Apple's iPhone 4: Thoroughly Reviewed
by Brian Klug & Anand Lal Shimpi on June 30, 2010 4:06 AM EST- Posted in
- Smartphones
- Apple
- iPhone 4
- Gadgets
- Mobile
Camera Usability
It still takes almost two seconds to activate the camera on the 4, which is enough time to miss whatever it is you’re trying to grab a photo of. Thanks to the iOS 4 update however, the shutter is almost instantaneous. The difference appears to be that the photo is committed to memory but not fully written to NAND, whereas before the photo would be written to the Flash before you could take another picture. Power loss in the middle of snapping photos seems pretty rare on a smartphone so the tradeoff, if I’m correct, makes sense.
Apple opted for a lower noise rather than higher resolution sensor in the iPhone 4 and it did pay off. The main camera shoots photos at 2592 x 1936 compared to the EVO 4G’s 3264 x 1952, but the resulting images are far less noisy - particularly in low light situations:
HTC EVO 4G - Low Light
Apple iPhone 4 - Low Light
The 4’s main camera, like the HTC Incredible and EVO 4G, is a decent replacement for a point and shoot if you’re primarily outdoors. You’re still going to get better image quality out of a good point and shoot, but the tradeoff is convenience. The limitations are significant.
Because you rely on the iPhone 4’s software controlled aperture and shutter speed you don’t have the ability to properly expose the image. You have to rely on Apple’s algorithms, which tend to either overexpose outdoors or miscalculate white balance with non-halogen light sources.
This is an example of a photo taken outdoors that’s more washed out than it needs to be:
And many of you picked up on the white balance issue I snuck into our EVO 4G review yesterday:
Regardless of where I tapped to focus, I could not get the iPhone 4 to set a proper white balance in our photo box.
While I was watching the screen, the iPhone 4 would alternate between yellow and white for the background color. It seemed to be trying to calculate the white point but was just being thrown off by the type of light. If I timed the shot right I could snag the photo while the iPhone was switching between white balance points:
I also had this problem in my office which uses LED can lights.
This is far more yellow than it should be
While Brian didn't have the same problems I did, Brandon Hill (DailyTech Editor in Chief) did. It seems to be very dependent on the type of lighting you have and even then it seems to vary based on the type of CFLs. And unlike the EVO 4G, there’s no way to manually set a white balance on the 4.
For overall image quality though I have to hand it to Apple, the iPhone 4 does do a better job than the EVO 4G or other phones I’ve used. Take a look at this shot inside my house:
The colors in the iPhone 4 shot are on point. The green is correct, the wooden floor is right and the black is, well, black. The EVO 4G didn’t do so well on this test by comparison:
The 4’s camera isn’t perfect, but it does appear to handle colors better than the EVO (with the exception of my white balance issue) and delivers lower noise photos.
Compared to other phones the 4 does similarly well, besting the 5 megapixel camera in the Motorola Droid easily in terms of color reproduction and sharpness. Though the HTC Incredible previously was a top performer alongside the N900, the iPhone 4 makes the Incredible look a bit oversharpened and artificial. Compared to the 3GS, the iPhone 4's improvement is obviously dramatic, as shown in the gallery below.
Video is recorded at 1280x720, in H.264 with AAC mono audio. We measured a bitrate of 1.35 MBps, outclassing all the other smartphones we've tested.
iPhone 4
HTC Droid Incredible
Motorola Droid
Nokia N900
What's interesting is that the iPhone 4 appears to crop the sensor down for video recording, taking the center most 1280x720 pixels instead of scaling down the entire image size. The result is that the focal length for video recording is notably longer than when taking photos.
You can see the difference is quite notable standing in the same place. Perhaps the A4 SoC lacks the compute power to apply a scale and encode at the same time, necessitating this crop. Whatever the case, video shot with the iPhone 4 still looks very good at the promised and delivered 30 FPS. Move the camera around enough, and there's still screen door effect from the rolling shutter like any CMOS sensor is going to give you - it's a fundamental problem no phones are going to get around soon. Its also right there in the specifications page for the camera SoC; rolling shutter.
Similarly, iPhone 4 does give you 5x digital zoom, though we still maintain you're better off taking photos at native resolution and messing with them later with better interpolation algorithms.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
270 Comments
View All Comments
MacTheSpoon - Wednesday, June 30, 2010 - link
Hi, thanks for a really great review (I hope this isn't a double post, I had a problem when I submitted this before). I especially liked the hard numbers you used to measure things. Seeing the screen black levels, brightness, and contrast, plus how they compared to other phones, was really wonderful. I did have a few questions:1. Are you sure it's reasonable to conclude the maximum drop in signal strength when holding the phone is 24 dB? Doesn't skin capacitance vary from person to person? Also, I've seen some people put keys on their phones to connect the two antenna and demonstrate the reception problem, and I wonder if you could consider measuring the dB effect for that as well. Considering that keys are often kept in pockets with cellphones and could rest against the phones it seems like a reasonable scenario to explore.
