Pixel 2 dethrones iPhone 8 Plus and Galaxy Note 8 in camera rankings

"Pixel 2 dethrones iPhone 8 Plus and Galaxy Note 8 in camera rankings"

As is well known on these newsgroups, generally Apple iOS smartphone camera
functionality historically has been rated in the bottom of the top ten or
dozen best smartphone cameras over the past few years.

That's not bad, but it's nowhere near what most Apple users seem to *think*
their cameras are rated (they never look at ratings - they just read
marketing blurbs).

Recently, a welcome one-time anomaly occurred where the iPhone 8 actually
scored better camera functionality than all the smartphone cameras!

But only briefly.

"Pixel 2 dethrones iPhone 8 Plus and Galaxy Note 8 in camera rankings"
"Well, that was quick! The iPhone 8 Plus had a short reign at camera
testing outfit DxOMark as "the best smartphone camera we've ever tested" -
the Galaxy Note 8 tied it after only a few weeks. And now Google's Pixel 2
has bested them both. The folks at DxOMark are experts, and I trust their
determination here. There's no doubt the Pixel 2 has an amazing camera."
https://techcrunch.com/2017/10/04/pixel-2-dethrones-iphone-8-plus-and-galaxy-note-8-in-camera-rankings/

In article , harry newton
wrote:

...The folks at DxOMark are experts, and I trust their
determination here.

dxomark are experts at bull****.

dxo has rated some nikon slrs to perform better than physics allows.

that means their tests are completely meaningless.

as for smartphones, chew on this:

https://www.androidcentral.com/editors-desk-dxomark-worthless
Firstly, let's address the flaws of using a single number to sum up
the entire mobile camera experience. Reducing a smartphone camera to
a percentage score has the problem of being at once too vague and too
specific. A number ‹ a non-weighted average ‹ doesn't do justice to
the complexity of modern smartphone cameras, where performance can
vary widely depending on the situation, and not all factors are
equally important. At the same time, a score out of 100 implies
precision. The OnePlus 5, Huawei P10 and Samsung Galaxy S6 edge+ are
all equally good, the numbers tell us. The LG G6 and Moto G4 Plus,
also equal, with DxO scores of 84. Anyone who's used these devices
out in the real world will tell you the reality is not even close.

Meanwhile, DxO rates the Galaxy S6 edge+ as an 87, whereas the Galaxy
Note 5 is an 86. Both phones have the same internal hardware and
camera modules. There's a one-point variance between these two
phones, which in imaging terms are identical. There's also a
one-point difference between a Samsung Galaxy S8 and a Sony Xperia
Z5, which are light-years apart in real-world performance.
....
Like a wily student preparing for a standardized test, manufacturers
who partner with DxO, and get access to its hardware and software,
can tune their image processing to ace the firm's synthetic tests
(within the limits of the hardware, of course). As a result, their
review scores are higher when DxO eventually publishes them ‹ because
they've had access to the testing hardware all along. Manufacturers
who don't partner with DxO are at an automatic disadvantage in terms
of their score, even though real-world, outside-of-the-lab image
quality might not be substantially worse. When that happens, as it is
bound to, consumers who put faith in comparisons between scores from
partners and non-partners are potentially misled.

tl;dr not only are the tests bogus, but google rigged the results, the
same as what samsung did a few years ago with cpu benchmarks:

https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2013...nchmarking-adj
ustments-inflate-scores-by-up-to-20/
After a good bit of sleuthing, we can confidently say that Samsung
appears to be artificially boosting the US Note 3's benchmark scores
with a special, high-power CPU mode that kicks in when the device
runs a large number of popular benchmarking apps.*Samsung
did*something similar with the international Galaxy S 4's GPU, but
this is the first time we've seen the boost on a US device. We also
found a way to disable this special CPU mode, so for the first time
we can see just how much Samsung's benchmark optimizations affect
benchmark scores.

He who is nospam said on Thu, 05 Oct 2017 01:18:37 -0400:

...The folks at DxOMark are experts, and I trust their
determination here.

dxomark are experts at bull****.

You bring up a good point in that DXOMark "experts" may be "not experts",
where you'd then have to find some *other* comprehensive long-standing and
reliable test of all smartphones, for us to rely upon.

Let's see if the rec.photo.digital experts concur with you as they are the
acknowledged experts in such matters.

that means their tests are completely meaningless.

I'm sure all of us (including me) would love to see another comprehensive
test structure for reporting on the relative camera functionality of all
smartphones over a period of many years.

Do any of the rec.photo.digital experts know of such a comparison review?

https://www.androidcentral.com/editors-desk-dxomark-worthless
Firstly, let's address the flaws of using a single number to sum up
the entire mobile camera experience.

Your observation is correct - but you need to propose a better solution,
which would be a better site for assessing the camera functionality of all
smartphones over time.

