>
New Topic
>
Reply<
Esato Forum Index
>
Sony Ericsson / Sony >
General
> Hello! k750i Vs a 2Mp cam
Bookmark topic
Quote:
On 2006-07-17 16:54:24, letsjam1984 wrote:
exactly my pt max_wedge.........thats wat i m looking for...comparison with a 2mp bottom line model.....not the fancy ones......those ll b better obviously......by the way, as to the flash...seems SE india has begun offering the flash accessory with the k750i as standard......so pretty sweet deal actually.....wont have to use the in built lite.....will just keep the flash along....
it was almost a foregone conclusion nz ;-D.......the k750 i it ll have to be......now all that remains is for me to get my hands on the cash i need......little short rite now.......by the end of the month most prob....cant wait.....
any more suggestions, views etc welcome of course
I mabey would of thought about the K610I with the flash unit. It doesn't have as good a camera, however it gives you a lot more features above the K750I like a better screen and 3G and it looks better.
Some pics it's taken in this review where you can see the K750I camera is a fair bit better then the K610I:
http://www.mobile-review.com/review/sonyericsson-k610i-en.shtml
There at the bottom of the page.
--
Posted: 2006-07-18 02:59:30
Edit :
Quote
the cam would b slightly better than the phone
--
Posted: 2006-07-18 04:04:16
Edit :
Quote
Quote:
On 2006-07-17 17:04:32, Mark_Q wrote:
Seems like many people forget following pros of digicam: their larger size ang greater weight give better grip for steady hold, too small and too light is OK as mobile phone but poor as camera.
Further, a digicam with optical viewfinder helps when the light enters the LCD display from wrong angle making it impossible to see what you have frame, just ramdom aiming. Eventhought the optical viewfinder only shows arounf 80-85% of what the sensor actually captures, its better IMHO, as one can always recompose the subject in those cases.
Optical viewfiner also acts as aid as one can press the camer agains forehead giving then better support for shakefree shooting. I'd love to see how peole hold their LCD display only camera mobiles/digicams in low light situations: do they lean agains backwall, do they at least press their elbows agains their upper body to get steady posture?
We meet again
We are back at the same point of arguing about what a "real" camera is. You can disgree with the validity of doing that, but ultimately we have to agree to disagree on that issue.
With regard to the technical abilities of the K750 and similar, you seem to have little experience with these phones For a start LCD screens in phones are ten times brighter than cheap digicams, with more than 120 degrees viewing angle, so you rarely come up against the problem of viewing the "viewfinder).
Second, if you can't hold a camera phone steady enough to take night shots then that's your shortfall not the camera. I seem to manage fine. If you can hold an SLR steady to the eye at 1/15th of a second (not uncommon for an experienced photographer), then you can hold a camera phone steady for 1/20th of a second.
I agree a heavy SLR is easier to hold steady, but with a bit of practice, since the K750 is MUCH lighter, it is actually easier to hold steady at 30cm from your face than an SLR. Modern SLR's are considerably lighter than older ones, but I don't see anyone strapping weights to their DSLR's.
You ask us to remember the pros of a digicam, well I myself have a very good knowledge of the advantages, and indeed when my Dad (who is what you would call a real photographer) wanted to upgrade to digital, I certainly didn't recommend a camera phone. He's running a Pentax DSLR, and he loves it and it's perfect for him.
I ask you to remember that all photographers have different needs and desires from their art, and they may be well aware of the advantages of a quality digicam but still feel satisfied that the advantages of camera phone legitimately outweigh the advantages of a dedicated digicam, for their purpose.
Advantages such as:
1. I've never had to buy or charge a battery (phone goes on charge everynight in it's role as a phone, so I have never run out of batteries with this phone.
2. Availability - it's always there.
3. Bluetooth - send photos straight to photo kiosk or computer (even if I only have onboard memory available)
4. LCD is much better than basic digicams due to it's role as a phone - it needs to be able to work in strong sunlight, wide viewing angles and other adverse conditions.
5. Strong. It's tough and durable as all phones are. Phones are designed to be able to be dropped without undue problems, very view cameras have this ruggedness.
You seem to think you have a mission to convince all people that camera phones are evil. Some people are more interested in the composition of a photo than the number of pixels, etc.
Sure, professional photography (aka someone pays you to take specific photo sets) requires quality equipment. Art photography is a whole different ball game.
I also don't think you realise how bad cheap digicams are. If you did you would hav more respect for the K750 as a camera. It is a far better camera than many digicams I have come across, so I find it difficult to drop this argument when people say ALL digicams are better than ALL phone cameras.
It's simply not true.
