# The best camera in a smartphone is... (DxO latest ratings)



## editor (Oct 15, 2015)

1.Sony Xperia Z5

2.Samsung S6 Edge

3.Google Nexus 6P

4.LG G4

5.Samsung Note 4

6.Moto X Style

7.Sony Xperia Z3+

8.Apple iPhone 6Plus

9.Apple iPhone 6

10.Apple iPhone 6s







So, you cant get finer than Sony's latest offering which looks to be an excellent number:
DxOMark Mobile | DxOMark


----------



## BassJunkie (Oct 16, 2015)

I received a Z5 on Monday, I'm not usually an early adopter but I've been on Giff Gaff for 3 years with my aging Samsung S3.  I dare not use my new phone until its case arrives.  I ordered the phone and case last Friday.  The phone arrived on Monday, but it appears to be beyond the wit of man to deliver a phone case in 7 days.  <Glances at front door> <Drums fingers on desk>.


----------



## Frankie Jack (Oct 16, 2015)

I've an elderly Xperia Z1 and it's camera is excellent. Z5 must be incredible.


----------



## wayward bob (Oct 22, 2015)

i have a z1 compact and the camera _really_ doesn't cut it for me, especially for flash-free indoors pics. came on here to look for a recommended alternative. anyone used both z1 and z5 can compare? other than the camera i'm really happy with it - esp the battery life.


----------



## editor (Oct 22, 2015)

wayward bob said:


> i have a z1 compact and the camera _really_ doesn't cut it for me, especially for flash-free indoors pics. came on here to look for a recommended alternative. anyone used both z1 and z5 can compare? other than the camera i'm really happy with it - esp the battery life.


The X3 camera is excellent and it's going to be noticeably better than the Z1. 

Comparison test pic between Z1 and Z3


----------



## joustmaster (Oct 22, 2015)

Dishonest graph scale. Booo.


----------



## editor (Oct 22, 2015)

joustmaster said:


> Dishonest graph scale. Booo.


Feel free to produce a more 'honest' one, along with supporting research.


----------



## wayward bob (Oct 22, 2015)

editor said:


> Comparison test pic between Z1 and Z3


i'm seeing more sharpening/contrast, but not enough of an improvement over the z1 to warrant upgrading. i always buy phones on the strength of the camera and the z1's been an utter dud in that regard - never lived up to its supposed potential...


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 22, 2015)

BassJunkie said:


> I received a Z5 on Monday, I'm not usually an early adopter but I've been on Giff Gaff for 3 years with my aging Samsung S3.  I dare not use my new phone until its case arrives.  I ordered the phone and case last Friday.  The phone arrived on Monday, but it appears to be beyond the wit of man to deliver a phone case in 7 days.  <Glances at front door> <Drums fingers on desk>.


get a woman to do it.

next.


----------



## mauvais (Oct 27, 2015)

editor said:


> Feel free to produce a more 'honest' one, along with supporting research.


Why do they need 'research' to complain about a scale that starts at 65 and thus over-emphasises incremental differences? And it's not hard to produce a more honest one. Just add some more blue.

In fact, here you go:






*scroll*


----------



## editor (Oct 27, 2015)

mauvais said:


> Why do they need 'research' to complain about a scale that starts at 65 and thus over-emphasises incremental differences? And it's not hard to produce a more honest one. Just add some more blue.


Err, maybe it starts at 65 because it's showing the very best camera phones available? It's hardly unusual practice when you're zooming into a graph.


----------



## mauvais (Oct 27, 2015)

editor said:


> Err, maybe it starts at 65 because it's showing the very best camera phones available? It's hardly unusual practice when you're zooming into a graph.


Whether you agree with it or not, the other poster is quite entitled to complain that it casually misrepresents the scoring (which is arbitrary anyway). If you represent it as above, it shows it for what it is, and what the broader mobile phone industry is in general, a small incremental step forward over the last three years.


----------



## editor (Oct 27, 2015)

mauvais said:


> Whether you agree with it or not, the other poster is quite entitled to complain that it casually misrepresents the scoring (which is arbitrary anyway).


How so? Surely the small incremental steps accurately represents the small incremental changes in the technology.  

How is it "dishonest"?

Scoring methodology explained here: DxOMark Lens scores | DxOMark


----------



## mauvais (Oct 27, 2015)

editor said:


> How so? Surely the small incremental steps accurately represents the small incremental changes in the technology.
> 
> How is it "dishonest"?


Really? It's not rocket science. Because at a glance, it appears that a Z5 is twice as good a camera as a S4. And whilst twice as good might be something to write about, an article entitled "cameras slightly better over number of years" is probably not going to propel me to the top of a career in consumerist journalism.


----------



## editor (Oct 27, 2015)

mauvais said:


> Really? It's not rocket science. Because at a glance, it appears that a Z5 is twice as good a camera as a S4. And whilst twice as good might be something to write about, an article entitled "cameras slightly better over number of years" is probably not going to propel me to the top of a career in consumerist journalism.


