| Author |
pic quality which one is better t68i or 7650 |
Rashkae
Joined: Jun 03, 2002
Posts: > 500
PM |
Quote:
|
On 2003-01-14 19:01, pachy wrote:
The above poster got it right, anyone who thinks a pic on the screen of t68i is better than 7650 is insane
|
|
Was talking about a computer screen, not the phone's screen.
And actually, once on a PC the 7650 pics look horrid |
|
|
Coramoor
Joined: Nov 13, 2002
Posts: > 500
From: Norway
PM |
I think the cameras in present mobiles are purely for fun. Like capturing an insanely funny moment or something you weren't exepecting. Like the bear in the nokia commercial(I think that commercial truly captures the meaning of the camera).
None of them are sufficient for family album photos anyway.
I feel the camera on the nokia wins due to the fact that it is attached to the phone. You may not always be dragging the ericsson cam around no matter how small it is.(however the t68i and the camera together is smaller than the 7650)
|
Rashkae
Joined: Jun 03, 2002
Posts: > 500
PM |
I totally agree that the camera is just for fun and MMS. Everyone who complains about "it's only 640x480" or "why isn't it at least 1.1 megapixels" doesn't understand why the camera was added, and/or is just looking for a cheap digicam. |
Coramoor
Joined: Nov 13, 2002
Posts: > 500
From: Norway
PM |
hehe.. It isn't even cheap.
You can get digicams for half the price with twice the amount of pixels... |
HolyPikachu
Joined: Oct 30, 2002
Posts: 15
From: Indonesia
PM |
---> Rashkae
Nokia 7650 is better on ALL ASPECT except the device size  . Ok, here is my opinion (7650 VS T68i+MCA 20)
1). Convenience
T68i:
U must attach first the camera, press the shutter, ADJUST THE SETTING FOR BEST QUALITY BASED ON ILUMINATION CONDITION/ *#*#, UGH!, press the shutter once again, WAIT FOR SUCH A LONG TIME FOR 640X480 RESOLUTION, MOVING THE IMAGE TO PICTURE PHONEBOOK.
Ugh!!!! Such a boring and lame procedure ...
7650:
Move the slide and HERE WE GO!!! Press the joystick--->automatically saving!!!
Done!
2). Pic quality on PHONE DISPLAY
T68i:
- Only darkness is found especially on low light condition
- Blur, less colour and not sharp really (256 color T68i).
7650:
- Bright, true color (almost) and very sharp and detail almost like analog camera result.
- NIGHTSHOT!!!! works well Kudo Nokia!!!
3). Viewfinder
T68i:
- The worst of the worst! 
7650:
- Nearly my JVC mini DV! Awesome! Kudo Nokia!!!
I can say that because I have T68i+MCA+20, and I will give to my cousin. Now, I am Nokia fans because SE is really dissapointed (Yes, Ericsson is pioneer, rule maker BUT ALWAYS LOSE COMPETITION and can't improve the technology ).
|
anonymuser
Joined: Dec 17, 2002
Posts: > 500
PM |
the picture quality argument is fair enough (*that* is the topic here, nothing else) but please stop comparing the phones themselves. the t68 is a small, beautiful, well specified phone with an optional camera; the 7650 is a big ugly brick with a camera built in. horses for courses. |
Rashkae
Joined: Jun 03, 2002
Posts: > 500
PM |
Quote:
|
On 2003-01-16 23:50, HolyPikachu wrote:
---> Rashkae
2). Pic quality on PHONE DISPLAY
T68i:
- Only darkness is found especially on low light condition
- Blur, less colour and not sharp really (256 color T68i).
7650:
- Bright, true color (almost) and very sharp and detail almost like analog camera result.
- NIGHTSHOT!!!! works well Kudo Nokia!!!
|
|
There are enough threads here to prove you wrong on your "picture quality" bias.
FYI, I NEVER said the T68i images looked better on the T68i screen. Read my posts before you open your mouth. I always agreed that the 7650's screen was better.
HOWEVER, once transferred to a PC and viewed on a monitor, the 7650 images are LOUSY and not true-to-color. They are unusually blurry and blue-tinted. |
Coramoor
Joined: Nov 13, 2002
Posts: > 500
From: Norway
PM |
Holypikachu:
You said:
7650:
- Bright, true color (almost) and very sharp and detail almost like analog camera result.
- NIGHTSHOT!!!! works well Kudo Nokia!!!
Have you been drinking? You can say whatever you want about the t68i. But the nokias are not very sharp. |
|
|
Posted: 2003-01-16 21:41
