| Author |
K850i vs N95 pic quality |
AbuBasim
Joined: Nov 04, 2005
Posts: > 500
PM |
On 2007-11-09 08:53:59, DarKMaGiCiaN wrote:
still this N95 vs K850
I mean Nokia vs Sonyericsson
@all
please stop that
at the end no one will say I was wrong and you right!!!!
Hey, Mr Party-pooper. Go away if you just want to spoil the fun! 
This has been one of the most interesting threads here at Esato so far. Not a typical Nokia vs SE thread where the insults start flying very quickly but instead, for most of the time, the tone has been civilized and people have been trying to trump each other with facts and photo samples. Maybe it's because the typical Nokia and SE fanatics have been staying out from this thread, so far.
|
|
|
plankgatan
Joined: May 20, 2007
Posts: > 500
From: Sweden fur alle
PM |
i also thought that CCD was much better then cmos...but now when i know the fact. thats bollocks.....
i thought every expensive cameras had ccd !!! ..i was realy realy wrong...........
you find CMOS in many expensive cameras .....example EOS 1D Mark III & II use CMOS, (cost between 4000-8000 EURO)........and many many other big cameras have cmos.
so thats bullshit that ccd allways is better..
_________________
I  k850i,  w810i &  T28
[ This Message was edited by: plankgatan on 2007-11-09 08:59 ] |
AbuBasim
Joined: Nov 04, 2005
Posts: > 500
PM |
On 2007-11-09 09:51:02, plankgatan wrote:
i also thought that CCD was much better then cmos...but now when i know the fact. thats bollocks.....
ccd isnt way much better then cmos....(i thought every expensive cameras had ccd !!! ..i was realy realy wrong...........
you find CMOS in many expensive cameras .....example EOS 1D Mark III & II use CMOS, (cost between 4000-8000 EURO)........and many many other big cameras have cmos.
so thats bullshit that ccd allways is better..
Again a "clever" guy comparing DSLR cameras with huge CMOS sensors with camera phones with small CCD sensors. Talk about being confused about facts 
Why don't we compare your K850i with the Sony DSLR-A100 ????
_________________
Snuck! It's ointment time! -- Mad Jack the Pirate
[ This Message was edited by: AbuBasim on 2007-11-09 09:07 ] |
mib1800
Joined: Mar 18, 2004
Posts: > 500
PM |
I think not even CCD or super-duper CMOS will help the K850 because SE insist on using cheap lens (so as to boost its profit). See the picture below with its "purple fringing". And no firmware update can correct this.
http://mobilarena.hu/dl/rev/2007-09/1716/k850i6.jpg
|
plankgatan
Joined: May 20, 2007
Posts: > 500
From: Sweden fur alle
PM |
On 2007-11-09 10:04:34, AbuBasim wrote:
On 2007-11-09 09:51:02, plankgatan wrote:
i also thought that CCD was much better then cmos...but now when i know the fact. thats bollocks.....
ccd isnt way much better then cmos....(i thought every expensive cameras had ccd !!! ..i was realy realy wrong...........
you find CMOS in many expensive cameras .....example EOS 1D Mark III & II use CMOS, (cost between 4000-8000 EURO)........and many many other big cameras have cmos.
so thats bullshit that ccd allways is better..
Again a "clever" guy comparing DSLR cameras with huge CMOS sensors with camera phones with small CCD sensors. Talk about being confused about facts
that was NOT my point........my point was that cmos can be better (even i small cameras)
-------------------------------------------------------------
i dont realy care which sensor it have....i know that k850 take awesome pictures....thats good enough for me..(and if you dont believe me, see the k850 thread ...he he
_________________
I k850i, w810i & T28
[ This Message was edited by: plankgatan on 2007-11-09 09:10 ] |
AbuBasim
Joined: Nov 04, 2005
Posts: > 500
PM |
On 2007-11-09 10:06:55, plankgatan wrote:
that was NOT my point........my point was that cmos can be better (even i small cameras)
Why is there only one CMOS-based point-and-shoot camera on the market???? (The Kodak C513.) Because small CMOS sensors produce sh*tty pictures, that's why! You were comparing small CCD sensors with DSLRs with huge CMOS sensors. Any sensor type, when large enough, will produce very good photos.
