| Author |
Post pictures taken with your C902 Cybershot Phone |
hgautam
Joined: Jan 29, 2006
Posts: > 500
PM |
P1 in macro can take clear sharp pics at a distance of 6cm... Just tried it...
As far as I can remember, the K750 could takes clear pics even at 5cm and the P990 too...
[ This Message was edited by: hgautam on 2009-04-29 21:11 ] |
|
|
plankgatan
Joined: May 20, 2007
Posts: > 500
From: Sweden fur alle
PM |
oh boy.... does it even matter if your c902 can shot sharp Windows stickers below 5cm distance or not ???  (sounds a bit unnecessary in daily photographing 
---------------------------
i have just a few macro taken in extremely short distance, this springflower-buds is VERY small, (they looks just larger because im VERY close, but its the real deal), anyway, i had the phone standing on the ground maybe 3-4cm away.
full size
http://www.esato.com/phonephotos/viewphotos.php?pid=18419
if you want great macro, you need to come really close, especially on bugs, etc..... so i disagree that c902 cant shot "super macro"
[ This Message was edited by: plankgatan on 2009-04-29 21:58 ] |
Raiderski
Joined: Jul 03, 2006
Posts: > 500
From: Poland, Hell, Mountains
PM, WWW
|
K750 could takes clear pics even at 5cm
lens to subject distance is 10cm as stated in official Sony document. I never was able to get closer
|
blerk
Joined: Jun 12, 2008
Posts: > 500
From: London, UK
PM |
On 2009-04-29 22:20:48, plankgatan wrote:
oh boy.... does it even matter if your c902 can shot sharp Windows stickers below 5cm distance or not ??? (sounds a bit unnecessary in daily photographing
-snip-
[ This Message was edited by: plankgatan on 2009-04-29 21:45 ]
@plankgatan
Did you read my original post about this? I was just curious to why some camera phones can do it and others not. Reading is not your strong point is it? You simply ignore whatever other people say and repeat your own mantra. Doesn't add much constructive to the conversation.
You keep missing the point: the crux is in the lighting! Today outside in the bright weather or even in the sun macro's were easy even up close. It is when the light gets less and you need flash the C902 has a BIG weakness. See the picture linked below.
@everybody else
I hope with some modding the flash issue can be fixed and the focusing too. Right now when taking macro with flash it either whites out the whole image or everything around the subject.
Like this: http://i43.tinypic.com/11kcwgj.jpg (Both pictures taken with flash).
At least the sharpness is there now, just the whole surrounding is gone because the flash flashes very quickly, whereas the C702 flashes a few times or syncs it or something I'm sure the camera driver modders know how that is called, I don't 
[ This Message was edited by: blerk on 2009-04-29 22:04 ] |
hgautam
Joined: Jan 29, 2006
Posts: > 500
PM |
On 2009-04-29 22:50:47, Raiderski wrote:
K750 could takes clear pics even at 5cm
lens to subject distance is 10cm as stated in official Sony document. I never was able to get closer
I am not 100% sure abt K750 but P990 & P1 can take pics at distances 5-6cms... I have some some pics taken at such distances but this is not the thread for it... |
plankgatan
Joined: May 20, 2007
Posts: > 500
From: Sweden fur alle
PM |
blerk......why do you just compare c702 vs c902 in this special-below<5cm-macro-pictures ?????
in the real world, c702 have not a chance, (i really mean NOT A CHANCE)
take a look HOW c702 behaves against c902 in ordinary pictures, such as; landscape, ordinary macro, portrait, night, etc, etc, etc......its light years different.
besides, c702 flash is not very good in ordinary use, (well again, except for your special-below<5cm-macro-pictures).
[ This Message was edited by: plankgatan on 2009-04-29 22:11 ] |
Raiderski
Joined: Jul 03, 2006
Posts: > 500
From: Poland, Hell, Mountains
PM, WWW
|
hgautam
yep, I guess you're right about P
|
Raiderski
Joined: Jul 03, 2006
Posts: > 500
From: Poland, Hell, Mountains
PM, WWW
|
and again... something suxx while C902 rulez our newest victim is C702
|
plankgatan
Joined: May 20, 2007
Posts: > 500
From: Sweden fur alle
PM |
and blerk, i dont think you realize how good c902 photo flash is IF you use it properly.