_________________
File System Tweaks for the K750
K750 Tricks[ This Message was edited by: max_wedge on 2006-07-18 04:07 ]
--
Posted: 2006-07-18 04:43:12
Edit :
Quote
hi
well, i wud ve bought both had i been able to get it. thing is, right now im just a student......so not earning any cash as of now......which is why the stinginess ;-P
wlse would ve gone straight for the k800i.
btw, the k750 is available herefor bout the local equivalent of 240$ us.....
--
Posted: 2006-07-18 07:46:25
Edit :
Quote
Quote:
On 2006-07-18 07:46:25, letsjam1984 wrote:
hi
well, i wud ve bought both had i been able to get it. thing is, right now im just a student......so not earning any cash as of now......which is why the stinginess ;-P
wlse would ve gone straight for the k800i.
btw, the k750 is available herefor bout the local equivalent of 240$ us.....
If I could afford it I'd own 20MP DSLR, but even if I could, most of my photos would still be taken with the K750 (or whatever camera phone I'm using at the time)
--
Posted: 2006-07-18 15:14:16
Edit :
Quote
max_wedge
I wonder what makes you believe that I had just little experience with K750, or don't know it's technical limits, and most of all; whats your reason to turn my message as I would consider camera mobiles as evil?!? Please leave your phantasy world, thanks!
Please take a look at photos I have taken with my K750:
http://tinyurl.com/mvud5
http://tinyurl.com/lzss6
And what about my project to "map" the exposure behaviour of K750 under various EV (Exposure Value) levels, exposure time vs ISO sensitivity / Normal mode vs Night mode. See especially my posts #12 and 13.
http://tinyurl.com/fme5d
Have you seen anything similar done elsewhere? Give me the link then, thanks!
I have no need to refer to my Dad because being 53 years old I'm kinda Dad by myself. I purchased my first SLR back in 1976, in '79-'85 owned two bodies and five lenses. In '80-'85 I even owned a 4x5" large format camera, then all sold. Last year, among the very firsts here, I got my K750. During the recent years I have considered a better digicam like Canon G5, Sony F828, Nikon 8400, Sony R1, but seems like dSLR will be the one... my K750 I see as ticket for re-entering the photography.
If I say that the LCD display is hopeless dark in bright sunshine, so it is just so as I experience it in front of my face: do I see what I'm getting or just aiming about the right direction. Really don't care to compare K750 to lesser digicams, why should I. Well, I did take some comparison shots with a Panasonic and am expecting to get those files next week.
You write about exposure times around 1/15s, while for example K800 with Twilight scene selected operates with 1/2s, normal exposure time being 1/8s. Kinda risky in hands of average mobile enthusiast, don't you think. And then people are wondering why their photos are blurry.
When I see owners of SLR cameras taking photos, they hold it as supposed by design with pentaprisms, mirrors etc, keeping the optical viewfinder as their first choice, not holding 30cm off their face.
I was merely adressing my words to mobile people without prior experience in photography. Yes, sure, everybody can press the release button in these days of autoexposure, autofocus, autopostprocessing, whatever, but as I see it many times, seems like many don't understand what' is wrong and why...
--
Posted: 2006-07-18 19:25:30
Edit :
Quote
I thought the point of this post was to compare the merits of the K750/w800 and a real digicam. It's not an argument between 2 people. Lets bring it back into perspective.
Here are the simple facts as I see them. The K750/w800, k800 and so on are all acceptable camera's for the purpose they serve. i.e. a readily available camera on mobile phone. But a camera phone can not compare to any half decent digicam. There's just no real comparison. The problem with phone camera's is that have very limited optical ability and no optical zoom. This always comes with a compromise in image quality. I also think the older CMOS sensor lets the K750/w800 down. Unless the lighting is perfect the K750/W800 really only provides average photos. No matter how hard I try I can not find any photo taken with my old 1mp fixed focus Fuji A101 or my current Fuji 3mp A330 (both low end cheap cameras) that suffer the same graininess/hashing as that I see in too many W800/K750 photos. As an example, I have taken a portion of one of MARK_Q's photo's to show the hashing I see in photo's taken by the K750/W800 and attached it below. Look at the Vertical grid lines I have pointed out. They fill the image. I find they are always there, sometimes they stand out like dogs balls and it drives me to distraction. This example alone is enough evidence that the K750/w800 are not up to the job of a real digicam. And, this is the reason why I always choose to take a dedicated digicam somewhere if I know I will be taking photo's I want to keep.
Now, don't think I'm bagging out the K750/w800 - I still love my W800 and think the camera is very handy. But, I'm not going to go off and claim it's the best just because I own it - it's not. Mobile phone camera's have a long way to come.
