djmuzi wrote:But why don't you understand? There is no garbage vs garbage but N86 vs E75 😊 Why not comparing camera phones? We could compare 2 DSLR cameras but this is a phone site, so they are comparing phones 😊 over (or do you know a camera with Symbian OS? 😃 )
Duh!
Unregistered wrote:It's not missing a point, it's making the point that there isn't a decent phone camera.And that these isn't a point to comparing one lot of garbage with another lot of garbage.
No you ARE missing the point, and are merely raising another. One that is obvious to everyone, in that camera phones will NEVER be as good as SLR's or good compacts. At least in the near future. What the article is about, is comparing the standards. 10 years ago, would you have called djmuzis's photo "garbage"?
the reviews of the n86 are all good in regard to the camera, but generally accepted that it is old fashioned (sliders, clamphones, etc...). the satio sounds like a decent successor to the n82. as a n82 owner looking for the next gen camera phone (no i don't want to carry around a compact or dslr...) a decent comparison of the camera qualities of each would be very welcome!
Arthur wrote:Want to take pictures? Get yourself a decent compact camera or better yet a proper DSLR. Sorry but not intereseted in some pin sized lens shots from your crappy Nokia.
So, you take the DSLR, take some quick photos of gadgets being shown during a conference, and then send them up to twitter or a live blog right away? Hmm, didn't think so. The whole point of the article was about choosing a decent enough camera phone to take with while blogging. Of course a DSLR would be infinitely better, but I'd like to see someone upload a DSLR shot to a live blog within seconds of it being taken.
And I'll be damned if I'm carrying a DSLR with me on a walk to the shops. You'd be surprised at what scenes you can take a snap of when you're just on a little walk, if you have a good enough camera phone (which the N86 is) then you don't need to plan photo opportunities ahead of time.
On the jpg quality, I still believe that what are often thought of as compression artefacts are actually (over)sharpening effects.The result is about equal though.
Except that you can get rid of the sharpening effects by setting the sharpness to 'soft'. Then you do need to do some sharpening on the PC, but there you can be a lot less aggressive.
Unregistered wrote:"Want to take pictures? Get yourself a decent compact camera or better yet a proper DSLR. Sorry but not intereseted in some pin sized lens shots from your crappy Nokia."Sorry, not interested in your crappy little comments. You really are a prize *rseh*le.
+1 (sorta)
Idiotic keyboard warriors keep on bringing out the same old rubbish - phone cameras are rubbish, use a compact or SLR.
I've got all 3 - phone cam, compact and an SLR. Each has its place. Phone cam is always on me, so I can capture the moment.
Phone cams are easily good enough quality to take decent pictures - I've taken plenty that when printed at normal sizes (6x4 or 7x5) can't be differentiated from those taken on a dedicated camera. They generally only fall short in low lighting, where the small sensor isn't that good.
The compact is great for general use, when you need a flash or a reasonable zoom.
SLR is when you're wanting to be more creative, or want to shoot in RAW for processing on PC, generated HDR pictures. Decent macros, long zooms, filters for effects, etc.
The biggest deciding factor in the quality of an image is *not* the camera. Its the person behind the lens. Look on Flickr for pictures taken with the iPhone 3GS, not noted as a great camera, but plenty of decent images on there.
DamianDinning wrote:Completely agree that megapixels does not automatically = better pics, in many cases it can mean worse image quality.However, having been involved in the N73 I feel confident in saying that N86 8MP is the best camera we have done to date. Detail is greater and more natural + colour is more consistent. As good as the N73 was for the time there are some false colour issues from time to time which we've seen a lot of development in over recent years, even in the time between the first and latest N86 fw. I personally believe N86 colour is one of the best performing mobiles in this regard. Vibrant but still true to life. Some products provide vibrant colour but which then compromise the true to life part. It's a tough balance, especially when you throw in subjective views too 😉
As for compression. I've covered this so many times 😉 There are no visible compression based artefacts in the images captured with the N86 which reducing the compression level would make any noticeable difference to. I know this because we checked this again just very recently comparing images with current v20 fw settings and a modified version with no compression.
atb
D
The N73 was only really let down by the colour balance (reds - the issue also affected my dedicated digicam at the time), otherwise it had relatively spectacular optics, which haven't obviously moved on.
What are the odds of a firmware update for the N73 to improve colour balance .... 😃
Unregistered wrote:What's interesting about this post is that many of the latest line of digital compacts that coming out are not as good (image quality) as cameras were 2 or more years ago. However, I can categorically assure everybody that the N86 is nowhere near them, and is never likely to be given the sensor size and glass used. Only the basic cheapo cameras have images as bad as phones. That's all phones. Satios, Pixons, N86 included. That's the pointless cheap cameras that have the same sort of sensors, basically the toys.Phone cameras ARE great for snapping those moments. Important word there, "snapping". Just don't expect anything more than mediocre image quality and don't worry about getting anal over the quality. No point trying to polish a turd. Go to a shop selling compact digital cameras, look at the size of the piece of glass over the front of the lens. Then look the equivalent component on your phone. Physics.
Rarely have I seen such a mix of accurate, and then rubbish, comments in the same post.
You're absolutely right on the first point - the megapixel race is effectively hitting image quality on compact cameras. Images from my ancient Canon A75 (3mp) is considerably better than my later cameras (6mp Casio EX-Z600, 12mp Kodak Z1285). Its the glass thats important, and that is lacking on later products.
However, I take issue with your second statement that image quality is mediocre on phones. Please define mediocre. I've taken plenty of shots that are of printable, and possibly even worth showing publicly at an exhibition on my phones, although thats mainly on the W810 and N73. The K800 wasn't that good, and the N95/N85 give no real improvement over the N73 in anything other than colour balance.
Focusing can be very good on some (not all), colour balance always varies from camera to camera regardless of it being a phone, compact or SLR.
If you want truly decent image quality, go for an SLR. Compacts are generally compromised, especially those with huge zoom ranges (which is never a good thing).
And the gap between phone and camera is bigger than from Nokia promissed