Develop Bugs

Press Release and Specs for the Xperia Z1

The Xperia Z1 will ship with a 2.2GHz Qualcomm MSM8974 quad-core processor, 2GB of RAM, up to 16GB of internal memory, and a micro SD card slot. On the back, this phone rocks a 20.7MP camera with 8x digital zoom. A 2MP camera sits on the front. The phone comes with Android 4.2.2 and pushes pixels to a 5-inch 1080p screen. All of this is powered by a 3000mAh battery. Oh, and the phone's waterproof. It will be available in black, white, and purple.
Full story here
Good Lord, I CAN NOT WAIT for tomorrow!

That's gonna be one hell of a phone.

8x zoom ? xperia s has 16x zoom i was happy this will be the first phone with 4k recording but ACER got it before the release of this beast

Great phone. I've seen something about Xperia Z1 mini. As rumored here it should be smaller and with only 720p display and also with smaller battery capacity... But it would be great to have smaller version of Z1 (if it would also contain the alluminium frame I really like that)

franklin93 said:
8x zoom ? xperia s has 16x zoom i was happy this will be the first phone with 4k recording but ACER got it before the release of this beast
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Digital zoom, it doesn't matter if it's 2x or 10x, digital zoom is crap. Besides, 8x on 20 MP is better than 16x on 12 MP.
That said, this looks like a very awesome phone, a little on the expensive side, though.

FenrirMX said:
Digital zoom, it doesn't matter if it's 2x or 10x, digital zoom is crap. Besides, 8x on 20 MP is better than 16x on 12 MP.
That said, this looks like a very awesome phone, a little on the expensive side, though.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
yeah,fully agree with you.just sad that this phone doesnt have 4k recording expected.i hoped SONY was the first to do that.it is not necessary and space consuming but i would like new features to start by only SONY.its looks awesome but design could have been lil better,and i want to see some results from that camera.hope it has better low light capability :good: no problem with its zoom,it has loseless 3x zoom,without loss of quality.i love my xperia s

Why 1080p? Why not 1440p?

Title. Thinking of buying the phone but I was wondering why run 1080p at normal usage when they can do 1440p? Don't they the same aspect ratio? Does any of you think it's possible to sort of change the normal screen resolution to 1440p?

LeParkour012 said:
Title. Thinking of buying the phone but I was wondering why run 1080p at normal usage when they can do 1440p? Don't they the same aspect ratio? Does any of you think it's possible to sort of change the normal screen resolution to 1440p?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
My guess would be performance and it may be easier for the upscaler if it's a 2:1 ratio

The Nexus 6p has no problems running 1440p on a s810 snap dragon, bench mark tests beats the Sony Z5P consistently.

Mostly because it makes no difference in the user experience, but makes the SoC constantly process a lot more pixels which would contribute to the heating issues and shorten battery life.
This 4K thing is purely for brag, and Sony knows it. Wait until mobile VR grows bigger and there will be all kinds of resolution mods then, when it matters.
For now, even if you got short hands and the phone screen is ~20cm from your eyes, you cant tell the difference with a 20/20 vision.( tested )

You Tasted GearVR... Don't you want that 4k Screen???

Alright guys, here's the deal. The Note 7 was an awesome phone, i had to give it back, not cool, etc...
But now that I've seen what GearVR is, and more importantly, what it COULD be with a 4k Resolution, (without the screen-door effect), a Non-4k Note is a deal breaker for me.
If Samsung doesn't deliver 4k, I will get the next phone with a 4k Screen, (not the old Sony one but a new one which supports Daydream).
What's your take on this?

It's also got to be able to do VR without going nuclear. It's hot enough in those goggles without the phone feeling like the surface of the sun.
Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk

rcobourn said:
It's also got to be able to do VR without going nuclear. It's hot enough in those goggles without the phone feeling like the surface of the sun.
Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah I would agree. Actually made me sick.
Sent from my SM-T810 using Tapatalk

considering none of the VR headsets even matched the res of the Note I don't see 4k as being needed, the problem came from the low refresh rate of the screen as it is far more important.
if you want a better VR experience you should be asking for at least a 90hz screen (matching the dedicated headsets) or higher. also the higher the res the lower the frame rate and the lower the refresh rate will be to compensate for the lower frame rates leading to far more tearing and the same horrid lined effect the note had in the gearVR.
so yep had a taste of VR but on phones it is largely hampered by screens designed to save battery life, increasing screen res is just the go to assumption most people make, when the dedicated head sets run at a lower screen res but higher refresh rate giving better quality.

