Droid Incredible versus Nexus One: cameraphone showdown

With all this talk of the Droid Incredible ousting the Nexus One from Verizon Wireless, having a better multitouch implementation, and just being newer and shinier, you might think this comparison of cameras is just mercilessly piling on the pain for the original Googlephone. After all, the Nexus One and its 5 megapixel sensor came out a good few months ahead of the 8 megapixel Droid Incredible, so surely this battle would be over before it's even begun? Not so fast, says Android and Me, whose diligent testers have put the two HTC handsets through a side-by-side shootout. As it turns out, the Nexus One rather swept the contest in both naturally and flash-lit shots, while the Incredible habitually exhibited a blue hue in less than perfectly lit photos. Both cameras were adept at taking excellent daylight photos, as is to be expected, but the devil is as usual in the details -- and you can find all of them at the source link below.

[Thanks, Matt]

[Pdexter Posted May 5th 2010 9:01AM]

HTC have always had poor cameras compared to Nokia, Samsung and SE. Motorola has also been doing nicely in the camera departmy, but HTC is long long away.

[r34p3r Posted May 5th 2010 9:08AM]

@Pdexter

I agree, although my original Touch Pro's camera didn't do that badly; hell, it had pretty decent macro performance. But for some reason, my Touch Pro 2's camera image quality just isn't as good. I don't know what it is...

Here's hoping the Evo's camera is up to par, because when you have the ability to record at true 720p, you don't want to have that power squandered by poor optics.

*crrosses fingers*

Now to be relevant to this article's subject, I must say that I *really* dislike the Incredible's backplate design. I'm sure it's like that for a valid reason, but it's really just not very attractive (IMO).

[GenericMessage Posted May 5th 2010 9:12AM]

@Pdexter

psst, HTC made the N1

[jaffreywali Posted May 5th 2010 9:16AM]

@GenericMessage The N1 camera isn't great either. The iPhone blows it away. But Nokias and some Sony Ericsson phones (cybershots) are the best.

[lexgr Posted May 5th 2010 9:18AM]

@Pdexter

I'm addicted to Nokia, but saying they've got good picture/video is stretching it a bit...

[Schmich Posted May 5th 2010 9:20AM]

@Pdexter At least they have flash unlike a certain upcoming top of the line phone from Samsung. Yes I'm looking at you at Galaxy S and those who decided to skip it... :/

[schultz Posted May 5th 2010 9:23AM]

@jaffreywali

lol.. way to bring in the iphone...

Is that the 2MP flashless 3G that blows it away?
or the 3.2 MP flashless 3Gs that blows it away?

because either way its very outdated camera technology...

[Beatnik Posted May 5th 2010 9:28AM]

@Pdexter
I love my nexus one, I would like to have the EVO 4G (more than Droid Incredible), but for my country the best option was (and still is) the nexus one, the carriers here use the 850 Mhz for 3G.
By the way, if you are interested in EVO, look at this Sprint promo video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EH_SpHy8EGQ&feature=player_embedded

[DeFlanko Posted May 5th 2010 9:58AM]

@GenericMessage
Aren't we a bit past photo taking specs? Shouldn't we be more concerned on which one has less jitter while shooting video in 1080p? TBH i would love to see a phone be able to do that.

[justinhub2003 Posted May 5th 2010 10:04AM]

@r34p3r really..I actually loved the touch pro2 camera with it'd tap to focus feature. I love my n1 better but IMO opinion the tp2 cam and keyboard were the only good things about it.

[Pdexter Posted May 5th 2010 10:39AM]

@GenericMessage
Very true, but neither did i say N1 having good camera. ;)

I have yet to see anybody producing anything close to Samsung, SE and Nokia cameras. Motorola got ZN5 that's great.

[tazmond Posted May 5th 2010 11:19AM]

@schultz Yeah, the 3.2mp cam in my 3GS may be yesterdays diapers compared to the 5-12mp cam in the new droids and evo's, but once again, the iphone trumps all with -> apps

[GGG Posted May 5th 2010 11:30AM]

@DeFlanko

No we are not. Personally i will never buy a smartphone with a poor camera, no matter what other features it offers. I already got used to not having a dedicated camera and i don't intend to change that.

[InnocentEd Posted May 5th 2010 11:35AM]

@tazmond How does that have anything to do with ANYTHING in this thread or post? Please for the love of god tell me where this thing mentioned Apple or the AppStore?
Why bring it up when even the trolls before you were just saying the iPhone CAMERA was better (which is a joke).

Holy Marbles you really just love to post iPhone is better wherever you can don't you?

[Mikeserena Posted May 5th 2010 12:21PM]

@schultz
Megapixels does NOT mean good photos, same goes with normal cameras, lens, CCD
, Etc. My 4 year old Fuji 6 mp cam takes much better pics than my wides Nikon 12.1 mp does,. Same goes with everything, just because something has bigger, better, faster features doesn't mean that it'll work better.

