Ex-Google VP: Android is the reason your phone takes worse pics than iPhone

[Deli]

13 minutes ago, Commodus said:

I do think Gundotra is making a claim about Android that doesn't entirely hold up, but at the same time: it's silly to insist that serious photographers 'must' always use a DSLR or mirrorless.

 

I have a good mirrorless cam, and it's even fairly portable.  But I don't want to carry it every time I think I might want to take photos.  As such, the camera quality on my phone matters a whole hell of a lot.  And yes, sometimes the photos you take will rival what you'd get from a dedicated camera.  For that matter, there have been shots I took with my phone that I would never have obtained with a DSLR, like shooting through a park fence (my phone fit through the fence, the mirrorless didn't).

 

I'm reminded of what I brought up in a similar argument a few years ago: would you insist that someone can't take driving seriously unless they buy a high-end car?  That you're only interested in basic commuting if you don't have a Porsche in the driveway?  No, of course not.  Likewise, it's possible to care deeply about photography (and produce good photos) without a DSLR or mirrorless camera on hand.  A good photographer is good whatever tool they're using.

Sort of agree to a certain extend. Serious photographers can use smartphone if the situations call for. But to say serious photographers "only" need a smartphone is a few steps too far.

 

The same can be said to your statement. Many photos are only possible with a DSLR/mirrorless with certain lenses. Which a smartphone will never able to produce.

 

 

[Commodus]

Just now, Deli said:

Sort of agree to a certain extend. Serious photographers can use smartphone if the situations call for. But to say serious photographers "only" need a smartphone is a few steps too far.

 

 

I could see it, in the same way that some photographers stick to film.  It's a conscious creative choice rather than a lack of knowledge.

[TheGleaner]

11 hours ago, dizmo said:

Haha, you think there will be an end to the smartphone?

 

Mmm. I'm not sure about the comparison with older digital cameras. Higher end phones produce some amazing results, and they're only getting better with dual camera systems. Hopefully we see 3 or 4 camera systems popping up in cameracentric phones in the near future. My Note5 produced pictures as good as most entry to mid range pocket cameras.

 

I haven't seen a true film camera in ages. I'd say its time has come and gone.

There will be something to replace it, they said the same about flip phones(and car phones). Film is still alive and kicking as Kodak and Kodak Alaris are still making film, and the latter is re-introducing/introducing more film. Ever heard of medium or large format? Lots of people still use film, as in my experience, there are things that you can do with film, but can't with a phone or digital camera.

[Mira Yurizaki]

At the end of the day, I'm just reminded of the takeaways from this video:

 

[vanished]

1 hour ago, Commodus said:

I do think Gundotra is making a claim about Android that doesn't entirely hold up, but at the same time: it's silly to insist that serious photographers 'must' always use a DSLR or mirrorless.

 

[snip]

 

At the end of the day his statement is just utterly stupid to a degree I haven't seen since that Australian politician claimed that the laws of mathematics didn't apply there.  Yes, what really matters is your skill as a photographer, not the gear, but if you're gonna talk gear, obviously you'd want something "professional", and here he is saying that anyone serious about photography should use an iphone.  WHAT!?  

[Zeeus]

Stupidest article.... as the Google Pixel devices have by far the best camera quality.... LMFAO fucking moronic VP

[mr moose]

I used to be part of a photography forum 12 years ago.  Back when point and shoot cameras were worse than today's phones.  Every month they would have a competition.  Every month would be a different theme. (Night, shadow, dusk, silloute, bright, lens flare etc). 9 times out of ten the guys with cheaper point and shoot cameras would win.   

 

Take home message:  is not the camera,  or the software.   After a certain point of quality (easily met by nearly all mid tier phones)  it all comes back to the photographer.  

[captain_to_fire]

On ‎08‎/‎01‎/‎2017 at 4:07 PM, scottyseng said:

Windows Phone owner...Lumia 950 cries...*goes back in corner*

 

[Drak3]

Anyone going to mention a psuedo irony of Android being the worse option for cameras and it started out as, and still is, a camera OS

[michaelocarroll007]

On 8/1/2017 at 10:25 AM, hey_yo_ said:

At least with most Android phones with manual controls, you can achieve long exposure shots with a tripod like this. 

 

 

With an iPhone, I need to download a separate app just to adjust exposure and others. 

Yes. If there's one thing the iPhone excels is automatic settings for the camera. I think the image signal processing inside the their proprietary A* series chips are good and I would say OIS implementation in the iPhone 7+ as I've seen from my friend is better than most phones especially in recording video. It has less of that "jello effect" unlike in most Android phones. 

