Sounds to me like you care about camera quality… 
But I know what you mean. It’s obvious that the problem is the software (see my gCam photos above which I find passable).
Actually, I haven’t seen anything this bad on my phone, not with the old camera or the new. This sounds more like some Snapchat filter not playing nice with the camera/driver. I don’t use Snapchat though. I only see blurriness in WhatsApp photos.
Sorry, my fault. You are right. Too bad that the RAW/DNG Version is not saving as zoomed in and also not saving the full 48MP resolution eather, this is realy a handycap for the RAW option. My only hope is that they can fix this with some kind of driver update…
Snapchat is known for terrorizing Android phones’ camera quality tho. Originally made for Apple, which might explain it. But I’m not going back to Apple for now - the whole point of buying the FP3 for me was to give the finger to the way those companies operate - and supporting someone trying to do good.
Repairing a broken glass backscreen on Iphone Xs Max costs 450€. Like every other repair cost on those phones. Adding to that you are even forced to change the backscreen (if broken) if you are repairing the front screen - they have designed the backscreen to fall apart if you open it while broken = replacement needed. So a repair of back+front then costs 900€ if you haven’t got insurance. Which is ludicrous, and roughly the same price of a relatively new one.
So I’m fine with my FP3, I love the concept and its repairability. Also the battery and front screen is great. It’s a shame tho, that the comprimise for going ethical must be so big although the FP3 is a fair improvement from FP2. And even more annoying that the software doesn’t help.
3 Likes
As you wrote, being relatively uncompromising on the ethics/fairness side means other compromises, I’m fine with that. I’m also fine with the fact that FP don’t seem to have the resources to get their software game up to speed. What I’m definitely not fine with is that they decided to sell a new camera module as a quack remedy for the bad software. It does nothing for photo quality (almost) because the software is still just as bad. That’s just wasteful (resources, customer’s money, …) and contrary to what I thought FP stands for. And I’m very doubtful that even with ideal software support for the old and new modules the new one would be an improvement.
2 Likes
Ok, one more post. Here are some photos I took with a gCam port using the old camera, just to show (for those who don’t know this yet) that with better software it’s capable of producing quite nice-looking shots.
1 Like
Is anyone so far happy with the new camera module? I was really looking forward to it but reading this thread I’m very close to cancelling my order
2 Likes
I can’t compare anything. Maybe the new FP2 camera used with OpenCamera and my FP3+ with the gCam port. Because I got the FP3+ as a replacement for my nearly complete broken FP2. It was just luck that the FP3+ was announced while I was thinking that I should buy a new phone. I think the gCam Port is quite ok. The pictures from the stock app are a bit too dark, when I make them in a room that needs artificial lighting.
1 Like
Just wanted to mention this, as I think it wasn’t said a lot, and for anyone reading. There were only positive reports about the selfie cam, and many have reported a much improved quality. So if you like selfies… 
(Just felt like saying it, as this discussion is currently mainly about the rear camera)
7 Likes
Hi everyone,
Regarding camera software, I just wanted to give you all a heads up. We are currently working on a number of improvements for the camera and we hope to have updates on these improvements in the coming weeks. We don’t have a firm timeline yet because we are still testing out different ideas, some of which result in a better VCX score – we are still determining which of these ideas will be included in the new software.
When I have more information to share, I will return to this thread. 
Rae
24 Likes
@formerFP.Com.Manager
Thanks for the update, that is raising hopes a lot with those having bought the new camera!
And if anyone is posting again, that Fairphone is not paying attention to this forum or taken
complaints seriously or is not transparent enough, I will just link to your posting.
8 Likes
For me, fp3 cam was good enough… However I really feel disapointed with the expectations created about the new 48mp camera… I see a lack of transparency in the advertising campaign. Something that a firm like Fairphone should avoid. You must not promise a major (and expensive) improvement if It is not real
2 Likes
So again, for those who have them, do you think the new cameras are worth the change, especially, in low light conditions, when you see pictures taken with the Pixel camera app with the old modules VS the Nikita Gcam port with the new ones?
I’m still waiting for my order and can’t decide to keep it or cancel it…
1 Like
Well, since rae just posted, that Fairphone is working on the software for the new camera and promising improvements, I guess keeping the modules could be worth it.
And I would expect the improvements to be visible, if they are exploring different ideas, though I can be mistaken of course.
2 Likes
Let’s hope these improvements will be at least as good as the ones the Nikita Gcam port brings (EDIT: or the Pixel’s port for the old modules), to really be useful…
EDIT: maybe @formerFP.Com.Manager could transmit this to the developers?
1 Like
I got my new modules today and made some comparison photos (fixed, not handheld)
but i don’t see a big difference.
IMHO the difference between using stock camera software and GCam on the old module is bigger than the difference between the stock camera photos of the old and the new camera .
Old - Backside Cam
Old - Selfie Cam
New Backside Cam
New Selfie Cam (i don’t think i focussed correctly)
I would have loved to compare old GCam with new GCam pictures, but haven’t yet installed a new working version of it (i take recommendations if you have some)
i am interested in seeing if i reccognize the image stabilization on the one hand and maybe better low light performance on the other hand.
Also i wonder if audio recordings will sound better - i forgot to make a before and after test in this regard.
3 Likes
That’s my impression as well. On a completely arbitrary 10 point scale I would give the old camera a 4 with the stock app and a 7 with a gCam port, and the new camera a 4.5 with the stock app and a 7.5 with a gCam port. Completely subjectively and without having made a direct comparison, just from looking at photos taken in different settings with these 4 scenarios.
Since nobody has answered @Antoine’s question yet I will repeat what I wrote before: IMO it’s not worth the change (yet). I would cancel the order and reconsider if and when FP releases better software that actually takes advantage of the theoretically better sensor.
Edit:
I have only tried Nikita’s 7.4 port (link in the Google Camera thread) and am very happy with it. The post-processing is very fast (never more than maybe 5 seconds, often less), the results look pretty good and I haven’t had any issues with it.
2 Likes
In good light conditions I don’t see much difference but I defintely see them in poor light conditions!!
3 Likes
@Iris_VdB Could you elaborate? For example, with which app? Which differences? Could you post examples of photo comparisons?
1 Like
I ordered my FP3 from a Dutch mobile phone webstore, so not the Fairphone shop, and just received an email informing me about the FP3+ and the new camera modules. They are also running a discount on the modules, I didn’t realise they would be available in other shops too! Pretty cool.
The discount amounts to the same total as the Fairphone shop discount, by the way, although it seems there’s a separate discount for each module, whereas I think Fairphone had a deal on the two modules combined?
For interested Dutchies: it’s Belsimpel.
4 Likes