Why doesn't Hasselblad put tiny CMOS sensors in their digital backs? Because they would be the laughing stock of the camera market!
i dont realy care which sensor it have....i know that k850 take awesome pictures....thats good enough for me..(and if you dont believe me, see the k850 thread ...he he
Your 0.45 MP (778x584) photos in that thread are very impressive!
_________________
Snuck! It's ointment time! -- Mad Jack the Pirate
[ This Message was edited by: AbuBasim on 2007-11-09 09:14 ] |
DarKMaGiCiaN
Joined: Aug 25, 2006
Posts: > 500
PM |
Hey, Mr Party-pooper. Go away if you just want to spoil the fun!
where is the fun in my post ??
if you think my post is not nessesary and it just out of the topic
then I'll delete it and I'm sorry for that
otherwise please correct what I wrote ^_^
Why don't we compare your K850i with the Sony DSLR-A100 ????
hehehe I know someone who alrady compared his i-mobile 902 with the Canon EOS 300D ^_*
I think not even CCD or super-duper CMOS will help the K850 because SE insist on using cheap lens (so as to boost its profit). See the picture below with its "purple fringing". And no firmware update can correct this.
you are correct in this point and I really want to see a sonyericsson mobile phone with a carl zeiss lens
but if sonyericsson do that then how many people gonna buy it ?
lots of people will say "yes this is my next mobile phone but when it release I'm sure that they will say this mobile phone is costly
I think sonyericsson dont want to repeat s700 and w900 story
they are one of the best mobile phones sonyericsson ever released but how many people bought it ?
I have a question?
why japanese people have great mobile phones from sonyericsson ?
[ This Message was edited by: DarKMaGiCiaN on 2007-11-09 10:12 ] |
plankgatan
Joined: May 20, 2007
Posts: > 500
From: Sweden fur alle
PM |
On 2007-11-09 10:11:51, AbuBasim wrote:
On 2007-11-09 10:06:55, plankgatan wrote:
that was NOT my point........my point was that cmos can be better (even i small cameras)
Why is there only one CMOS-based point-and-shoot camera on the market???? (The Kodak C513.) Because small CMOS sensors produce sh*tty pictures, that's why! You were comparing small CCD sensors with DSLRs with huge CMOS sensors. Any sensor type, when large enough, will produce very good photos.
Why doesn't Hasselblad put tiny CMOS sensors in their digital backs? Because they would be the laughing stock of the camera market!
i dont realy care which sensor it have....i know that k850 take awesome pictures....thats good enough for me..(and if you dont believe me, see the k850 thread ...he he
Your 0.45 MP (778x584) photos in that thread are very impressive!
_________________
Snuck! It's ointment time! -- Mad Jack the Pirate
[ This Message was edited by: AbuBasim on 2007-11-09 09:14 ]
1.
like you know you can only show pictures in 800 x 600 here on Esato forum....
2.
i can show you many many pictures in full size...most of them still looks good.
3.
i HAVE show full size pictures before...so why are you nagging about this silly shit.
4.
why i dont lay up my pictures with ex, Imageshack, is because it take more time and its realy boring work
5.
why dont you show us some pictures from your own cell phone....
_________________
I k850i, w810i & T28
[ This Message was edited by: plankgatan on 2007-11-09 10:56 ] |
AbuBasim
Joined: Nov 04, 2005
Posts: > 500
PM |
On 2007-11-09 11:50:24, plankgatan wrote:
1.
like you know you can only show pictures in 800 x 600 here on Esato forum....
Yes, but you don't leave it up to Esato to do the scaling. You're scaling your photos intentionally to an even smaller size. I wonder why...?
2.
i can show you many many pictures in full size...most of them still looks good.
That is debatable.
3.
i HAVE show full size pictures before...so why are you nagging about this silly shit.
Silly shit? Surely you must mean "silly sh*t"!
4.
why i dont lay up my pictures with ex, Imageshack, is because it take more time and its realy boring work
Look up on the right of this page. Do you see the "Photos" link there? You have already posted a few of your thumbnail-sized snaps there a few times before. It doesn't take more time to post your snaps there, than it takes to post directly in this thread.