 

I think crappy Android cameras ended with the LG G4 and Galaxy S6/S6 Edge in 2015. I think the notion of Android phones taking crappy photos started with Motorola. 

Defiently Starting then and after so Many good camera Android Phones have been released. Seems like they all just play leapfrog and now that its happend so much the gap between all the top Camera Flagship Phones including the iphone  is shrinking and shrinking that none really completely out classes the others.  

[michaelocarroll007]

17 hours ago, mr moose said:

I used to be part of a photography forum 12 years ago.  Back when point and shoot cameras were worse than today's phones.  Every month they would have a competition.  Every month would be a different theme. (Night, shadow, dusk, silloute, bright, lens flare etc). 9 times out of ten the guys with cheaper point and shoot cameras would win.   

 

Take home message:  is not the camera,  or the software.   After a certain point of quality (easily met by nearly all mid tier phones)  it all comes back to the photographer.  

Yes but a Great camera does help a shitty photo taker over a Bad Camera especially if its got a Good Auto Feature 

[Sauron]

I'm sorry, I can't take anyone who claims you should use a phone camera "if you care about great photography" seriously. You still cannot compare any phone's camera with a mirrorless or DSLR camera. The digital photography world has been moving towards larger and larger sensors, up to full frame in the high end, and yet there are people claiming the ant-sized sensor in their phone is "just as good" as those cameras. Please. It may be good enough in many situations, but let's not call it something it really isn't. If you want high quality photos, don't use your phone.

 

As for what he's saying on android, he's also full of shit - yes, google's APIs may not be on point, but lo and behold, manufacturers who care about the phone's camera have their own software on it. He may claim that the iphone 7 has the best picture quality in the smartphone market (although that would have to be tested), not that android phones must by definition have a worse camera.

On 8/1/2017 at 8:55 AM, hey_yo_ said:

In my opinion, Gundotra's argument that "if you want a good camera phone, one must get an iPhone" is a thing of the past. We have smartphone cameras on par or even surpassing the iPhone 7+'s camera like the Google Pixel and the Samsung Galaxy S8+. Also, if there's one thing I still hated about the iPhone aside from the lack of camera settings within the app is the lack of manual controls for the camera like ISO, white balance, shutter speed, exposure, etc. In order to achieve that, I need a third party app for that. 

 

But then, smartphone OEMs should stop saying, "this smartphone camera is as good as a DSLR". It's all bullcrap. Smartphones cannot cram inside a full frame sensor like a DSLR. While a smartphone like the iPhone maybe able to take more burst shots (10 frames/second) than a DSLR, a DSLR's optical zoom and large sensors can take in more details in a picture.

 

On 8/1/2017 at 10:49 AM, zMeul said:

if I need great photos, I use my DSLR

[flibberdipper]

I'm plenty satisfied with the cheap-ass camera on my LG Aristo... Sure it can't focus NEARLY as up-close-and-personal as something even as old as the S3 (which I managed to snap some pretty damn good "macro" shots with), but even for a cheap phone the detail and low-light is nothing to scoff at...

[suits]

It should say, "If you car about taking photos on your phone, you bough a red rocket and are going to be dropping thousands on add-on accessories. The end of DSLR... sort of...."

[mr moose]

5 hours ago, michaelocarroll007 said:

Yes but a Great camera does help a shitty photo taker over a Bad Camera especially if its got a Good Auto Feature 

Yes but a great camera in the hands of a shitty photographer will result in crisp high resolution pictures of boring things. 

[Phate.exe]

On 8/1/2017 at 3:34 AM, dizmo said:

Yes, it's a DSLR, not a pocket camera. Not everyone wants to carry around a DSLR.

And that would most definitely be why The lens plays a huge role.

I carried my DSLR (Literally nothing special, it's a Rebel XS with a couple filters and lenses) around a whole lot less once I got my Lumia 1020 (which was replaced with my Lumia 950).

 

On 8/1/2017 at 4:49 AM, zMeul said:

if I need great photos, I use my DSLR

Most of the time I can take pretty good pictures with my phone nowadays (if you can compose a good shot on a DSLR, you can compose a shot on a phone), but if I'm shooting anything fast moving, or I want to use a polarizing filter to cut through glare, or the lighting is weird, pretty much if I'm doing anything where I'm going to care about the camera settings beyond the basics I find myself wishing I had a real camera on hand.

 

For anyone who primarily leaves their DSLR on auto, yeah a phone can probably do the trick.

[Sauron]

9 minutes ago, Phate.exe said:

For anyone who primarily leaves their DSLR on auto, yeah a phone can probably do the trick.

But then those people probably don't care about "great photography" anyway.

