Topic Options
#1156682 - 09/01/2013 12:37 Actual Camera vs. Phone Camera quality
Stace84 Offline
Weather Freak

Registered: 17/04/2011
Posts: 110
Loc: Toowoomba
Hi all, not sure if anyone has come across the same thing, but I have been comparing the photo quality between the Sony (which is now playing up like merry hell, I think she's seen too many storms) and my HTC One XL, I have found the photos from the phone are actually sharper and a higher quality. How many of you have had (or have) a phone with a better quality camera than the camera you've shelled out a lot of money on?
_________________________
The best way to conquer our fears is to face them head on, and go Leroy Jenkins on it.

Top
#1156770 - 09/01/2013 15:37 Re: Actual Camera vs. Phone Camera quality [Re: Stace84]
Invictus Offline
Weather Freak

Registered: 12/01/2011
Posts: 87
Loc: Brisbane, Qld
What's your method of comparison between the two images?
_________________________
Matt.
http://mattduncan.redbubble.com

Top
#1157548 - 11/01/2013 17:28 Re: Actual Camera vs. Phone Camera quality [Re: Invictus]
Stace84 Offline
Weather Freak

Registered: 17/04/2011
Posts: 110
Loc: Toowoomba
Overall quality. I have taken pics with the Sony on Autofocus (the lens and sensor are cleaned regularly), as well as the phone, and overall the camera on the HTC has proven to give a sharper image without fail. I'm scratching my head on this one, I'm paying a rental fee of $60 per month on a camera that is nowhere near as good as the tiny little lens on my phone. I'll update the camera, but I don't mind the whole decent phone camera thing...
_________________________
The best way to conquer our fears is to face them head on, and go Leroy Jenkins on it.

Top
#1157549 - 11/01/2013 17:32 Re: Actual Camera vs. Phone Camera quality [Re: Stace84]
Ben Quinn (BSCH) Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 23/06/2001
Posts: 2987
Loc: Caboolture, ~45km north of Bri...
Are you able to post photos taken with each camera? I'd be interested to see the comparison smile

Top
#1157598 - 11/01/2013 20:02 Re: Actual Camera vs. Phone Camera quality [Re: Ben Quinn (BSCH)]
RoadkillNZ Offline
Weather Freak

Registered: 19/01/2011
Posts: 362
Loc: Jimboomba, Qld
I just looked at Wikipedia for details on your HTC One XL and saw that it has a 8 megapixel camera, just wondering if you know the megapixels that the Sony has, or what model it is to look it up. Because if it is less than 8MP there is your explaination right there.
_________________________
Weather at Jimboomba from the place opposite mine (So I don't have to fix my weather gauges) -
www.jimboombaweather.com.au

Wind is under reported because it is sheltered by trees.

Top
#1157599 - 11/01/2013 20:09 Re: Actual Camera vs. Phone Camera quality [Re: RoadkillNZ]
Ben Quinn (BSCH) Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 23/06/2001
Posts: 2987
Loc: Caboolture, ~45km north of Bri...
Megapixels are only part of the story though, especially when your talking about 'clarity' in an image which ultimately has little to do with the number of pixels in the photo and everything to do with the lens in front of the sensor. A 2mp camera can have far superior clarify and perceived quality than an 18mp camera if the 2mp camera has a high quality lens.

Top
#1157694 - 12/01/2013 02:14 Re: Actual Camera vs. Phone Camera quality [Re: Stace84]
Invictus Offline
Weather Freak

Registered: 12/01/2011
Posts: 87
Loc: Brisbane, Qld
Originally Posted By: Stace84
Overall quality. I have taken pics with the Sony on Autofocus (the lens and sensor are cleaned regularly), as well as the phone, and overall the camera on the HTC has proven to give a sharper image without fail. I'm scratching my head on this one, I'm paying a rental fee of $60 per month on a camera that is nowhere near as good as the tiny little lens on my phone. I'll update the camera, but I don't mind the whole decent phone camera thing...


OK ... but how are you comparing the images to determine that the phone images are sharper?
As Ben mentioned, it would be good if you could show us some images to compare (preferably of the same scene, to compare apples to apples, so to speak).

It also might be a good idea to let us know how experienced and/or knowledgeable you are regarding cameras/photography. Point being, It might be something as simple as using an unsuitable aperture on the dslr.

Along the lines of what Ben mentioned, (which I totally agree with) regarding lens quality: Can you give any details on the dslr and lens?
_________________________
Matt.
http://mattduncan.redbubble.com

Top
#1161234 - 20/01/2013 23:17 Re: Actual Camera vs. Phone Camera quality [Re: Invictus]
Stace84 Offline
Weather Freak

Registered: 17/04/2011
Posts: 110
Loc: Toowoomba
My experience photography wise? I haven't done any courses, so the numbers are still a foreign language to me (I'm slowly learning, however I have shelved that to focus on my US based meteorology study in the meantime). I play with settings alot until I'm happy with how it looks. The Sony only has the basic twin lens kit, I have only used the 18-55mm lens (the other is this short little thing which I find to be utter crap).

