Camera Architecture

It seems that having a camera is now a necessity on even the most inexpensive devices. But there are cases like HP's Stream 7 where the quality of the camera is so poor that you question whether it was even worth the money spent on it in the first place. However, with inexpensive smartphones the image quality is usually good enough for sharing via social media and instant messaging which makes it worth including. Whether or not this holds true for the Moto E is yet to be seen, but before discussing image quality it's important to have a good understanding of the Moto E's camera system.

Motorola Moto E (2015) Camera Specifications
Front Camera - Resolution 0.3MP (640x480)
Front Camera - Sensor Aptina MT9V113
(2.2µm, 1/11")
Front Camera - Focal Length 1.4mm
Front Camera - Max Aperture F/3.0
Rear Camera - Resolution 5.0MP (2560x1920)
Rear Camera - Sensor Samsung S5K5E2 (1.12µm, 1/5")
Rear Camera - Focal Length 2.5mm (28mm eff)
Rear Camera - Max Aperture F/2.2

The front facing camera on the Moto E is a 0.3MP sensor from Aptina. The original Moto E didn't even have a front facing camera so it's definitely an upgrade in that respect, but I do wonder if it would have been better to continue without the front facing camera and either spend the money elsewhere or further drive down the price of the phone.

The rear facing sensor is made by Samsung. It's a 1/5" 5MP sensor with 1.12 micron pixels. You may be familiar with it, as it was the sensor used for the HTC One M8's front-facing camera. It's also important to note that the 2015 Moto E supports autofocus, which is an enormous improvement over its predecessor which had a fixed focus camera. The video recording resolution of the rear camera has also been bumped from 854x480p30 to 1280x720p30.

Camera Focus Latency (Shooting ISO 12233 Target)

Camera Shot Latency (Shooting ISO 12233 Target)

The focus latency on the Moto E is one of the longer results on our test. For a device with only contrast detection auto focus it's not a bad result, although there are a couple devices that manage to focus a couple hundred milliseconds quicker. Shot latency is actually pretty good, and you don't ever feel like you're waiting in between taking photos.

Motorola Camera

Motorola includes their own camera application with the Moto E. By default it gives you what is essentially the most automatic camera experience possible, with zero control over focus, exposure, or any other options. In this mode, tapping anywhere on the display takes a photo, and the camera is always focused in the center. Pressing and holding on the display takes a succession of photos, which seems to work well apart from a pause after every 20 photos or so to write them to memory. Moving your finger up or down does a digital zoom up to 4.0x, although I wouldn't recommend it.

To access the controls in Motorola's camera app, you need to know to swipe in from the left side. I really don't like this hidden magic menu style of design. Motorola really should have had the menu set to be visible when the app is loaded and set it move off screen after a second or two. It is shown initially in the tutorial when you first run the app, but when you're relying on tutorials to show the user how to use the basic functions of your app your design is already a failure. Once you do find this menu, you'll be able to do various things like switch to panorama mode, change whether photos are stored on an SD card or internal memory, and most importantly, enable the control over focus and exposure that should have been enabled in the first place. You'll also be able to change the app from the default 3.7MP 16:9 cropped output to the full 2560x1920 output of the 4:3 sensor.

Unfortunately, even the focus control and exposure are implemented in a strange manner. You control the focus by moving a disk around on your screen, and when it turns green you know that you've successfully focused on that area. I understand what Motorola was trying to do here, as having the disk always on your screen lets you know where you focused. However, it's just not as intuitive as being able to tap somewhere to focus, and it just makes for a less comfortable experience than other camera applications.

I actually like some of Motorola's included applications, but the ones that try to replace the applications that already exist in AOSP or from Google tend to fall short. After playing with Motorola's camera app I just went to Google Play to download Google's Camera app which is quite frankly better than Motorola's. It's unfortunate though, because on an 8GB device the last thing you want is to have replacement apps for less than optimal default ones taking up space on your phone.

Of course, the biggest part of a smartphone's camera is not the camera app but the photos themselves. That's what I'll be looking at next.

