Real World Camera Comparison, Performance in Well Lit Scenes

I took a bunch of photos with the HTC One alongside a number of other cameras in either a bracket or some other form of mount, and I think they tell an interesting story. If you click on the buttons the thumbnail will change, and the image link will also change for viewing the full res original image. I’d recommend opening the full res images in new tabs and then switching back and forth at 1:1 zoom. The phones I had with me for most of these were the HTC One (obviously), iPhone 5, Lumia 920, HTC Butterfly, and LG Optimus G Pro. I took many many photos with each camera at each location and selected the best ones.

What sticks out at me is how much the subtleties of the HTC One match the HTC Butterfly, it’s obvious how much of the regional tastes of their camera tuners makes its way into the images. Both have a bit too much sharpening for my tastes, and virtually all the smartphones lose a lot of detail to noise reduction but still manage to have surprisingly noisy sky texture. I still can’t shake the impression that HTC has some JPEG artifacts which accentuate the noise in these relatively homogenous regions as well. Apple seems to reflect the kind of tuning I would find myself wanting the most – minimal noise reduction in-camera, encode the noise out, and don’t risk losing any detail. HTC and LG seem to go for more aggressive noise reduction which occasionally leaves that oil painting look, and Nokia surprisingly is somewhere in-between.

HTC One: 1/9600s, ISO 100

In the first Sentinel Peak image, the Lumia 920 is oddly soft at the bottom, the HTC One has a bit of softness at bottom right. Because of the way that OIS works in both these cameras there’s that chance that the extreme field angles will have some softness if the camera is shifted during capture while OIS is compensating.

HTC One: 1/3800s, ISO 109

In the second Sentinel Peak image with the saguaro cactus, it’s interesting to pay attention to the detail in the foliage of the palo verde tree. The Optimus G and Butterfly turn most of the tree into a blurry homogenous mess, the Lumia 920 has a bit of an oil painting look as well, and the HTC One does pretty well given its lower resolution, though still looks a bit too sharpened for me.

In this next shot I exposed for the shadowed Virgin Mary figurine using tap to focus / capture on all the cameras. I find that the One excels in situations like this which are a challenge because of very bright and very dark regions next to each other. There’s no HDR used here.

HTC One: 1/320s, ISO 100

What sticks out about the HTC One to me is what I get from looking EXIF, which is why I pulled that data out for each image in its comparison. Because there’s no way to manually set exposure on any smartphone right now (because nobody is willing to treat smartphone users like adults, apparently), I wind up using auto mode and looking back at what each camera selected in each setting. In the daytime images, what sticks out is that the exposure time is incredibly short, or fast. The result is that the One is incredible at stopping motion outdoors, and this seems to have been HTC’s big priority with tuning the One, rather than pushing noise down even further by going perhaps to ISO 50 like we see the iPhone and LG Optimus G Pro do, if the ST CMOS in the One even supports it.

Still Camera Analysis The Real Test: Low Light Performance of the HTC One
POST A COMMENT

626 Comments

View All Comments

  • funnyhog - Sunday, April 14, 2013 - link

    Sigh .... you seems to have a misconception that Aluminium is a better material than Plastic composites? You do know that Aluminium is one of the softer and weaker and cheapest metal around? Unless they start using stainless steel, please tone down the exuberant over what is essential a very cheap and basic material in the engineering world.

    While I do not think Samsung uses top range composites (that are expensive AND can rival the properties of top range metals, although not usually all at the same time), from the reviews, it seems that the plastics used are consistently more scratch proof AND tougher than the aluminium used, which is so prone to dent and scuffing that you need to a cover over it at all times.
    Reply
  • Thud2 - Sunday, April 14, 2013 - link

    Sigh ....

    Harrumph...
    Reply
  • funnyhog - Sunday, April 14, 2013 - link

    As for the camera, you are right in saying that it is a compromise and trade off instead of a glowing fanboyish review like so many other reviewers. And in terms of trade off, it works if the person only wants to share over the web (and not to large screen format either, else it really really look horrible) or view their photos over small format viewers.

    But for most consumers who wants to print their photos, view it on their 17 inch HD laptop display or otherwise needs large format printout, it is a no go as the lack of details really really show, especially when the composition have lots of details or words/numbers. It is so bad that it can really detract from the overall quality of the photo, if it is enlarged and viewed over a large display or printed out onto just an A4 size paper. ( I tried both using the review images that claims to be the actual full size).
    Reply
  • repoman27 - Monday, April 15, 2013 - link

    You do realize there are no 17-inch laptops in existence with displays that have more pixels than this camera sensor? The only laptop with a screen resolution greater than 4 megapixels is the 15-inch MacBook Pro with Retina display. Also, prints up to 5"x9" could still be output at 150 LPI from a 300 DPI source.

    So yeah, the camera in this phone isn't exactly the same quality as a DSLR, but it is very well suited for "most consumers".
    Reply
  • peter123 - Sunday, April 14, 2013 - link

    You people need to calm down with the bashing of this review. Anandtech also reviewed SGS2 and it was highly praised, REMEMBER? If you don't accept that a company other than samsung can produce an excellent device than I'm sorry but you are a fanboy. HTC is an excellent device. Period. Reply
  • praftman - Sunday, April 14, 2013 - link

    17 Pages and only one on UI? How can I have just read every comment and yet nobody speaks with surprise about this amazing lack in an otherwise exceptional review?

