Its been compressed and resized no dobt by uploading/downloading and the rest but you get the idea.
I've got much better ones but they would take a modicum of effort to find. ^_^
"I see that in your 'review' you keep repeating the same usage over and over, and (intentionally?) avoiding any other legitimate usage of a phone camera."
I see that you are attempting to cherrypick here. Let me be clear. The G2's images are overprocessed in all lighting conditions. And on another point, again bringing relevance, it is important to compare it to its peers not just give it a pass in the realm of "oh well it functions ok as a phone camera" - that's a pretty low standard to rate against.
"Basically you are saying that the G2's camera is only bad at night and/or low light situations. "
I am saying that it is a less reliable shooter of detailed photos and of photos that are not overprocessed, in all lighting situations. t is also a less reliable shooter when it comes to capturing people moving, in all lighting situations even fully lit, compared to others. It's a double boneheaded decision by LG - overrely on OIS to make up for intentionally low shutter speeds to try and get more detail, AND the inability to disable OIS for some bizarre reason. Topped off with heavy processing.
In good light it gives decent color balance and saturation, and 13mp is an advantage. But like many reviews say and I agree, it makes pictures that look good at first glance and at a distance. Color and balance is good - but zoom in and you see where issues lie, 13mp is a bit of a misleading spec since much of the detail you *might* capture over a lesser MP-spec'ed camera is loss in heavy compression and smoothing that kills fine detail when zoomed in.
Flipside if you take well lit photos of people, this issue may work in your favor as (whether you like it or not) is going to smooth facial complexions, depends on your taste.
"Ok, so now what about for people who would never ever use the camera at night and always have a well lit environment when taking pictures and don't have any intention in taking pictures of night events/people partying in the bar/etc?"
This is some heavy conjecturing to create limited consumer use cases in order to try and say only good things about the G2. Again this is a bit moot - comparing against its peers is relevance; when it's less crucial for the competition to have to have these sort of scenario limitations laid out for them in order to get solid photos, it is fully valid to say this phone is a less practical/reliable shooter of good shots on average for the regular person.
An S4 and even older gen Lumia 920 and even Note 2 etc. are more consistent and reliable shooters over all conditions you can trust over a G2 for example. That is separate from saying let's say that the G2 has better resolution, higher ISO sensitivity, higher top speed capability, and so on. It does. But the tuning decisions made by LG in software make it a more iffy shooter.
If you're a G2 owner go ahead and try it yourself. Get a friend with an s4. take lots of impromptu shots in good light and low light. Static subjects are no problem. but first off zoom in and look at detail loss and compression smoothing. Then try moving subjects. see which phone blurs that person walking by less. Then from there shoot impromptu shots in lower light flash and otherwise. use both phones during the process and see which phone is the most annoying.
Then if your G2 is rooted repeat some of the shooting with modded cameras and compare your annoyance level and shots and focus speed in diff lighting conditions, etc etc. Noticeable difference. The hardware is decent - it's LG's poor decisions in software implementation/tuning that are the problem. And where Samsung's greater experience in imaging comes in. Same for Sony.
I have different phones all the time so I have no dog in this fight.
So if you shoot static photos of flowers, scenery, buildings, and landscapes in good light, ANY modern smartphone camera will do decently. But this is like asking someone to spell their name. it's not much of a standard. Featurephones and flips can shoot to the maximum of their potential in these conditions too.
It's when things are not easy we see how good the package is..
"I understand that these things are important for you, and therefore the poor performance is a terrible fit for you and people like you, but how about for people who use the camera for other things completely different? Food pictures, selfies on the beach, hiking pictures, kids in the park, flowers, spider/other bugs macros, etc.? Is it good then?"
As i said, it can pass under great conditions and easy shots just as any smartphone camera in the past couple of years can.
Food pictures, macro, etc you will see detail loss and smoothing. But the photos are fine. Are they better than what you would see from the G2's peers? I don't believe so.
Hiking, action, etc etc even in good light and sports mode LG is not as good as Samsung, HTC (despite the lower res), and Sony. yes I have read the reviews. And most of them are written by people that do not know photography. I fully agree with the points in the DPReview writeup (below), some of which is very directly attempted to be addressed by the xda camera mods.
