>
New Topic
>
Reply<
Esato Forum Index
>
Sony Ericsson / Sony >
General
> Nokia 7650 versus MCA-20
Bookmark topic
I have to say I'm pretty shocked at just how poor the quality is from both these cameras. I had a Casio (QV100 as far as I remember?) about 5 years ago and the quality is pretty much the same as this. I've now got a Fuji Finepix 9600 which produces breathtaking photos. OK, it's a £500-600 camera, but *surely* Nokia and Ericsson can't justify using 6 year old technology... Or is that what the punters want? A cheap, lo-tech camera that takes vaguely recognisable pics.
I'm not asking for massive hi-res images, but surely with today's technology, really good 640x480 images should be possible for a budget price?
Adam
--
Posted: 2002-08-08 12:11:00
Edit :
Quote
Forgive my ignorance, but what does it mean when it says the 7650 'does not support the Bluetooth headset profile'? Does this mean it won't work with BT headsets or just that it won't have full functionality?
Adam
--
Posted: 2002-08-08 12:20:00
Edit :
Quote
@ kolhatkar (sp)
how can u say the white balance is awful on the mca-20, if u look in the review u and look at the pictures that show the cranks on the bike the reviewers white marble floor is blue on the 7650, and white (which it should be) on the mca-20. ALso the garden pic the 7650 is alot bluer than it should be.
--
Posted: 2002-08-08 12:24:00
Edit :
Quote
How serious can you take a digital camera that only goes up to 640x480 VGA resolution? It's not bad for webcam quality, and that's pretty much what these were designed for, website sized pictures or MMS messages.
They are actually quite respectable in good lighting, comparable to my high resolution Fuji Finepix at VGA size, but without a flash they are pretty terrible indoors when lighting is bad. The latest Japanese photo-enabled phones have a small clip-on flash for such shots, hopefully they will make it over when we start seeing those clam-shelled phones on the GSM market.
--
Posted: 2002-08-08 12:33:00
Edit :
Quote
First, a camera phone is not intended to be a digital camera. It offers means to send pictures to other phones, that will be seen on... these other phones, mainly. Camera phones don't pretend equalling digital cameras, and their purpose is not to do so.
But, still coming back to this mobile burn site. Although the picture quality difference is very clear, it doesn't mean a thing on which of MCA20 or 7650's camera is best. In fact, there is NO information whatsoever on what picture quality was selected when shooting the pictures. It should compare apples with apples, while it seems to compare apples with bananas. But I may be wrong, like they may be too
--
Posted: 2002-08-08 12:58:00
Edit :
Quote
The image quality I used on the MCA-20 and the 7650 were both as good as it gets.
The MCA-20 has only a resolution option and the option to disable auto white balance. No option for quality.
The 7650 was in normal mode using the best quality option.
The White Balance on the 7650 is very poor. The MCA-20 does just fine in most situations.
The 7650 is also very blurry, especially around the endges of the image.
But overall the 7650 camera is much more convenient and easy to use, both in taking the photos and getting them to your computer or PDA.
--
Posted: 2002-08-08 13:02:00
Edit :
Quote
Ok mfo, thanx for the info. It just needed to be said
MCA-20 offers better picture quality, I fully agree
--
Posted: 2002-08-08 13:10:00
Edit :
Quote
Lol i just saw the pictures on the site an hour ago and coud not belive the poor quality pics from nokia 7650 man almoust bought the phone today but the camera part let me down totaly waiting for the p800 now :-o
This post was posted from a T68i
--
Posted: 2002-08-08 13:49:00
Edit :
Quote
About the MCA-25.
Forget about the MCA-25, is poorer than the MCA-20; The MCA-25 is gonna be the cheap camera from Sony Ericsson! That will be sold with the T300 (horrible too)
Cheers
--
Posted: 2002-08-08 15:06:00
Edit :
Quote
Actually the MCA-20, MCA-25 and P800 will all have the same picture quality. The MCA-25 has digital zoom and a couple of framing effects (quite useless, but they're there anyway)
These cameras are all supposedly manufactured by Sony's Digital Camera division. The MCA-10, MCA-10 View were manufactured by Ericsson.
All these new 'phone-cameras' are not meant for real photography... they are targetted for MMS systems which can't handle more than 160x180 photos... the 640x480 is just a bonus. Although I wish the phones these things came in could be THINNER (I kinda don't like 1" thick phones) I think they are pretty convenient for those who occassionally want a camera... if you don't want or need one... nobody is forcing anyone to buy these new phones.
I'm sure SE will come up with a no-camera version of the P800... they did that with the Sony Clie NR series... they first released a camera version, then a cameraless version.
I just hope they start hiring better desginers... cuz the new crop of phones look like toys. They're not ugly... they just don't look as classy as the older Ericsson phones.
--
Posted: 2002-08-08 15:15:00
Edit :
Quote
New Topic
Reply
