The Gadget Show's Jon Bentley is very experienced at handling and reviewing smart/camera phones and in this episode of their Web TV he delivers his verdict on the new Sony Ericsson Satio. Summary: crisp photos but nowhere near as pleasing as those from the Nokia N86, nice application bundle, frustrating resistive touchscreen, annoyingly AWOL 3.5mm audio jack. AAS's production Satio arrives tomorrow, so watch this space for a Satio/N86/i8910 HD photo and video head to head. Can't wait!
Read on in the full article.
Steve,
I know it is a little dated now but can you throw in the i8510 to the mix as I think it is one of the best 8mpx cameras out there and certainly produces better results than the i8910.
Don't expect to be impressed with the Satio, I wasn't. The images are very noisy making the 12mpx pointless. The resistive screen needs too bigger presses, the fastport is rubbish and the battery life is terrible.
Excellent! Can't wait to see how the N86 compares. That wide angle lens is a *huge* advantage in my opinion.
This mobile as been as waste of so much money from Sony Ericsson,an now been removed for sale at the Carphone Warehouse because of the useless software they used on the Satio,Why? do we get that nowdays from mobile produces,good looking mobiles but the features on the phones useless,they think its so easy to rip people off as they younger generation like throwing money away so easy,but something as got to be done to stop them doing that, 2009 as been rubbish for the mobile quality but will 2010 be any better
Lower megapixel count in small sensor cameras turns out to be better yet again. It shouldn't be a surprise to anyone anymore, in small CCD and CMOS sensor cameras, more megapixels = inferior pictures.
There are lots of good reasons for this.
In fact its better for my purposes than the N97, which tried but because of the poor initial firmware couldn't replace my trusty N95. Now the Satio is still on release firmware but it is good enough to replace the N95 as my main phone.
Maybe I got a good one ( I tend to be lucky like that ) but I've had only one problem and thats the old certificate expired issue.
Correct me if I'm wrong but this is SE's first "Symbian" phone .. they aren't Nokia and haven't been building Symbian devices for years so don't have the programming resources of the Big N.
I'm waiting to see what firmware updates bring .. but for now I'm content.
I love seeing all these new devices but I'm still impressed by my n82. I was half tempted by a n86 but I never want another slider. Still watching.
Right... Well, I've recently seen a professional lab-test test done here in Norway comparing the top of the line camera phones available today. The N86 ended up in 4th place, beaten by the LG KC 910 Renoir, the Samsung Pixon 12 and with the Sony Ericsson Satio taking the 1st place.
Too bad the Satio has such a crappy battery, S60 and a poor screen...
I can assure you that a 12mp camera phone from Nokia will be out sometime next year. Samsung & Sony E have it & Nokia surely but slowly will follow suit. This is all about business competition. Just look at the auto industry & is the same. When VW introduced the SMG/robotised 6speed gearbox & everyone follows & try to out do each other with improved version. Same goes for direct injection engine. They all will try to come up with a model that is better than their competitors. Like everyone says, is not the mp that counts. Is the lens quality.
Camera phone to replace a stand alone camera in the near future? (A normal point & shoot camera NOT a SLR) I am pretty sure it can be done but to figure a way how to make it compact & pocketable is the problem. Nobody wants to carry a brick nowadays.
A camera phone is still no substitue for a stand alone camera. Is a matter of convenience taking impromptu photos which is why I think is a nice feature to have.
Raven wrote:Right... Well, I've recently seen a professional lab-test test done here in Norway comparing the top of the line camera phones available today. The N86 ended up in 4th place, beaten by the LG KC 910 Renoir, the Samsung Pixon 12 and with the Sony Ericsson Satio taking the 1st place.
Show us then, share this test with the rest of us by providing a link. I am fluent in Swedish and have reasonable Norwegian. Let's have a look.
seki wrote:Correct me if I'm wrong but this is SE's first "Symbian" phone .. they aren't Nokia and haven't been building Symbian devices for years so don't have the programming resources of the Big N.
.
Wrong. SE have a long history with Symbian, however their phones were the UIQ user interface, not S60.
Unregistered wrote:Show us then, share this test with the rest of us by providing a link. I am fluent in Swedish and have reasonable Norwegian. Let's have a look.
All right then, ye of little faith: http://mobilen.no/wip4/review/store-kameramobiltesten/d.epl?id=41352
The test was performed in a lab and is the same kind of test done with real DSLR cameras.
The main focus (no pun) of this test was on the camera, but things like specs, user-friendliness, screen, price etc. were also taken into account.
EDIT: The first link is more of a summary, the actual test was shown on Norwegian TV2: http://www.tv2underholdning.no/hjelperdeg/testbasen/test-av-kameratelefoner-3016902.html
Raven wrote:All right then, ye of little faith: http://mobilen.no/wip4/review/store-kameramobiltesten/d.epl?id=41352 The test was performed in a lab and is the same kind of test done with real DSLR cameras.