Belimawr said:
considering none of the VR headsets even matched the res of the Note I don't see 4k as being needed, the problem came from the low refresh rate of the screen as it is far more important.
if you want a better VR experience you should be asking for at least a 90hz screen (matching the dedicated headsets) or higher. also the higher the res the lower the frame rate and the lower the refresh rate will be to compensate for the lower frame rates leading to far more tearing and the same horrid lined effect the note had in the gearVR.
so yep had a taste of VR but on phones it is largely hampered by screens designed to save battery life, increasing screen res is just the go to assumption most people make, when the dedicated head sets run at a lower screen res but higher refresh rate giving better quality.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
What are you talking about? You know the lens on the gear VR is just a lens right? There is no "resolution" to speak of. A 4k screen on a smartphone would definitely improve viewing on the gear vr. 2x in fact.

Oyeve said:
What are you talking about? You know the lens on the gear VR is just a lens right? There is no "resolution" to speak of. A 4k screen on a smartphone would definitely improve viewing on the gear vr. 2x in fact.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Completely agree. 2k is simply not enough. 4k is not enough either, but it would be a bit better. I think we are really going to need about 4k per eye in order for it to become truly fantastic. Maybe 8k per eye. So we are talking something like 7680x4320 or even 15360x4320. I doubt that smartphones are going to be the vehicle to deliver this in future.
But for now, 4k would be nice.

the dedicated and phone headsets are identical in principle, they both place OLED screens and the gubbings behind a lense, the only difference is in a dedicated headset you can't remove the screen and other bits.
however the Oculus Rift and Vive both have better picture quality than the phone alternatives, both are only running 2 screens that give a combined screen res similar to a 1080 screen, the difference comes in the refresh rate, the Rift and Vive both run at 90hz+ meaning they can push out smoother images and have less chance of having artifacting and interlacing problems, something the phones have by the bucket load, move fast with a phone and you will see lines miss match all over the image, going to 4K or above wouldn't fix this problem if anything it would be likely to make it worse as there is less chance you would even achieve 60fps leading to even more stutter and artifacting, the 90fps+ of the dedicated headsets still isn't perfect but it's a million times better on smoothness and artifacting, this is because if you want a better picture in VR frame rate and refresh rates are far more important than the screen res as even under a lense the PPI on the likes of the Pixel and Note 7 is still that high it is of little consequence, it's the reason the dedicated headsets went with a lower screen res in favour of refresh rates.

nomailx said:
Alright guys, here's the deal. The Note 7 was an awesome phone, i had to give it back, not cool, etc...
But now that I've seen what GearVR is, and more importantly, what it COULD be with a 4k Resolution, (without the screen-door effect), a Non-4k Note is a deal breaker for me.
If Samsung doesn't deliver 4k, I will get the next phone with a 4k Screen, (not the old Sony one but a new one which supports Daydream).
What's your take on this?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I honestly hope it is years before they even think about a 4K screen. Our processors can barely push 2K at this point and battery life is pretty terrible currently compared to 1080p phones such as the iPhone 7. It's not worth it for such a niche feature. I mean, the Rift and Vive are not even at that resolution because desktop PCs can barely push it.