The Sony is also what's called a Compact SLR (pretty much the love child of the cheap compact camera and the DSLR). It's 14.2 megapixels. It was one of the first run (I think, I never saw them until I saw the one I got. I still think I should have spent the extra and got the NEX-5, which does HD photos AND video) NEX-3's, so it's getting on a bit. I'll be upgrading once I have the money (atm it's all going into keeping my horse fed and paying bills). I just think it's great that I don't necessarily have to lug the Sony around to take a great spur of the moment shot! Some of my better weather photos have actually been captured on the HTC. Goes to show how far phone technology has come, I mean, hell, they were using VGA cameras how long ago?
_________________________
The best way to conquer our fears is to face them head on, and go Leroy Jenkins on it.

Top
#1161951 - 21/01/2013 22:48 Re: Actual Camera vs. Phone Camera quality [Re: Stace84]
Naththo Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 11/09/2001
Posts: 1474
Loc: West Lakes (Adelaide western s...
Quality of photos are got to do with everything including sensor size, lens, mega pixel, dynamic range for landscape, colours per bit for portrait, ISO for sports shooting and low lighting. The better quality you get: Bigger sensor size, higher dynamic range for landscape (not in HDR mode no), higher colours per bit for portrait, better low noise high ISO for sports shooting and low lighting, decent quality lens (not the bundle lens kit) and good photography skills, you get decent picture. smile Higher mega pixel are meant to be convenience for photos enlargement print most of time though.

Top
#1169787 - 01/02/2013 16:52 Re: Actual Camera vs. Phone Camera quality [Re: Naththo]
Yowie Offline
Weather Freak

Registered: 09/03/2004
Posts: 85
Loc: Hastings, VIC (but from Dapto ...
Yup. Best digital camera I had was a Vivitar camera that had a whopping 1.3 MP because it was the top of the range compact camera at the time.

My current happy-snapper, my Galaxy S2 smartphone, has an 8MP camera. Its photos are adequate for almost all my photography needs. However, for crispness, colour and contrast on a screen and a 6x4 print, and the manual settings available when the auto-mode can't mindread, even the best camera phone (which apparently, I have) can only do so much.

Top
#1169872 - 01/02/2013 20:56 Re: Actual Camera vs. Phone Camera quality [Re: Yowie]
Things Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 29/11/2009
Posts: 8400
Loc: Blair Athol, SA
I have a SGS2 as well, and I find it does bloody great photos for a phone camera. I think one of the best to date would be this one:



Technology has come a long way, and I'm glad those stupid blurry phone photos are becoming a thing of the past smile

One thing to remember with phone cameras though, they always seem to have the stupid habit of putting the camera lens right where your fingers go, so cleaning the lens constantly is required if you want decent pics from it.

Top
#1169911 - 01/02/2013 22:41 Re: Actual Camera vs. Phone Camera quality [Re: Things]
Stace84 Offline
Weather Freak

Registered: 17/04/2011
Posts: 110
Loc: Toowoomba
Wow, that's a nice clear pic... Believe it or not my best weather pics come from the HTC. Mum also has the Galaxy 2, the only non HTC Android in the house. Dad has an iPhone. *gag*

I agree with you on the lens cleaning Things, I'm constantly wiping it, it either ends up with dried sweat, oil, or mill run (a type of horse feed) on it.
_________________________
The best way to conquer our fears is to face them head on, and go Leroy Jenkins on it.

Top
#1177971 - 27/02/2013 16:22 Re: Actual Camera vs. Phone Camera quality [Re: Stace84]
Blizzard Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 31/03/2001
Posts: 10341
Loc: Blue Mountains
I've got an S2 as well as I wanted a decent P&S in a phone without paying the over-cooked price of an iPhone. You can get an S2 for $369, which is a lot cheaper than an iPhone. S2 has HD video and a 8MP stills camera. Its very good for the money.

Here's a quick pano I did without a tripod, obviously, using my phone's panorama software.


https://twitter.com/BlackheathWx/status/306201413548122112/photo/1

PS: Thanks for the reminder re cleaning the lense, I often forget. I have an Otterbox case which keeps the lense a few mm off the desk when laying flat, a good investment, IMO.