2. Did you mention the problems people have had with the glass shattering easily? I've read many reports of this online. I didn't notice it but perhaps I did not read closely enough.
3. Since a case is, as you say, a must-have accessory for the phone, not only for the antenna but also apparently for the brittle enclosure, it seems unfair to give the phone credit for being 9.3 mm thin. Could you please give the thickness of the phone with the bumper? That seems to be its real thickness to me, honestly.
Thanks again for the review!
PhilBrandn - Wednesday, June 30, 2010 - link
See this video:http://vimeo.com/12951893
Even replicating the problem doesn't seem to force a dropped call.
MacTheSpoon - Wednesday, June 30, 2010 - link
It does, actually. Check this out:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=03PQyWp0mWE
bill4 - Wednesday, June 30, 2010 - link
Cant shake the feeling of overwhelming Apple bias from most tech sites, and Anandtech.It doesn't help that it seems every tech editor's personal phone is an iPhone. And that's most certainly not because it's better, in fact in most cases the iPhone is objectively inferior to other phones.
This line in the article:
"On top of the battery life improvements Apple finally plays catch up and surpasses the technological advancements in its Android competitors. The 4's camera is as good as it gets today and the screen is a beauty. I don't believe this advantage will last for the lifetime of the iPhone "
Battery life is routinely massively overrated by Anand, it's simply not as important to most people as it seems to be to Anand. Charge your phone each evening and it's done. What's the big deal? Seems like the unnatural battery life obsession is just a way to give fake props to Apple in every review.
Likewise, "surpasses the technological advancements in its Android competitors. " Huh? Not hardly bud. By far the most important metric these days is screen size. Yes, it's probably not politically correct to say, I should talk about "usability" or some other subjective thing so we can pretend Apple is the winner, but it's the hard truth. Android phones have 4.3" and 4" screens aplenty. That's why I'm way more excited over the Evo, the Droid X, the Galaxy S, then a lame 3.5" iPhone revision. The iPhone 4 screen is actually (slightly) smaller than the 3GS screen (though they're both nominally 3.5" in screen area the 4 screen is smaller than the 3GS screen)! (Funny Anand never mentioned this fact once). Apple actually went BACKWARDs in this crucial area.
Then we have the weak 800mhz CPU vs the 1ghz+in many android models, etc etc.
Then we have the camera, worse in all respects to top droid phone cameras.
So in every relevant area except a currently meaningless one (resolution), the iPhone 4 objectively has worse specs than top Droid phones, already, yet Anand says it "surpasses the technological advancements in its Android competitors". OK, no bias there...
Overall, I just wish more reviews would call the 4 what it is, a small revision to the 3GS that falls short. Apple should have named it the 3GS+, it certainly doesnt deserve true succesor status. Hell, when sitting side by side, it's actually difficult to tell the 3GS and 4 apart, I guarantee no casual female (like, a Mom) could do it offhand. Your mom literally would not know which is supposed to be the "new" iPhone!
The Retina display is so much marketing BS. It's a small, typical incremental, completely non-revolutionary bump in resolution, yet dishonest tech sites are proclaiming it like it's somehow something tangibly new. More screen size would have been far more useful, the high PPI is truly almost completely useless compared to other 800X480 android phones, which are more than fine in that area as is. What's coming next Apple, 1080P on a 2.5" screen on the iPhone 5? Makes about as much sense. Screen size is objectively far, far more important than resolution on these phones, at least if they're 800X480 or above.
In the end I see another year of Apple losing share to the Droid phones, the 4 is a very minor change to the 3GS. Maybe next year Apple will do better.
I'm a good example, I'm limited to ATT, so I have few options, even though I dislike Apple, the iPhone 4 seemed like a good choice for me (only other option being the unsubsidized 529 Nexus One currently!), yet, there's just no way I'm going to settle for the no flash, small screen, iPhone 4.
kmmatney - Wednesday, June 30, 2010 - link
"And that's most certainly not because it's better, in fact in most cases the iPhone is objectively inferior to other phones."You pretty much lost your credibility right there..
About the battery life issue - it's huge - at least with people who travel a lot, like me. And I'm not about to carry an extra battery around.
