| Author |
Camera Comparison: G900 vs 6500 Slide |
haki
Joined: May 14, 2002
Posts: 390
From: The real MACEDONIA in GREECE
PM |
Here are two sets of five photos each, taken today with the G900 and Nokia 6500-slide respectively. The G900 have been resized to 3.15MP, exactly the size that the 6500 takes with its Carl Zeiss lens. They all were taken with "Auto" settings and have not been processed even though EXIF info has been removed. Please don't ask for the "original size" G900 photos as the larger size will not make any difference whatsoever, particularly considering the fact that you'll all be viewing them on your/our miserable one megapixel PC screens.
Which one do you think that it's superior?
Camera 1
[img=http://s2d2.turboimagehost.com/t/586741_Cam1-1.jpg]
[img=http://s2d2.turboimagehost.com/t/586742_Cam1-2.jpg]
[img=http://s2d2.turboimagehost.com/t/586743_Cam1-3.jpg]
[img=http://s2d2.turboimagehost.com/t/586744_Cam1-4.jpg]
[img=http://s2d2.turboimagehost.com/t/586745_Cam1-5.jpg]
Camera 2
[img=http://s2d2.turboimagehost.com/t/586769_Cam2-1.jpg]
[img=http://s2d2.turboimagehost.com/t/586770_Cam2-2.jpg]
[img=http://s2d2.turboimagehost.com/t/586771_Cam2-3.jpg]
[img=http://s2d2.turboimagehost.com/t/586772_Cam2-4.jpg]
[img=http://s2d2.turboimagehost.com/t/586773_Cam2-5.jpg]
[ This Message was edited by: haki on 2008-08-03 14:35 ] |
|
|
Sator1973
Joined: Jun 20, 2006
Posts: 242
From: Netherlands
PM, WWW
|
Well, my screen is 2.3 MP and all those thumbnails above look miserable. And why compare? They're both just snapshot-camera's as all phone camera's are. Good for allways carrying around, but not worth using if you have a real camera with you.
I don't get the point of this post.
Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam |
haki
Joined: May 14, 2002
Posts: 390
From: The real MACEDONIA in GREECE
PM |
Have you ever noticed that people have been comparing snapshots by cameraphones ever since cameraphones were invented?
To those of you who HAVE noticed that there are many similar comparisons: Do the photos enlargε by clicking? I tried three different hosts but none seem to work for me!
[ This Message was edited by: haki on 2008-08-03 14:15 ] |
Sator1973
Joined: Jun 20, 2006
Posts: 242
From: Netherlands
PM, WWW
|
Yes, I noticed. I also noticed that many people just expect too much from their camphones, whatever brand or type. If picture quality is that important, why not get a compact camera. Or even try to mod your camdrivers, as picture quality in phone-cams is very software dependant.
Ok, I must admit I wanted my K800 for the cam, but these days I think it's silly to choose a phone primary for it's camera function. It's just a toy. So I preferred G900 over C902.
Nope the pics stay small. Sorry for maybe being a bit negative. It's just that I also noticed that the phone-photo's I do use can be easily edited and improved with an (G)Image Manipulation Program. So I might be able to make a SE pic look like a Nokia pic.
_________________
A.k.a. NoCo33 "Hasta la victoria siempre"
[ This Message was edited by: Sator1973 on 2008-08-03 14:39 ] |
gh05t
Joined: Dec 26, 2007
Posts: 38
PM |
The images don't work, try posting without thumbnails. |
haki
Joined: May 14, 2002
Posts: 390
From: The real MACEDONIA in GREECE
PM |
I reposted without thumbnails!
Can anyone please explain why thumbnail-posting HASN'T been working for me lately???????
Sator1973, on this planet there are 2.5 billion people carrying a cellphone in their pocket every day! A BIG majority of them have a kind of built-in camera! For an even bigger majority of the phone-owners, grabbing their camera before leaving home is NOT among their priorities!
And...NO...my photos have not been edited. I switch back and forth between SE and Nokia so I don't have a reason to support one of the two.
[ This Message was edited by: haki on 2008-08-03 14:51 ] |
Sator1973
Joined: Jun 20, 2006
Posts: 242
From: Netherlands
PM, WWW
|
You think I don't know? I'm one of this crowd. You just don't get my point(s). Most important; don't expect too much of any phone cam. They all have tiny lenses and comparable sensors, so quality is mostly software dependant. For a good printing result or web picture, they will ALLWAYS need editing and very often reducing size. So at the end, will there be any significant difference?
Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam |
haki
Joined: May 14, 2002
Posts: 390
From: The real MACEDONIA in GREECE
PM |
Don't forget that the majority of digital cameras sold nowadays are 100-150 euro cheapos that don't take great photos either. They are better than cameraphone photos but still they are NOT good. So, it is not a bad idea for someone's mobile-phone to be capable of a decent snapshot from time to time!
What do you mean by "so at the end, will there be any significant difference?"??? I hope that you are not implying that no matter what cellphone one uses, after editing, the photos of all cellphones will end up looking similarly "good"!!! What I'm saying is that even AFTER eding there are huge differences between various mobile cameras.
[ This Message was edited by: haki on 2008-08-03 15:50 ] |
Sator1973
Joined: Jun 20, 2006
Posts: 242
From: Netherlands
PM, WWW
|
You're right, my old K700 makes much worse pics than my G900. Duh. And some cheap compact digicams might be surprisingly good.
OK, serious now; offcourse not all phone-camera's will give same results after editing. But I guess most of those above could be made comparable (=without significant difference).
_________________
A.k.a. NoCo33 "Hasta la victoria siempre"
[ This Message was edited by: Sator1973 on 2008-08-03 16:23 ] |
Sator1973
Joined: Jun 20, 2006
Posts: 242
From: Netherlands
PM, WWW
|
Oh yes, your first question, to be polite; I prefer the sharpness and colours of the second cam, the first cam's photos are blurred too much by noise-reduction. This takes away a lot of information, which can't be brought back by editing. For an instantly used pic this can be an advantage, but I like to edit them anyway before using, so personally I prefer a sharper pic as raw material. This blurring can also have strange effects on depth experience (see last pic).
So I prefer the second cam's pics overall. But I wouldn't want to say it's superior. Must admit I hope it's the G900. 
Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam |
JiSm
Joined: Nov 08, 2007
Posts: 404
From: New Zealand
PM, WWW
|
I sell phones just like that. If someone says they want a phone that takes wonderful photos, i tell them not to rely on anything on the market at the moment. They are all just basic digital non-optical zoom cameras.
_________________
"Why for you kick my dog and call him a buggarroff?"
[ This Message was edited by: JiSm on 2008-08-04 22:52 ] |
QVGA
Joined: May 23, 2006
Posts: > 500
From: Pakistan
PM, WWW
|
They are both pretty miserable, so the question should be 'which one sucks less' and i have to say camera 2 sucks less
|
haki
Joined: May 14, 2002
Posts: 390
From: The real MACEDONIA in GREECE
PM |
Guys, camera-1 is the G900 and camera-2 is the 6500-Slide. For me, having taken many photos, it is very apparent that the 6500 takes better photos. When it comes to low-light photography the superiority of the bright twin-leds of the 6500 makes the difference chaotic!
Sorry if you were disappointed. I kept the G900 for myself but, nonetheless, the 6500-Slide has a better camera.
@QVGA: Why do you think that they both suck? I think that the fifth image of both cameras is quite nice and the rest are quite acceptable...not excellent but "quite acceptable".
[ This Message was edited by: haki on 2008-08-05 07:52 ] |
|
|
Posted: 2008-08-03 14:50