Does it take acceptable photos? Sure, depends on your standard for acceptable. To me it would have to be better than older phones I upgraded from. And it is not consistently. The S4 is an older and less technically capable shooter that simply takes better photos consistently across more conditions. With less hassle and annoyance.
LG needs to get out of its own way. I cant imagine how good the camera would be with some solid imaging industry expertise driving the decisions.
(from dpreview)
"Conclusion - The Bad
Smearing of low-contrast detail and some processing artifacts, even at low ISOs
Very strong noise reduction at higher ISOs results in soft output
Very pronounced focus pumping in video mode
Flash exposures use very high ISO
Very slow shutter speeds in low light inevitably leads to motion blur in non-static scenes
Panorama mode produces comparatively small, low-quality output
Access to exposure compensation requires two taps
High levels of noise and noise reduction in low light video
Exposure cannot be linked to focus point
Overall Conclusion
Overall the LG G2 is a very well specified Android smartphone with a decent imaging feature set and very responsive performance, but in terms of both image quality and camera ergonomics it's not quite up there with the best. The LG G2 is by no means a bad camera phone. It is indeed capable of capturing very decent images, but if mobile photography is the focus of your smartphone buying decision there are currently better alternatives around."
I see that you are attempting to cherrypick here. Let me be clear. The G2's images are overprocessed in all lighting conditions. And on another point, again bringing relevance, it is important to compare it to its peers not just give it a pass in the realm of "oh well it functions ok as a phone camera" - that's a pretty low standard to rate against.
"Basically you are saying that the G2's camera is only bad at night and/or low light situations. "
I am saying that it is a less reliable shooter of detailed photos and of photos that are not overprocessed, in all lighting situations. t is also a less reliable shooter when it comes to capturing people moving, in all lighting situations even fully lit, compared to others. It's a double boneheaded decision by LG - overrely on OIS to make up for intentionally low shutter speeds to try and get more detail, AND the inability to disable OIS for some bizarre reason. Topped off with heavy processing.
In good light it gives decent color balance and saturation, and 13mp is an advantage. But like many reviews say and I agree, it makes pictures that look good at first glance and at a distance. Color and balance is good - but zoom in and you see where issues lie, 13mp is a bit of a misleading spec since much of the detail you *might* capture over a lesser MP-spec'ed camera is loss in heavy compression and smoothing that kills fine detail when zoomed in.
Flipside if you take well lit photos of people, this issue may work in your favor as (whether you like it or not) is going to smooth facial complexions, depends on your taste.
"Ok, so now what about for people who would never ever use the camera at night and always have a well lit environment when taking pictures and don't have any intention in taking pictures of night events/people partying in the bar/etc?"
This is some heavy conjecturing to create limited consumer use cases in order to try and say only good things about the G2. Again this is a bit moot - comparing against its peers is relevance; when it's less crucial for the competition to have to have these sort of scenario limitations laid out for them in order to get solid photos, it is fully valid to say this phone is a less practical/reliable shooter of good shots on average for the regular person.
An S4 and even older gen Lumia 920 and even Note 2 etc. are more consistent and reliable shooters over all conditions you can trust over a G2 for example. That is separate from saying let's say that the G2 has better resolution, higher ISO sensitivity, higher top speed capability, and so on. It does. But the tuning decisions made by LG in software make it a more iffy shooter.
If you're a G2 owner go ahead and try it yourself. Get a friend with an s4. take lots of impromptu shots in good light and low light. Static subjects are no problem. but first off zoom in and look at detail loss and compression smoothing. Then try moving subjects. see which phone blurs that person walking by less. Then from there shoot impromptu shots in lower light flash and otherwise. use both phones during the process and see which phone is the most annoying.
Then if your G2 is rooted repeat some of the shooting with modded cameras and compare your annoyance level and shots and focus speed in diff lighting conditions, etc etc. Noticeable difference. The hardware is decent - it's LG's poor decisions in software implementation/tuning that are the problem. And where Samsung's greater experience in imaging comes in. Same for Sony.
I have different phones all the time so I have no dog in this fight.
So if you shoot static photos of flowers, scenery, buildings, and landscapes in good light, ANY modern smartphone camera will do decently. But this is like asking someone to spell their name. it's not much of a standard. Featurephones and flips can shoot to the maximum of their potential in these conditions too.
