[jim_h]

It is relevant since movement from their hands/body can change the outcome.

With a tripod there would be no blur, but the picture quality would still shine through. The amount of noise difference in each phone's photos is very noticeable.

In an experiment all the conditions should be the same except for the variable, which in this case is the phone.

[artursapek]

Sure this would have made for a more scientific experiment, but I still argue that such a controlled experiment is less relevant to a user's real experience with the phone because the photos wouldn't look anything like the photos one would actually take. I assume the shooter tried to maintain a consistently steady hand throughout.

The motion blur is significant because it speaks to the increased aperture/ decreased exposure time in the 4S, which are both part of the phone wouldn't you agree? On a tripod these aren't crippling to the quality of the photo like they actually are.

[mixmastamyk]

Actually I'm contemplating replacing my broken camera with a 4s, something that will come up more often. I do take a little tripod with me when I travel, usually to take after sunset shots. I see your point though ... I'd have preferred to see how the quality improved without the blur, but perhaps this new tech is good enough to take shots at night without flash/tripod at all?

[artursapek]

Exactly. The disappearance of motion blur is a result of the camera improving, not of the person being inconsistent with how they're holding it.