    I'm purchasing this phone, and I like it for many of the same reasons Brian gives. I respect this review and yet…

    The UI is probably more important to the experience than all of the hardware; It's at least as important. Yet we receive one of the slimmest run-throughs of Sense 5.0 I've come across. I was hoping this indicated a companion review…but weeks in and there remains no Sense 5.0 review. What sacrifices are made by the lack of Jellybean 4.2.2? How do the quick-access functions differ from main competitors (silence, notifications, etc.)? How does the browser stack-up (it's an internet device after-all)? There is not even a quick breakdown or reminder of the main bullet-points for any of these significant topics, though apparently we need a refresher on all sorts of other things, hardware based of course.

    Moreover, the obvious competitor to this phone [GS4] has built its efforts with a particularly strong focus on software tweaks. But evaluating the phone's hardware with such heavy emphasis…the very battleground most-contended is largely ignored, making the real-world use of this review questionable. Did anyone really wonder if the HTC ONE was going for build-quality? Did we need this review to figure that out? It seems two-thirds of the review speaks the language of the obvious, the fact obfuscated in magnificent detail...Detail that almost no bearing on purchase-decision. I love that kind of detail, but I certainly wouldn't want in to substitute the meat of what determines a review's real-world value: Should I buy this?

    As a doc on technology, and to learn about the development of hardware, this is a fantastic piece. But in that sense [pun!] it is like a case-subject for technological education in general, industry education or even archiving. It's akin to the [deservedly beloved] engineerguyvideo series. That isn't for purchase decision, unless the reader is swayed by being lost in the brilliant and impressive information-overload, information that ultimately…isn't the right context.

    Context…that fails to address the blogosphere. We see no redress to the rumors of QC issues with gaps, no mentioning of availability or carrier-exclusivity. No discussion of carrier-comparison at all. No setting-the-record-straight with regard to inaccuracies in well-published reviews. No discussion on sticking points for many reviewers (such as the difficulty in customizing the home-screen with an awkward increase in dragging, pausing, dropping). …Part of the advantage to such a late review is to address all the other reviews and opinions now out there--but this one seems largely in a vaccum. Those concerns floated to the top, virally, for good reason. With each further review the gaps [pun!] they all share become more apparent. Here we have the best review to-date, but it's merely rehashing what we've already seen, just at a finer level. The community is asking questions this review still does not begin to address.

    Then there are the sort of flaws we'd expect when one reviewer attempts to 'do it all'. No single person designed this phone, and a single reviewer expecting to be minute in detail and *definitive* in their review is not likely to succeed. So we see the claim:

    …that softer metals are easier to machine; False in most situations.

    …of performance based on benchmarks Anand.com itself refutes with newer, better methodology. Odd that.

    ...that larger photosites are best to fight noise; Despite his expertise in this specific area Brian continues this simplistic and ultimately false refrain. Technology does not develop uniformly, and the nature of noise is multi-faceted. All things being equal bigger photosites are best. But…all things are not equal. Increasingly the best real-world strategy for fighting noise has been an *increase* in pixel count up to our current limits. This is from page 46 of the comment section, and many here would do well to read it:

    *
    *
    sigsegv0x0b - Monday, April 08, 2013 - link

    There is only one problem with HTC's ultra pixels. DXO Mark seems to disagree

    http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Publications/DxOM...
    *
    *

    People have said the HTC ONE is just flash and form over function. Another iDevice [if you believe the common anti-fanperson's refrain]. I think it has stellar function, and again--this will be my next phone--but admittedly it does trade some real-world practicality for that build 'quality' [and here I thought quality was something built right, not something built to give the appearance of right]. The phone has a smaller screen [but I think that bezel will protect against errant contact] and they could have used that extra wiggle-room to protect the glass from all sides…instead they used the same glass expanse as the GS4, just with a large able unused portion. That's form over function...and over build-quality. No SD-card and the poor excuse they couldn't fit it in. The GS4 does. The Sony Xperia Z does, even though it's water-proof. The metal will not be comfortable in the sun (glare, hot to the touch) so when you place it on your accessory car-dock…make certain it isn't catching rays the whole time across its various edges. The metal will not be comfortable in the cold (now we have a reason not to wear gloves with this phone…and to wear gloves with this phone). The battery…ugh. I replace my phone every year and I still think this is an obvious misstep. Even the iPhone, while not user-replaceable, has a battery that a service technician can remove. It's clear that with the ONE many more phones will need to be fully replaced over otherwise minor fixes. I'd pay money to have this phone *not* constructed in this manner. I'll take a subtly rubberized exterior, please.

    This review is being celebrated as some sort of benchmark. It is…with regards to hardware. I'd hate to see the ball dropped so heavily on the software side by its blogger-imitators. This review, with its undue focus on the physical object, and its stark glossing over of the actual battlefield this phone faces, shares the same superficiality. Well made [review/phone]? Yep. Like an Armani Jacket. Functional [review/phone]? Not as much as it might have been…had the focus been on wearability.
    Reply
  • dyc4ha - Sunday, April 14, 2013 - link

    ill be honest i didnt read the whole thing, but just a quick comment: I believe the black version is the polycarbonate version, similar to the one x (someone correct me if im wrong) Reply
  • nerdstalker - Sunday, April 14, 2013 - link

    See my reply two posts below... :) Reply
  • Thud2 - Monday, April 15, 2013 - link

    I HAVE USED THE PHONE. It is extremely solid, really nice looking, VERY fast, Browser is very fast. Apps open instantly, screen is bright and sharp, it's very thin and fits the pocket well. Sound is better than any phone I've heard. Camera is fast and gets great shots that you would not be able to get with other phones. Stop fanboy trashing to start rumours. Nobody wants to hear your biased bull****. Reply
  • praftman - Monday, April 15, 2013 - link

    Maybe the comment system is messing up, or maybe you are responding to the wrong comment by accident, or maybe you just didn't read my [admittedly] lengthy comment...but I'm no fanboy. Not biased. Not much anything like what you're saying. Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now