| Author |
C905 pics compared to K800i |
northmonkey
Joined: Feb 09, 2009
Posts: > 500
PM |
I have read on a few other forums that pics taken on the C905 are not much better than the K800i surely this is rubbish?
C905 pics look great and people pics using the darkmagician camdriver look amazing. |
|
|
panonski
Joined: Dec 13, 2008
Posts: 345
From: Croatia
PM |
yes, that was surely case....
But with old firmware specially with R1BA038 which produce much noise on saved pics.
Latest firmware R1DA032 have great improvement in compression from raw to jpg and noticeably less noise in shadows
which is still present to be visible.
|
barareklam
Joined: Jan 16, 2008
Posts: 108
PM |
c905 is MUCH better then K800, even MUCH better than K850i... |
panonski
Joined: Dec 13, 2008
Posts: 345
From: Croatia
PM |
On 2009-05-01 09:51:59, barareklam wrote:
c905 is MUCH better then K800, even MUCH better than K850i...
yes it is,
but with older firmware versions quality of pics really sucks.. Look at this old thread
http://www.esato.com/board/viewtopic.php?topic=179665&start=0 |
Raiderski
Joined: Jul 03, 2006
Posts: > 500
From: Poland, Hell, Mountains
PM, WWW
|
it's almost 5MP more than in K800, so we should expect much more and better details on pictures from C905. I didn't found 'much more' but pictures still looks very good if you downscale them to 3MP just to compare with K800 pictures. poor details are bottleneck of C905, everything else is just better
|
kreacher
Joined: Mar 24, 2006
Posts: 254
PM |
Actually shouldn't the amount of details roughly depend on mega-pixels / sensor size. Just increasing the MP with the same sensor size will just decrease the quality (even taking into account advances in sensor technology). |
barareklam
Joined: Jan 16, 2008
Posts: 108
PM |
Pictures ARE much better. I have K800 and c905 and they are much better. I hade k850i too and c905 takes better pictures. I like photography so I took hundreds of pictures and I assure You details are much better! |
Raiderski
Joined: Jul 03, 2006
Posts: > 500
From: Poland, Hell, Mountains
PM, WWW
|
maybe small pictures comparision?
|
plankgatan
Joined: May 20, 2007
Posts: > 500
From: Sweden fur alle
PM |
well. Readerski have a point.
compare a:
K750 with only 2 megapixels
against a
K800 with 3.2 megapixels
against a
K850 with 5 megapixels
against a
C905 with 8.1 megapixels
(in full size of course)
does it tells anything ????????
its a much easier job for the K750-camera to sort up 2 m.p. then 8 m.p. 
(not even N82, ZN5, C902, 8510 have a chance against K750 in full size,
thats your answer !
your second answer is that in normal size C905 looks better, because when you shrink 8.1 m.p. into 1024 x 768 it looks very solid and nice
edit.
so in that point i agree c905 looks better.....how many times do you use your cellphone pics in full size ???? (NEVER)
[ This Message was edited by: plankgatan on 2009-05-04 12:03 ] |
barareklam
Joined: Jan 16, 2008
Posts: 108
PM |
On c905 You can choose to take picture in VGA (640x480) up to 8.1 Mpix
If You take picture with 3 Mpix and compare it to same picture taken with K800, well C905 IS still better!
|
coolharsh55
Joined: Oct 22, 2008
Posts: 476
From: pune, india
PM, WWW
|
well, it boils down to this simple fact...
the c905 has a bigger sensor, so, naturally it captures more details...
now if you do compare full size images, the c905 still is AT PAR.
but when you compare 1mp images from all camera's...
k750 will have 2mp amount of detail in a resolution of 1mp
k800/k810 will have 3.2mp
k850 will have k850
and c905 will have 8mp
so c905 shows ''more detail''
however, it is very plugged and bugged 
color reproduction is still not the best. exposure can be bettered.