Using a single number as a summary is a well-known and well practiced
method of choosing among many items over long periods of time - but any
intelligent person also realizes that the weighting of each factor that
went into the number matters, not only to the aggregate group - but to an
individual.

For just one example, lens-induced chromatic aberration may be unimportant
to some, and meaningful to others - so if it hurts the ratings - it may not
be a meaningful hurt to some.

The solution would be to find multiple sites that rank all smartphone
camera functionality over time - to keep them honest.

Like a wily student preparing for a standardized test, manufacturers
who partner with DxO, and get access to its hardware and software,
can tune their image processing to ace the firm's synthetic tests
(within the limits of the hardware, of course).

As a fan of automotive and motorcycle performance test when I was a college
kid forever in graduate school, I agree that the manufacturers can game a
flawed system.

Again, what we need to protect us from gamed reviews is a healthy set of
reviews to compare against.

Do the folks on r.p.d know of a *better* all-encompassing review of all
smartphone camera functionalities for all smartphones over a long period of
time?

(I'm not asking about the zillions of one-off tests between the current
fads but of comprehensive methodical tests of all smartphones.)

He who is JF Mezei said on Thu, 5 Oct 2017 02:50:44 -0400:

"Pixel 2 dethrones iPhone 8 Plus and Galaxy Note 8 in camera rankings"


Until the Pixel 2 ships, how can one make evaluations of its production
unit capabilities?

I agree and have seen cases where manufacturers gamed the "test units", as
have all of us.

As with motorcycle "bhp" and radio "eirp" power tests, it seems that all
the manufacturers' MARKETING organizations lie - so what we need is an
"independent" comprehensive reviewers.

The problem is that I don't know of any other "comprehensive" reviewer and
I certainly don't know of an "independent" reviewer (e.g., of the likes of
Consumers Union, who possibly is the most independent, and even they
succumb to industry pressure at times, e.g., the Bose controversy of times
long past).

While both dry spec comparisons and one-off current-fad comparisons abound,
what we need is another systematic comprehensive smartphone camera-output
comparison whose results we can compare with DXOmark.

I doubt we will find an "independent" comparison that isn't vulnerable to
being gamed by the manufacturers - but it would be helpful to find another
systematic smartphone camera comparison outfit to keep the DXOMark team
honest.

Do any of the r.p.d experts know of a *better* comprehensive smartphone
camera-output comparison test report?

He who is RichA said on Thu, 5 Oct 2017 01:40:15 -0700 (PDT):

I don't know about phones, but for cameras, DXO thinks changing
the sensor causes the LENS to change sharpness.
A *******ization of test results that plays into the hands of fools.

What do you suggest as a better independent comprehensive test report?

We seem to have the classic unsolvable problem that nobody (who posted)
likes the DXOmark tests, and yet, nobody (yet) has suggested a more
independent or more accurate or more comprehensive overall test of
smartphone camera functionality.

It's easy to debase the work that DXOmark did - but is there something
better for us to use to compare the camera output of all smartphones on a
reliable test of what matters?

If yes ... where is that more reliable comprehensive test?
If now ... then that's the best we have (where the alternative is nothing).

In article om, JF
Mezei wrote:

Until the Pixel 2 ships, how can one make evaluations of its production
unit capabilities?

because google paid dxo and shipped them pre-release phones that were
tweaked to do well on their benchmarks.

In article , harry newton
wrote:


The problem is that I don't know of any other "comprehensive" reviewer and

you don't know much of anything, other than trolling.

one of the most comprehensive camera review sites, both for traditional
cameras and now smartphones, is dpreview.com.

some of their reviews are 20-30 *pages* long and take as much as 6-8
weeks to complete.

In article ,
RichA wrote:


I don't know about phones, but for cameras,

phones are the most commonly used cameras.

DXO thinks changing the sensor
causes the LENS to change sharpness. A *******ization of test results that plays into the
hands of fools.

now that's funny.

On 10/4/17, 9:37 PM, in article , "harry newton"
wrote:

"Pixel 2 dethrones iPhone 8 Plus and Galaxy Note 8 in camera rankings"

As is well known on these newsgroups, generally Apple iOS smartphone camera
functionality historically has been rated in the bottom of the top ten or
dozen best smartphone cameras over the past few years.

This is a claim you made but never supported -- in fact your own links
refuted this claim

But you lie a lot.

https://youtu.be/7QaABa6DFIo

Where is your video? I keep asking and you keep running. And you always
will. Face it -- you were busted lying.

....

--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot
use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow
superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308

On 10/5/17, 6:49 AM, in article ,
"nospam" wrote:

In article , harry newton
wrote:


The problem is that I don't know of any other "comprehensive" reviewer and

you don't know much of anything, other than trolling.

one of the most comprehensive camera review sites, both for traditional
cameras and now smartphones, is dpreview.com.

some of their reviews are 20-30 *pages* long and take as much as 6-8
weeks to complete.

And keep in mind his own sources refuted his claims.

He simply lies to troll.

--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot
use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow
superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308