Dude, it's not about the megapixels - it could have less than the "old" version and still be much better. Albeit I'm not sure it's really worth a new device for just a different camera - while AF should be better (faster) and OIS is always nice I don't think the old camera was particularly bad.
I read the headline and thought "Smart move, coming out with a Lumia 1020 spiritual successor three days before MS reveals their non-successors to it". Unfortunately, not so much.
Megapixels are over. PDAF and OIS are the new hotness and will deliver more usable shots under conditions of marginal light or excessive motion.
But the real determinants of image quality are still numbers they're not publishing (dynamic range and SNR) or things that can't be reduced to a number (quality and "artfulness" of the image processing chain).
I actually expected them dropping the pixel count in half, or nearly in half while upping the sensor size in order to up the pixel size. And the fact that the pixel size stayed the same or even gotten smaller, I see nothing but IR & OIS as a real upgrade to the camera and not really a truly "supreme" upgrade.
Well if you check out a cpu only benchmark you will see that helio x10 (mt6795) is faster than snapdragon 810, 808, 805,801 etc trailing behind exynos 7420 only. It is the graphics where it loses to snapdragon 810.
Something is wrong in the table, if the megapixels went up, either the pixel size would need to go down, or the sensor size would need to go up. Neither of those happened.
Although the sensor size is the same, the processes are different. I'm not able to access any in-depth analysis of the Toshiba T4KA7 sensor though so I can't comment on what differences lead to the larger number of pixels on the IMX230.
Looking up the specs on GSM Arena, it turns out to be something rather mundane. The new model has a squarer sensor giving more total area for the same size number. The M9+ Supreme uses a 4:3 sensor vs the base model using a slightly wider/shorter 1.43:1 sensor. (5376 x 3752 1.43:1 vs 5248 x 3936 1.33:1)
Am I mis-remembering from astronomy classes I took a dozen+ years ago, or have the conventions for specifying sensors changed at some point over the interval? What I remember from then was the pixel size including the spacing material as well as the part actually collecting photons.
This was relevant there because the sensors in dedicated astro-imaging cameras were generally available in two types: Blooming and anti-blooming. The specified size of the sensor, pixel count and pixel size were identical between the two; the difference was that anti-bloom sensors (like what you'd use in a conventional camera) used significantly larger amounts of the pixel area for insulation. This would keep bright point sources (aka stars) compact even on long exposures; but required significantly longer exposure times than bloom sensors because more of the photons were lost because they landed in the dead zones between.
Astronomy (especially back then) was entirely concerned with CCDs vs. today's CMOS cameras, but they have similar concerns. Generally a good pixel will not crowd out the active area of a pixel with additional features (electronics or isolation barriers). They overcome this quite a bit by using microlenses over the pixels to focus light onto the active part of the pixel and by using back-side illumination where they fabricate the circuitry on the front side and have the active pixel area on the back side.
Really expecting good things to happen with this change??? If this change doesn't help HTC, i think they are in for a grave danger of loosing THE Asian market as well..... When will this be available in India???
Software support on Android devices is still such a disappointment.. As much as I hate Apple, at least they are supporting their devices for years, updating devices all the way back from 2011 to ios9. On Android, manufacturers seem to support their devices for 18-24 months, tops. That is just sad. For example, the HTC Sensation was released in Q2 2011. It got its last big update in Q1 2012. Yes I know people can get custom ROMs, but the general public doesn't know about that, and very few have the patience and skills to install those.
What I'm trying to say here is that Android manufacturers keep releasing new devices too fast. It's no wonder they don't have the resources to update older models when there are hundreds of device models out there, literally. Using GSM Arena's phone finder, we see that Samsung has released 238 different Android phone models between 2011 and now. Apple has released 9 phones in that period of time. It's a lot cheaper to keep 9 models updated than it is to keep 238 models updated. I'm not saying everyone should release just 1-2 phones a year, but come on..! Think about all the R&D costs that come with churning out a new phone every week (2011 to now is 249 weeks). Now think how awesome and well thought-out the phones could be if they cut the release speed to 1/10 and kept the same amount of R&D. But no... Let's just flood the market with copy/pasted crap and never care about the customers after they've given us their money.
I have the HTC Sensation. I also have a Sony Xperia Z1C. That was released in Q1 2014, and it isn't getting Android 6. I'm getting bored of this crap, and installing custom ROMs that lack some of the nice things I got the phone for in the first place. I like Android. I hate Apple. But wtf am I supposed to do when every single manufacturer seems to be hell-bent on driving away their customers? "Hey, we made a decent phone last week and people bought some of them! Now let's make a new model, but add a bunch of stupid features nobody wants, remove some of the stuff people liked, hike up the pricing and give it a newer version of Android. Let's also drop support for the last week's model, since it's SO last week! If people want the new software, f**k them, let them buy our new phone!"
Have you ever tried using an iPhone 4 (circa 2011) running IOS9? I bet you haven't because it's a horrible experience. Just because Apple still pushes software updates to older devices doesn't mean they work very well. In fact, Apple pushes these releases just to basically brick your older phone and tempt you into a new purchase. Run along AAPL troll.
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
22 Comments
Back to Article
danbob999 - Tuesday, September 29, 2015 - link
??? They added only 1MP to the camera? From 20 to 21? Or is it an error in the table?olafgarten - Tuesday, September 29, 2015 - link
I think the main changes are the OIS, Laser Auto Focus and a new sensor.mczak - Tuesday, September 29, 2015 - link
Dude, it's not about the megapixels - it could have less than the "old" version and still be much better.Albeit I'm not sure it's really worth a new device for just a different camera - while AF should be better (faster) and OIS is always nice I don't think the old camera was particularly bad.
danbob999 - Tuesday, September 29, 2015 - link
I know I just expected a bigger difference on a "supreme camera edition" phone.NXTwoThou - Tuesday, September 29, 2015 - link
I read the headline and thought "Smart move, coming out with a Lumia 1020 spiritual successor three days before MS reveals their non-successors to it". Unfortunately, not so much.icrf - Tuesday, September 29, 2015 - link
Agreed. While they are improvements, they're not nearly as significant as the model name suggests.EddyKilowatt - Tuesday, September 29, 2015 - link
Megapixels are over. PDAF and OIS are the new hotness and will deliver more usable shots under conditions of marginal light or excessive motion.But the real determinants of image quality are still numbers they're not publishing (dynamic range and SNR) or things that can't be reduced to a number (quality and "artfulness" of the image processing chain).
SeventyFive - Wednesday, September 30, 2015 - link
You would consider adding megapixels an upgrade??I actually expected them dropping the pixel count in half, or nearly in half while upping the sensor size in order to up the pixel size. And the fact that the pixel size stayed the same or even gotten smaller, I see nothing but IR & OIS as a real upgrade to the camera and not really a truly "supreme" upgrade.
LordConrad - Wednesday, September 30, 2015 - link
Agreed. I would much prefer 8 or 10 Ultrapixels with OIS.damianrobertjones - Tuesday, September 29, 2015 - link
The Nokia 1020 needs an updateKillaKilla - Friday, October 2, 2015 - link
Panasonic CM1ToTTenTranz - Tuesday, September 29, 2015 - link
Too bad they used a mid-range SoC with mediocre performance.Even the old Snapdragon 801 at 2.5GHz can run circles around the Cortex A53, not to mention the excellent 808.