--
Posted: 2006-07-19 03:29:00
Edit :
Quote
i think comparing a camera phone to a dedicated digital camera is a moot point since you are comparing two different things. the former is dedicated to communication while the latter is dedicated to photography. you can't have the best of both worlds; you have to compromise. it's either a camera or a phone -- it all depends on your needs.
i own a k750i and for me that's enough because i do not really need a dedicated digicam. photos taken with the k750i are great for a mobile phone of its size, and they are print-quality. i have had some of my photos printed and they are quite decent.
my 2 cents: let's leave photography to the real photographers. i don't think pros would use a camera phone for their projects, except if they find the need to do so (for some artistic reason or whatever). like i said, it all depends on what you need.
peace.
--
Posted: 2006-07-19 05:41:42
Edit :
Quote
Mark_q,
Quote: my K750 I see as ticket for re-entering the photography.
I had no idea you had done so much with the K750, excellent work. I had assumed you had no experience because you are so negative about the camera - if it has enough merit that you are prepared to tweak one, then why are you so negative about them? I just looked at your photos, they are very nice. I have NEVER made any claim whatsoever that the K750 is comparable to a decent digicam technically, I only try to make the point that you can get satisfying results with it, which therefore makes it comparable to other cheap digicams. Certainly not always fully equal in abilities, but "comparable".
BTW, I'm 39, not 12, and My "daddy" is 70 not 53. I think he has shown a remarkably adept attitude for a 70 year old. I am not embarrassed to admit I have a close relationship with my father. I only brought it up to show I am not one-eyed about camera technology. If I thought the K750 could replace a professional, or even amatuer level camera then I would have recommended he get a K750, but I didn't now did I?
@mongoose3800, actually the original poster posted this thread to compare low end 2MP cameras, not mid to high end 3MP and above (very few low end digicams have optical zoom, and although that is changing quickly, so are camera phones). BTW, there are camera phones that have optical zoom..
You and Mark_q seem unprepared to accept that others might see using a phone camera as a legitimate tool for photographic pursuit (yet it's okay for you guys). I'm not so stupid that I think you can compare the technical ability of a 2MP camera phone against a mid to high end 3MP or better. I just happen to believe that it's NOT incredible important what resolution, etc you shoot at. Fantastic results can be achieved by the K750, even if it is yet limited in many areas.
Mark_q has shown that himself with his photos. I reiterate, you guys have posted on this thread as if you need to correct people's perceptions about the K750 camera phone, eg from mongoose:
Quote:. But, I'm not going to go off and claim it's the best just because I own it - it's not. Mobile phone camera's have a long way to come.
I see not one single post here where anyone has claimed that the K750 is
the best. Not one single claim. It seems actually that Mark_q and I are not that different - but that when I post about the K750 he hears "k750 is the best" when that is not what I'm saying. I've never said that. Likewise, when Mark_q says "OK as mobile phone but poor as camera. " I hear "anyone who uses one must be an idiot"
Look I'll drop it happily, but I just don't see why we can't have a thread where we can mention the positives of a camera phone and not have people think they need to "correct" us. It's obvious that all poster's to this thread understand the limitations of camera phones, yet they also see it as a good enough camera to use it as one in some capacity.
Both you mark_q and mongoose are the same since you have both professed to using the "poor" K750. We all are in agreement! You don't need to convince us that camera phones aren't the be-all and end-all, and no one needs to convince you that the K750 is an "okay" digicam (since you use one at all you must have some respect for it).
My dear old dad, shot with the sun almost over my shoulder (not a bad result for a camera phone), and despite the glare, I see this photo as a keeper:
Click here to view
With a bit of judicious cropping it would be even better (but would reduce print size to 4x6 from a practical standpoint) And yes I do understnad that higher resolution would mean that wouldn't be an issue. I do actually have a very good grasp of the technicalities.
_________________
File System Tweaks for the K750
K750 Tricks
[ This Message was edited by: max_wedge on 2006-07-19 05:51 ]
[ This Message was edited by: max_wedge on 2006-07-19 05:55 ]
--
Posted: 2006-07-19 06:34:53
Edit :
Quote
Quote:
On 2006-07-17 15:06:17, BobaFett wrote:
Imo u get almost the same result, dont forget, that digi cams offer more settings and better lense
This message was posted from a WAP device
Hey Boba, looks like you have 'contradicting' words here pal
The Digicam surely wins when compared with a camfone - same megapixel category !
--
Posted: 2006-07-19 07:05:22
Edit :
Quote
New Topic
Reply