5.
why dont you show us some pictures from your own cell phone....
I have posted a few samples here in the Photos section, ALL in full size, and also in this thread, where you for example can look at this post where I make a small comparison of my camera phone with my old CANON 300D 6MP DSLR, and my post following that, where I compare the same camera phone with a Olympus C-350 P&S camera.
|
>500
Joined: Jan 24, 2006
Posts: > 500
PM |
ok where we going with this people? lets TRY and stay on topic 
|
AbuBasim
Joined: Nov 04, 2005
Posts: > 500
PM |
On 2007-11-09 12:30:23, >500 wrote:
ok where we going with this people?
Look a few posts back and you'll see plankgatan's amazing comparison between camera phones and DSLRs. Then I apparently touched a sore spot when I nagged a bit about his tiny (but ultra-sharp and completely free of noise, that can't be denied!) photos.
_________________
Snuck! It's ointment time! -- Mad Jack the Pirate
[ This Message was edited by: AbuBasim on 2007-11-09 11:40 ] |
mongoose3800
Joined: Nov 29, 2005
Posts: 416
From: Australia
PM |
On 2007-11-09 11:50:24, plankgatan wrote:
1.
like you know you can only show pictures in 800 x 600 here on Esato forum....
2.
i can show you many many pictures in full size...most of them still looks good.
1) Yes, but you can post full res photo's in Esatos Mobile Phone Photo Gallery right here: http://www.esato.com/phonephotos . Yes that's right FULL size photo's and you know it's there because you've used it. And you can sort by make and model of camera if you want to look at photos from a particluar phone. So, why then don't you post full res shots there? Why have you only posted shrunken images there as well when you could have posted full size images? They're not auto resized in the gallery so don't use that excuse. Please tell us all why you wont post full res photos there? The mind boggles - you have the perfect opportunity to post your supberb photos right there but you haven't taken up the opportunity even though you know it's there.
2) Well show us. You keep saying you will and you don't. I don't believe a word of what you a saying.
[ This Message was edited by: mongoose3800 on 2007-11-09 12:13 ] |
Ronka
Joined: May 05, 2007
Posts: 34
PM |
On 2007-11-05 20:53:15, plankgatan wrote:
wins ???????
after have seen this bad indoor pictures, flash pictures & panorama pictures from N95.....i easily say that N95 is worse on everything except for the outdoor pictures in daylight.....(N95 take often better pictures daylight in default...but if you know how to do with k850....they are similiar even in daylight)
N95 have no good allround camera.........(if you cant admit that, after have seen all beatiful indoor, low light, flash pictures from k850...its realy sad)
Keep in mind N95 has been months and months on the market, but the newcomer K850 that has just been released couldnt even surpass it.
_________________
I k850i, w810i & T28
[ This Message was edited by: plankgatan on 2007-11-05 19:55 ]
|
plankgatan
Joined: May 20, 2007
Posts: > 500
From: Sweden fur alle
PM |
@mongoo pongo....i realy give a prutt what you believe or not..(im not liyng)....and like i said, i have many more full size pictures who looks realy good.
oohhpss...full size..looks realy awesome
http://img143.imageshack.us/img143/8199/dsc01211se9.jpg
http://img144.imageshack.us/img144/2354/dsc00488rs8.jpg
ooohhpps.....one more
http://img440.imageshack.us/img440/3305/dsc02602ew4.jpg
this one is actually unshrinked..2592 x 1944 ,like the rest of them, (but it will not stay there, something wrong with Imageshack)..
AND the picture looks awesome in full size.
http://img110.imageshack.us/img110/8223/dsc02344vx5.jpg
_________________
I k850i, w810i & T28
[ This Message was edited by: plankgatan on 2007-11-09 20:18 ] |
BobaFett
Joined: Jan 06, 2004
Posts: > 500
From: Kamino (wish it would be Lund)
PM, WWW
|
is it really a must to talk with each other this way? all this cos of some mobile pix... sad...
|
|
|
Posted: 2007-11-09 09:36
