Seriously...is there ANY hope for this camera with Lollipop?

Read all these posts. After all said, still disappointing that a phone with this power and pre-launch hype cant have a camera at least as good as it's competitors (iphone), OIS...and IR blast for that matter. It's still an awesome phone, just a let down until it takes better photos, or at least as good as its competition. My wife's 4s still takes better pics, and it's point and shoot all the time, so you don't miss the action photos. I can mess with my DT to get as good/better photos but forget the action pic...you'll never get the frame your looking for after all the adjustments necessary, ive tried!! Still hopeful that the L5 update will improve this camera. My expectation is...this should be the best point and shoot camera on a phone on the market. Why should the bar be set any lower??

budfox66 said:

My expectation is...this should be the best point and shoot camera on a phone on the market. Why should the bar be set any lower??

Click to expand...

It shouldn't!

jalov said:

I appreciate the response. Thank you. Sort of like you said...I def don't buy the phone for the camera, its just an added bonus. What bums me out is how much worse/slower this camera is compared to the year old Motorola Droid Maxx. I don't get how they can take a step backwards. Not trying to be dramatic, but I literally am taking 5-6 shots of something to get a remotely passable photo, where with the maxx, I was generally impressed with the photos.

I don't want nor do i expect the quality of a $2000 digital camera, but if they are going to go thru the trouble of adding and touting a 21mp camera upgrade, I'd hope for at least passable photos. As of now, its a huge fail. Really hoping lollipop at least gets it to passible.

Click to expand...

I'm just curious if you've tried using a lower megapixel setting on the camera? I don't have my phone handy to try it out but it's worth experimenting to see if it improves speed or stability.

I found on my old Droid DNA that it took better pictures in 4:3 mode than 16:9 mode, front or back cameras. My first gen Galaxy S tooks its best photos on the middle quality setting, not the one with the higher MP count. I'm pretty sure the stock camera app (as well as Google Camera, which is what I use in its place) can change the resolution/size of photos taken. If I remember, I'll experiment with it tomorrow when I'm out and about to see if it makes a difference.

I don't think it's any slower than my DNA, but it does sometimes balk at focusing properly, even on non-closeup materials. I still like it better simply because I no longer have to white balance adjust ever. single. picture. I. take. Just about 1 in 10 now.

As for depth of field, it knocks the socks off the Droid DNA. I constantly had trouble with depth when taking even moderately close-up photos of objects. One tiny part of something would be in focus and the rest was blurry. It was very picky!

The Droid Turbo, on the other hand, seems much better. Here's a snowman in a store window I snapped last night. Almost the entire snowman is in focus, while the background is suitably blurred:

I agree this stock camera is way better than the earlier versions of Droids. I took my DSLR camera to a wedding yesterday, but ended up with some very nice shots from my phone as well. So nice, that those made it to facebook instead of waiting to transfer from the camera.

I finally got around to trying out some shots done with different settings and the results were inconclusive at best. There's no speed improvement whatsoever in dropping to a lower megapixel setting, or going from 16:9 to 4:3 aspect ratio. However, regardless of setting, I didn't have any trouble taking action shots in relatively low light. I had to really purposely shake the phone while snapping a photo to make it come out really blurry. Slow motion, as well as following a moving object yielded either perfect or "close enough for horseshoes and hand grenades" quality results. It seems, from my short tests, that the camera speed is the same (kinda slow) in both the OEM camera as well as Google Camera and A Better Camera. Personally, I think Google Camera works the best out of the three but that's just personal preference. It's also the app I used to test different resolutions and moving/tracking shots.

Today I tried taking shots using the lowest resolution available in 4:3 mode, which in Google Camera is 8.0 MP. The middle setting is 13.0 and maximum is 20.7. If there's a difference, it's decidedly minor, but it seems from my weary eyes that the lower resolution photos do look a bit sharper, and less… how to describe it? "Mealy" comes to mind, if that makes sense. I'll do some more experimenting in this lowest res setting, but 8 MP so far has proven to be just plenty with most of the shots I've taken.