[GGG Posted May 5th 2010 12:55PM]

@Mikeserena

That's what she said.

[j3ff Posted May 5th 2010 6:08PM]

@Pdexter
The camera on my Nokia E71 is really bad.

[Larz Posted May 5th 2010 7:13PM]

@GGG Really?

[milkham Posted May 5th 2010 9:47PM]

@schultz megapixels aren't everything and the flash on the nexus one destroys photos so I never even have it on. What I've seen of iphone 3gs photos was actually pretty good.

[messyq Posted May 5th 2010 11:20PM]

@milkham i think my nexus one takes rather nice pictures. i agree the flash is mostly useless for photos but it's nice to have as a torch flashlight on my rooted n1

[beckhams777 Posted May 5th 2010 9:02AM]

again... more MegaPixels is not necessarily better

[s2m0 Posted May 5th 2010 9:05AM]

@beckhams777 YES IT IS! THE BOY AT BEST BUY TOLD ME SO!

[gargle Posted May 5th 2010 9:15AM]

beckhams now you must apologize for saying something that horrible and untrue!! Best Buy people are NEVER wrong!!!

[SeeKo Posted May 5th 2010 9:17AM]

@s2m0
Always good when you can rely on an expert in the store. lol

[NeatOman Posted May 5th 2010 9:25AM]

@beckhams777 Agreed, i had a old 3mega pixel camera from over 7 years ago that took pictures more then good enough for 4x6 photos. Enough so that it was almost indistinguishable from 35mm prints from a common photo lab.

[YoMamaOS Posted May 5th 2010 10:23AM]

@NeatOman

I got some prints done at a CVS with my old Curve 2.0 and the person printing them said they were the nicest phone pics shed ever seen....?

[angermeans Posted May 5th 2010 11:22AM]

@s2m0 LOL +1

[schultz Posted May 5th 2010 9:03AM]

The Incredible's pics look more detailed but are always darker for sure. Not being much of a camera guy myself, I have to wonder if the blue is just a ploy... seeing as how blue is the most appealing color to the eye, or if its just some low quality sensor or lens in there?

[BigJayDogg3 Posted May 5th 2010 9:16AM]

@schultz

Maybe since I'm not a photographer, I don't fully understand what detailed means in the world of photography, but if you look at the pictures on Flickr in their original res, the N1 looks far more detailed.

[schultz Posted May 5th 2010 9:21AM]

@BigJayDogg3

I don't know, just my opinion on it. The Incredible's pics look like I can see more actual textures in the pictures, but i do agree that the N1 takes better pictures from whats compared there

[NeatOman Posted May 5th 2010 9:33AM]

@schultz Look at the last picture with the statue, the Incredible looks like a painting.

In daylight, i think my LG Triton does a way better job (3MP)... And i can't tell you how much i HATE the phone, i only got it because it was $30 on contract (U.S. Cell) and i 100% regret it. Still takes better daytime pics, crap in low light tho.

[wraith404 Posted May 5th 2010 9:50AM]

@schultz

The quality of the sensor and lens can easily outweigh the density of the sensor if you aren't interested in large prints. Higher mega pixels provide more zoom depth and hence less pixelation in large prints. If the lens or sensor are lower quality you get the garbage in garbage out effect. Sure, there are more pixels, but more of them are erroneous.

I find that my N1 takes nice pictures, arguably better than a 5MP sony cybershot with a zeiss lens that I still have. At the end of the day I'm going to use my D90 if I want to take real pictures. Phone cameras are too situational without optical zoom.

[schultz Posted May 5th 2010 9:54AM]

@wraith404

Thats the kind of response I was hoping for lol. Somebody who knows what the hell makes the difference there, because I'm not afraid to admit that I don't. Again, N1 has better pics no doubt I was just saying that I see more details and textures in the incredible's pics

[YoMamaOS Posted May 5th 2010 10:26AM]

@wraith404

Shutter speeds...?

[owdee Posted May 5th 2010 11:14AM]

@schultz

The blue hue is because the white balance is incorrect on the Incredible. I am not sure whether it is the fault of the tester (not knowing what white balance is or setting it wrong) or the phone's auto white balance sensing the ambient light as warmer than it is in reality. Either way, this test is hardly scientific and needs to be redone.

[Dummy00001 Posted May 5th 2010 11:26AM]

@schultz, Some cameras intentionally underexpose (some photogs routinely do that manually too) to allow photo to contain more details in shadows. Though it still sucks: for that to work camera has to produce RAW where later one can adjust exposure. Changing brightness in JPEG might bring out some compression artifacts.

