| Author |
Nokia 7650 versus MCA-20 |
mfo
Joined: Feb 12, 2002
Posts: 32
From: Philadelphia, USA
PM, WWW
|
The image quality I used on the MCA-20 and the 7650 were both as good as it gets.
The MCA-20 has only a resolution option and the option to disable auto white balance. No option for quality.
The 7650 was in normal mode using the best quality option.
The White Balance on the 7650 is very poor. The MCA-20 does just fine in most situations.
The 7650 is also very blurry, especially around the endges of the image.
But overall the 7650 camera is much more convenient and easy to use, both in taking the photos and getting them to your computer or PDA.
-Michael
http://www.mobileburn.com/
|
|
|
Super G
Joined: Mar 07, 2002
Posts: > 500
From: France
PM |
Ok mfo, thanx for the info. It just needed to be said 
MCA-20 offers better picture quality, I fully agree 
|
lazarini
Joined: May 08, 2002
Posts: > 500
PM, WWW
|
Lol i just saw the pictures on the site an hour ago and coud not belive the poor quality pics from nokia 7650 man almoust bought the phone today but the camera part let me down totaly waiting for the p800 now :-o
This post was posted from a T68i |
punde
Joined: Jun 04, 2002
Posts: 1
PM |
About the MCA-25.
Forget about the MCA-25, is poorer than the MCA-20; The MCA-25 is gonna be the cheap camera from Sony Ericsson! That will be sold with the T300 (horrible too)
Cheers
|
jplacson
Joined: Apr 21, 2002
Posts: > 500
From: Philippines
PM, WWW
|
Actually the MCA-20, MCA-25 and P800 will all have the same picture quality. The MCA-25 has digital zoom and a couple of framing effects (quite useless, but they're there anyway)
These cameras are all supposedly manufactured by Sony's Digital Camera division. The MCA-10, MCA-10 View were manufactured by Ericsson.
All these new 'phone-cameras' are not meant for real photography... they are targetted for MMS systems which can't handle more than 160x180 photos... the 640x480 is just a bonus. Although I wish the phones these things came in could be THINNER (I kinda don't like 1" thick phones) I think they are pretty convenient for those who occassionally want a camera... if you don't want or need one... nobody is forcing anyone to buy these new phones.
I'm sure SE will come up with a no-camera version of the P800... they did that with the Sony Clie NR series... they first released a camera version, then a cameraless version.
I just hope they start hiring better desginers... cuz the new crop of phones look like toys. They're not ugly... they just don't look as classy as the older Ericsson phones. |
adamrj
Joined: Jan 15, 2002
Posts: 155
From: NW London
PM |
>>I just hope they start hiring better desginers...
Perhaps Jan (JH67) could knock up a few designs for them!
Adam |
Super G
Joined: Mar 07, 2002
Posts: > 500
From: France
PM |
The P800's camera looks strangely similar to that of 7650. At least the lens part looks the same...
But again, these are not replacing good old digital cameras.
And their pictures are targetted on going from mobile to mobile via MMS. So if you consider looking at them only on a mobile phone (small screen), their imperfections would not show that much. Bearing this in mind, the blue-ish color of the 7650's pictures is probably well adapted to the 7650 screen, or in general to a mobile phone color screen??
|
Cophia
Joined: Jul 22, 2002
Posts: > 500
From: Sydney
PM |
Again, please note the lack of focus control on all these devices.
The colour may be good at 90k colours on average per outdoor shot (depending on subject) but there is no focus!! It will never be as sharp as a good digital camera, it was never designed to be. And in bad lighting without a flash facility, it is pretty bad.
For MMS, the lack of focus-control is not that important when using 80x60 (etc.) sized pictures. You may get some shots at 640x480 or better still, 320x240 that are okay for websites.
The digital zoom or tele-foto facility also degrades the real picture, but for smaller sizes on an MMS it's an okay facility (although I wouldn't use it on a daily basis).
Those pictures that were posted on:
http://mobile.burn.com/review.jsp?Id=82
really are about as good (focus-wise) as you will get!!
|
dal_l
Joined: Mar 23, 2002
Posts: 97
PM |
Interesting ... I came across another review and the 7650 is closer to a digi-cam than the MCA-20 .... IMO, the 7650 is slightly blurry, has richer tones and blue cast while the MCA-20 is slightly sharper, washed out colors and a reddish cast.
http://www.ocworkbench.com/2002/nokia/7650review/p3.htm |
azzuri
Joined: Aug 09, 2002
Posts: 3
PM |
Which of the 2 cameras is better?
MCA 20 or MCA 10 ??? |
Hellmanen
Joined: Aug 09, 2002
Posts: 21
From: Sweden
PM |
Id say mca-20 coz I think it takes bigger images....
[ This Message was edited by: Hellmanen on 2002-08-09 23:18 ] |
ppcrockar
Joined: Mar 04, 2002
Posts: > 500
From: Sweden
PM |
@ jplacson
The Ericsson Cameras was (AFAIK) developed by Anoto Group (Former C-Techonlogies, the makers of the C-Pen, and the Ericsson Chatpen). The cameras uses Anoto's ASIC. |
decoy7
Joined: Feb 06, 2002
Posts: > 500
From: NW London
PM |
Quote:
|
On 2002-08-09 22:27, azzuri wrote:
Which of the 2 cameras is better?
MCA 20 or MCA 10 ???
|
|
MCA-20 is easily better, no contest.
MCA-10 picture size is same as the display screen of your phone so its only purpose would be to take pictures of people you want in your address book.
BBBold on T-Mobile UK |
john74
Joined: Dec 21, 2001
Posts: > 500
From: GREECE/AUSTRALIA
PM, WWW
|
http://www.pbase.com/image/3755552 HERES A 7650 photo taken in Normal mode
_________________
I NOW OWN A NOKIA 7650... Moderator of...  http://my.wapjag.com/ericssont68
[ This Message was edited by: john74 on 2002-08-11 12:58 ] |
john74
Joined: Dec 21, 2001
Posts: > 500
From: GREECE/AUSTRALIA
PM, WWW
|
Heres one taken with my old MCA-10 http://www.pbase.com/image/3755738
|
|
|
Posted: 2002-08-08 13:02