(its way better then ordinary led)
macro flash
full darkness......~1m
full darkness.......~1.5m
[ This Message was edited by: plankgatan on 2009-04-29 22:27 ] |
blerk
Joined: Jun 12, 2008
Posts: > 500
From: London, UK
PM |
Lol Plankgatan, seems you take this all very personally. I wonder why. I own the C902, the C702 is on loan. As I said one post back, my whole point was only to ponder about why the C902 can't do these low light macro's at the same level as it's little brother. Nothing to get your panties twisted over.
Is it so bad for me to wonder why ?
I can take low light with or without flash pictures with the C702 and I kinda expected the same from its bigger brother. I that so wrong? Is it so bad to try and find out why it happens? Maybe some people here can help solving it which would make the C902 a better camera phone. I can't believe that is a bad thing.
And do please tell me how to use the flash properly for taking macro shots at night, because all I do now is point - focus - shoot. What else can I do to make it any better tell me please.
Today I did a little photo shoot out, and the C702 and the C902 are not that different in the different shots. I invite everybody to have a look at the raw pictures. I still need to make a nice post about it.
Go here for the shoot out between the C702, C902 and a N95 just for the fun of it. The FS5 folder has the same shots taken with my Panasonic Lumix FS5 just to see how they match up against a cheap digicam. All FS5 pictures are 7.5mp at 16:9.
[ This Message was edited by: blerk on 2009-04-29 22:54 ] |
plankgatan
Joined: May 20, 2007
Posts: > 500
From: Sweden fur alle
PM |
regarding to this pics...i rate c902 slightly higher.......(the real camera i give a crap about)
¤ c902 (more natural colours and slightly better details)
¤ N95 (quite good quality, still Nokia colours)
¤ c702 (quite good, still a bit to blurred in larger views)
(nice comparison ...im not going to fill up this c902 thread with more compare pics...(see the rest yourself
c702
http://se.0x0f.net/shootout/c702/landscape-1.jpg
c902
http://se.0x0f.net/shootout/c902/landscape-1.jpg
n95
http://se.0x0f.net/shootout/n95/landscape-1.jpg
[ This Message was edited by: plankgatan on 2009-04-29 23:23 ] |
cia3194
Joined: Oct 13, 2008
Posts: 23
PM |
The Palace of Culture (Iasi, Romania)
 |
plankgatan
Joined: May 20, 2007
Posts: > 500
From: Sweden fur alle
PM |
i updated to latest R3EA038 last night, and boy does it runs smoothly
(the photo-quality is better, no doubt about that )
taken indoor, macro mode
full size
http://www.esato.com/phonephotos/viewphotos.php?pid=19423
full size....really nice quality
http://www.esato.com/phonephotos/viewphotos.php?pid=19424
[ This Message was edited by: plankgatan on 2009-04-30 11:08 ] |
blerk
Joined: Jun 12, 2008
Posts: > 500
From: London, UK
PM |
More macro madness 
Photo taken in low lighting by the way.
Full size: http://www.esato.com/phonephotos/viewfullsize.php?id=19428
[ This Message was edited by: blerk on 2009-04-30 15:13 ] |
brazzuka's
Joined: Nov 14, 2007
Posts: > 500
From: South World-Antartida-Sweden
PM, WWW
|
C902_R3EA038_ camdriver0.dat
// 2008-07-23 Rev 2.1 Released
// 2008-05-29 Rev 2.0 Released
LCD software versions
Main display
Current 200804080
Camera software versions
Camera
Current 2.1
Video call camera
Current 1.3
Java software version
JP-8.3.3
for cam
C902_R3DA028=C902_R3EA037=C902_R3EA038
|
|
|
Posted: 2009-04-29 22:08
