• After 15+ years, we've made a big change: Android Forums is now Early Bird Club. Learn more here.

Compare, contrast, opinions: GSIII vs EVO 4G LTE / Sprint-CDMA-S4 only

Tommydaniel said:
Here's a GSMarena comparison of the ONE X(basically the EVO) and GS3 camera, While HTC's is better in low light, in general the GS3 won. The GS3 produces pictures with more detail and far less noise. They did a great job with this comparison. The Video recording of the GS3 also outshines the One X.

Samsung I9300 Galaxy S III vs. HTC One X: Alien vs. Predator - GSMArena.com
Click to expand...
Did they just compare them on the phone screens? My Galaxy Note takes what looks to be awesome pics but once off the phone and on the computer or developed they leave much to be desired.
 
Tommydaniel said:
Here's a GSMarena comparison of the ONE X(basically the EVO) and GS3 camera, While HTC's is better in low light, in general the GS3 won. The GS3 produces pictures with more detail and far less noise. They did a great job with this comparison. The Video recording of the GS3 also outshines the One X.

Samsung I9300 Galaxy S III vs. HTC One X: Alien vs. Predator - GSMArena.com
Click to expand...

I wouldn't listen to whoever created this article as I would to a head to head comparison myself! Even though I'm getting the LTEvo! The reason I say that is because the writer is bias, from what he put up, the SGSII has the better looking pics, but he say's the SGS3 does! WTF?
 
Sauske said:
I wouldn't listen to whoever created this article as I would to a head to head comparison myself! Even though I'm getting the LTEvo! The reason I say that is because the writer is bias, from what he put up, the SGSII has the better looking pics, but he say's the SGS3 does! WTF?
Click to expand...

There were only 3 comparison shots to the GSII and this is the only one that looked better, http://st.gsmarena.com/vv/reviewsimg/samsung-galaxy-s-iii/compare/crops/gsmarena_005.jpg, but you can see that there was more light when the GSII shot was taken compared to the other two.
 
Tommydaniel said:
There were only 3 comparison shots to the GSII and this is the only one that looked better, http://st.gsmarena.com/vv/reviewsimg/samsung-galaxy-s-iii/compare/crops/gsmarena_005.jpg, but you can see that there was more light when the GSII shot was taken compared to the other two.
Click to expand...

Then do it where you have the appropriate setting where everything is equal! I've seen in the article where the LTEvo is the clear victor, but to the writer say's the SGS3 is better...I like objective people and I wouldn't waste time listening to what he has to say based on his inconsistency!
 
Sauske said:
Then do it where you have the appropriate setting where everything is equal! I've seen in the article where the LTEvo is the clear victor, but to the writer say's the SGS3 is better...I like objective people and I wouldn't waste time listening to what he has to say based on his inconsistency!
Click to expand...

They can't control the weather and they only have a set amount of time to do the review. The GSII photo was taken back when it was reviewed. You can see in every photo, except for the low light photos the GS3 has more detail and a lot less noise.

Particularly this one
gsmarena_008.jpg


Also moving around the photos in the comparison tool you can see more detail and less noise in GS3. And I'm not speaking as a fanboy, but it is just my opinion.
 
Tommydaniel said:
They can't control the weather and they only have a set amount of time to do the review. The GSII photo was taken back when it was reviewed. You can see in every photo, except for the low light photos the GS3 has more detail and a lot less noise.

Particularly this one
gsmarena_008.jpg


Also moving around the photos in the comparison tool you can see more detail and less noise in GS3. And I'm not speaking as a fanboy, but it is just my opinion.
Click to expand...

Don't get me wrong but Sammy make quality phones! Sammy look like it was taking on a camera stand and the LTEvo was by a person with shacky cam! lol!
 
Tommydaniel said:
Here's a GSMarena comparison of the ONE X(basically the EVO) and GS3 camera, While HTC's is better in low light, in general the GS3 won. The GS3 produces pictures with more detail and far less noise. They did a great job with this comparison. The Video recording of the GS3 also outshines the One X.

Samsung I9300 Galaxy S III vs. HTC One X: Alien vs. Predator - GSMArena.com
Click to expand...

