| Author |
Comparing W800 and W900 camera pics |
kristianm
Joined: Aug 12, 2005
Posts: 490
PM, WWW
|
I've just purchased a W900 for my sister, and I've just compared the first set of photos each phone had taken (comparing the new W900 vs. my W800).
W800 firmware: R1AA005
W900 firmware: R5AF001
Setting used for both phones:
- white balance - auto
- size - 2MP
- quality setting - fine
- photolight - off
W800
W900 (spot photometry off)
W900 (spot photometry on)
W800
W900 (spot photometry off)
W800
W900 (spot photometry off)
W900 (spot photometry on)
W800
W900 (spot photometry off)
W800
W900 (spot photometry off)
W800
W900 (spot photometry off)
W900 (spot photometry on)
Things I've noticed:
* W900 pics look smoother and have less noise.
* W800 colors are more accurate. W900 pics tend to be bluer than normal. (white balance set to auto)
* Strange, why are some of my W800 pics' filesize that small even if quality is set to "fine" (smallest in this set is about 300KB)?
- - -
2nd Batch (outdoor / MXE-60 pictures)
Notes:
1. Pictures of the cat with W800. This is one problem with MXE-60. Sometimes it just doesn't give off enough light to brighten up a scene. I tried taking it twice with W800 but the result didn't improve. It's interesting to note that the W900 version is brighter; perhaps its software/firmware handles/operates MXE-60 better?
2. Spot photometry works great on the rice field scene.
3. W900 > W800 on handling low light conditions. Notice those very visible vertical lines on the darker pictures taken with W800, which are totally absent on the W900.
4. W900's color are still somewhat bluer than normal. W800's pictures are still a little sharper than W900.
5. Pictures taken with MXE-60 have less file size than pictures taken without it. And W800 pictures with MXE-60 has even less file size (higher compression?) than W900's with MXE-60.
Car W800
Car W900 (SP off)
Cat W800 with MXE60
Cat W800 with MXE60 take 2
Cat W900 with MXE60 (SP off)
Ceiling W800 with MXE60
Ceiling W900 with MXE60 (SP off)
Macro W800
Macro W900 (SP off) - shaky hand
Macro W900 (SP on)
Plant W800 with MXE60
Plant W900 with MXE60 (SP off)
Field W800
Field W900 (SP off)
Field W900 (SP on) - great!
Garden W800
Garden W900 (SP off)
Garden W900 (SP on)
Dark W800 with MXE60
Dark W900 with MXE60 (SP off)
Plant W800
Plant W900 (SP off)
Plant W900 (SP on)
PlantB W800
PlantB W900 (SP off)
SkyB W800
SkyB W900 (SP off)
SkyB W900 (SP on)
SkyC W800
SkyC W900 (SP off)
SkyC W900 (SP on)
Snoopy W800 with MXE60
Snoopy W900 with MXE60 (SP off)
Vase W800 with MXE60
Vase W900 with MXE60 (SP off)
[ This Message was edited by: kristianm on 2006-01-16 05:34 ] |
|
|
whistla
Joined: Aug 22, 2005
Posts: > 500
PM |
W900 with spot photometry, the colour seems a little faded
|
numb
Joined: Feb 07, 2005
Posts: > 500
PM |
#kristianm
Thanks for the comparison - very nice
I remember a "W900 pictures thread" where I had a debate with people claiming the W900 camera took much better pictures ..... |
max_wedge
Joined: Aug 29, 2004
Posts: > 500
From: Australia
PM, WWW
|
 well this proves them wrong. The pics of the W800 are better from a general perspective - colour and contrast better, more realistic. Yet the W900 are definitely smoother and have less noise.
I much prefer the W800 pics over the W900, even given the lower noise.
|
marlonski
Joined: Oct 16, 2004
Posts: > 500
From: UK
PM |
You guys must have good eyesight because I can't see much in the way of noise. I can only see the thumbnails, however, if you have based it on the thumbs then perhaps I need to go get my eyes tested either way I will take your word for it 
@kristianm thank you for the comparisons, i also agree with max and co that the w800 seems to deliver a better picture based on your examples.