If you're unable to register the scores that are clearly displayed in that graph then I guess it's never going to work for you. I can't say I had any problem understanding it - but then I bothered to read the content too.


----------



## joustmaster (Oct 27, 2015)

editor said:


> How so? Surely the small incremental steps accurately represents the small incremental changes in the technology.
> 
> How is it "dishonest"?
> 
> Scoring methodology explained here: DxOMark Lens scores | DxOMark














Heres a video about it


----------



## editor (Oct 27, 2015)




----------



## mauvais (Oct 27, 2015)

editor said:


> If you're unable to register the scores that are clearly displayed in that graph then I guess it's never going to work for you. I can't say I had any problem understanding it - but then I bothered to read the content too.


Pffft. I don't expect you to agree - the whole forum has long been an exercise in trying to inflate minor technological steps forward into disproportionate excitement and ultimately buying things. And this is coming from just as much a habitually consumerist numpty as anyone else - but I've been a consumer and in the industry long enough to be jaded by it, a waste of attention and money. And we didn't really need to dig into whether a graph is valid or not, but since we have, let's go the distance. Someone's take on this review could be "all cameras actually pretty good", or you know, "that old phone you have is still okay", but it never is, is it? And I know that in saying this, I am so very boring and grumpy, and I've no doubt said it all before right here, but how long can anyone be expected to give a fuck about any of it? There are interesting things going on in technology, but smartphones have very much plateaued, and therefore this is not it. And yet it mercilessly continues.


----------



## editor (Oct 27, 2015)

For those unable to see the displayed numbers at the top and for those disinclined to read any content. #fixedforyou


----------



## mauvais (Oct 27, 2015)

Yeah, I did that one already.


----------



## joustmaster (Oct 27, 2015)

editor said:


>


Its a well known basic sales and marketing  cheat.
Its used to exaggerate data to make it more interesting, or to lie.

It was part of my GCSE maths class, ffs.


----------



## editor (Oct 27, 2015)

mauvais said:


> Pffft. I don't expect you to agree - the whole forum has long been an exercise in trying to inflate minor technological steps forward into disproportionate excitement and ultimately buying things. And this is coming from just as much a habitually consumerist numpty as anyone else - but I've been a consumer and in the industry long enough to be jaded by it, a waste of attention and money. And we didn't really need to dig into whether a graph is valid or not, but since we have, let's go the distance. Someone's take on this review could be "all cameras actually pretty good", or you know, "that old phone you have is still okay", but it never is, is it? And I know that in saying this, I am so very boring and grumpy, and I've no doubt said it all before right here, but how long can anyone be expected to give a fuck about any of it? There are interesting things going on in technology, but smartphones have very much plateaued, and therefore this is not it. And yet it mercilessly continues.


Thing is you fail to understand that to some people near-imperceptible differences in performance are VITAL. It's all they're interested in, even if it translates into no actual real world difference. That's why queues of fucking idiots whoop and wet themselves when Apple make some tiny marginal improvement and declare that it "changes everything."

That said, there are some individual strengths and weaknesses in phone camera performance that may be of interest to a keen photographer such as me (e.g. aperture, low light performance, start up time etc) and it doesn't hurt to have these relatively minor differences in optical performance listed either, IMO. 

If you think it has no merit, then ignore them, although I'm not sure how they can be described as 'dishonest.'


----------



## joustmaster (Oct 27, 2015)

editor said:


> View attachment 78602
> 
> For those unable to see the displayed numbers at the top and for those disinclined to read any content. #fixedforyou


the honest way to display it, to compare to the original, would be to shrink the Y axis:


----------



## joustmaster (Oct 27, 2015)

but that's not going to make the article very exciting.


----------



## editor (Oct 27, 2015)

joustmaster said:


> Its a well known basic sales and marketing  cheat.
> Its used to exaggerate data to make it more interesting, or to lie.


Which 'lies' are contained in the article?


----------



## joustmaster (Oct 27, 2015)

editor said:


> Which 'lies' are contained in the article?


"or to lie"
OR


----------



## editor (Oct 27, 2015)

joustmaster said:


> "or to lie"
> OR


Why put in the word 'lie' where you have no evidence of the site doing so?


----------



## mauvais (Oct 27, 2015)

editor said:


> Thing is you fail to understand that to some people near-imperceptible differences in performance are VITAL. It's all they;re interested in, even if it translates into no actual real world difference. That's why queues of fucking idiots whoop and wet themselves when Apple make some tiny marginal improvement and declare than it "changes everything."


Yeah, I know. But they should be mocked, not humoured with this nonsense. Personally I think they should be thrown into a threshing machine - presumably not that hard with the aid of this year's all new, must-have threshing machine - but others might feel differently, more charitable, perhaps that they should be _incrementally _fed into a threshing machine.


----------



## joustmaster (Oct 27, 2015)

editor said:


> Why put in the word 'lie' where you have no evidence of the site doing so?


wtf?

You seemed oblivious as to why a dishonest scale on a graph is a bad thing. So I explained why.
They can be used to bend data and to lie.


