Oppo F3 Plus • Camera Disadvantage
  • 1
  • 0

I've seen some low-light sample images taken with the Oppo F3 Plus' rear camera and I wasn't excited with what I've seen. Having a f/1.7 lens is great, but the lack of optical image stabilization forces sometimes forces the camera to shoot at very high ISO which results in very noisy images. There is one image here shot by Tech2 Photo Labs. It was shot in a very dark area. If you look at the EXIF, you can see that it was shot at ISO 3014 and with 1/14 sec shutter speed and without a flash.

You can see that most of the noise is visible in the dark tones of the images. This is a very challenging scene for any camera. The reason you can see the background is because of the f/1.7 lens and the very high ISO sensitivity used in that photo. If the Oppo F3 Plus had an optical image stabilization it could have captured a much better looking photo. By saying "better", I mean with better exposure and less image noise. An average OIS can provide around 2-3 stops advantage. Each stop allow twice more light to reach the sensor, and this is a huge benefit for low-light photography. You could have shot that same image with a shutter speed which is 2 stops less and still achieve the same sharpness.

This is a very extreme condition, but it demonstrates why an OIS is necessary when shooting in very dim lighting conditions.The reviewer who reviewed the Oppo F3 Plus for tech.firstpost.com website also mentioned that he wasn't pleased with the low light performance. A f/1.7 aperture can get to until a certain point and it's not like it's going to turn a night into day. The main problem is that the pixels on the sensor are very small. On a APS-C or Full Frame DSLR a f/1.7 is godsent. Not that I am complaining, the Oppo F3 Plus can still give you some really good shots, but an OIS would have made those images much better.

importance ranking: #5 in the 'Camera' category and #17 among all categories for Oppo F3 Plus device

User Opinions

  • This is true to any digital camera no just a mobile phone camera and it's true to all mobile phones. The difference can be really really huge especially if you shoot in low-light conditions. Just think about it, it won't stop stabilization allows the sensor to receive twice x amount of light. Some of the optical image stabilization systems can even compensate for up to four stops, which considerably improve the low-light performance of the camera because the photographer can shoot at slow shutter speeds. Windows slow shutter speed sensor receives much more like and therefore the scene looks brighter and more details are revealed. The problem is that without any image stabilization, I need an optical image stabilization, if you shoot pictures with a slow shutter speed you almost surely to get a blurred image. The optical image stabilization is lift needed for video recording because I think that an electronic image stabilization can do an even better job in stabilizing the video, but for low-light videography it's better to have an optical image stabilization. Anyways, thanks for your post, it was an interesting read.
  • I think that the sensor itself is quite noisy. I've seen the Oppo F3 Plus sample images on Tech2 Photo Labs Flickr page and even the picture taken at ISO33, if you look at the sky area, you can see that they are quite noisy. This wouldn't happen, at least not at that high degree, if you've shot that image with the Google Pixel for example, that comes with a sensor with 1.55 micron pixel. The photodiode capacity of holding light is very important. It doesn't matter if you shoot a long exposure shot for 30 seconds, the pixels can hold up to certain amount of photons per pixel, which affects the image quality. So bottom line, it would have been better if we had a sensor with less resolution and bigger pixels, the image quality would have looked much better I assume.