It's when things are not easy we see how good the package is..
"I understand that these things are important for you, and therefore the poor performance is a terrible fit for you and people like you, but how about for people who use the camera for other things completely different? Food pictures, selfies on the beach, hiking pictures, kids in the park, flowers, spider/other bugs macros, etc.? Is it good then?"
As i said, it can pass under great conditions and easy shots just as any smartphone camera in the past couple of years can.
Food pictures, macro, etc you will see detail loss and smoothing. But the photos are fine. Are they better than what you would see from the G2's peers? I don't believe so.
Hiking, action, etc etc even in good light and sports mode LG is not as good as Samsung, HTC (despite the lower res), and Sony. yes I have read the reviews. And most of them are written by people that do not know photography. I fully agree with the points in the DPReview writeup (below), some of which is very directly attempted to be addressed by the xda camera mods.
Does it take acceptable photos? Sure, depends on your standard for acceptable. To me it would have to be better than older phones I upgraded from. And it is not consistently. The S4 is an older and less technically capable shooter that simply takes better photos consistently across more conditions. With less hassle and annoyance.
LG needs to get out of its own way. I cant imagine how good the camera would be with some solid imaging industry expertise driving the decisions.
(from dpreview)
"Conclusion - The Bad
Smearing of low-contrast detail and some processing artifacts, even at low ISOs
Very strong noise reduction at higher ISOs results in soft output
Very pronounced focus pumping in video mode
Flash exposures use very high ISO
Very slow shutter speeds in low light inevitably leads to motion blur in non-static scenes
Panorama mode produces comparatively small, low-quality output
Access to exposure compensation requires two taps
High levels of noise and noise reduction in low light video
Exposure cannot be linked to focus point
Overall Conclusion
Overall the LG G2 is a very well specified Android smartphone with a decent imaging feature set and very responsive performance, but in terms of both image quality and camera ergonomics it's not quite up there with the best. The LG G2 is by no means a bad camera phone. It is indeed capable of capturing very decent images, but if mobile photography is the focus of your smartphone buying decision there are currently better alternatives around."
Last edited:
I've used an S4 and G2 side by side. I liked a lot about the S4, to the point of preferring it to non-modded LG G2, but the camera was a deal breaker. There was a world of difference in detail between the two in favor of the LG G2. I still have a few pictures stored to prove it.
It could entirely be specimen-dependent (there really is quite a bit of variation in quality between different specimens of the same model phone; not just where cameras are concerned), but I really just don't find any of what PP said to match my experiences. The lag was pretty much the only serious problem with the G2's camera and this is an easy defect to fix with modding.
S4:
LG G2:
I've found OIS to be a massive blessing in this phone's camera; not only does it prevent your pictures from being ruined by hand shaking; it also reduces micro-shudders that blur your pictures without being consciously perceptible.
A pro to the LG G2 in terms of ergonomics is the ability to operate the camera from screen-off position by holding the volume down and taking the picture by clicking volume down again. This alone is for me a major reason to prefer the G2 over other phones. On anything 5"+ you need a feature like this to not make taking pictures a massive ergonomic pain due to the need to use 2 hands. I can't see myself ever going back to something without it.
It could entirely be specimen-dependent (there really is quite a bit of variation in quality between different specimens of the same model phone; not just where cameras are concerned), but I really just don't find any of what PP said to match my experiences. The lag was pretty much the only serious problem with the G2's camera and this is an easy defect to fix with modding.
S4:
LG G2:
I've found OIS to be a massive blessing in this phone's camera; not only does it prevent your pictures from being ruined by hand shaking; it also reduces micro-shudders that blur your pictures without being consciously perceptible.
A pro to the LG G2 in terms of ergonomics is the ability to operate the camera from screen-off position by holding the volume down and taking the picture by clicking volume down again. This alone is for me a major reason to prefer the G2 over other phones. On anything 5"+ you need a feature like this to not make taking pictures a massive ergonomic pain due to the need to use 2 hands. I can't see myself ever going back to something without it.
