You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
+ Nokia N95; Carl Zeiss; Tessar Optic; 5 MPX - Video and Image Samples
- Thread starter mamiidetuvida
- Start date
GOODNIGHT MOON
New member
nop, and things get even more complicated since softbank acquired voda japan...but what does it matter to u anyway u wont touch it *no 850*
ilalaloveit12
New member
wow thats a good n73 camera
scorpionking2k5
New member
That's exactly what i'm talking about, it can't even keep up with N73. And color is not only problem, look at horizontal stripes at radiator grille, you can see even small details on N73 picture, while LG (where are your 5 megapixels??) and Sony Ericsson loose everything..
Sorry for my bad english...
Sorry for my bad english...
CoCosPrinKleS
New member
now this night shot from the k800 is beautiful.
even notice the tree branches in comparison to the nokia 73, the sony captures better detail , and the trees look like they belong in the picture, and very accurate.
even notice the tree branches in comparison to the nokia 73, the sony captures better detail , and the trees look like they belong in the picture, and very accurate.
deangelashante
New member
Ha ha
But seriously, even some better cameras have been know to misread the white balance a little bit. That's what simple/quick post-processing is for.
But seriously, even some better cameras have been know to misread the white balance a little bit. That's what simple/quick post-processing is for.
The Chrysanthemum
New member
'
You all here claim to be '"pro's' "analizing pictures" and don't know such simple things.
Did you read the sign on the wall? Camera postion is equall to it on both phones, yet on K800 it's all blurry, so there is no need to make up lame excuses for K800.
1.Those pictures were from different reviews, why is it that on both of them K800 is a bit closer? And park is from GSMarena review, they preffered SE.
2. I just tried to take pic from exactly same location with my N80 and wife's Samsung, N80 pic. seems to be a bit closer.
3. They don;t take pictures on tripod, and there might be couple of mm difference, which doesn't make impact on quality at all.
You all here claim to be '"pro's' "analizing pictures" and don't know such simple things.
Did you read the sign on the wall? Camera postion is equall to it on both phones, yet on K800 it's all blurry, so there is no need to make up lame excuses for K800.
1.Those pictures were from different reviews, why is it that on both of them K800 is a bit closer? And park is from GSMarena review, they preffered SE.
2. I just tried to take pic from exactly same location with my N80 and wife's Samsung, N80 pic. seems to be a bit closer.
3. They don;t take pictures on tripod, and there might be couple of mm difference, which doesn't make impact on quality at all.
No it wasn't clear, and I don't think you think it's that clear anyways, labeling me as a SE/LG fanboy in your subsequent posts.
Frankly, I don't even know why everyone's using the GSMArena pictures to judge the white balance of these camera phones. I'm quite sure the editors over at GSMArena are not professional digital camera reviewers, up there with the likes of Phil Askey.
I'll now take a stab at the LG/SE/Nokia comparo:
White balance aside, the LG looks a little softer than any of the other images.
The SE has visible artifacts around and near every edge, which leads me to think that it's JPEG compression is a little high, or there's some post processing going on.
The Nokia goes even further where the SE left off. This probably isn't because of the JPEG compression, but rather heavy image processing by the phone itself. Clearly shown is how the phone interprets the white lights as multi coloured. The colours on the swing set look much more 'solid & vivid' but they're clearly not natural and true to scenary.
All in all, I would take the LG image over any of them, why? Because it seems to be less processed and touched. Why would I take a less processed image? The same reason why people prefer to shoot RAW over JPEG.
You are entitled to your own opinion, but that means nothing if you don't even try to back it up.. You're causing this thread to run in circles for no apparent reason, when it should be on topic about the N95 and it's capabilities.
@lastdon00
The SE takes better night shots because the flash is much better than the N73's
Frankly, I don't even know why everyone's using the GSMArena pictures to judge the white balance of these camera phones. I'm quite sure the editors over at GSMArena are not professional digital camera reviewers, up there with the likes of Phil Askey.
I'll now take a stab at the LG/SE/Nokia comparo:
White balance aside, the LG looks a little softer than any of the other images.
The SE has visible artifacts around and near every edge, which leads me to think that it's JPEG compression is a little high, or there's some post processing going on.
The Nokia goes even further where the SE left off. This probably isn't because of the JPEG compression, but rather heavy image processing by the phone itself. Clearly shown is how the phone interprets the white lights as multi coloured. The colours on the swing set look much more 'solid & vivid' but they're clearly not natural and true to scenary.
All in all, I would take the LG image over any of them, why? Because it seems to be less processed and touched. Why would I take a less processed image? The same reason why people prefer to shoot RAW over JPEG.
You are entitled to your own opinion, but that means nothing if you don't even try to back it up.. You're causing this thread to run in circles for no apparent reason, when it should be on topic about the N95 and it's capabilities.
@lastdon00
The SE takes better night shots because the flash is much better than the N73's
cellochick
New member
here again we see
another pic, ( and no i dont have the lg phone but the camera is pretty decent compared to the n95 camera pictures posted. )
here again int he picture below..
the lights are supposed to be white, look at the nokia pic lol it like to make up colours?
night shot with the nokia
with the lg looks way better, and if it had a flash like the k800 the pic would be way better..
another pic, ( and no i dont have the lg phone but the camera is pretty decent compared to the n95 camera pictures posted. )
here again int he picture below..
the lights are supposed to be white, look at the nokia pic lol it like to make up colours?
night shot with the nokia
with the lg looks way better, and if it had a flash like the k800 the pic would be way better..