----------



## editor (Oct 27, 2015)

joustmaster said:


> wtf?
> 
> You seemed oblivious as to why a dishonest scale on a graph is a bad thing. So I explained why.
> They can be used to bend data and to lie.


I don't view the graph in this thread as being "dishonest" so I'm not 'oblivious' to anything apart from what seems to be your growing cross-thread personal beef with me.

The actual phone rankings are clearly displayed at the top of every one. How is that dishonest? Or a lie?


----------



## editor (Oct 27, 2015)

mauvais said:


> Yeah, I know. But they should be mocked, not humoured with this nonsense. Personally I think they should be thrown into a threshing machine - presumably not that hard with the aid of this year's all new, must-have threshing machine - but others might feel differently, more charitable, perhaps that they should be _incrementally _fed into a threshing machine.


A little harsh perhaps. My real annoyance is not with websites becoming orgasmic over a marginal increase in sensor pixels, but with websites that churn out 'rumours' (i.e wild guesses) posturing as facts.


----------



## joustmaster (Oct 27, 2015)

editor said:


> I don't view the graph in this thread as being "dishonest" so I'm not 'oblivious' to anything apart from what seems to be your growing cross-thread personal beef with me.
> 
> The actual rankings are clearly displayed at the top of every one. How is that dishonest? Or a lie?


No cross thread beef. 
And my first post was just a comment on the graph being bad for as it uses a broken scale.

A graph with a non-zero scale is dishonest because it exaggerates and twists the data. Its not an honest representation.
I'd imagine the publisher of the graph wanted to jazz up some boring results that actually show cock-all difference between the majority of the phones.


----------



## editor (Oct 27, 2015)

joustmaster said:


> No cross thread beef.
> And my first post was just a comment on the graph being bad for as it uses a broken scale.
> 
> A graph with a non-zero scale is dishonest because it exaggerates and twists the data. Its not an honest representation.
> I'd imagine the publisher of the graph wanted to jazz up some boring results that actually show cock-all difference between the majority of the phones.


But you understand that it's complemented by links to all the individual phone reviews and an explanation of the methodology used? If the graph was produced in isolation you might have a point. But it wasn't.


----------



## joustmaster (Oct 27, 2015)

editor said:


> But you understand that it's complemented by links to all the individual phone reviews and an explanation of the methodology used? If the graph was produced in isolation you might have a point. But it wasn't.


Come on, its a well known technique. Even when alongside the actual raw data. 
People look at a picture (graph) first, and its used as a tool to make the foundation of an articles point.


----------



## editor (Oct 27, 2015)

joustmaster said:


> Come on, its a well known technique. Even when alongside the actual raw data.
> People look at a picture (graph) first, and its used as a tool to make the foundation of an articles point.


Yes, but in this case DXO is not a site designed for regular consumers - it's a specialist site dealing in specialist measurements.


----------



## Fez909 (Oct 27, 2015)

joustmaster said:


> No cross thread beef.
> And my first post was just a comment on the graph being bad for as it uses a broken scale.
> 
> A graph with a non-zero scale is dishonest because it exaggerates and twists the data. Its not an honest representation.
> I'd imagine the publisher of the graph wanted to jazz up some boring results that actually show cock-all difference between the majority of the phones.


I'm not sure I disagree here, but as a counter-argument, how about Edward Tufte's take?



			
				ET said:
			
		

> In general, in a time-series, use a baseline that shows the data not the zero point. If the zero point reasonably occurs in plotting the data, fine. But don't spend a lot of empty vertical space trying to reach down to the zero point at the cost of hiding what is going on in the data line itself
> 
> For examples, all over the place, of absent zero points in time-series, take a look at any major scientific research publication. The scientists want to show their data, not zero.
> 
> The urge to contextualize the data is a good one, but context does not come from empty vertical space reaching down to zero, a number which does not even occur in a good many data sets. Instead, for context, show more data horizontally!


----------



## Lazy Llama (Oct 27, 2015)

DxO sell add-on lenses for the iPhone. I'm not saying that would influence the results they give to an un-augmented iPhone.

Although they're quite clear about how their DSLR and lens measurements are done, they don't seem to detail how the mobile tests are done apart from saying in a post on their forum that scores are not directly comparable.


----------



## editor (Oct 27, 2015)

Lazy Llama said:


> DxO sell add-on lenses for the iPhone.


To be fair, that's not apparent on their test pages, neither do they give any of the iPhones a class leading score.


----------



## Lazy Llama (Oct 27, 2015)

editor said:


> To be fair, that's not apparent on their test pages, neither do they give any of the iPhones a class leading score.


That's kind of the point. If it got a class leading score on its own, why would you need to buy an addon lens from them?


----------



## editor (Oct 27, 2015)

Lazy Llama said:


> That's kind of the point. If it got a class leading score on its own, why would you need to buy an addon lens from them?


To make it even _betterer_! I like your cynicism, but I really, really don't feel like there's any kind of accessory hard sell happening on this particular section of their site.


----------