The main focus (no pun) of this test was on the camera, but things like specs, user-friendliness, screen, price etc. were also taken into account.
EDIT: The first link is more of a summary, the actual test was shown on Norwegian TV2: http://www.tv2underholdning.no/hjelperdeg/testbasen/test-av-kameratelefoner-3016902.html
Those aren't tests.
Okay, i don't speak the lingo, but in any comparison test on cameras, you normally get sample images showing just "why" one is better than another - and none of that is detailed on either of those sites.
I did a few side-by-sides of mobiles against dedicated a good few years back. That was the N73 against a casio 6mp. Both had similar problems with colour balance (reds were terrible), and the Nokia did a much better job in focusing and overall image accuracy.
I'll have to try a few more on my current range - N95, N85, Sony A200 SLR (10mp) and Kodak Z1285 (12mp). No doubts as to what will be best, but it'll be fun taking a range of pictures!
clonmult wrote:Those aren't tests.Okay, i don't speak the lingo, but in any comparison test on cameras, you normally get sample images showing just "why" one is better than another - and none of that is detailed on either of those sites.
Yeah I know, like I said the actual test was shown on Norwegian TV. The N86 did score very well in all of the tests though, but apparently the Satio won overall because of better optical performance, and most importantly because of the Xenon flash.
I don't know anything about photography, but the tests were done by professionals, so I tend to trust such controlled tests more than someone simply posting comparison pictures on a blog...
Raven wrote:Yeah I know, like I said the actual test was shown on Norwegian TV. The N86 did score very well in all of the tests though, but apparently the Satio won overall because of better optical performance, and most importantly because of the Xenon flash. I don't know anything about photography, but the tests were done by professionals, so I tend to trust such controlled tests more than someone simply posting comparison pictures on a blog...
I'd be interested to see the example images from both though - even if it has been done by professionals, they still need to do more to backup their case - I wouldn't just take their word on it, and on most professional reviews they back up their case with samples.
I would personally prefer to go by side-by-side images on a blog than a "professional says so", I've been burnt by such things in the past (mainly on audio kit though).
The xenon flash only has an effect in low light imaging. Unless it has a fill-in-flash option (which seems unlikely), then it can't assist in daylight photography.
Satio is still seemingly stuck with the irritating industry stand of an F2.8 lens - its rare for anything (even in the dedicated arena) to have a faster lens, and thats the one part that Nokia have definitely got right - F2.4 may not seem like much, but thats definitely something that would help sell the N86.
Fair enough I guess 😊 Yes, the Satio performs better in low light conditions, that's what I meant by mentioning the Xenon flash.
Anyway, I just watched the Gadget Show's 'verdict on the Sony Ericsson Satio' video, and the reviewer did actually say that, overall, the Satio probably has The Best camera in the world right now (amongst camera-phones), but that it wasn't by as large a margin as he'd hoped... So, again, I am far from impressed with the 'summary' posted here on AAS.
Raven wrote:Fair enough I guess 😊 Yes, the Satio performs better in low light conditions, that's what I meant by mentioning the Xenon flash.Anyway, I just watched the Gadget Show's 'verdict on the Sony Ericsson Satio' video, and the reviewer did actually say that, overall, the Satio probably has The Best camera in the world right now (amongst camera-phones), but that it wasn't by as large a margin as he'd hoped... So, again, I am far from impressed with the 'summary' posted here on AAS.
True ... the lack of Xenon on the N86, and Nokias explanation as to "why????" does beggar belief.
My only real issue is that so far SE have only got the Xenon right on one product (the MXE-60 add on for the W550, K750 and W810). The K800 was terrible, and the K810 and 850 were barely any improvement. Flash range and metering were absolutley dire.
My only other irritation is the flash positioning - its almost always wrong. It shouldn't be placed right next to the lens - thats the best way to get chronic red eye, and the red eye reduction rarely works.
People keep saying that the Satio performs better in low light situations. What you actually find is that it uses the flash not just in low light but almost all shots indoor. That shows that the sensor is not picking up much light. Turn the flash off and compare it to N86 and i8910 and it is the worst performer. In strong light it under expsoses which give the impression of good dynamic range but its really not great. The noise levels are unacceptable and make the 12MPX pointless, I have an N86 at the moment also and am pretty unimpressed. I am suprised to find that the i8910 is providing the best images in my comparisons. That also has its down sides, the shutter lag is awful and the images aren't as crisp as I used to get with my i8510.
clonmult wrote:True ... the lack of Xenon on the N86, and Nokias explanation as to "why????" does beggar belief..
Why does it beggar belief? Nokia have an established camera system, both hardware and software. Changing to Xenon would change the whole system. You can't just bolt on a xenon flash to an existing camera. You need mechanical shutter instead of rolling, meaning a whole new set of software and processing algorithms. And there is a whole list of other facts that count against xenon. Personally, for a poor camera such as you get in phones, I prefer LED.