So, it may be worth experimenting for you folks as well, too, just to see if you perceive a difference. I don't think we can do anything about the speed short of a firmware update, but maybe the other stuff can be mitigated a bit.

Thank you for this thread as I've been searching for solutions to the delay/slow capture of action shots on my wife's DT. My kids are in sports so taking action shots is critical.

The clarity of the pictures is very good, but the problem is that the shot captured on the phone is about .2 seconds after the shutter was pushed which has you missing what you expect to see.

For example: Snap picture of basketball leaving kid's hand, photo on phone is of basketball near rim (about .2 seconds from when the button was pressed). The picture is very clear (no blur), but its not the shot you thought you took. Strangely, the preview/freeze frame just after taking the picture shows exactly when you pushed the button so you think you got it, but the picture on the phone is not the same. Burst mode somewhat gets you there, but then you have to sift through a gazillion pictures to find the shot you want.

I've tried some of the suggestions in the thread already, but will continue to experiment. If I cant figure it out, the wife is going to switch it for the iPhone 6 (we have to 1/15 to switch the phone if she doesn't like it).

MSimons said:

Thank you for this thread as I've been searching for solutions to the delay/slow capture of action shots on my wife's DT. My kids are in sports so taking action shots is critical.

The clarity of the pictures is very good, but the problem is that the shot captured on the phone is about .2 seconds after the shutter was pushed which has you missing what you expect to see.

Click to expand...

There is a thread on XDA showing this not to be the case. Someone took shots between the 5S and the DT on moving cars from a side street. The DT made is sluggish snap and the 5S its quick one. The DT caught the car every time without blur, and the 5S never did. What it came down to is the click sound you hear is not synchronized with the actual snapshot. The snapshot happens before.

My daughter is (well was until last year) in TKD. I had a lot of issues catching shots with her, even with a Note 3. Burst shots made it tons easier, which the DT happens to support.

I think we are saying the same thing. The actual pictures on the camera are very clear, but its not from the exact moment in time when the button is pushed to snap the picture (shutter sound is irrelevant since I have it turned off). There is a noticeable delay from when the picture is snapped to the picture stored on the camera. The faster the action the more noticeable the delay. Portrait pictures are fine since there is little to no movement.
The attached picture was taken as the ball was leaving the hand. I purposely took multiple shots just as the ball was being thrown and every time, the ball is a few feet past when I snapped the picture.

Agree with above. I think its been adequately proven numerous times a stationary object is captured just fine, even spectacularly. Any object in motion is big trouble. Besides the lag, the blur is also continuing to be horrid. I was trying to use my camera to take a few shots of the girls hockey tournament at my hockey rink this weekend. In a shot with 6-8 people, it will focus on two, and everyone else is a blurry mess. I'm not asking for Sports Illustrated magazine quality shots, but every shot was was completely unuseable.

This was about the best I could get

Another "work around" suggested the tap to focus and I tried to capture the goalie (center of shot) skating out, and ended up with just as much a mess. These kids weren't flying around they were doing warm up laps pregame. So again, for my simplistic needs, sigh, useless.

And this is what breaks my heart...this was taken in a dark bar, with my Maxx camera. Just point and click. Singer was animated and moving quickly I was constantly getting amazing shots like this.

Even more amazing shots in the daylight. I can't even fathom catching a "mid clap" in motion shot with the Turbo.

just got my Turbo two days ago and I must say it takes amazing pictures and my shutter speed is alot quicker than my RAZR M.
I guess I don't see why alot of people on forums say that the camera is bad. much better pics than my wifes S4, just my two cents

Look at my attempts to capture a few full light pictures of a hockey game, then you can get your answer to "I don't see why a LOT of people on the forums say the camera is bad.

jamielov said:

Look at my attempts to capture a few full light pictures of a hockey game, then you can get your answer to "I don't see why a LOT of people on the forums say the camera is bad.

