[Galaxy S III General (US Carriers)] limeaid:
Sorry, but you're just dead wrong. I'm sorry that you had one photo where your son's red sweater was too red. But those of us that live in reality with two working eyeballs can see the difference. I bought the One X (Evo LTE) because I was excited about the camera. The camera is one of the most important features on a phone to me. Sadly, I was sorely disappointed when I got my hands on it. Then I read a bunch of reviews and it seems many had the same experience with its camera. Anyway, this thread isn't about the One X so this will be my last post about it. Here's my last word:

http://pocketnow.com/android/htc-one-x-review

The camera on the One X is unremarkable. Macro shots appear out of focus, indoor shots lack light, and outdoor shots are over-saturated. This is a shame because the camera application of the One X is genius

http://recombu.com/news/htc-one-x-vs-nokia-n8-vs-nokia-808-pureview-camera-comparison_M17807.html

We showed this grid to a couple of people in the office and they immediately complemented the HTC One X for its saturated yellows and vibrancy. They liked the bouncy greens and the contrast level makes details look more pronounced. Naturally however, this bounce, pop and polish is unnatural. It's arguably how many of us would like to see the world but in line with our previous camera comparisons, isn't what the world actually looks like.

http://www.gsmarena.com/htc_one_x-review-747p6.php

The first two charts play to the One X strengths and shows it as a good shooter, though still not the best in the 8MP game. The third chart shows good too, but also some artifacts due to the sub-optimal processing of the One X.

http://www.theverge.com/2012/4/2/2919202/htc-one-x-review

As for image quality, I can't confidently say these are the best cameraphone photos I've ever seen, which was what I was expecting considering what a big deal HTC had made about it when these handsets were announced several weeks ago. I was hopeful that the shots I took would be indistinguishable from a decent point and shoot, but at 100 percent crop, the One X's stills are easily identified as coming from a cameraphone. They're not bad, they're just not the game-changers I'd been led to believe they'd be.

---------- Post added at 01:03 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:59 AM ----------

You need to stop posting as you're adding zero value. You're the one that derailed this thread with the mention of the One X in the first place. It's not relevant. We're trying to figure out what the deal is with the GS3, not the One X.

I never backed myself into a corner. You put your own foot in your mouth. Everything I've stated is 100% accurate, unlike what you've posted. Yes, when I said "better" camera, I meant overall. I stated specifically that the One X was better in low light and I've already agreed with you in an earlier post about low light performance--the One X performs better than the Gs2 and GS3 in low light AS IT SHOULD since it has a faster lens. But it doesn't in all other scenarios.

It also doesn't mean that the GS3 should be performing this crappily in low light... and it sure as hell shouldn't be performing worse than the GS2, which was the OP's original point.