Which CELL PHONE has the BEST CAMERA? (Page 7): DXO is just fine. Their data is accurate. The problem people have is they go by the overall score, which can be misleading. You search...

Canisdirus

Strodav wrote:

I have and continue to use them for $thousands$ of purchases both cameras and glass, so I am concerned about you comment. Please share what you see as their bias. Maybe I shouldn't use them anymore.

DXO is just fine. Their data is accurate.
The problem people have is they go by the overall score, which can be misleading.
You search for what is important to you, and choose accordingly.
Some folks just are not up to the task and take the lazy way out.

Highmesa

I have used the IPhone for years and found it to produce some of my best photos, if not enlarged beyond 11"x14". This could be because it shoots natively in JPG instead of Raw. The Apps are great anymore and are much easier to use, and tons cheaper, than Lightroom or Photoshop. Shoot, it even makes phone calls.

nikonbrain Loc: Crystal River Florida

Strodav wrote:

I have and continue to use them for $thousands$ of purchases both cameras and glass, so I am concerned about you comment. Please share what you see as their bias. Maybe I shouldn't use them anymore.

The scores are not rating cameras , to phones , or the tests for each would be the same ! Taking the same shots and identical crops . The quality of the crop on the phones are terrible verses real crops from cameras the images are blocky pixelization is terrible do you notice no comparison in cameras vrs phones . It's apples to apples , not apple to oranges . The scores on cameras are cameras compared to cameras . Not intended to be camera scores to phones....phones are not intended for use of fine art photography, I mean come on if you hired someone to shoot your daughters wedding for $5000.00 would you be o.k. if he showed up with 2 iPhones I mean really.!!!!!

dsmeltz Loc: Philadelphia

Canisdirus wrote:

DXO is just fine. Their data is accurate.
The problem people have is they go by the overall score, which can be misleading.
You search for what is important to you, and choose accordingly.
Some folks just are not up to the task and take the lazy way out.

That and they do controlled lab testing. While I know that many UHHers do all of their shooting in labs, I do absolutely none of mine there. Heck, if I could get my wife to sit still for a selfie for as long as the test charts sit still for DxO, I would be a happy man.

Canisdirus

dsmeltz wrote:

That and they do controlled lab testing. While I know that many UHHers do all of their shooting in labs, I do absolutely none of mine there. Heck, if I could get my wife to sit still for a selfie for as long as the test charts sit still for DxO, I would be a happy man.

Yeah, same here. I gave up on taking pics of the wife. I'll stick to wildlife ... it's safer.

CRT

I just switched from an LG flip phone to an Apple seven. Smart phones are from the devil!

cambriaman Loc: Central CA Coast

rmalarz wrote:

I'm still trying to figure out how to make/get phone calls with my DSLR. Then, I can scrap my cellphone.
--Bob

GOOD reply!

Strodav Loc: Houston, Tx

Canisdirus wrote:

DXO is just fine. Their data is accurate.
The problem people have is they go by the overall score, which can be misleading.
You search for what is important to you, and choose accordingly.
Some folks just are not up to the task and take the lazy way out.

I agree. On camera bodies they clearly say, and only measure the sensor and not anything about the AF system, fps, weight, size, features, ... The overall score on lenses is pretty useless as well. Don't know about cell phone rating.

Canisdirus

Strodav wrote:

I agree. On camera bodies they clearly say, and only measure the sensor and not anything about the AF system, fps, weight, size, features, ... The overall score on lenses is pretty useless as well. Don't know about cell phone rating.

There's a very good reason why they don't test AF, weight, FPS.
There's nothing to test. It's obvious by the given stats.
The lens data is indispensable. I have found that all of my lenses correlate to their test data.
When they say the siggy 18-35mm is sharper than my tamron 90mm Macro ... I concur in the real world.
People just have to learn to understand the data they are looking at..... some cannot.

Strodav Loc: Houston, Tx

Canisdirus wrote:

There's a very good reason why they don't test AF, weight, FPS.
There's nothing to test. It's obvious by the given stats.
The lens data is indispensable. I have found that all of my lenses correlate to their test data.
When they say the siggy 18-35mm is sharper than my tamron 90mm Macro ... I concur in the real world.
People just have to learn to understand the data they are looking at..... some cannot.

I agree their sharpness scores are good, but the total score is a combination of some factors that are either corrected in the camera or easily corrected in PP like distortion and vignetting.

Canisdirus

Strodav wrote:

I agree their sharpness scores are good, but the total score is a combination of some factors that are either corrected in the camera or easily corrected in PP like distortion and vignetting.

I also agree with what you posted.
But they are simply giving the lens data that exists straight from the get-go, sans PP.
Most can be corrected PP.
But if you have a near tie in other areas, say with a wide angle, it's nice to know if one is better out of the box than another.

DXO is still a great way to investigate where your money should be invested.

Naptown Gaijin

Plieku69 wrote:

I am waiting for the Note 10 this fall. My Note 8 is OK, but the new S 10 is light years better.

Note 10 or S 10?

dsmeltz Loc: Philadelphia

Canisdirus wrote:

There's a very good reason why they don't test AF, weight, FPS.
There's nothing to test. It's obvious by the given stats.
The lens data is indispensable. I have found that all of my lenses correlate to their test data.
When they say the siggy 18-35mm is sharper than my tamron 90mm Macro ... I concur in the real world.
People just have to learn to understand the data they are looking at..... some cannot.

As long as you are shooting in a sterile environment like a lab, then, yes you need not test AF or FPS. If you shoot sports, wildlife, BIF, moving children, events, etc.... then the focus system becomes the key element. If a lens cannot acquire focus F A S T it does not matter how well it performs in a lab since most of your shots will be out of focus.

Canisdirus

dsmeltz wrote:

As long as you are shooting in a sterile environment like a lab, then, yes you need not test AF or FPS. If you shoot sports, wildlife, BIF, moving children, events, etc.... then the focus system becomes the key element. If a lens cannot acquire focus F A S T it does not matter how well it performs in a lab since most of your shots will be out of focus.

I agree to an extent, but FPS is well ... FPS. Nothing to measure.
AF is different, but honestly, who decides on a millisecond difference?
For most folks, knowing it is Gear driven, SSM or SSMII is enough.
I've watched a TON of you tubes on lenses, and literally, no one bothers to put a stopwatch to AF.
It's enough to know the AF is either okay, fast, or ... really fast.

dsmeltz Loc: Philadelphia

Canisdirus wrote:

I agree to an extent, but FPS is well ... FPS. Nothing to measure.
AF is different, but honestly, who decides on a millisecond difference?
For most folks, knowing it is Gear driven, SSM or SSMII is enough.
I've watched a TON of you tubes on lenses, and literally, no one bothers to put a stopwatch to AF.
It's enough to know the AF is either okay, fast, or ... really fast.

Actually a lot of reviewers do measure the fps. And there is something to measure; the number of frames per second. On the other hand my comment centered on focus acquisition when taking a photo which is measured by the resulting photo of a moving object being in focus in the final image. Which, by the way, is pretty much all that matters in the end. Is my photo in sufficient focus for my needs? DxO does not help with that. Their process assumes focus while in the bulk of real world photography focus is the one thing you need to be able to rely on. Most of the aberrations measured by DxO are fixable in post. So, while DxO provides some comparable information that might help you make a decision in the rare instance that two lenses acquire focus equally well, you still need to know the ability of a lens to focus well before that point and in most cases the focusing ability of the lens will have already determined your choice. Unless you limit yourself to studio, lab, landscape and a little outdoor portrait photography.