Click to expand...

I see what you mean about motion capture being problematic. Considering how brightly lit most hockey arenas are, there shouldn't be any lighting issues. One half-solution to improving shutter speed is manually lowering the ISO. Unfortunately, I don't think the stock camera app or the Google camera app in the Play Store allow ISO control. A Better Camera does, but it's pricey. And then you're trading snap-speed for darker photos in some cases.

CrackedLCD said:

I see what you mean about motion capture being problematic. Considering how brightly lit most hockey arenas are, there shouldn't be any lighting issues. One half-solution to improving shutter speed is manually lowering the ISO. Unfortunately, I don't think the stock camera app or the Google camera app in the Play Store allow ISO control. A Better Camera does, but it's pricey. And then you're trading snap-speed for darker photos in some cases.

Click to expand...

I have the free ABC app, I looked into the paid version, but looked like there were about 6 different paid options. Can you advise which upgrade I'd want to look at to accomplish this? I'll gladly trade a darker picture and try to edit it later. Hell a focused semi dark photo is more useful than a bright, blurry mess.

jalov said:

I have the free ABC app, I looked into the paid version, but looked like there were about 6 different paid options. Can you advise which upgrade I'd want to look at to accomplish this? I'll gladly trade a darker picture and try to edit it later. Hell a focused semi dark photo is more useful than a bright, blurry mess.

Click to expand...

Well, this is disappointing. I loaded ABC to see what option would be best, but then I realized the ISO setting is available in the free camera. Only, it's not on the screen on this phone. So I double-checked my Droid DNA and the same camera app shows an ISO setting on that device. Just not on the Turbo.

The option to even show which ISO setting the app itself selects is grayed out in the options. I guess Motorola has decided us peons are too stupid to use manual ISO settings on this device?

I'm assuming the ability to tinker with the ISO was stripped from the firmware since it's not available to the third party camera apps. That's very, very disappointing. I still like the phone a lot, but it's one more feature (along with weird NFC performance and crappy wifi reception) that's been a letdown for me.

I'll repost my take on this from another forum..

A fellow on another forum suggested, and I think rightly, that when light is low, a camera can either extend the shutter time or alter the ISO to expose the image. These are film terms of course but still. Extending the shutter time gives a better quality image but induces blur with movement, using the ISO change avoids that but introduces garbage into the image. I believe on a firmware level the manufacturer has to decide how that curve is setup, at x light use x iso and y shutter speed, and there is some room for variation in there. On a big camera one can adjust it, and with better hardware there is more room as well. I think they choose image quality over ability to have a fast shutter at low light levels, if that makes sense...

The camera takes nice, well lit, still shots. I have some issue with the focus area and I strongly suspect they are artificially blurring spots outside of the center to emulate the look of a nicer (d/slr) camera but I can live with that more or less.
The "shutter speed" is a function of that ISO/exposure time, it's a symptom rather than the problem.
I'm not holding my breath on a fix honestly, but you never know..

adrynalyne said:

There is a thread on XDA showing this not to be the case. Someone took shots between the 5S and the DT on moving cars from a side street. The DT made is sluggish snap and the 5S its quick one. The DT caught the car every time without blur, and the 5S never did. What it came down to is the click sound you hear is not synchronized with the actual snapshot. The snapshot happens before.

My daughter is (well was until last year) in TKD. I had a lot of issues catching shots with her, even with a Note 3. Burst shots made it tons easier, which the DT happens to support.

Click to expand...

Is this the same Adrynalyne I knew from XDA? How're you been? Good to see you in teh forumz again

Skynet11 said:

Is this the same Adrynalyne I knew from XDA? How're you been? Good to see you in teh forumz again

Click to expand...

I'm still on hangouts...lol.