[Phate.exe]

6 minutes ago, Sauron said:

But then those people probably don't care about "great photography" anyway.

Then they probably shouldn't have bought an SLR in the first place, and/or shouldn't be talking about how their iphone takes better pictures than a $600 camera from 2007, because they don't know what they're talking about.

[Sauron]

2 minutes ago, Phate.exe said:

Then they probably shouldn't have bought an SLR in the first place, and/or shouldn't be talking about how their iphone takes better pictures than a $600 camera from 2007, because they don't know what they're talking about.

Exactly. It seems to me the guy mentioned in the original post falls into this category.

[bcredeur97]

I've been saying this for a while now; but I think it's about time android gets rewritten honestly. 

 

it needs to be reworked. 

It has many issues and is quite inefficient compared to iOS. I like how its customizable and the whole layout of you can basically make it work on anything is great but it just needs some work!

 

and java needs to be kicked out of it along with all the inefficiencies and slowness it brings lol

 

As far as the camera thing goes... I can see that being a cause but im not too concerned..

[dizmo]

1 hour ago, Phate.exe said:

I carried my DSLR (Literally nothing special, it's a Rebel XS with a couple filters and lenses) around a whole lot less once I got my Lumia 1020 (which was replaced with my Lumia 950).

Yeah I heard the camera in that phone was supposed to be pretty amazing.

I've seen rumors of phones coming out with 3 camera modules. It starts! Can't wait for a big player to come out with one.

[themctipers]

6s+

 

my photos are so bad, not even iOS's autofocus will take a good photo in under 3 seconds, with the lens wiped. im dead serious, point and shoot is NOT an option for me for some reason. any photo ive taken is usually out of focus, and looks like a cheap point and shoot from 2009 

[Deli]

On 01/08/2017 at 11:14 PM, mr moose said:

I used to be part of a photography forum 12 years ago.  Back when point and shoot cameras were worse than today's phones.  Every month they would have a competition.  Every month would be a different theme. (Night, shadow, dusk, silloute, bright, lens flare etc). 9 times out of ten the guys with cheaper point and shoot cameras would win.   

 

Take home message:  is not the camera,  or the software.   After a certain point of quality (easily met by nearly all mid tier phones)  it all comes back to the photographer.  

If you were really into photography, you know certain types of photo are really hard to do with relatively wide lenses smartphone has. Even the so-called "telephoto lens" from is only 56mm equivalent. There is a reason why Canon, Nikon and the like have full range of more than 30 lenses for different types of photography. Good luck go birding, wildlife, sport or true macro(not close up) with your smartphone.

 

Yeah, sure, it's the skill of the photographer. Let's say a decent camera with the right lenses will make life a little easier.

 

p.s. can't stop laughing when read Apple calls 56mm equivalent "telephoto".

[Commodus]

5 minutes ago, Deli said:

If you were really into photography, you know certain types of photo are really hard to do with relatively wide lenses smartphone has. Even the so-called "telephoto lens" from is only 56mm equivalent. There is a reason why Canon, Nikon and the like have full range of more than 30 lenses for different types of photography. Good luck go birding, wildlife, sport or true macro(not close up) with your smartphone.

 

Yeah, sure, it's the skill of the photographer. Let's say a decent camera with the right lenses will make life a little easier.

 

p.s. can't stop laughing when read Apple calls 56mm equivalent "telephoto".

 

Well, 56mm is just on the border of what you get from telephoto zoom lenses (like my Sony 55-210mm), but I know what you mean.

 

And yeah, photography fans know that a phone camera won't (currently, at least) replace a fisheye lens, a macro lens, a (true) telephoto... but you don't have to be the sort who uses those specialized lenses to be a serious photographer.  Henri Cartier-Bresson?  He's mainly known for shooting with a 50mm lens.   Some photographers will use whatever equipment it takes to get the exact shot they have in their heads; others see the limitations of technology as a challenge that encourages them to think creatively.

[Phate.exe]

1 hour ago, dizmo said:

Yeah I heard the camera in that phone was supposed to be pretty amazing.

I've seen rumors of phones coming out with 3 camera modules. It starts! Can't wait for a big player to come out with one.

The 1020 was slow and extremely susceptible to lens flare, and the auto mode didn't work all that well.  Shot-to-shot time was awful.

 

All that being said, when you got it dialed in, it took some incredible pictures.  It was just very fiddly, and the shot-to-shot processing time was long enough to make it easy to miss things.  Also, it has a real xenon camera flash, and really good mic's on it when taking video.

 

The 950's 20MP camera is almost as good as the 41MP 1020 in overall quality, but it's way faster and the automatic mode works very well, so it's a million times more usable.