Display Camera Performance
Comments Locked

90 Comments

View All Comments

  • Hubb1e - Tuesday, April 21, 2015 - link

    While the camera performance is pretty meh, I really don't see how you can complain about 802.11n being a downside. AC wireless is nowhere near ubiquitous and N is surely fast enough for low end users. AC is decidedly a high end feature in phones and even computers these days. Most users of this phone probably still have wireless G in their homes or coffee shop hotspots which I would argue is still plenty of speed for a phone with a low end mobile chipset.
  • hans_ober - Tuesday, April 21, 2015 - link

    Yeah, it makes more sense to upgrade the cameras to 8MP/2MP than to switch to 802.11ac.
  • Olaf van der Spek - Tuesday, April 21, 2015 - link

    The E makes the much more expensive but slower G seem a bit expensive. Is Moto planning a new G?
  • Cryio - Tuesday, April 21, 2015 - link

    "It wasn't that long ago that I recommended buyers looking for inexpensive smartphones avoid Android devices in favor of Windows Phone."

    " With Android Lollipop and new budget devices like the Moto E, my opinion about the quality of low end Android devices has changed."

    While all these may be true, the Lumia 640 is a true challenger. There are still reaasons to recommend the 640 over this.
  • sprockkets - Tuesday, April 21, 2015 - link

    Problem is what is the price, and two, it's a 5 inch phone. It was made to compete with the Moto G, not the Moto E.

    Currently I find WP to be great at first, but after a few days of trying again WP with the Lumia 635, it just flat out tries to annoy me. Today's annoyance is opening up the weather app goes to the store telling me there is a pending update. Then it disappears to the home screen. Before that when I told it to update all apps, it updates 16 out of 26. Why does the next 10 have to have me tell it again to download and install?
    After the update it took two tries to open the weather app as it keeps crashing to the home screen.
    The camera on it works good for pictures, but is utterly useless at night for video. Why can't they allow exp control for video?
    Also learned they won't issue GDR1 or 2 updates for WP8.1 since it will go to WP10. Too bad the latest build is a buggy mess.
  • BMNify - Tuesday, April 21, 2015 - link

    You seem to have a defective Lumia 635, get it replaced, never seen or used such a buggy Lumia, Even the old and humble Lumia 520 performs much better than what you describe.
  • Kakti - Tuesday, April 21, 2015 - link

    I bought this phone about two weeks ago from Best Buy - it's $79.99 for the Verizon one with NO contract. Not $120, not $150. $80 bucks. I can buy six of these for the same price as a new galaxy.

    The size of the phone is perfect, the screen is very nice, and due to the low resolution (compared to flagship phones), the battery actually lasts a really long time. Charging is fast and mine did come with a charger.

    I've already recommended this phone to several family members and friends who are sick of 2 year contracts, gigantic phones that don't fit in your pocket, etc. Yes the camera sucks, no it doesn't beat a flagship in bench tests. But I don't run benchmarks, I have maybe 5-6 apps open at once and it has never slowed down or locked up on me.

    Honestly if you're looking to save money and not have a laptop jammed into your pocket, take a look at this. The only reason I didn't get the Moto E last year was it didn't have 4G and we don't know how long until the 2015 Moto G comes out. 80 bucks no contract is pretty hard to beat.
  • BMNify - Tuesday, April 21, 2015 - link

    No contract does not mean Unlocked, it is still a Verizon locked phone and that is why you are getting for a lower price. As long as people keep buying locked phones from Carriers they cannot and should not complain about software updates. You become a carrier slave and slaves don't ask.
  • sonicmerlin - Wednesday, April 22, 2015 - link

    If it runs on Verizon's LTE then it comes unlocked.
  • RealTheXev - Wednesday, April 29, 2015 - link

    I'm pretty sure all Verizon phones on LTE come unlocked. It sucks because some bands that it would normally access will probably require hacking (whenever that might happen), but all of my Verizon LTE phones are unlocked by default.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now