comparisions with samsungs 8mp and lg 8mp shows that it loses out to both of them in terms of camera quality.
that was not the case with k850 or k800
these cams were the top's in their class.
and c905 is the 3rd-gen cybershot cam phone from se.
k800 was the 1st-gen cybershot.
comparing them is like comparing vintage ferrari 350 to the ENZO!!!
both are tremendously beautifull, but a 350 is a 350 and a ENZO is well... an ENZO
a good photographer with k800 can easily beat an rich idiot with a c905.
plus, if you are comparing only their point-and-shoot auto modes, where is the real comparison???
the k800 is old now, yet it can be tweaked hard. right raider.
the c905 has new technology. so many new features are directly implemented in the main. like exposure, shutter speed and ISO.
in raider's driver, all these things are dependent on the driver.
in c905, these things are integrated are implemented in the MAIN along with the driver. so we see more flexibility...
the c905 is very very powerfull... i can't understand why the SE guys have suddenly started writing crap drivers for their new models... the SE phones true power comes in low light conditions... right from k800 ---> k850 ---> c902 ---> c905, all phones perform very well in low light
which means that they all have got very good sensors...
its like comparing a young man to his ageing father!!!
the young is very new, yet to learn his true strength, arrogant, but better than the father
the father, never mind that he's old now, was powerful enough in his days too!!!
i dont understand the reason for comparison of a c905 8mp and k800 3.2mp!!!
atleast stay in the same league!!!
humour is what makes me laugh...
http://www.flickr.com/photos/coolharsh55
K810 R8BA Ghost Citybeat v1.4 =>>>
http://www.4shared.com/dir/7615294/d07685ac/sharing.html |
number1
Joined: Sep 12, 2007
Posts: > 500
From: UK,kent,Sittingbourne
PM |
The C905 does have a larger sensor, i think it's 1/2,5″” , the k800 is 1/2,8″” i think, but it's not about the biggest sensor it's how many megapixels that are put on it that makes the difference its the pixel size that makes all the difference, K800 is 2.5µm i think the C905 is around 1.6µm , the C902 & k850 are 2µm. the bigger the µm the better until a certain point, the larger µm will mean less noise less chance of fringing & Chromatic aberration. Camphones optics aren't made to coupe with large amount of megapixels nor are compact digicams really, Only SLRs should have high amounts of megapixels there specially designed for it.
It does worsen the image quality the image quality is more dependent on the image processing rather than anything else the C905's image processing is completey awful, the pics are so flat and almost completey detailess and you can see compressed noise, the C905 prototypes had alot better image processing and the pics were sharp and looked half decent. |
vegetaleb
Joined: May 03, 2002
Posts: > 500
From: Lebanon
PM |
K800 gave me better results than k850 even if the k850 had 2 more mp.
The sensor is important!
the 3mp of my 5800 is giving me the crappiest photos ever! Even a K700 has better results
Prince Vegeta,prince of all sayans  Administrator in Dailymobile |
number1
Joined: Sep 12, 2007
Posts: > 500
From: UK,kent,Sittingbourne
PM |
The image processing on the 5800 looks horrible i agree. |
plankgatan
Joined: May 20, 2007
Posts: > 500
From: Sweden fur alle
PM |
i can tell you a little story about sensors. (the "quality" of sensors)
when SE started to development K750 (2004 something) they staked VERY much on the sensor,(the wanted to be the first company with a good integrate camera)....
anyway, they didn't mass produced K750 sensor,(if you know what i mean), they also had a more careful after-quality control on that camera.
(the "Facts" comes from a  support center, if you wonder)
so, just because a camera have 8 megapixels, it doesn't mean it produce better details then a 2 megapixels camera, (more surely, but not always better)
but...AGAIN, i would rather buy a C905 because it looks better in normal size,(and that's how you should use a cellphone I suppose )
|
|
|
Posted: 2009-04-30 21:48
