>
New Topic
>
Reply<
Esato Forum Index
>
Sony Ericsson / Sony >
General
> c902 vs Canon Ixus 85is
Bookmark topic
On 2009-04-25 22:36:52, Mizzle wrote:
On 2009-04-25 21:56:33, plankgatan wrote:
well, Mr."Editor-in-chief of USEB and administrator at SE-NSE"(or whatever), im sure your super-slim camera is MUCH better.
I use professional equipment only
by that logic, all low end mobiles suck too, dont they?
--
Posted: 2009-04-25 23:08:08
Edit :
Quote
They do indeed.
--
Posted: 2009-04-25 23:12:39
Edit :
Quote
On 2009-04-25 21:41:51, Mizzle wrote:
Both cameras suck big time.
What?
Not everybody needs super high quaility pics and not everybody have the money to pay for a Nikon D80 or whatever.
For me this pics posted by Pitzon are very good and i'm telling from an average joe point of view not from a professional photographer or anything that check even the micro details in pics.
Surely guys, you are judging cameraphones like professional cameras that have to take perfect shots, this are MOBILE PHONES and SE, Nokia, Samsung, LG and others are doing a great job with their camera phones.
--
Posted: 2009-04-25 23:40:12
Edit :
Quote
On 2009-04-25 23:12:39, Mizzle wrote:
They do indeed.
the only thing sucking here right now is your logic and apparent lack of understanding that people have different needs and priorities. but who am i kidding actually trying to tell YOU that.
--
Posted: 2009-04-25 23:42:35
Edit :
Quote
On 2009-04-25 23:40:12, Idou wrote:
On 2009-04-25 21:41:51, Mizzle wrote:
Both cameras suck big time.
What?
Both cameras suck big time.
On 2009-04-25 23:40:12, Idou wrote:
Not everybody needs super high quaility pics and not everybody have the money to pay for a Nikon D80 or whatever.
For me this pics posted by Pitzon are very good and i'm telling from an average joe point of view not from a professional photographer or anything that check even the micro details in pics.
Surely guys, you are judging cameraphones like professional cameras that have to take perfect shots, this are MOBILE PHONES and SE, Nokia, Samsung, LG and others are doing a great job with their camera phones.
I never mentioned what people's needs are, only that neither of the cameras perform any good. Both suffer from purple colour fringing, both suffer from noise (even though it's shot in bright daylight). Heck, my D700 would be able to produce cleaner pictures at ISO 3200!
The post-processing is horrific on both cameras, especially the C902. In addition to that, the Ixus camera has a clear tendency to over-expose the frame.
On 2009-04-25 23:42:35, QVGA wrote:
On 2009-04-25 23:12:39, Mizzle wrote:
They do indeed.
the only thing sucking here right now is your logic and apparent lack of understanding that people have different needs and priorities. but who am i kidding actually trying to tell YOU that.
Again, needs might be one thing, quality is another. One might be fully satisfied with a low-end phone or camera, but that doesn't mean that there aren't other and better options available.
[ This Message was edited by: Mizzle on 2009-04-26 08:29 ]
--
Posted: 2009-04-25 23:54:11
Edit :
Quote
On 2009-04-25 22:34:25, number1 wrote:
Whats so great about it being thin? just means its easier to lose. id rather have a chuncker device that performs better.
you misunderstood me.
for such super-slim camera/cellphone its really OK quality i think...thats what i meant, (i just reflexed about Mizzles "both cams suxs bigtime"...
well, i have news for you..everything SUXS against my girlfriend Hasselblad 503CW....(but do i compare it with my 10mm c902 ??? hell no)
ps...easier to loose ??? (its not that thin
[ This Message was edited by: plankgatan on 2009-04-25 22:59 ]
--
Posted: 2009-04-25 23:56:54
Edit :
Quote
The Hasselblad 503CW, just like most other medium format cameras, sucks big time outside the studio.
[ This Message was edited by: Mizzle on 2009-04-25 23:01 ]
--
Posted: 2009-04-26 00:01:11
Edit :
Quote
oh my.... first i thought you kidding, but then i release you didnt.
Hasselblad 503CW and all other medium formats cameras suxs outside the studio ??
edit....why even bother, but what a heck:
.....have you ever seen the result from a 503cw after you develop the film straight ahead ??? (im talking about analogue now, not some boring digi-format)
edit...
back to topic...my former DSC-T1 is the best slim camera i have. its a bit better then ixus-85, (not way better)...so i really think its ok quality on your ixus and c902 for its size
[ This Message was edited by: plankgatan on 2009-04-25 23:58 ]
--
Posted: 2009-04-26 00:37:12
Edit :
Quote
To be honest with you the snaps from both look good. Ok at 100% they are not great, but then most people don't ever view them at 100%. So for a large majority of the population either would be a good choice.
As for this topic about the camera being crap, as was already mentioned in the thread different tools for different needs. You don't buy a Ferrari if you want to tow farm equipment you buy a Hilux (or something similar). And an extension to that, if you want a point and shoot, pocket friendly, clubbing camera, you don't go and blow £5000+ on a SLR / DSLR camera, you get a little Cannon that does it's job and keeps you happy.
At the same time you also have to remember the price points. The OP said they paid $200. What is that, bout £130? That isn't a bad price for a camera that is more than capable at doing the job the manufacturer intended for it to do.
Sweeping statements like "both suck big time" really are nothing but a waste of server space. Ultimately if the tool suits the job, then it doesnt matter that a much better (and more expensive) alternative exists.
As for the OP that was a nice bargain you picked up with the camera, and I'm sure you'll enjoy using it.
--
Posted: 2009-04-26 01:03:32
Edit :
Quote
On 2009-04-25 23:54:11, Mizzle wrote:
that doesn't mean that there are other and better options available.
That is to say that the same reasoning can be valid with your “professional equipment”
--
Posted: 2009-04-26 03:01:26
Edit :
Quote
New Topic
Reply