Belimawr said:
the dedicated and phone headsets are identical in principle, they both place OLED screens and the gubbings behind a lense, the only difference is in a dedicated headset you can't remove the screen and other bits.
however the Oculus Rift and Vive both have better picture quality than the phone alternatives, both are only running 2 screens that give a combined screen res similar to a 1080 screen, the difference comes in the refresh rate, the Rift and Vive both run at 90hz+ meaning they can push out smoother images and have less chance of having artifacting and interlacing problems, something the phones have by the bucket load, move fast with a phone and you will see lines miss match all over the image, going to 4K or above wouldn't fix this problem if anything it would be likely to make it worse as there is less chance you would even achieve 60fps leading to even more stutter and artifacting, the 90fps+ of the dedicated headsets still isn't perfect but it's a million times better on smoothness and artifacting, this is because if you want a better picture in VR frame rate and refresh rates are far more important than the screen res as even under a lense the PPI on the likes of the Pixel and Note 7 is still that high it is of little consequence, it's the reason the dedicated headsets went with a lower screen res in favour of refresh rates.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm sure that's all true, but in any event, with a phone with a 2k screen the pixel density is not high enough and it won't be at 4k either. With 2k each eye is getting an image something like 1,000 pixels across (the two VR windows don't use the full screen width, so less than half of 2560 each), which for a virtual image which is bigger than even the very biggest TV screens (100"+) this is not enough pixels and the image is visibly (very badly) pixellated.
I am sure refresh rate matters too, but we really need very high pixel density and fast refresh (and low latency and wide viewing angles) for what in the end will be "perfect" VR.

the HTC Vive has a better picture each eye has a screen at 1080x1200 giving a total resolution of 2160x1200.
the Note 7 has 2560x1440 meaning each eye is getting 1280x1440.
so the Note 7 is a noticeably higher screen res than the dedicated VR headsets, the dedicated headsets however give a better picture, both use OLED screens, the Note 7 has a higher screen res, but the Vive has a refresh rate of 90hz, most phones are lucky if they do 60hz quite often it is considerably lower to save on battery, so by your logic the Note 7 with it's higher screen res would be noticeably better quality than the Vive, however the Vive is noticeably better than the Note on picture quality and that is purely due to the refresh rate difference as it gives a smoother image and also stops nearly all the delacing issues the Note and other phones have despite being considerably higher screen res.

Yes. If Samsung doesn't announce Note8 soon, I might go with sony xperia new phone, whose name I still keep forgetting. To be anounced at MWC and with 4k screen.

Belimawr said:
the HTC Vive has a better picture each eye has a screen at 1080x1200 giving a total resolution of 2160x1200.
the Note 7 has 2560x1440 meaning each eye is getting 1280x1440.
so the Note 7 is a noticeably higher screen res than the dedicated VR headsets, the dedicated headsets however give a better picture, both use OLED screens, the Note 7 has a higher screen res, but the Vive has a refresh rate of 90hz, most phones are lucky if they do 60hz quite often it is considerably lower to save on battery, so by your logic the Note 7 with it's higher screen res would be noticeably better quality than the Vive, however the Vive is noticeably better than the Note on picture quality and that is purely due to the refresh rate difference as it gives a smoother image and also stops nearly all the delacing issues the Note and other phones have despite being considerably higher screen res.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
For gaming, I agree that the Note 8 with a 4k Screen won't be much Help. But I never really enjoyed VR for gaming, it's more like a "side fun activity". But to watch video content, a 4K Display Note with an 10nm processor would be more than enough to remove the screen door effect, and give the ability to watch awesome 180/360 content, and 3D movies on a huge VR theatre.
May I remind you that VR for gaming is failing generally right now. But for some shady reason VR for videos is not... (go figure... xD )
notefreak said:
Yes. If Samsung doesn't announce Note8 soon, I might go with sony xperia new phone, whose name I still keep forgetting. To be anounced at MWC and with 4k screen.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's the Sony Xperia Yoshino!

Which is Better? A70 or Huawei Mate 20X?

I got the samsung a70. I like the phone's 6.7 inch display. But the aspect ratio makes it a bit narrow. That's why I'm thinking about getting the huawei mate 20x which has a 7.2 inch screen. Do you think I should stay with this phone or buy the mate 20x?

Bigger screen, faster cpu, faster gpu....more expensive.
Yes its obviously an improvement in some areas - it's a different class of phone at a higher price point. The question is are those improvements important to you and is the addition cost justifiable. Since "better" is a subjective term, you would need to answer that one yourself.

20x
Sent from my SM-A705FN using Tapatalk

I love the Samsung A70 phone's thinner aspect ratio because the extra length makes it a lot more practical as a phone and in most cases makes it as enjoyable to use for consuming media as a larger phone with 16:9 aspect ratio, and still fits in my pockets easy.
For my uses, which doesn't include a lot of video gaming, I don't ever want to use a 16:9 phone again.
Not to mention I only paid $370 USD for my A70.