I haven't seen this mentioned anyware so i will here, as we are comparing picture quality between cameras. Do any of you think that the difference in design ie: the glass over the lens on the w900 would allow for a little more light ? If you study the back of the w800 the opening of the cover is pretty much the same diameter as the lens. On the other hand the diameter of the glass on the w900 is greater than the actual lens, I just wondered if this actually meant less obstruction allowing for a differnce in the amount of light let in ?
Probably doesn't make a lot if any difference, but your thoughts on it would be interesting.
I appreciate firmware will make a difference and maybe the uderlying reason for any noise differences etc.
_________________
 = 
[ This Message was edited by: marlonski on 2006-01-09 18:58 ] |
numb
Joined: Feb 07, 2005
Posts: > 500
PM |
for full size, click on the link above the picture that says "new window" then remove the .th part of the link, this means thumbnail.
example:
thumbnailpicture
http://img301.imageshack.us/img301/9238/a9009fg.th.jpg
full size picture
http://img301.imageshack.us/img301/9238/a9009fg.jpg
|
marlonski
Joined: Oct 16, 2004
Posts: > 500
From: UK
PM |
Cheers numb 
|
*Jojo*
Joined: Oct 15, 2003
Posts: > 500
PM |
IMHO, the camera of the W800 looks better, sharp ! The W900 looks a BIT dark  Maybe we should consider the lighting condition here, how about some OUTDOOR images still using the same cams?
[addsig] |
max_wedge
Joined: Aug 29, 2004
Posts: > 500
From: Australia
PM, WWW
|
marls, re the lense opening I'm fairly sure it's big enough. The actual aperture is much smaller than the lense opening itself.
I suspect the W900 camera software is tweaked to generate less noise (in response to market research based on the K750 and W800 camera) but at the cost of clarity and vibrant colour.
However the W900 has much better low light performance. Notice in the last two pics (without the thm bit ) there are no white noise lines in the W900 pic, but they are still present in the W800 pic.
|
marlonski
Joined: Oct 16, 2004
Posts: > 500
From: UK
PM |
@max, I'm sure your right with regards to the aperture. As for the low light conditions, I do agree that the w900 out performs the w800 although I have to say that colour and clarity is more important to me, I'm considering the mxe-60 which I hope will solve any low light conditions.
It would be interesting to see the two compared with the mxe-60. Based on overall performance I think I would put my money on the w800
|
max_wedge
Joined: Aug 29, 2004
Posts: > 500
From: Australia
PM, WWW
|
definitely, although you and I have an "invested" interest in the W800/K750 - ie: we bought them and need to get our money's worth
But like you I prefer the clarity and colour of my current cam. And damn W900 has NO LENSE COVER, how thoughtless.
|
marlonski
Joined: Oct 16, 2004
Posts: > 500
From: UK
PM |
I have to say that after having the lens cover, i would like to continue with this option, from the looks of things seem to be moving away from this. Probably due to less moving parts and a reduction in manufaturing cost.
I have to say though that if i was changing my contract now i may have gone down the 3g route and gone for a w900 as I feel it's overall performance picture wise is still very acceptable.
|
max_wedge
Joined: Aug 29, 2004
Posts: > 500
From: Australia
PM, WWW
|
I'm tempted buy the W810 when it comes out, but the W900 is still a little large for my liking, and I REALLY like the candybar format - no other form factor appeals to me.
|
rockygali
Joined: Nov 21, 2005
Posts: > 500
From:
PM, WWW
|
so thus the spot photometry feature of the w900 let the product down?
no beneficial issues with the spot photometry?
but i guess the w900 is better with regards to videos.
"Darkness is the absence of light.. and not the opposite..." |
*Jojo*
Joined: Oct 15, 2003
Posts: > 500
PM |
Looks like an old model outbest a new one here, on camera issue-sharpness.
This message was posted from a K700i |
|
|
Posted: 2006-01-09 12:01
W810i