Last edited:
cronos
Diamond Member
- Nov 7, 2001
- 9,380
- 26
- 101
Ok, lesson number one PaulieP: learn to forum quote, okay! Next time I don't want to see that mess with the quotation marks 
Everyone who read that long post of yours can clearly see that you are the one who cherrypick. You kept repeating the exact same specific usage over and over (low light/bar/people partying at night/etc), basically disregarding any other usage. Don't get me wrong, it is an absolutely legitimate review if the conclusion is also for that specific usage, but you stated a generalized conclusion, as if because it's terrible for you, then it's terrible period. From what I've seen from your review, you haven't been able to provide proof how you were able to jump from specific usage to overall.
You did not say this in your review. And now that you did, did you actually try it and compare it with others? How does it compare?
See now this is exactly the type of comment that you should have included in a review (if you have the information, of course). So people who *do* like that sort of thing would take it as an advantage.
It is not a conjecture, it is what I got based on reading your review above! You were the one who didn't provide the information about other types of usage, and the few times you did mention something other than your 'typical' usage, you seem to be okay with it and did not have any complaints regarding the quality. So I made a conclusion based on the information available from you.
Wait, hang on a second. I may be missing something here. First, why do you need to root to install a camera app? Secondly, are you actually saying that after that long review the camera hardwdare is actually good and that it's just the software that's bad? All those times you were only criticizing the software?
I have zero dog in this fight as well. Don't have the G2, and have no interest in getting it.
Well I think the maximum of its potential is a very important thing, don't you think? In fact, it is absolutely essential. Terrible camera is terrible camera, you can't do anything about it. But bad implementation but excellent maximum potential is not bad at all, people may just have to tweak or do something with software for the outcome to come out excellent.
You're the reviewer, not me. As the reviewer, the burden of proof is on you to report these things. Don't ask me. I don't have the phone or even access to the phone.
Again, because apparently you know all there is to know about photography, unlike those other people who write the 'good' reviews, why don't you write a review that opposed them, instead of just focusing on your specific usage?
So dpreview said that, well that's very nice. But then anyone can copy paste a review from dpreview and post it here (it probably already has been posted above, I don't know). You might as well just said from the beginning that dpreview said this and that, and you agreed. We could easily just go on with the discussion after that. But nope, you stated that you reviewed the G2 camera and posted a long post about it, and now you have to defend it (which you've been doing pretty well, actually).
Everyone who read that long post of yours can clearly see that you are the one who cherrypick. You kept repeating the exact same specific usage over and over (low light/bar/people partying at night/etc), basically disregarding any other usage. Don't get me wrong, it is an absolutely legitimate review if the conclusion is also for that specific usage, but you stated a generalized conclusion, as if because it's terrible for you, then it's terrible period. From what I've seen from your review, you haven't been able to provide proof how you were able to jump from specific usage to overall.
You did not say this in your review. And now that you did, did you actually try it and compare it with others? How does it compare?
See now this is exactly the type of comment that you should have included in a review (if you have the information, of course). So people who *do* like that sort of thing would take it as an advantage.
It is not a conjecture, it is what I got based on reading your review above! You were the one who didn't provide the information about other types of usage, and the few times you did mention something other than your 'typical' usage, you seem to be okay with it and did not have any complaints regarding the quality. So I made a conclusion based on the information available from you.
Wait, hang on a second. I may be missing something here. First, why do you need to root to install a camera app? Secondly, are you actually saying that after that long review the camera hardwdare is actually good and that it's just the software that's bad? All those times you were only criticizing the software?
I have zero dog in this fight as well. Don't have the G2, and have no interest in getting it.
Well I think the maximum of its potential is a very important thing, don't you think? In fact, it is absolutely essential. Terrible camera is terrible camera, you can't do anything about it. But bad implementation but excellent maximum potential is not bad at all, people may just have to tweak or do something with software for the outcome to come out excellent.
You're the reviewer, not me. As the reviewer, the burden of proof is on you to report these things. Don't ask me. I don't have the phone or even access to the phone.
Again, because apparently you know all there is to know about photography, unlike those other people who write the 'good' reviews, why don't you write a review that opposed them, instead of just focusing on your specific usage?
So dpreview said that, well that's very nice. But then anyone can copy paste a review from dpreview and post it here (it probably already has been posted above, I don't know). You might as well just said from the beginning that dpreview said this and that, and you agreed. We could easily just go on with the discussion after that. But nope, you stated that you reviewed the G2 camera and posted a long post about it, and now you have to defend it (which you've been doing pretty well, actually).
mnewsham
Lifer
- Oct 2, 2010
- 14,539
- 428
- 136
Thats a random shot from my S3, looks ok. Its been compressed and resized no dobt by uploading/downloading and the rest but you get the idea.
