Why does a 3 year old $150 phone have a far superior camera to an iPhone X?

>itoddlers ITT defending their $1000 piece of shit vs a $150 phone from 4 years ago

Attached: 1523034907984.gif (200x150, 261K)

That's not blurry, it's grain, and it's because they intentionally took the photo with worse lighting on the iphone because samsung pays their shills. Use a real news source, jack ass.

How can iShit even compete?

Attached: 1506408529984.png (615x592, 458K)

>itoddler literally making up bullshit on the spot to defend his gay fruit cult

Attached: 1514618782804.gif (500x384, 290K)

Look at the photo, it's grainy, which is a result of it haivng to raise the ISO to let more light in. Do some research.

>that shadow on the iphone x

Attached: 1523340305049.gif (300x236, 1.82M)

DELET

Attached: 1524239769089.jpg (813x1402, 176K)

Only retards buy a phone to use its camera. Why not just buy a camera instead??

pretty much this
if the camera is your priority, then you don't want a phone

The five stages of iToddler grief:

[x] Denial. [x] Anger. [x] Bargaining [_] Depression.

[_] Acceptance.

have you considered that it's nosier because it's using an inferior sensor with more noise at a lower iso rating?

I own a Nexus 6P, retard.
If you're buying a phone for it's camera, buy a fucking camera.

fpbp

>it's grainy, which is a result of it haivng to raise the ISO to let more light in.

It's only ISO 100.
That's the lowest ISO on most serious cameras.

Also they are all shot at the same light.
If it has to raise ISO more it's because it has a shitty lens, which is key part of the camera.
It's like complaining a Ferrari is faster because it has a bigger engine.

>Final stage isn't [_] Suicide
I am disappoint.

Just because they say it is doesn't mean that's true, look at that and tell me that's low ISO

what's the site?

samsung.com

>[x] Denial.

What's worse: in the low light shots the shutter speed drops to just 1/5s
Rendering it practically unusable without a tripod.

Link is in the OP, silly.

This is such a nice way to compare phone cameras.
It'd be cool if they added vintage phones so it becomes clear how much things have improved.

They have photos from much older phones but they were shots of flat pictures, so it's hard to compare them to new phones unless they redo all the old phones with the new setup.

How can iShit even compete?

Attached: 1516021835451.png (612x875, 684K)

How will they ever recover?

fpbp

nice damage control

Why can only iPhone's take good face shots?

Attached: maxresdefault.jpg (1280x720, 118K)

>take photo with ishit at 200% zoom
>s-s-see! it has more detail!!!11
Back to your shitting street iPajeet.

Attached: bom.png (1920x1080, 667K)

B-b-but muh Snapchat on android using s-s-screengrab!!

Attached: sad-computer-meme-my-face-when-264569.jpg (211x238, 16K)

>went through this yesterday
>proven shop

Easy report

Inexpensive, excellent, small cameras is like... the only good thing that has come out of smartphones though.

I'm so fucking hyped for the Mate 20. You think US will still be trying to boycott them then??

>gsmarena.com/piccmp.php3?idType=4&idPhone1=6849&idPhone2=8858&idPhone3=7995
To be fair to the iphone guy, somethings fucky about their test bench, pic related proves it.

>Iso on google pixel 2 is 66
>Shutter speed is 1/99

>Iso on google pixel 2 xl is 160
>Yes shutter speed is half?

at 160 iso, the shutter speed should be more than doubled vs the phone with half the iso, certainly not doubling the iso, the HALVING the shutter speed. This could be explained away if it wasn't that these two cameras should be pretty identical.

I think that the most reasonable explanation is that the people testing these cameras really has no fucking clue what they're doing at all in terms of lighting and keeping it consistent

Attached: Screen Shot 2018-07-12 at 8.12.07 PM.png (1156x172, 36K)

>they didn't realize that was talking about the S6
Those threads make Jow Forums behave like a bunch of monkey eater brazilians.

Really made me think.

Lmao, the fuck is this?

Attached: Trash.png (2318x226, 15K)

>cuckPhones using the same shit tier Sony sensor for 4 years
L
M
A
O

iToddlers will defend this.

Not even iToddlers could defend this.

>27 IPs
>49 replies

I wonder.

Attached: sundurr.jpg (960x1248, 340K)

literally click on the link

except the cost to manufacture is $350

samsung’s OLED panels alone are $150-250 alone because they want to gouge Apple for every penny for the lawsuits

>ishit x is literally $100 garbage
lmao

Doubling and the iso means halving shutter speed that is correct. Try it on your phone camera or get blasted at /p/

ITT assblasted itoddlers

>proving his point
>comparing 2 images with different shutter speeds
need a better argument desu

>literally every other part of the image looks sharper and true toned with the iPhoneX
nice cherry picking faggot pajeet

>t. blind ipajeet

I miss my Samsung phones (had an S6 and S7). The software was garbage, but the camera is just amazing. I'm rocking a Moto X4 and it just doesn't compare.