Thanks. There is some red in calculator pic. Now it is obiuos that the only advantage of K800 is in low light conditions, in daylight N73 is a lot better. And that doesn't allow to call it better cameracphone.
These are N73 pics.
And no, it's not my gf.
Check out the lights, it's color is right. And no blue tint
Macro mode
These are N73 pics.
And no, it's not my gf.
Check out the lights, it's color is right. And no blue tint
Macro mode
I can't see how LG looks better in night shots. LG does have a better flash then N73, and they state that it is almost same as in Sony Ericsson, and still LG picture is more grainy and less sharper, look at wall and especially arrows, unlike N73 they are blurry on LG. So, even with more powerful flash, LG takes worse pictures in night.
And even my 7.3 megapixel Casio Exilim can do such colored lights, i just delete flawed picture
Actually, LG is blurry even in daytime, what do you expect from night ?
And even my 7.3 megapixel Casio Exilim can do such colored lights, i just delete flawed picture
Actually, LG is blurry even in daytime, what do you expect from night ?
luke_man40
New member
dont get me wrong in here.
i would still buy the nokia n95 it looks like a great phone,
i have a digi camera for pictures , i want a phone, for a phone first and then the rest.
i would still buy the nokia n95 it looks like a great phone,
i have a digi camera for pictures , i want a phone, for a phone first and then the rest.
1) English is my second language too, what's your point.
2) And no, I don't see the red. And even if it's there, it's not as evident as the N73.
3) I already said that they're not exact pure comparisons. That wasn't the point. The point is to illustrate the fact that under low lighting conditions, the N73 has an excessive amount of blue haze that is not present in the SE. Otherwise, the picture itself is very good.
As for me having SE glasses on: It's funny cause I owned a lot of Nokia and SE phones in the past, and I've been satisfied with most of them. I find it even more amusing for you to acknowledge the fact that you haven't owned either phone and are basing your opinions on photos taken from another site (a site in which you neither know the person taking the picture nor the lighting conditions or even the actual colours of the supposed picture) and causing this thread to be off topic and bashing others who have owned this phone and are trying to give objective opinions concerning the pros and cons of each device. We can argue all day about you having your Nokia glasses on and me/others having SE glasses on, but the fact of the matter is you haven't owned either device, while I have owned both and can probably form a better opinion than you can since I took the pictures myself and know what the colours are supposed to be and what the details are supposed to be when i took the picture.
2) And no, I don't see the red. And even if it's there, it's not as evident as the N73.
3) I already said that they're not exact pure comparisons. That wasn't the point. The point is to illustrate the fact that under low lighting conditions, the N73 has an excessive amount of blue haze that is not present in the SE. Otherwise, the picture itself is very good.
As for me having SE glasses on: It's funny cause I owned a lot of Nokia and SE phones in the past, and I've been satisfied with most of them. I find it even more amusing for you to acknowledge the fact that you haven't owned either phone and are basing your opinions on photos taken from another site (a site in which you neither know the person taking the picture nor the lighting conditions or even the actual colours of the supposed picture) and causing this thread to be off topic and bashing others who have owned this phone and are trying to give objective opinions concerning the pros and cons of each device. We can argue all day about you having your Nokia glasses on and me/others having SE glasses on, but the fact of the matter is you haven't owned either device, while I have owned both and can probably form a better opinion than you can since I took the pictures myself and know what the colours are supposed to be and what the details are supposed to be when i took the picture.
^
Why the hell are you comparing the pictures of the cactus. That's probably the worse comparison you can make. Obviously, in the K800i pic, the AF was focused on the tip of the cactus, and hence why the tip is so clear while the rest is blurred. As for the N73 pic, the AF seems to be more focused on the base of the cactus and hence the pot, soil and the bottom of the cactus is more in focus with the tip being OUT of focus. How can they be directly comparable.
I might add that in the N73 pic, you can still see the overprocessing at the base of the cactus on the soil.
Furthermore, why the hell do you care whether or not you can see the sign at the back. That's probably the most irrelevant thing you can even compare in the entire picture. The AF is focused on the CACTUS in both pictures, and not on the sign at the back. Both phones actually do a decent job of focusing on whatever they're focusing, but like I said, the overprocessing of the N73 is still apparent in the way that the soil is rendered in the image.
Why the hell are you comparing the pictures of the cactus. That's probably the worse comparison you can make. Obviously, in the K800i pic, the AF was focused on the tip of the cactus, and hence why the tip is so clear while the rest is blurred. As for the N73 pic, the AF seems to be more focused on the base of the cactus and hence the pot, soil and the bottom of the cactus is more in focus with the tip being OUT of focus. How can they be directly comparable.
I might add that in the N73 pic, you can still see the overprocessing at the base of the cactus on the soil.
Furthermore, why the hell do you care whether or not you can see the sign at the back. That's probably the most irrelevant thing you can even compare in the entire picture. The AF is focused on the CACTUS in both pictures, and not on the sign at the back. Both phones actually do a decent job of focusing on whatever they're focusing, but like I said, the overprocessing of the N73 is still apparent in the way that the soil is rendered in the image.