I've got much better ones but they would take a modicum of effort to find. ^_^
I'm talking about more close up than that.
For example, the subject of this entire picture is maybe the size of the leaf that bee is sitting on.
Warning, picture is of marijuana
(NSFW)http://i.imgur.com/BK8XCBJ.jpg (NSFW)
Compared to the shots my S3 and my Iphone 4s were taking at this close up, the G2 camera is leaps and bounds better quality.
WelshBloke
Lifer
- Jan 12, 2005
- 32,883
- 11,026
- 136
Coin is 1.8 cm. That was a first attempt as well, I can try and sort out the depth of field if you want but you can see that the top edge is in focus.
mnewsham
Lifer
- Oct 2, 2010
- 14,539
- 428
- 136
Coin is 1.8 cm. That was a first attempt as well, I can try and sort out the depth of field if you want but you can see that the top edge is in focus.
Might be your lighting, but in my usage scenarios, I couldn't get it to focus properly.
(nsfw)
http://i.imgur.com/FK0qZW0.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/j9LImEn.jpg
(nsfw)
I deleted most of the attempts I made with my other phones because of how shitty they were, I could get a few that came out alright, but the G2 just instantly focuses nice and close.
single pictures from either phone are useless without a basis for comparison.
this post has a pic taken by S3 and G2 under exactly matching close-up conditions: http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?p=51099762&highlight=s3#post51099762
the winner is blatantly clear.
I wish I still had the pictures, but at one point I compared the S4 & G2 cam under dim evening conditions and the difference was like night and day. the S4's pic was a noise fest with hardly any texts on the book covers I photographed readable, whereas the G2's pic looked fine. Maybe the lack of noise is what they mean by "overprocessing" or whatever, but I know which of the two 99% of humanity would prefer.
this post has a pic taken by S3 and G2 under exactly matching close-up conditions: http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?p=51099762&highlight=s3#post51099762
the winner is blatantly clear.
I wish I still had the pictures, but at one point I compared the S4 & G2 cam under dim evening conditions and the difference was like night and day. the S4's pic was a noise fest with hardly any texts on the book covers I photographed readable, whereas the G2's pic looked fine. Maybe the lack of noise is what they mean by "overprocessing" or whatever, but I know which of the two 99% of humanity would prefer.
WelshBloke
Lifer
- Jan 12, 2005
- 32,883
- 11,026
- 136
I gave my G2 to my in-laws, but I recall being a bit underwhelmed with the camera (from the expectation it would be the best hands down):
- auto-focus seemed to hunt an awful lot, even in decently lit situations, often delaying when I could take the shot
- night images weren't as good as I expected compared to an iPhone 5, but were certainly better than my Note 3
Overall it seems like a decent camera, though the iPhone 5 seemed to still have a better overall camera across light conditions. In bright light/outdoors, I preferred my Note 3. For 2013, it certainly was a very good allround camera, though not the best. Unfortunately I've never been able to use a high end Nokia phone outside of the store.
The S5 camera looks pretty good across light conditions, though I'd expect the upcoming iPhone to continue to be better all-round, though by a smaller margin the 5S has over the S4/Note 3. I expect the G2 camera to slot in somewhere in between.
- auto-focus seemed to hunt an awful lot, even in decently lit situations, often delaying when I could take the shot
- night images weren't as good as I expected compared to an iPhone 5, but were certainly better than my Note 3
Overall it seems like a decent camera, though the iPhone 5 seemed to still have a better overall camera across light conditions. In bright light/outdoors, I preferred my Note 3. For 2013, it certainly was a very good allround camera, though not the best. Unfortunately I've never been able to use a high end Nokia phone outside of the store.
The S5 camera looks pretty good across light conditions, though I'd expect the upcoming iPhone to continue to be better all-round, though by a smaller margin the 5S has over the S4/Note 3. I expect the G2 camera to slot in somewhere in between.
WelshBloke
Lifer
- Jan 12, 2005
- 32,883
- 11,026
- 136
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter