New Galaxy S5 camera samples test the 16 MP sensor, compare it with the Galaxy S4, Lumia 1520, and Note 3
posted by Daniel P. / Mar 14, 2014, 8:12 AM
The ISOCELL technology, however, decreases the cross-talk interference between adjacent pixel cells, which bleeds light meant for one pixel, into the neighboring pieces. This allegedly overcomes the problem with stuffing many small pixels close to each other, which some argue is the reason behind the artifacts that often appear with Sony's 20 MP photos from the Z1, for instance. Samsung also explained that the pixels in the ISOCELL sensor have 30% larger well capacity. This means that each individual pixel can receive more light before saturating itself, which results into a wider dynamic range, and better color representation.
Talk is cheap, though, and without an optical image stabilization module, the low-light performance of the Galaxy S5 might be called under question here. Luckily, an abundance of real-life camera samples with the S5 just appeared, putting the 16 MP ISOCELL sensor through its paces in various scenarios. We have the camera tested under indoor, outdoor, and night conditions, as well as some macro samples, plus a comparison with the same shots, taken by the S4. Dig in the slideshow below (the comparison shots are towards the end), and tell us what you think. These are full-size samples straight from the handset, so arm yourself with patience, while they load.
Samsung Galaxy S5 OS: Android 6.0 Marshmallow, 5.1 Lollipop, 5.0 Lollipop, 4.4.4, 4.4.2 View Full specs
- Display 5.1" 1080 x 1920 pixels
- Camera 16 MP / 2.1 MP front
- Processor Qualcomm Snapdragon 801, Quad-core, 2500 MHz
- Storage 32 GB + microSDXC
- Battery 2800 mAh(21h 3G talk time)
Posts: 5629; Member since: Mar 08, 2013
Eh, it's not bad actually, but in low light condition pictures do show some noises which is quite not what I expected to be since it has an ISOCELL camera. But still, it's not bad when in well lighten conditions.
posted on Mar 14, 2014, 8:21 AM 16
Posts: 10457; Member since: May 14, 2012
Test the same scene with a Z2 or 5S (both don't sport OIS) and compare. Where there's light, the camera is pretty damn good.
posted on Mar 14, 2014, 8:25 AM 7
Posts: 1; Member since: Mar 11, 2013
Just google this and click on Android (can't post links). I think the Galaxy s5 looks better than the other two in the link I posted, but honestly it looks pretty bad here. "Galaxy S5 vs One (M8) vs Xperia Z2 vs G Pro 2 nighttime photo samples"
posted on Mar 30, 2014, 8:44 PM 0
Posts: 381; Member since: Nov 07, 2013
same crap nothing special
posted on Mar 14, 2014, 8:59 AM 16
Posts: 118; Member since: Apr 26, 2012
Ya pretty mediocre honestly. The irony is I have a Note 3 and the photos are nothing special at all. From my experience the Note 3 takes really nice photos up close (macro) but any kind of scene photo is just OK, low light is pretty horrible like all other Samsungs I've owned. And yes I have tried all different settings and even other camera apps like FV-5 and ProCapture. This article just adds to my feeling that they seriously sh*t the bed on the S5 and it makes me sad. Here's hoping the Galaxy F with OIS is real and actually takes good pics, otherwise I'll be considering the Xperia Z2 or New HTC One.
posted on Mar 14, 2014, 4:44 PM 4
Posts: 3718; Member since: Nov 03, 2012
Yeah, these samples are good from S5 but night shots are horrible even worse than S4. And in good light conditions it's good though compared to 1520. Let's wait for the samples from the final retail unit which I expect to be better than these.
posted on Mar 14, 2014, 9:13 AM 3
Posts: 51; Member since: Jul 22, 2011
Those night shots are awful.
posted on Mar 14, 2014, 8:26 AM 14
Posts: 368; Member since: Jan 20, 2013
18 and 19...S4 is the clear winner.
posted on Mar 14, 2014, 8:26 AM 2
Posts: 15; Member since: Mar 06, 2013
Exactly. I feel in most of the cases S4 is a winner. Pictures from S5 looks more noisy and lost details. Even in the last photo, Note 3 is clear winner over S5. The ISOCELL is either a Marketing crap or just a fail in their implementation.
posted on Mar 14, 2014, 8:50 AM 2
Posts: 270; Member since: Mar 28, 2010
Phone Arena's photo viewer is a big steaming pile of cow dung especially when used in slow internet connection. I missed the old version.
posted on Mar 14, 2014, 8:27 AM 9
Posts: 12; Member since: Aug 09, 2013
phonearena photo viewer is sh*t..iam sure my connection speed is enough for such pictures...but still it doesn't load
posted on Mar 14, 2014, 8:36 AM 8
Send a warning to post author
Send a warning to Selected user.
The user has 0 warnings currently.
Next warning will result in ban!
Ban user and delete all posts
Message to PhoneArena moderator (optional):