Camera on SGS4

On the camera side Samsung is in an interesting position. The industry trend is overwhelmingly to go to more pixels and push the megapixel count up from 8 MP where most flagships sat last year to around 13 where they will sit this year. Samsung has to push that number to keep itself in a defensible and marketable position and at the same time deliver a camera experience that’s better than the previous year.

I published a table in the One review with the camera specifications from the previous generation. I’ve filled this in with confirmed information from the SGS4 review unit I have been taking samples with. With SGS4 Samsung does make some pretty considerable improvements, many of which undo some of the regressions that I described with SGS3. Focal length is now quite a bit longer, from the very wide SGS3 which was around 26mm in 35mm effective numbers, to 31 mm. This is a notable difference if you’re shooting with the two side by side, the SGS3 was always shockingly wide for a rear facing camera.

 
Smartphone Camera Comparison - 2013
  HTC One Samsung Galaxy S 2 Samsung Galaxy S 3 Samsung Galaxy S 4
Front Camera 2.1MP 2MP 1.9MP 2MP
Front Camera - CMOS OV2722
(1.4µm, 1/5.8")
- S5K6A3
(1.75µm, 1/6")
S5K6B2
(1.34µm, 1/6")
Front Camera - Focal Length ~1.59mm 2.73mm 2.7mm 1.85mm
Front Camera - Max Aperture F/2.0 F/2.8 F/2.8 F/2.4
Rear Camera 4MP 8MP 8MP 13MP
Rear Camera - CMOS ST VD6869
(2.0 µm, 1/3")
S5K3H2YX
(1.4µm 1/3.2")
Sony/Samsung
(1.4µm, ~1/3")
IMX091PQ
(1.12µm, 1/3.06")
Rear Camera - Focal Length 3.82mm
(28mm eff)
3.97mm
(30mm eff)
3.7mm
(~26 mm eff)
4.2mm
(31 mm eff)
Rear Camera - Max Aperture F/2.0 F/2.65 F/2.6 F/2.2
 

At the same time, F-number has improved dramatically, from the F/2.6 or 2.65 (I’ve seen both at times) aperture on the SGS3 to a much faster F/2.2. This dramatically improves the light collection abilities of the camera, by essentially a half stop. It’s difficult optical design to both keep the module thin enough to fit in the device without creating a huge bump (there’s a camera bump on SGS4, it’s there), increase focal length, improve F/#, and improve MTF for a better sensor all at the same time.

On the rear facing camera we see a Sony CMOS who continues to dominate the space, this time with an IMX091PQ sensor. On the front we Samsung’s own sensor, the S5K6B2 get used. Samsung also continues to go with a dedicated Fujitsu ISP inside the SGS4, this time it’s a new M10MO family which there isn’t a whole lot of information about. I suspect this continues to be done to mitigate the differences in SoC ISP between the APQ8064ab variant and Exynos 5 version and make tuning easier on Samsung’s camera team.

Imaging is increasingly a key differentiator for smartphones since it’s that device you always have on your person to take images with. For SGS4 camera is more of an emphasis this time around than it was with SGS3, which largely kept everything the same and just added software features. SGS4 brings better hardware and additional software features to do something with the hardware.

Outdoors in bright light the increased spatial resolution afforded from going from 8 MP to 13 MP helps. Samsung still does a lot of sharpening and there are halos around a ton of different features if you know where to look, but that’s the tuning they have opted for. I suspect we still are outresolving the sensor here, but I’m impressed with what I see with enough light. I took a lot of photos side by side with SGS3 and find SGS4 a notable improvement, but I’m not sure whether that’s just more damning commentary on SGS3 than anything else. I haven’t had time to put together many side by sides with buttons yet. I’ve been shooting with the HTC One on −2 sharpness since I prefer it that way, note that I accidentally left it this way with when making comparisons here since that’s still my daily driver until I can get an AT&T or T-Mobile SGS4 to use.

SGS4: 1/950s, ISO 50
 

In lower light unsurprisingly we see the SGS4 offer better results than the SGS3 but still not quite as good as the HTC One. Samsung recently introduced low light shot on the SGS3 and Note 2, this feature carries over to the SGS4 but gets renamed back to Night Mode, even though behavior appears superficially to be the same. The SGS4 also introduces an auto night mode toggle, although this ships by default turned off. The mode automatically switches on night mode when it senses that you’re going to underexpose using the auto presets, I would advise basically leaving this on all the time. Unfortunately night mode introduces huge shot to shot latency that seems to be on the order of seconds — tap the button, capture runs, then there’s a progress bar that pops up while multiple exposures are ostensibly recombined into one image. You also have to be exceptionally steady to get an image without blur since it appears that this mode takes multiple images to get to the end goal — a better exposed image without tons of noise.