106IFA said:
I love the Samsung A70 phone's thinner aspect ratio because the extra length makes it a lot more practical as a phone and in most cases makes it as enjoyable to use for consuming media as a larger phone with 16:9 aspect ratio, and still fits in my pockets easy.
For my uses, which doesn't include a lot of video gaming, I don't ever want to use a 16:9 phone again.
Not to mention I only paid $370 USD for my A70.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Out of curiosity did you ever own or use the huawei mate 20x? Hope you would elaborate further on the a70 compared to the mate 20x if you did own the phone.

Huawei makes good phones but EMUI and locked bootloaders is a thing i can´t stand

goldenguy43 said:
Huawei makes good phones but EMUI and locked bootloaders is a thing i can´t stand
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
But from what I read you can unlock and root the mate 20x. Unless I'm missing something.

Mate 20X but it costs double the price of the A70.
Excellent performance. Insane battery life. Excellent stereo speakers. Flagship build quality. Screen is wider and bigger but maybe less sharp than A70.
Mate 20X is a beast.

Alas, No Huawei for me as the problem with android updates and google play updates still not fully solved, then the bootloader is locked as i know and no custom development in kirin processors as snapdragon variants, narrow phone means easier to use and carry with one hand , a70 not a bad phone really the only things that pisses me off is i prefer stock vanilla android and only mono external speaker, but every thing else is near perfect

Sufyan3D said:
Mate 20X but it costs double the price of the A70.
Excellent performance. Insane battery life. Excellent stereo speakers. Flagship build quality. Screen is wider and bigger but maybe less sharp than A70.
Mate 20X is a beast.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Is there really a big difference in display sharpness between the mate 20x and a70? They're both amoled and hdr. Do they look so similar that you can't tell the difference in sharpness?
Mohamedselim said:
Alas, No Huawei for me as the problem with android updates and google play updates still not fully solved, then the bootloader is locked as i know and no custom development in kirin processors as snapdragon variants, narrow phone means easier to use and carry with one hand , a70 not a bad phone really the only things that pisses me off is i prefer stock vanilla android and only mono external speaker, but every thing else is near perfect
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hey Mohamedselim. I'm kinda confused. You said there's a problem with android and google play updates? I don't get it. I thought emui gets updates. And I thought google play get updates too. Please explain.
You alao said the bootloader is locked. But I've seen on XDA where you can root the phone. Again please explain.
And which phone would you prefer?
.

deloj said:
Is there really a big difference in display sharpness between the mate 20x and a70? They're both amoled and hdr. Do they look so similar that you can't tell the difference in sharpness?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Difference in sharpness must be noticeable. Mate 20X has a much bigger and wider 7.2 inch screen with a low pixel density of 346 only. While the A70 has a much smaller and narrower screen but a higher pixel density of 393.
This means A70 screen is definitely sharper. It's a very high quality super sharp AMOLED panel comparable to other Samsung flagships.
Meanwhile the Mate20X has an OLED panel not SAMOLED. Don't get me wrong, I have seen reviews on Youtube of the Mate20X and the screen looked very nice. It's not like we are talking about LCD vs AMOLED.
Mate20X is still the superior phone and multimedia beast.

Sufyan3D said:
Difference in sharpness must be noticeable. Mate 20X has a much bigger and wider 7.2 inch screen with a low pixel density of 346 only. While the A70 has a much smaller and narrower screen but a higher pixel density of 393.
This means A70 screen is definitely sharper. It's a very high quality super sharp AMOLED panel comparable to other Samsung flagships.
Meanwhile the Mate20X has an OLED panel not SAMOLED. Don't get me wrong, I have seen reviews on Youtube of the Mate20X and the screen looked very nice. It's not like we are talking about LCD vs AMOLED.
Mate20X is still the superior phone and multimedia beast.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Got to disagree with you on one issue. The info I researched is that the mate 20x is amoled not oled.
So you havent seen the a70 in person I assume.

deloj said:
Got to disagree with you on one issue. The info I researched is that the mate 20x is amoled not oled.
So you havent seen the a70 in person I assume.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's OLED:
https://consumer.huawei.com/en/phones/mate20-x/
I have been using the A70 for 3 months.