JAS - Wednesday, June 30, 2010 - link
The iPhone 4 is a significantly greater upgrade over the 3GS than the 3GS was over the iPhone 3. The new A4 processor and doubling of the RAM make the iPhone 4 a noticeably faster device. Its improved camera and 720P video recording are additional noteworthy plusses.Yes, the Google Android OS is bound to be running on more smart phones than the Apple iOS by virtue of the fact that Andriod phones are available from more manufacturers and wireless carriers. The situation is not unlike the great abundance of computers that run Microsoft Windows versus the number of OS X Macintoshes in use. Only Apple sells Macs while MS Windows boxes are available from a wide range of manufacturers.
strikeback03 - Thursday, July 1, 2010 - link
Well the first phone I know of with a 4"+ screen was the HD2, but as it runs Windows Mobile that rules it out for a lot of people. In the US at least I don't think there are any 4" or bigger screens actually released other than the EVO, the Droid X doesn't come out for another few weeks and the Galaxy S class (shouldn't these have been named the Galaxy, Yamato, Enterprise...) do not have a firm release date yet.On the subject of battery life, if the phone cannot make it through your day (as he states previous iphones could not make it through his) then that can be a problem. Sure I would prefer a phone that can go 3 or 4 days without recharging, but until battery technology allows that to be pocketable I will live with lasting a full day. But if I start needing to have a charger at work and in my car just to make it through the day that is a problem. I do wish he would have some type of a more mixed battery life test though, after all I don't know anyone who is just going to sit and browse the web over 3G very often. How about a mix of (per hour) 10SMS, 3 min on voice call, 5 min web browsing, 5 min gaming, 5 min listening to music, checking email 4 times, and the rest of the time just flicking the screen on occasionally to check the time, or calendar, or a sports score, etc? How long could it last in a more general use scenario like that?
Mumrik - Friday, July 2, 2010 - link
"Battery life is routinely massively overrated by Anand"I can't get my head around why you'd ever say something like that. Having to recharge every night is a major hassle and completely unacceptable. We don't all sleep the same place every night or want to keep our chargers by the bed. Battery life is a huge issue right now as companies put more and more powerful and power consuming chips in phones while batter life suffers. It used to be normal to recharge you phone 1-2 times a week you know...
ale087 - Wednesday, June 30, 2010 - link
I see the Galaxy S as a direct competitor to the iPhone 4, the SoC has been said to be extremely similar... Please give us an in-depth review with awesome hardware info that we can't get anywhere else :-D Thanks for doing a great job as always! looking forward to that Galaxy S review ;-)navderek - Wednesday, June 30, 2010 - link
Are you really sure you know what your talking about when it comes to reviewing RF related topics? You seem to know the basics but I don't think you know enough to actually review handsets in this manner and your comments can be misleading.I work in the RF field as an RF Operations Specialist for a several large network that include iDEN, CDMA, and UMTS, as well as microwave and fiber optic transmission. Anyways this is not about me but I thought I would state this before continuing...
The signal bars do not always simply signify signal strength in decibels. For many handsets what the actually signify is signal QUALITY. This could be SNR as you mentioned in your article however it is not so simple...
For example, in an iDEN network the quality measurement is "SQE" and for a UMTS network (or as we like to call it - 3G network), the first and foremost quality measure is "CQI"
Lets use the CQI metric in UMTS for our example...CQI values will determine the coding technique used by the serving BTS (tower) which will determine how many redundant bits to send to keep the BER low as well determine which modulation scheme to use (i.e. different levels of QAM, like 64QAM in the best quality scenario).
Now I won't go into detail here about how all this works and how it's tied into the graphical representation of the bars you see on the handset but I will let you in on something...over the years those bars have become less and less reliable as a measure of signal strength and/or quality. Why? Because cellular carriers don't want clients to see less than 5 bars, so they have been pretty much rigged to display 5 bars in most situations until the signal is VERY BAD.
Finally, about your coments in regards to signal strength in decibels...-107dB is extremely
bad for a signal on any network. You stated that for voice and data that -107dB is perfectly fine...this could not be further from the truth and this is the point where the signal levels out with the noise floor. The BTS and/or UE begin to really lose communication with eachother at this level and on top of that you'll never get good data rates at such a poor signal level with UMTS for reasons stated above. At that signal level (-107dB) the BTS will be sending a ton of redundant bits with the most redundant coding technique as well as factoring down the QAM constallation in an attempt to keep the link alive. The data may still work in some cases at -107dB but your speeds will suffer GREATLY.
Please consider hiring an RF expert before making generalized RF based reviews. I highly respect your reviewing cabability and your intelligence, however I question your wisdom when you do such a review.
Thanks