In the particular case I'd say that Droid has more problems with Auto-WB indoors: the "blue" is a compensation for the indoor incandescent lighting. It could be due to partially mixed lighting, yet Nexus in the same conditions apparently pulled it off.

So compared to Nexus, Droid slightly underexposes (about half EV stop) and auto-WB indoors/mixed lighting isn't reliable.

Do not take my word for it. I'm only a n00b in DSLRs.

[itch808 Posted May 5th 2010 3:40PM]

@owdee Well put, not done scientifically at all. Too many variables

[BigJayDogg3 Posted May 5th 2010 4:13PM]

@owdee

Beside the white balance, what other variables are there? I'd assume the guy didn't start fiddling with settings. He used the camera the way most people will. Pull it out, launch the camera app, take a picture. It wouldn't make sense to turn off AWB on the N1, but leave it on with the Incredible. As long as both phones had AWB on, and all settings were left at their out of box setting, this test is fairly accurate.

[johnjs22 Posted May 5th 2010 9:08AM]

I'd accept a free one.

[inspiron41 Posted May 5th 2010 9:08AM]

i'm a nexus one owner. i love the quality of the images on the nexus. i think the incredible's issue is just auto-white balance. which is probably software issue. im pretty sure we'll see an update to correct the blue tint.

[weeman Posted May 5th 2010 9:54AM]

@inspiron41

Ye kinda had a funny feeling that nexus one would win this before I read the article. You guys have to check out these shots some guy took with his nexus one:

http://picasaweb.google.com/justinhub2003/Fb#

[jaffreywali Posted May 5th 2010 9:12AM]

It's a pity that people equate camera resolution with quality. In most cases a higher resolution lens with the tiny sensors on these cameras mean you're going to get images with lots of noise. But as long as geeks equate better camera with higher res we're going to see specs go up without quality improvements.

[Slygathor Posted May 5th 2010 9:13AM]

Puzzling to say the least. At least the Nexus One has something going for it then.

[davelemke Posted May 5th 2010 9:13AM]

Buy a D700.
Or a Canon or for that matter, buy anything that is a real camera from any camera brand. If its on a phone, it's not one.

[BigJayDogg3 Posted May 5th 2010 9:17AM]

@davelemke

Because everyone really wants to carry around a separate camera...

[r34p3r Posted May 5th 2010 9:19AM]

@BigJayDogg3

Well, if anyone is actually serious about having super image quality, I don't think they're going to be concentrating on a camera phone, no matter what Nokia wants you to believe.

[BigJayDogg3 Posted May 5th 2010 9:24AM]

@r34p3r

And I can't want the best picture quality from my phone? And nobody is looking for super image quality from a phone. The ability to snap a few pictures while out and about is all anyone is looking for.

I don't know about you, but I don't have the pocket space to start carrying around dedicated devices.

A dedicated mp3 player can do a better job than my phone can. Should I start carrying a Zune?

If I'm going to an event, then yes, I bring a dedicated camera. That's when I'm looking for great PQ, but if all I'm doing is snapping a pic so I can toss it on Facebook when I get back, then I don't really need awesome quality since Facebook compresses it anyway.

[r34p3r Posted May 5th 2010 9:43AM]

@BigJayDogg3

I have the capability to store and listen to music on my phone, but I still choose to carry *my* Zune with me in most situations, because it provides a better application of what I need most out of it.

That said, my phone provides a nice backup in the event that I am unable to access my music collection on my main device; that doesn't mean that I'm going to start considering it more than just a backup solution. Same goes with my camera; any serious work, and I make sure it's ready when I am.

I have yet to use a phone that combines excellent image quality with FAST optics and ISO performance. Usually there is something sacrificed. Likewise, the same reason I use my Zune over my phone in most applications is because I appreciate the Zune's advanced audio circuitry, for better sound quality.

[r34p3r Posted May 5th 2010 9:52AM]

@BigJayDogg3

BTW, I do agree with you in regards to the web photo point. I used to be overtly-concerned with that stuff until these websites started employing extreme compression methods to save bandwidth.

I remember when there was a time when you could view full-resolution (read: original) versions of your photographs. Not the case anymore...

[ounkeo Posted May 5th 2010 10:09AM]

@r34p3r

Nokia's new camera N phones being released... have you seen their unedited pictures straight from the camera? They are on par or even better than some point and shoot digital cams. It's absolutely impressive.

It's good enough to replace my $400 Nikon point and shoot which I carry around for 90% of my general shooting. The only problem I saw with the picture quality was that it look like the software compressed the image a tad too aggressively, which can be fixed easily enough. this is on a chasis about iphone sized.

Nokia's new line of phone cam quality pretty much makes point and shooters obsolete. A few more phone generations and they will be very close to challenging micro 4/3 cameras.

My other phone cameras are pretty poor though. You're right on that.