Sufyan3D said:
It's OLED:
https://consumer.huawei.com/en/phones/mate20-x/
I have been using the A70 for 3 months.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Its amoled.
https://www.androidauthority.com/huawei-mate-20-x-review-963078/
https://www.oled-info.com/huawei-mate-20-x
https://www.tomsguide.com/us/huawei-mate-20-x,review-5847.html
So which phone do you prefer? The a70 or the mate 20x? And can you please give reasons for why... looking foward.
.

deloj said:
Its amoled.
https://www.androidauthority.com/huawei-mate-20-x-review-963078/
https://www.oled-info.com/huawei-mate-20-x
https://www.tomsguide.com/us/huawei-mate-20-x,review-5847.html
So which phone do you prefer? The a70 or the mate 20x? And can you please give reasons for why... looking foward.
.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I prefer the Mate 20X hands down. Bigger and wider screen (A70 is too tall and narrow). better aspect ratio 18:9 (A70 has the ridiculous 20:9 which makes 90% of online videos appear with huge black bars on the sides). Better stereo speakers with loud and clean sound (A70 has a single mono speaker with just average loudness). Better premium build quality. Better performance with flagship chipset. Much better cameras. Amazing battery life I have seen 10 to 12 hours sot on reviews (A70 battery life didn't impress me at all) . Fingerprint sensor is blazing fast and super accurate (A70 fingerprint sucks).
That's all I can think of right now.

Amoled IS OLED, it's short for Active Matrix Organic Light Emitting Diode. It's one of two types of OLED panel, the other being PMOLED (Passive Matrix OLED). All modern phone displays are AMOLED, although samsung like to bundle everything including the touch sensors in to to one layer and call it AMOLED. The underlying oled tech is the same however. Don't know if the mate 20x has a single layer panel. Doesnt make much difference tbh.
This means A70 screen is definitely sharper. It's a very high quality super sharp AMOLED panel comparable to other Samsung flagships.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hmm the A70 objectively isn't as sharp as the panels used on the S/Note series. It also doesnt support HDR or wide colour gamut (DCI-P3). I honestly don't think they are that far off though.
Battery life of the A70 certainly impresses me - I regularly get 7 hours plus OST. Doesnt mean that couldn't be improved upon of course but it's far from terrible. Much better than what I ever saw from my old S8.

James.Miller said:
Amoled IS OLED, it's short for Active Matrix Organic Light Emitting Diode. It's one of two types of OLED panel, the other being PMOLED (Passive Matrix OLED). All modern phone displays are AMOLED, although samsung like to bundle everything including the touch sensors in to to one layer and call it AMOLED. The underlying oled tech is the same however. Don't know if the mate 20x has a single layer panel. Doesnt make much difference tbh.
Hmm the A70 objectively isn't as sharp as the panels used on the S/Note series. It also doesnt support HDR or wide colour gamut (DCI-P3). I honestly don't think they are that far off though.
Battery life of the A70 certainly impresses me - I regularly get 7 hours plus OST. Doesnt mean that couldn't be improved upon of course but it's far from terrible. Much better than what I ever saw from my old S8.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Heres another site comparing the 2 phones that state the a70 has super amoled and the mate 20x has amoled. It also states that both phones are HDR:
http://phonesdata.com/en/compare/5742/5451/

The A70 doesnt support HDR10 or Dolby vision or anything like and doesnt have a HDR compatible screen. Netflix hides its HDR content, youtube doesnt give you the option to choose a HDR stream etc.
That website doesnt mention HDR at all under the screen section. Notice it mentions both HDR10 and the DCI-P3 wide colour gamut for the mate 20x but not the A70? That's because the A70 doesnt support them.