SGS4: 1/15s, ISO 1000
 

In the end there’s really no free lunch for anyone — you can temporally oversample (Samsung low light shot, or longer exposures with OIS like Nokia), or increase the size of your sampling area (larger pixels a-la HTC One), or do nothing and just give up unless you’re in a bright outdoor setting.

Samsung has introduced a bunch of new photo modes in the software on the SGS4, a number of which are actually pretty functional and awesome. There's the ability to create animated gifs from right in the camera, for example, where users paint a mask around the region they want animated from a short capture. This is essentially the same as Nokia's cinemagraph Lens from the Lumia 920, but it's still quite cool. 

There's also dual camera, which lets you include a small overlay of the front facing camera atop the rear facing camera image. It initially struck me as a bit gimmicky but actually can be hilariously fun to share your face atop images to friends. It is also quite possibly the stuff of nightmares. 

Panoramas on the SGS4 also are nicely put together and integrate continuously rather than get combined from a number of discrete images. The result is quite nice. 

The user interface on SGS4 is a departure from the interface which has been present on previous Galaxy smartphones, and instead takes much UI/UX from the Galaxy Camera. Gone are the customizable toggles on the left side, instead options are in an expandable menu at the very top, and then another separate window. I got used to it pretty quickly but do miss the ability to customize the quick settings buttons on the left side and used to think that Samsung had the most powerful camera interface around. Things are moved around generally in a logical fashion however and I can understand how much this works to make transitioning between Galaxy Camera and SGS4 easy. 

Video

When it comes to video, the SGS4 is records 1080p30 video at 17 Mbps H.264 High Profile.

I've done the usual thing and uploaded a sample to YouTube as well as our own servers for your inspection.

Video quality looks really nice and sharp on SGS4 from what I can tell by default. Anti shake (EIS in this case) is disabled out of the box, enabling it pops up a box warning you that stills captured during video record will be a different field of view. 

NAND Performance Display
POST A COMMENT

332 Comments

View All Comments

  • darwinosx - Wednesday, April 24, 2013 - link

    Anyone who complains the iPhone is too light need to reevaluate their priorities. Reply
  • medi02 - Monday, April 29, 2013 - link

    Plastic does NOT get either dirty or scratched easier than metal, this is from an owner of 2+ year old galaxy S+, who never used any sorts of protective cover. The only marks on it are from dropping it on concrete from about 1.6 meters.

    This "it must be metal" madness should stop. Go apply that to other gadgets.
    Reply
  • hyperdoggy - Wednesday, April 24, 2013 - link

    If it doesn't come off looking like a 5 dollar chinatown toy, then yes. Don't get me wrong, there's nothing wrong with plastic, HTC and Nokia does it well, but the fisher price mode that samsung is in, i can't help but to feel Samsung could of done it a lot better. Reply
  • emkei - Tuesday, April 30, 2013 - link

    Do you seriously think galaxy look like 5 dollor toy? lol..... Reply
  • n3xas - Wednesday, April 24, 2013 - link

    Your argument is invalid. Smaller display is not a con for many people. You can't judge battery life by the capacity alone. Larger because of the speakers, I prefer larger any day to cuping the phone with my hands like an idiot and trying to hear something. Resistance to breaking or scratching still unknown. Heavier? yes, aluminum is heavier than plastic. Reply
  • danbob999 - Wednesday, April 24, 2013 - link

    Smaller display IS a con. It's just that it often comes with a benefit: smaller overall phone.
    Samsung did the impossible and made a phone which is both smaller and has a larger display than the competition.
    If the Galaxy S4 was of the same size but with a 4" display it would suck.

    Resistance to breaking might be unkown, but it is known that light plastic devices survive better to drops than heavy alluminium ones. Plastic is light, absorbs shock and let waves pass through. Perfect material for a phone. If you want an heavier phone noone stops you from attaching a lead plate to its back.
    Reply
  • Thud2 - Thursday, April 25, 2013 - link

    "but it is known that light plastic devices survive better to drops than heavy aluminium ones"

    Oh, "it is known"?

    That kind of attribution is not acceptable.
    Reply
  • danbob999 - Thursday, April 25, 2013 - link

    Are you really denying that plastic is more shock-absorbant than metal? Reply
  • Krolkrowa - Thursday, May 09, 2013 - link

    Smaller display in not a con in this situation. The HTC has a better ppi and it has a LCD3 display which is actually better than the AMOLED screen on the Galaxy S4. The colours on it are just better and the blacks are not that bad. 0.3" is not much difference, if you want 25 reasons why HTC One is better check this video out from PhoneBuff on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RHIXtw34wK4 Reply
  • darwinosx - Wednesday, April 24, 2013 - link

    From the review;
    "If you compare the all-plastic Galaxy S 4 to the all-metal HTC One, there's a difference of 13 grams."
    I've seen several articles saying that Samsung is going to be upping their build quality because of the HTC One and iPhone and the constant perception by so many people that Samsung phones and tablets feel and look cheap.
    Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now