| Author |
wich cam is better? K700 or 6230? |
blackspot
Joined: Sep 06, 2004
Posts: > 500
From: Philippines
PM |
@vineet, do you think it's still possible to improve the camera output of the K700i by a firmware upgrade? The noise on the poor lighting could really use some help, that way K700i will be the best overall - day or night!
resistance is futile. |
|
|
joecool
Joined: Sep 04, 2003
Posts: 57
PM |
daytime, the k700i is EXCELLENT. But night the colors shift and theres lots of noise.
I think.. a firmware upgrade could help color correction, and allow it to fire quicker. Digital zoom could possibly be improved too.
|
blackspot
Joined: Sep 06, 2004
Posts: > 500
From: Philippines
PM |
I think there's not much improvement that can be expected from digital zoom as it's just artificial zooming. An external zoom lens perhaps. 
resistance is futile. |
joecool
Joined: Sep 04, 2003
Posts: 57
PM |
I meant.. as in like quality of the digital zoom, that its more precise on tracking the picture so you don't get blur as easy. |
len
Joined: Oct 23, 2002
Posts: 44
From: Sweden
PM |
I bought my a K700i the other day. Here is my impressions now (compared to the 6230 which I have own for 6 months now)
Quote:
|
On 2004-11-21 22:14:27, TheRealSpawn wrote:
the 6230 takes better pictures in poor lightingconditions - while the k700 takes the best pictures under optimum lightingconditions.
|
|
Yes, but one could ask himself what are optimum lightingconditions. I just took a couple of pictures in a major department store (Yes, they are well lit) and the images got these anyoing grainy parts in it. It seems that the 6230 camera whoops the k700 cam in every area, but outside and light conditions.
Quote:
|
About videorecording - you are talking nonsense - the nokia 6230 records video at maximum resolution of 128x96 at 12fps and max 4minuttes - the K700 records video at resolution 176x144 at 15fps and up to 40 minuttes (or up to available memory)
|
|
When looking at these figures it may appear that the K700's superior resolution compared to nokias 128x96 and the supposed higher framerate would whoop Nokias (6230) ass, but it really doesn't. The compression artifacts (big squares) and the slow update rate on the k700 makes it almost impossible to see what has actually been recorded! The nokia has a lower resolution, I give you that, but you can actually see whats been recorded when looking at a Nokia 3gp-movie. Even when setting the K700 to the lower resolution, the artifacts remain and makes the movie-recording suck. I will post a few examples, where you can clearly see the difference later on
Quote:
|
Furthermore when it comes to playback of video - the nokia only play video at 128x96 pixels 12fps with very very poor AMR audio and max total bitrate of 90kbit/s - while the K700 can play video at 176x144 pixels 15fps with highquality AAC stereroaudio and max total bitrate of 160kbit/s which makes for instance musicvideos (and everything else) alot more interesting on K700 than on 6230
|
|
Yes, here I totally agree with you, The K700 is better to view video on, Nokia has nothing to put up here... |
blackspot
Joined: Sep 06, 2004
Posts: > 500
From: Philippines
PM |
You never seemed to mention about color fidelity. To some people like me it is more important than having a non-grainy image with dead colors.
resistance is futile. |
k4m!k4ze
Joined: Oct 02, 2004
Posts: > 500
From: CBE
PM |
yes i agree with blackspot. I got the chance to play with my friend's new 6230 and frankly i'm sure glad i didnt buy it.
The image was blurred a lot. Edges around objects, face, etc etc were not clear. This made the image look a bit better than it actually is. I took the same scene with my k700 and wow the colours were brighter and the picture sharper.
I transferred the pics from mine to the 6230 and from that to mine just to see if the screen made a difference and the answer's no . 6230 cam pic still looked blurred in my k700.
If at first you don't succeed, destroy all evidence of your attempt !! |
blackspot
Joined: Sep 06, 2004
Posts: > 500
From: Philippines
PM |
yup the image tends to be a bit blurry on the 6230, probably due to the software's noise removal -- that's the trade-off. no grains but no good details too and very bad colors.
resistance is futile. |
capibara
Joined: Aug 28, 2004
Posts: 20
From: umea sweden
PM |
I have to quote what TheRealSpawn wrote:
he K700 beat the 6230 hands down in every aspect ecxept for expandable memory.
Screen: K700 176x220 pixel vs 6230 128x128 pixel - much better screen
Themesupport: K700 only !
Videorecording: K700 unlimited up to 41mb vs 6230 limited to 4mb
Videorecording: K700 176x144 pixel vs 6230 128x96 pixels
Videoplayback: K700 176x144pixel with HighQ AAC audio vs 6230 only 128x96 pixel with LowQ AMR audio
Poly: K700 40tones vs 6230 24tones
Camera: K700 fotolight vs 6230 none
Camera: K700 panoramamode vs 6230 not
Camera: K700 fun frames vs 6230 ??
Camera: Overall quality - K700 best under good lightingconditions, 6230 best under poor lightingconditions.
then I need to add some of my own comments:
If the low light pictures are transfered to a computer, than you can manipulate them in Photoshop and Neatimage to look better. On the mobile display, the K700 wins hands down, allways.
K700 has radio, which is good, becouse you can't listen to mp3 while at work or in school. The Nokia memory card can't hold that many songs, and a big 1G card will cost you a lot. You better buy an I-pod than, and you get real sound quallity too. Good radio with entertaining people talking is the only way too survive a 9 hour day at work. Listenning too music that long is boring, specially with a small card that only holds up too 100-200 songs. The radio is the main reason why I bought the K700. |
vijith555
Joined: Oct 25, 2003
Posts: 63
From: Kingdom of Bahrain
PM |
@capibara
Thats the best comparison i have read so far..it tells so much about both the phones..
Ofcourse we can remove the noise in the night shots of K700i and make them still look better than 6230 pics..
Sad thing for 6230 is not even neatimage or other editing software can increase the colour and sharpness quality of the images taken...K700i only needs help in night shots..6230 needs help all the time! |
muffin
Joined: Jul 19, 2004
Posts: 16
PM |
Quote:
|
On 2004-11-30 14:57:13, capibara wrote:
K700 has radio, which is good, becouse you can't listen to mp3 while at work or in school. The Nokia memory card can't hold that many songs, and a big 1G card will cost you a lot. You better buy an I-pod than, and you get real sound quallity too. Good radio with entertaining people talking is the only way too survive a 9 hour day at work. Listenning too music that long is boring, specially with a small card that only holds up too 100-200 songs. The radio is the main reason why I bought the K700.
|
|
The 6230 has a radio as well! |
vanquish
Joined: Mar 20, 2003
Posts: > 500
From: Wor Newcastle Phone: V600i
PM, WWW
|
k sieben hundert!
[addsig] |
capibara
Joined: Aug 28, 2004
Posts: 20
From: umea sweden
PM |
muffin >
sorry, i didn't know that the Nokia has radio...but the facts about the picture/video/display are still valid... |
blackspot
Joined: Sep 06, 2004
Posts: > 500
From: Philippines
PM |
Quote:
|
On 2004-11-30 15:42:28, vijith555 wrote:
Ofcourse we can remove the noise in the night shots of K700i and make them still look better than 6230 pics..
Sad thing for 6230 is not even neatimage or other editing software can increase the colour and sharpness quality of the images taken...K700i only needs help in night shots..6230 needs help all the time!
|
|
Very good point! The 6230 images can never gain back the color and details that it has lost no matter what you do with it.
resistance is futile. |
|
|
Posted: 2004-11-24 03:15