Edited by Blizzard (27/02/2013 16:24)
_________________________
BoM Storm Spotter, snow chaser, webmaster for www.blackheathweather.com

Top
#1179025 - 02/03/2013 01:14 Re: Actual Camera vs. Phone Camera quality [Re: Stace84]
Things Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 29/11/2009
Posts: 8400
Loc: Blair Athol, SA
Not bad. Would be nicer if the S2 could actually just take a sequence of images instead of just recording video, would get much larger, higher resolution and clearer images. But the fact a phone even has that feature to begin with is pretty cool. I've played with the timelapse settings a few times.

Top
#1180083 - 03/03/2013 23:29 Re: Actual Camera vs. Phone Camera quality [Re: Blizzard]
Stace84 Offline
Weather Freak

Registered: 17/04/2011
Posts: 110
Loc: Toowoomba
PS: Thanks for the reminder re cleaning the lense, I often forget. I have an Otterbox case which keeps the lense a few mm off the desk when laying flat, a good investment, IMO. [/quote]

No worries. I'll look into getting an Otterbox, would be great on a trail ride.
_________________________
The best way to conquer our fears is to face them head on, and go Leroy Jenkins on it.

Top
#1180322 - 04/03/2013 17:26 Re: Actual Camera vs. Phone Camera quality [Re: Stace84]
Sandfly Offline
Weather Freak

Registered: 18/10/2010
Posts: 828
Loc: Rockhampton
You can get a camera in a phone but can you get a phone in a camera?

I cant wait till they put cellular phone conectivity in a camera like a Nikon D7000/D800. ;-0
_________________________
"The harder you work the luckier someone else becomes".


Top
#1222627 - 27/11/2013 23:28 Re: Actual Camera vs. Phone Camera quality [Re: Stace84]
Stace84 Offline
Weather Freak

Registered: 17/04/2011
Posts: 110
Loc: Toowoomba
Sorry to bring this thread back to life guys, the Sony has now been retired (she's kaput). I'm now the proud owner of a Canon 650D. It's a fantastic camera, although weighs a ton compared to the old Sony. My horse seems to enjoy it too, the poser. LOL.

I've already broken it in for horses, motorsport and weather. Seriously need a tripod and lightning trigger...
_________________________
The best way to conquer our fears is to face them head on, and go Leroy Jenkins on it.

Top
#1222750 - 29/11/2013 01:16 Re: Actual Camera vs. Phone Camera quality [Re: Stace84]
aussiestormfreak Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 02/02/2011
Posts: 5527
Loc: Melbourne (Belgrave); Corryong...
My Nokia 200 takes okayish photos but image quality is greatly reduced as you zoom in, but at least it's an effective option if I want to quickly take a photo on the run and then upload it to Facebook (assuming I can get an Internet connection).

Otherwise, I use two Panasonic Lumix digital cameras, a DMC-FZ18 and a DMC-TZ20. The FZ18, which has an 18x optical zoom, takes better photos overall, especially when the flash is used in poor light or darkness and indoors, but I prefer to use the TZ20 because it's smaller in size and weight. And aside from having a 16x optical zoom, it takes amazing sunrise and sunset photos, can record HD video (especially handy during thunderstorms and lightning activity), is able to take 3D and panoramic photos, and is able to geotag the photos, thanks to the in-built GPS (including coordinates ie. latitude and longitude, country, state/territory/province, local government area/county/shire/city council, town/city/suburb/village, and landmark)... both cameras come in handy when weather-watching and storm chasing! wink

On the downside, the FZ18 has got bits of dust stuck on the inside of the lens and I have been unable to clean them off, but usually I can't see them in my photos, unless the flash has been used poke

As for the TZ20, from time to time bits of dust get 'sucked' into the lens and can't be removed, so I have to put up with them until they disappear! Plus the images can look horribly 'grainy' in poor light or darkness, even with the flash used! frown


Edited by aussiestormfreak (29/11/2013 01:22)

Top
#1250486 - 23/03/2014 04:56 Re: Actual Camera vs. Phone Camera quality [Re: Stace84]
KeanRJ Offline
Cloud Gazer

Registered: 15/03/2014
Posts: 8
Loc: Perth
I think that spending a lot of money on a DSL camera is only worthwhile if you are going to shoot in RAW mode to process your pictures at home, otherwise you better save the money.

Top


Who's Online
25 registered (redbucket, bip333, WeatherNut96, meedee, Darren J, Thrombus, S.Novaehollandia, Locke, whiztler, bundybear, Jettnewfoundland, petethemoskeet, justme, cold@28, Pama, Eevo, Snapper22lb, sixties, Taylsy, Phantom, Keethy, RichieM, Timbuck, 2 invisible), 381 Guests and 4 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Today's Birthdays
Ian123, Kel M, kelmac, Kirk, Lunar, Scruffy, Skipper07
Forum Stats
29193 Members
32 Forums
23564 Topics
1446496 Posts

Max Online: 2925 @ 02/02/2011 22:23
Satellite Image