How are the cameras on Sony phones nowadays (cant' afford S9).

>even the chink phone with digital camera has better lightning than the iphone

>even a 160€ phone obliterates the iPhone X

Attached: 1523302403541.png (762x726, 890K)

>somethings fucky about their test bench
>the people testing these cameras really has no fucking clue what they're doing at all in terms of lighting and keeping it consistent
nothing is fucky about the setup, read the description
>The first two camera samples are taken at the lowest ISO for the cameraphone and we hand-pick the best image from many samples.
>The third sample [low light] is shot on Auto mode in a room lit at 28 lux.
google don't let you control the camera manually so either gsmarena are lying about their test setup by making it appear like the cheaper pixel is better or the more likely solution is that the black box that controls googles camera exposure is fucking with the aperture and you just never see it because they're not listing the aperture of the test

Nobody looks at their photos fully zoomed in, compare 2 pictures fullscreen and iphone cameras will blow every other away with superior color accuracy.
Clickbait thread

You cannot change aperture on a smartphone. It's fixed. It doesn't even automatically change.

Forgot pic, only iphone doesn't look like gray or overexposed shit

Attached: Capture.jpg (612x866, 88K)

derp, good point, didn't even think about that
at least the exposure differences are mostly consistent, the pixel 2 xl requires +2.3ev on the low and good light tests and +2 ev on the iso 12233 test, maybe they did fuck up the test and did them at a different time of day or something dumb

Pixel 2 beats all of your stuff

> Cries about a zoom that he thinks is tehre
> Ignores differences in shutterspeed posted on photos

I see what you did there, Android-whore.

>t. ipajeet

ITODDLERS BTFO

66 iso is lower than 160 iso, which means you would need a slower shutter speed. However, they had a lower iso and a faster shutter speed. That makes absolutely no sense, and that is a massive difference in the amount of light in that scene. I am /p/, bitch.

Well, the lighting situations are clearly very different, so these tests are no good

>more noise reduction means better camera
really makes you think

Yes, there must be some big huge conspiracy against Apple. It can't possibly be because they've been using the same cheap shitty image processor from Sony for 4 years, and desperately add post processing effects to make up for the bottom of the barrel garbage sensors they use to get maximum profit out of gullible iToddlers.

>worse pictures mean better camera
really made me think

Attached: 1504722923428.jpg (540x540, 52K)

Can you describe in technical terms why the iPhone X's camera is worese?

>Apple keeps using Sony made sensors
>This means Apple is using the same exact sensor
Hmmm

At least you tried, iPajeet.

Attached: _20180713_141050.jpg (1080x1130, 96K)

Where's iPhone X on that list?

>budget ZTE phones have newer and better sensors than the latest shitPhones

Attached: 1515651775988.png (441x302, 58K)

How will iToddlers ever recover?

I seriously doubt they changed the lighting conditions during the test.

More likely the iPhone X is, for some reason, limited to just ISO 100.
And to compensate it artificially boosts the brightness in post.
This also explains the shit performance.

I'm not even saying anything about the iphone. I'm simply showing that the google pixel 2 and XL version, showed two very different camera settings in a shot that was supposed to be the same.

>ishit
Found your problem.

fpbp

Check htc u11 instead

>htc

What phone should I get if I don't want Applel garbage or Samsung bloat?

Attached: 1523635839441.png (259x335, 89K)

Pixel 2 XL

wew lad, way to cherry pick part of the photo. samsung is higher MP, so of course it SHOULD be more detailed in well lit conditions. That said, the iphone does look pretty grainy here. look in other areas of the photo... the iphone looks fine. look at lowlight. iphone blows samshit out of the water.

iphone is not capped at 100 iso. can shoot as low as 20 iso in good lighting (this is not perfect lighting in the test bench)

idk faggot, you tell me. every review says the mate 10 photos overall look like dog ass despite pixel peeping looking great.

Apple isn't even bothering to post the iPhone X'e sensor, but my guess would be the same shit-tier sensor based on specs lmao

2 rupees have been deposited to your iTunes account.

thistbhfam

Phone cameras in general are a total joke and the differences minimal at best.

N8 isn't too far away from the modern cameras and the N8 isn't too different from the N82 which came out late 2007
Actually my N8 beat the Xperia Z3c in low light conditions when I compared them.
Until sensor sizes start increasing, phone cameras are going to remain more or less stagnant.
I have a feeling they're being gimped to protect the lower end camera market.

2 rupees have been deposited into your iTunes account.

S8 with Lineage.

Attached: Screenshot_Chrome_20180714-122751.png (1080x1920, 1.07M)

>oversaturated samshit
>washed out colors on ifag(look at the blue stripe)
>meanwhile, a 350$ 2015 non flagship bootlooping shit does the job just fine
yeah tell me how the phone market isn't a joke

>cuckPhone X's closest competition is $100 burner phones
lmao

>only iphone doesn't look gray
the poster is gray, friendo. you_tried.png