It totally depends on your taste of phone, I don't like to waste more than 250 euro on a phone since I break one once a year (because I'm clumsy when I'm drunk).
I bought my samsung a70 for 240 euro by my local carrier (without a loan or an subscription) if I look online for the mate 20x it cost around 900 euro which is way to much for a phone for me since I only use it for whatsapp, discord some browsing and watching a movie in the train.
You should check these marks if u want to buy that phone:
- Do i want to look cool with a 900 euro phone from huaweii or a cool samsung phone
- Do I want super deluxe photo's or decent photo's
- Do I want to watch super crisp netflix movies on my phone or do I want to watch movies just a little bit crisp and cropped to fit for full screen
- Do I want a bigger screen or do I want a phone that just fits in your pocket
- Do I want to pay 3 times the price for a phone or just a small price for a perfectly fine phone
I would recommend if u have the money the huawei mate 20x but if u don't just go with the samsung one and go to a movie or smthg with a nice girl with the money you spared

James.Miller said:
The A70 doesnt support HDR10 or Dolby vision or anything like and doesnt have a HDR compatible screen. Netflix hides its HDR content, youtube doesnt give you the option to choose a HDR stream etc.
That website doesnt mention HDR at all under the screen section. Notice it mentions both HDR10 and the DCI-P3 wide colour gamut for the mate 20x but not the A70? That's because the A70 doesnt support them.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Are you blind? I posted a link posting that it does have hdr. Youre not looking in the right place.

Question 6 year old phone has bigger pictures than the S21 FE?

The following is the highest resolution photo that I got each of these two phones to produce with their best camera settings:
Galaxy J5 (2016): 4128x3096
Galaxy S21 FE: 4000x3000
How does a 6 year old low-end budget phone create photos with more pixels than a 2022 almost-flagship phone?

N10+ is 4032×3024
I wouldn't sweat it... smaller/more pixels in the same size sensor doesn't necessarily mean better images. Sensor size maybe different.
Either way the difference is negligible.

blackhawk said:
N10+ is 4032×3024
I wouldn't sweat it... smaller/more pixels in the same size sensor doesn't necessarily mean better images. Sensor size maybe different.
Either way the difference is negligible.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Shouldn't today's phone's produced pictures that are much bigger than that of 6 years ago?

xda-eh said:
Shouldn't today's phone's produced pictures that are much bigger than that of 6 years ago?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Not necessarily. Even blowing it up you can't see that difference unless you count the pixels. Which produces the better image? Bottom line.
More doesn't mean better.
Individual pixel lense quality matters more.
Larger form factor sensors generally also perform better. These sensors are small so it limits the amount of quality pixels you can use.
That sensor size also limits the amount of light they can gather vs a full frame cam sensor. The small phone cam lens also gather far less light than say a 35 or 50mm lense does.

xda-eh said:
Shouldn't today's phone's produced pictures that are much bigger than that of 6 years ago?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No because a higher resolution doesn't equal to a better quality image. Improvements to the lens, the sensor and the hardware that does the actual image processing is way more important.
And the S21 has optical image stabilizing which the J5 doesn't have.

Seems like if the S21 FE's camera is better, it's by a drop.

GameLogic said:
No because a higher resolution doesn't equal to a better quality image. Improvements to the lens, the sensor and the hardware that does the actual image processing is way more important.
And the S21 has optical image stabilizing which the J5 doesn't have.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Exactly. Resolution is irrelevant at some point... especially if the individual pixels can't grab a good noise nulling and/or image sample.
12mp is considered ideal for this size sensor, even full frame pro cam sensors top out at around 26mb. One of these will rip a smartphone cam to shreds.
I prefer optical over digital IS.

blackhawk said:
Exactly. Resolution is irrelevant at some point... especially if the individual pixels can't grab a good noise nulling and/or image sample.
12mp is considered ideal for this size sensor, even full frame pro cam sensors top out at around 26mb. One of these will rip a smartphone cam to shreds.
I prefer optical over digital IS.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
From the little that I tried the S21 FE's camera and compared its photos to the J5, the former's quality doesn't seem much better than the latter. Maybe a drop.

xda-eh said:
From the little that I tried the S21 FE's camera and compared its photos to the J5, the former's quality doesn't seem much better than the latter. Maybe a drop.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Still using the N10+ which grabs good images. What's interesting is I've seen it do the smudging that the S23U users are complaining about. It's not cam shake, light level, wind, shutter speed, focus or subject movement caused; it's seemingly random. Very noticeable with cat fur. Seems to be settings related as it doesn't always happen.
Lately using the same firmware I'm not seeing it (changed the settings)... strange. It's quit annoying when it happens and no way to fix it with post editing.

