ISO definitely plays a factor, but I'm ok with "ignoring" it, in a sense. I'm assuming here that the test shots are all "auto" mode, so everything rests on that assumption, so --
The ISO here is a careful part of the balance played between shutter speed and aperture for the ultimate light metering and exposure. It's on HTC to carefully manage these three factors in a variety of light settings and subjects so that motion blur/camera shake is minimized, noise is minimized, and the scene is exposed "just right."
If a reviewer is stepping out on a nice sunny day and taking photos of the city (like in the test shots) and the camera is, for whatever reason, shooting at an ISO that is too high for sun lighting (outdoors sunlight usually = lowest ISO), then that's on the camera/phone/HTC, and the fault lies with their programming/calibration. Yes, we could manually adjust the ISO down, but in my view, consumers shouldn't have to deal with adjusting the ISO to fit the conditions on a camera phone (or any Auto shooting for that matter).
In a controlled test environment, I'd want to match up the exposures, and test for ISO noise at each ISO rating, and that would be for my personal nerdy benefit, but otherwise, I think it's probably fair to be judging real work test cases for what they are.
Fair enough and probably the majority opinion.
A few counterpoints though - until I use any phone camera with an auto exposure that actually works, I won't be trusting the auto at all. Perhaps other feel that way, but we're probably the minority.
Next - this is the first revision of Image Sense. If it's something as simple as auto exposure and auto color balancing, then those things might get fixed in some future update. No promises of course, but those things might. Bad hardware just can't be compensated for with software. Best you can do is try post-processing, and if I'm not mistaken, you were the one to post birdhouse and gazebo photos from the Evo and iPhone and challenge for color matching and detailing. While many argued, it simply couldn't be done. I always thought it was the iPhone's superior hardware (software too, at that time).
Finally - while the good old shutter button is nice and all, the number one thing I missed on the 3vo from the Evo was the ability to spot meter, focus, and shoot right from the glass. I absolutely hate averaged light metering, absolutely prefer spot metering. Again, I may be in the minority, but not really sure on that.
PS -
PyroSporker said:
There is not a chance that The One X, or by extension, Evo 4G LTE will have the best phone based camera of 2012.
Nokia 808 with PureView holds that title by a longshot.
I agree, mention of Nokia at all was missing from my short list.
Maybe part of it you could call snobbery on my part - but I thought of the Nokia and I thought of relevance.
I tried to imagine pictures being so important to me, I'd carry a Nokia. And then I tried to imagine just carrying a camera instead and in addition to a good Android phone.
I'm someone too used to carrying a camera (for decades). Would I like to have a better camera in my cell phone and do that less? Yep, sure, who wouldn't and why not? But at the price of carrying a Nokia - no thanks. Then again, a phone camera is only a secondary or tertiary feature for me.
So, while the Nokia may be technically better in every regard - I don't include it because it's not relevant to me.
As always, this applies to all readers - your mileage may vary.
PyroSporker said:
A Samsung Phone using a newer withheld Samsung camera sensor I would think will almost no doubt have an inherent advantage over an HTC phone using a Samsung sensor. HTC's ImageSense chip makes up alot of the difference but can it overcome?
Respectfully disagree completely.
Personally, I still think everyone getting hung up on the new sensor is missing that the sensor can only do one thing better - signal to noise ratio. That ties to two factors - the light sensitivity and the electronics noise floor.
When you put that new sensor behind an F/2.0 lens, then there's something to compare.
Until then, that _possibly_ superior sensor (something we don't know yet) has to overcome the light loss from a smaller aperature.
And that's not nothing in photography, yes?