From the article -

Things get vastly different in low light, when the bright F/2.0 optics of One X count big time. In such conditions the HTC flagship crushes its opponent, producing images with far less noise and much better contrast.
Click to expand...
It's counter-intuitive that noise increases as light does.

What would you think would cause such a thing?
 
EarlyMon said:
Having not sampled the majority of people, nor seen any reliable studies that have (in fact, I never expect to see such an unbiased study), I don't know what the majority of people believe about the iPhone looking better. I know of some people who feel this way.

While not scientific I have given you the reasons. Read any review and you will be hard press to find any reviewer that say the iPhone is an ugly looking device. Now there will always be outlier, but that is present in the majority of things and in all studies. I would even wager you that even on Androidforum you will not find many people that will say the iPhone is ugly


The first sentence is only true if you believe that the function of a vehicle is dependability. It doesn't account for those who drive electrics or hybrids who value the function of breaking reliance on fossil fuels, pick-up trucks for the function of hauling, 4 wheelers for the function of getting into the back country, etc etc.

Yes, I do agree that if something is too ugly, some people may not buy it.

I was talking about cars and my analogy still holds true. The only purpose of a car is to bring you from point A to point B (reasonably safe I might add), but all other being superfluous. Some people might like a faster engine (phone processor) while others might go for design (looks). So yes if you pick the reason why the car was created you should go with dependability only, but again that is not the case

But to the point - what function does the form follow of having a glass phone? The function of looking good in a display showcase and the function of signaling others that you are part of the glass phone club.

The glass back serves no function other to be the back.

The function of glass on the back is to look good and premium. How many times have some complain about cheap plasticky, chintzy phones?


I can think of several reasons -


  1. It's not beautiful, not protecting it is an announcement to people who do think it's beautiful that they're in the same club. It's ok to have something that makes no sense, but looks cool to some. Like 2-inch fingernails.
  2. Nothing cracked or scratched is beautiful. If one can carry a glass phone uncased and never worry, is it possible that one is serving the phone more than the phone is serving the user?
  3. Your mileage varies from mine. I don't ride public transportation in Boston. Where and how I travel, I see people casing their glass phones because they can't afford the downtime in missed calls or communications and because in crowded airports (with airport security handling your phone), bars, and elevators - stuff happens. Exactly the reason I cased my beautiful Evo in a cheap and cheap looking, but oh-so-cushioned silicone case.

I was merely responding to the fact that you stated that the majority of people use a case on their iPhones

Nothing in the world is more beautiful than seeing that your phone was completely undamaged after a nasty, unexpected drop.

Well I guess we have to disagree on this but I rather see something beautiful that I own everyday and enjoy it instead of fearing it will shatter or break etc. Then you are nothing but a slave to your device.
But - that's me. Your mileage may vary. :)
Click to expand...

:D
 
Tommydaniel said:
They can't control the weather and they only have a set amount of time to do the review. The GSII photo was taken back when it was reviewed. You can see in every photo, except for the low light photos the GS3 has more detail and a lot less noise.

Particularly this one
gsmarena_008.jpg


Also moving around the photos in the comparison tool you can see more detail and less noise in GS3. And I'm not speaking as a fanboy, but it is just my opinion.
Click to expand...

I frankly find this incredulous! My original Evo takes better light photo than that One X! It looks blurry as hell. As someone said, the S3 looks like it was taken on a tripod and the One X with a waving hand. You can sorta tell because the One X pic was slanted and the S3 was perfectly straight. Geez, take them the same way at the same time. Can't be that hard!
 
ThermoEVO said:
I frankly find this incredulous! My original Evo takes better light photo than that One X! It looks blurry as hell. As someone said, the S3 looks like it was taken on a tripod and the One X with a waving hand. You can sorta tell because the One X pic was slanted and the S3 was perfectly straight. Geez, take them the same way at the same time. Can't be that hard!
Click to expand...

Exactly! lol!
 
ThermoEVO said:
Not only that, on the One X pic, you can see clouds in the sky and the S3 was perfectly blue. Hahaha....some of these sites are so unprofessional!
Click to expand...

