+ Nokia N95; Carl Zeiss; Tessar Optic; 5 MPX - Video and Image Samples

the tree pictures on the Nokia look like an oil painting, they dont physically look to be part of the picture.. dont tell me you can't see how blurry they are.. and mostly the tree to the left.. how it starts to blur out more on the top and gets jagged edges..

even the brick on the nokia looks to be more fake then real actual break,, the lg might be more grainy and a tad blurry, but it seems it processes the image better,

the nokia seems to be blurred more where the stupid blue shade kicks in, and even when not it seems it's not real..
 
Nokia N95; Video and Image Samples



Probably the first thing that you will notice about the N95 is the fact that the Nokia N95 is the first Nokia phone which bumps resolution up to 5.0 mega pixels (2592 x 1944 pixels) and I am pretty sure that most of you will be impressed about that number, but.. .

If you know a little bit more about photography you should know that the amount of pixels is just one, in fact not a very important number on the specification paper

The megapixel race on the digital cameras of the last years seems to have settled down now but in the mobile phone world it seems that there is a completely differe... .

Read more:
Nokia N95; Carl Zeiss; Tessar Optic; 5 MPX - full story

Sincerely yours,
Apoc
 
I think the conclusion is (and a conclusion that was reached a long time ago in multiple threads) is that the N73 would seem to take better photos to the average person because of its overprocessing which makes the colours look more rich (and oversaturated) and the image sharper, whereas the K800i/K790a would seem to take more washed out photos and less sharp pictures but is more preferred by critics because of its superior colour reproduction.

And as for the LG, i dunno
 
It's interesting see the 4way comparison pics of the back of the VW. The N93 is in dead last...with the N73...then the N95....and then the "IS13"?? leading the way. I see you took a picture of the N90. Is that the 4th photo comparison in the bunch? If so, that antique smoked em all
 
Well, may be you are the one who you prefer red sky, utter pink tint (K800) or yellow tint(LG), that is your problem.
I don't really care what it does. What is more important is the outcome and here Nokia wins. You have to be blind not to see that N73 are sharper and its color are more real. Why is everyone forgetting that there is Carl Zeiz lens in N73, may be its the reason colors are richer and pics are sharper? GSMarena is known to be Sony Ericsson biased, so there is no need to repeat that **** about "post processing" here.
And everyone here is 'average user", this is not professional Andy Warhol photocontext, after all, we are discussing camera phones.

No wonder most critics have Sony Ericsson. Why don't you take your Sony Ericsson glasses of, and give credit where credit is due? Without making up lame excuses for LG and Sony Ericsson.
Just try to be honest and don't try to fool yourself.

Those stripes are white, not grey or yellow.
 
I never said that there is blue in k800 pics, do you even read what i say? I said that there is red in K800, for examle in your last picture which of course you don't see. I'm getting tired of this discussion, we were discussing GSMarena samples, there is no blue in N73 samples posted there, but there is obvious red in K800, let me type it again for you, there is no blue in K800, but there is red. That's what i pointed out, now you come up with your
, useless samples. And am i desregaring N73 faults? I even admit that in low light or night time pics from K800 might be better (even though, i'm still not sure), you are the one ignoring drawbacks of K800 and trying to cover them up. How many times do i have to tell you post same pictures and same place at same time? Otherwise it's not worth a dime. Why don't you take that first picture with K800? I'm sure everything will be so washed out and blurry, that you will forgive Nokia.
And yes, you are resising them to cover up K800 bluriness, at full res they suck and you know that. And was that question about how are those pics easier serius? I can't belive you don't see it for yourself that there is more light on K800 pics. Than there is no use of this discussion. Cure your Sony Ericsson blindness first.
 
It is sharper because of post processing. One can easily take a picture into Photoshop and hit the sharpen filter 10 times. Do you not see the blockiness in the N73 image at all?

Look at the first picture in post #56. Look at the lights that are supposed to be white. Now look at the N73 rendition of these white lights. Explain to me why this happens? Why does the N73 interpret lights that are supposed to be white, as every shade in the rainbow?


So by your logic, just because it has a Zeiss lense, it has to have good image quality? Righttt, smart thinking there buddy, if that was the case, the N90 image would be just as good.
Where have I mentioned ANYTHING about SE?


Everyone here is an 'average user'? Then why should average users have ANY BUSINESS at all when analyzing cameras? How would you know who is an average user and who is not? You don't, so don't go making that sweeping generalizing statement.


Nowhere have I said that the LG or SE images look better than the N73 image.

I am not making up ANY lame excuses for LG or SE, I am showing the problems that Nokia has, and that they have no business going to 5.0mpixel, when their 3.2mpixel is post processed like crazy.
 
N95 images still look like *** for a 5mpixel.

My Canon S410 powershot takes wayyyyyyyyyyy better images, and it's 4mpixels.

******* megapixel myth is what people are going to buy into. Not to mention it's a ******* waste of memory/time having to go to 5mpixel and having to wait for it to process the large image, waste waste waste waste Nokia.
 
Don't be naive, it won't help.
And what does PS have to do with our discussion? We are comparing ready to print pictures.
You are average user indeed.

I can see blurryness on LG and SE, do you?

Take a look at my last picture. Why LG interpret color that supposed to be white, as yellow, and K800 as grey?

And take a look at previous pictures, why is there yellow tint everywhere on LG, and pink on Sony Ericsson? Why are they that blurry and grainy? And why LG despite of having 5 megapixels, can't catch details, that N73 does? And i'm not talking about K800, which is complete loser here

I said it might be one of the reasons. And btw, N90 with lastest fw does quite good pictures. You don't have to mention S?, being picky to Nokia while having Sony Ericsson and skipping its and LG's obvious drawbacks is enough.
.]
I don't get it, did i insult you by calling average user? This is funny. I'm sorry but you don't look like pro photographer, and neigher i am.
And I'm not anylizing anything, i'm pointing out which picture is better, that's all.


Your are focusing on less visible problems on N73, and skipping much obvious problems of LG and Sony Ericsson. Yes, you are making up lame excuses for LG and Sony Ericsson, by trying to cover up Nokia's advantages.
And where exactly i said that N73 is perfect? All i say is that N73 is better then K800 and LG in this case..
 
Fortunately the N95 is Waaayyy more than just a camera phone so I think I can forgive it!....still looks better than the N93/N73 so I still consider it an upgrade from Nokias past performances. Comparing it to true Digital Cameras is still not fair. I have an old Sony 1.3 NonCZ that snaps photos as good as the N73's 3.2CZ so it's all relative. It's almost like comparing the web browsing experience on the n95 to a laptop. N95 is pretty darn good for ALL of it's features. I'd like to see call someone on that Canon ...or listen to music...check your RF feeds....navigate w/ GPS....surf the web.....shoot quality video.....run PIM apps....check your email...etc.
 
Back
Top