It's just strange that an almost-flagship phone (the S21 FE) has a camera that isn't much of an upgrade in terms of picture quality over a low end 2016 J series phone.

I doubt it. Especially in low light the software kicks in and makes the j5 look old. OIS obviously helps to get steady shots.

xda-eh said:
It's just strange that an almost-flagship phone (the S21 FE) has a camera that isn't much of an upgrade in terms of picture quality over a low end 2016 J series phone.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The N10+ was a quantum leap from my old S4+ in everything including cams.
In my opinion the N10+ was Samsung's overall zenith in flagship design. Android 9 was Gookill's zenith. Both started screwing up on subsequent models/versions. The lack of expandable storage is both an overreach and reprehensible; it doesn't serve the consumer but rather Google's and Samsung's agendas. Once Samsung stop calling it a Note it was broke...

The low-end A12 from December 2020 has a 48 MP camera, while the S21 FE has a 12 MP camera.

xda-eh said:
The low-end A12 from December 2020 has a 48 MP camera, while the S21 FE has a 12 MP camera.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Both are underwhelming. Guess Samsung thought the 48mp cam would make the A12 more appealing. Oddly it has the expandable storage and 3.5mm jack.
A used N10+ is a more capable phone than both, Samsung's a mess. They've been undermining themselves for years now. Poor leadership.

blackhawk said:
Both are underwhelming.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well, in the case of the low-end A12 it may be excusable, but for the $700 priced S21 FE it’s inexcusable. Along with the S21 FE’s lousy battery that drains much quicker than the advertised amount. Not to mention its touch and scroll glitches.

xda-eh said:
Well, in the case of the low-end A12 it may be excusable, but for the $700 priced S21 FE it’s inexcusable. Along with the S21 FE’s lousy battery that drains much quicker than the advertised amount. Not to mention its touch and scroll glitches.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
My point exactly. You can buy a new N975U1* for less than $700 even now. Better yet they're factory loaded with Android 10 although I think Pie is better. Poor SOT has gotten to be a major issue since the N10+; Samsung's solution is to put increasing larger capacity Li's and even then the N10+ is getting better SOT.
Great... heavier, thicker phones with megapixel counts like the pro movie cams have (except their performance justify it).
Samsung's morphed into a hyped up hot mess
*new Exynos variants are priced considerably higher (demand) because they can be rooted. Otherwise they are less capable than the Snaps.

blackhawk said:
heavier, thicker phones...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yup. Major problem.
blackhawk said:
*new Exynos variants are priced considerably higher (demand) because they can be rooted. Otherwise they are less capable than the Snaps.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Snapdragon phones can't be rooted?

xda-eh said:
Yup. Major problem.
Snapdragon phones can't be rooted?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Likely not. There were/are some sites charging money to do so remotely. They're using their Knox Developer privileges to so, until Samsung catches up to them. I think that's what's going on... my interest is minimal.
Giving anyone remote access permission is unacceptable and bricking a good N10+ is something I personally wouldn't risk as they run well stock (and securely even on Pie) after being optimized.

blackhawk said:
Likely not. There were/are some sites charging money to do so remotely. They're using their Knox Developer privileges to so, until Samsung catches up to them. I think that's what's going on... my interest is minimal.
Giving anyone remote access permission is unacceptable and bricking a good N10+ is something I personally wouldn't risk as they run well stock (and securely even on Pie) after being optimized.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's not a Snapdragon thing, it's a Samsung U.S. (North America in general I think) thing
Meaning, the S21FE Snapdragon variant CAN be rooted (from European regions) but the S21FE Snapdragon U.S. variant cannot.

ShaDisNX255 said:
It's not a Snapdragon thing, it's a Samsung U.S. (North America in general I think) thing
Meaning, the S21FE Snapdragon variant CAN be rooted (from European regions) but the S21FE Snapdragon U.S. variant cannot.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I hadn't heard that but it's more of a curiosity for me. What you said doesn't seem to be true for the N10+'s at all.
Why would Samsung mix distributed* both Exynos and Snaps in the same region? I see a small amount of the Exynos variat N10+'s here in the US for sale but believe they all came from out of country.
*aside from rooting the Snaps are invariably the more desirable variant.