leo_sk - Wednesday, September 30, 2015 - link
Well if you check out a cpu only benchmark you will see that helio x10 (mt6795) is faster than snapdragon 810, 808, 805,801 etc trailing behind exynos 7420 only. It is the graphics where it loses to snapdragon 810.DanNeely - Tuesday, September 29, 2015 - link
Something is wrong in the table, if the megapixels went up, either the pixel size would need to go down, or the sensor size would need to go up. Neither of those happened.JoshHo - Tuesday, September 29, 2015 - link
Although the sensor size is the same, the processes are different. I'm not able to access any in-depth analysis of the Toshiba T4KA7 sensor though so I can't comment on what differences lead to the larger number of pixels on the IMX230.DanNeely - Wednesday, September 30, 2015 - link
Looking up the specs on GSM Arena, it turns out to be something rather mundane. The new model has a squarer sensor giving more total area for the same size number. The M9+ Supreme uses a 4:3 sensor vs the base model using a slightly wider/shorter 1.43:1 sensor. (5376 x 3752 1.43:1 vs 5248 x 3936 1.33:1)MrSpadge - Wednesday, September 30, 2015 - link
The difference is small and could be accounted for by differences in the spacing between pixels (better isolation can be narrower).DanNeely - Wednesday, September 30, 2015 - link
Am I mis-remembering from astronomy classes I took a dozen+ years ago, or have the conventions for specifying sensors changed at some point over the interval? What I remember from then was the pixel size including the spacing material as well as the part actually collecting photons.This was relevant there because the sensors in dedicated astro-imaging cameras were generally available in two types: Blooming and anti-blooming. The specified size of the sensor, pixel count and pixel size were identical between the two; the difference was that anti-bloom sensors (like what you'd use in a conventional camera) used significantly larger amounts of the pixel area for insulation. This would keep bright point sources (aka stars) compact even on long exposures; but required significantly longer exposure times than bloom sensors because more of the photons were lost because they landed in the dead zones between.
RandomUsername3245 - Wednesday, September 30, 2015 - link
Astronomy (especially back then) was entirely concerned with CCDs vs. today's CMOS cameras, but they have similar concerns. Generally a good pixel will not crowd out the active area of a pixel with additional features (electronics or isolation barriers). They overcome this quite a bit by using microlenses over the pixels to focus light onto the active part of the pixel and by using back-side illumination where they fabricate the circuitry on the front side and have the active pixel area on the back side.vishnukumar - Tuesday, September 29, 2015 - link
Really expecting good things to happen with this change??? If this change doesn't help HTC, i think they are in for a grave danger of loosing THE Asian market as well..... When will this be available in India???Kepe - Monday, October 5, 2015 - link
Software support on Android devices is still such a disappointment.. As much as I hate Apple, at least they are supporting their devices for years, updating devices all the way back from 2011 to ios9. On Android, manufacturers seem to support their devices for 18-24 months, tops. That is just sad.For example, the HTC Sensation was released in Q2 2011. It got its last big update in Q1 2012. Yes I know people can get custom ROMs, but the general public doesn't know about that, and very few have the patience and skills to install those.
What I'm trying to say here is that Android manufacturers keep releasing new devices too fast. It's no wonder they don't have the resources to update older models when there are hundreds of device models out there, literally. Using GSM Arena's phone finder, we see that Samsung has released 238 different Android phone models between 2011 and now. Apple has released 9 phones in that period of time. It's a lot cheaper to keep 9 models updated than it is to keep 238 models updated. I'm not saying everyone should release just 1-2 phones a year, but come on..! Think about all the R&D costs that come with churning out a new phone every week (2011 to now is 249 weeks). Now think how awesome and well thought-out the phones could be if they cut the release speed to 1/10 and kept the same amount of R&D. But no... Let's just flood the market with copy/pasted crap and never care about the customers after they've given us their money.
I have the HTC Sensation. I also have a Sony Xperia Z1C. That was released in Q1 2014, and it isn't getting Android 6. I'm getting bored of this crap, and installing custom ROMs that lack some of the nice things I got the phone for in the first place. I like Android. I hate Apple. But wtf am I supposed to do when every single manufacturer seems to be hell-bent on driving away their customers?
"Hey, we made a decent phone last week and people bought some of them! Now let's make a new model, but add a bunch of stupid features nobody wants, remove some of the stuff people liked, hike up the pricing and give it a newer version of Android. Let's also drop support for the last week's model, since it's SO last week! If people want the new software, f**k them, let them buy our new phone!"
superflex - Friday, October 30, 2015 - link
Have you ever tried using an iPhone 4 (circa 2011) running IOS9?I bet you haven't because it's a horrible experience.
Just because Apple still pushes software updates to older devices doesn't mean they work very well.
In fact, Apple pushes these releases just to basically brick your older phone and tempt you into a new purchase.
Run along AAPL troll.