Xenon on a phone camera, turns a crap camera into a crap camera that works a bit better in low light for close subjects. Not worth the bother.
Raven wrote:All right then, ye of little faith: http://mobilen.no/wip4/review/store-kameramobiltesten/d.epl?id=41352 The test was performed in a lab and is the same kind of test done with real DSLR cameras.
The main focus (no pun) of this test was on the camera, but things like specs, user-friendliness, screen, price etc. were also taken into account.
EDIT: The first link is more of a summary, the actual test was shown on Norwegian TV2: http://www.tv2underholdning.no/hjelperdeg/testbasen/test-av-kameratelefoner-3016902.html
Ahh. TV. Disregard that one then.
Unregistered wrote:Why does it beggar belief? Nokia have an established camera system, both hardware and software. Changing to Xenon would change the whole system. You can't just bolt on a xenon flash to an existing camera. You need mechanical shutter instead of rolling, meaning a whole new set of software and processing algorithms. And there is a whole list of other facts that count against xenon. Personally, for a poor camera such as you get in phones, I prefer LED.Xenon on a phone camera, turns a crap camera into a crap camera that works a bit better in low light for close subjects. Not worth the bother.
LED is a poor substitute for stills, and great for video.
How many dedicated cameras use an LED flash? I haven't seen one.
The N86 has a mechanical shutter, so thats not an issue. The N82 and N95 had the same camera, with the N82 adding a well metered Xenon flash - and it showed on images taken, and I'm still keeping an eye on the local 2nd hand shops to see if I can pick one up.
For still images a Xenon flash easily beats LED. LED is always on for a little too long and tends to make people close their eyes, whereas Xenon you're just likely to get a little issue with red eye.
Have you actually taken any pictures with any phones to justify the "crap camera" comment?
Over the last few years I've had :
W810 - probably the best phone camera I've owned, took beautiful pictures, especially with the addon flash.
K800 - xenon flash was useless 95% of the time
N73 - took surprisingly good images, excellent focusing, ultimately blighted by the whacky colour balance
N95 - probably worse overall than the N73
N85 - dual LED makes for better video recording than the N95, but doesn't help in the slightest with still images of people.
I've taken plenty of pics on all of these to know that they can all take pictures of good quality, easily good enough for printing - had a few from the N73 that looked pretty good even at A4 size.
clonmult wrote:For still images a Xenon flash easily beats LED. LED is always on for a little too long and tends to make people close their eyes, whereas Xenon you're just likely to get a little issue with red eye.
That's not in question.
clonmult wrote:
Have you actually taken any pictures with any phones to justify the "crap camera" comment?
Yes. Have you ever seen a half decent compact camera with a lens that looks like one on a phone? (to extend your dedicated cameras line)
clonmult wrote:
I've taken plenty of pics on all of these to know that they can all take pictures of good quality, easily good enough for printing - had a few from the N73 that looked pretty good even at A4 size.
Good quality? Image quality we are talking about. I've never seen one from a phone camera with quality anywhere near a half decent dedicated camera. Can you justify "good quality" by showing a phone image that does stand up? Even the competition winning images that I've seen (they have to have their own category because they are not as good) are poor under scrutiny (relative to a camera).
They are toys, regardless of the flash.
Must not feed the troll, must not feed the troll .... sod it.
Okay, take one of your dedicated compacts. Compare its lens to that on an SLR. Its crap in comparison, therefore all compact cameras are dire. You really do NOT understand cameras, do you?
Okay, the lenses are small - they are on compacts as well (especially those with mega zooms, that are hugely compromised in order to get the wow factor).
The contributing factors are the aperture, lens and sensor. With the increasing race towards higher pixel counts with similarly sized lenses and sensors, the sweet spot on image quality has been passed, the law of diminishing returns is coming rapidly into effect.
I have done plenty of side-by-side comparisons of dedicated compacts and phone cameras. Phone cams can do a surprisingly good job in good lighting, and only those with a well configured xenon can easily equal a dedicated indoors. I happily used my W810 with the MXE-60 on nights out and it got results easily equal to a dedicated camera.
The fact that nothing since then with the possible exceptions of the N82 and maybe the Satio has actually come close to the low light imaging abilities of that old 2mp walkman phone shouldn't really be surprising.
@clonmult
The compacts may include zooms. But did you ever see a small prime lens that performs well?
Nice to chuck in lines like "you really do not understand". Cheap shots. I could do it back but it's cowardly.
The outward appearance of the lenses on phones, and their ability ot have a small relative aperture for an equivalent stop indicates a small sensor. A tiny cheap CCD or CMOS.
The phones that can produce pictures that match dedicated cameras will have examples posted on the web. Show me.