Wow...didn't catch that! Nice find there! They take a perfect sunny day pic on a tripod with the SGS3 and use marathon runner to take it on a cloudy not so good weather type of day with the One x!:D
 
Sauske said:
Wow...didn't catch that! Nice find there! They take a perfect sunny day pic on a tripod with the SGS3 and use marathon runner to take it on a cloudy not so good weather type of day with the One x!:D
Click to expand...

LOL seems like it.


If you want to see how a real camera review is done, go to dpreview.com. That's how a more professional review is performed and not this crap! :rolleyes:
 
There's an easy way to make a photo look grainy: set the ISO to something higher than necessary. What this basically does is forces the shutter to be more sensitive; in other words, give me a photo in much less time (exposure). This means less total light hits the sensor and therefore the noise is magnified.

Given that this photo comparison didn't call out shutter speeds, ISO, etc, and there was no attempt to normalize lighting conditions, I'd say the comparison is far from scientific and doesn't have much value to anyone.
 
EarlyMon said:
From the article -

It's counter-intuitive that noise increases as light does.

What would you think would cause such a thing?
Click to expand...

They aren't saying that noise increases in the ONE X in good lighting, they are saying the S3 handles compression and noise better in those situations.
 
Here's a comparison shot from Mobile-review.com, he does mention that it is obviously pre-release software on the GS3 and hopes it will be improved by release time.

S3
s3-02.jpg


One X
onex-02.jpg
 
Tommydaniel said:
They aren't saying that noise increases in the ONE X in good lighting, they are saying the S3 handles compression and noise better in those situations.
Click to expand...
I think this is the correct interpretation.

I'm largely unphased by the camera comparison thus far; we've known before the early comparisons have come out that the sensor in the One X/Evo is a prior generation sensor used in the GSII and HTC Amaze (?), whereas Samsung has access to its latest goodies and has outfitted the GSIII with a brand-new, as of yet unseen sensor.

Also, the reality is, for outdoors/real world testing, there is simply no way to do "accurate" comparisons. Any photo review site has a carefully set up studio with specific lighting and a controlled environment. The upside is that you get measurable consistency, but the downside is that studio shots are not always reflective of real-world shooting, which is important because that's what we'll all be doing. In my view, between the real-world and studio shots, the One X and GSIII are trading blows between different situations.

Because of the different sensors, I expected both cameras to trade blows in terms of image quality, but at the same time, we still do have nice benefits when it comes to the ImageSense co-processing in terms of shoot speed, continuous shot, the ability to videorecord and shoot photos, etc.
 
novox77 said:
There's an easy way to make a photo look grainy: set the ISO to something higher than necessary. What this basically does is forces the shutter to be more sensitive; in other words, give me a photo in much less time (exposure). This means less total light hits the sensor and therefore the noise is magnified.

Given that this photo comparison didn't call out shutter speeds, ISO, etc, and there was no attempt to normalize lighting conditions, I'd say the comparison is far from scientific and doesn't have much value to anyone.
Click to expand...

Yep the photos outside looked like amateur hour at the Apollo with the One X. The bottom line is if you are going to do a true shot for shot you're going to use the same studio (yes a studio) with the exact same lighting and with both camera's on a rig. Until they do that it's going to be very hard to truly compare..well outside of the obvious direct sunlight pictures.
 
burgertime said:
Yep the photos outside looked like amateur hour at the Apollo with the One X. The bottom line is if you are going to do a true shot for shot you're going to use the same studio (yes a studio) with the exact same lighting and with both camera's on a rig. Until they do that it's going to be very hard to truly compare..well outside of the obvious direct sunlight pictures.
Click to expand...

This is just a guess...but isn't that would they did in the camera comparison tools at the bottom of the post?
 
NeoteriX said:
Oops, I knew that both had simultaneous video/image capture from the GSMArena review you posted, but doesn't the HTC has a far vaster continuous shot quantity? And also start up and shot to shot speed?
Click to expand...

Yes and not sure. I'm not sure what the start up time is on the Samsung vs the HTC. I know Samsung set the continuous shot to 20, where the HTC is 99, or something crazy like that.
 
Tommydamiel you must be waiting on SGS3!? And there's nothing wrong with that but where are talking from a objective standpoint, I understand your points, but I think your not trying to understand ours, based on the given info and inconsistency of the reviewer!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom