>
New Topic
>
Reply<
Esato Forum Index
>
Sony Ericsson / Sony >
General
> K750 Compared to SPH-V7800 5.2 megapixels
Bookmark topic
Quote:
On 2005-04-10 13:00:10, Glenny wrote:
Come on people, pull yourself together! Sure! A good 5mpx whateva camera would be nice, but its a phone at the end of the day, you know! For ringing people wirelessly! Thats the hole idea of a MOBILE phone! If youre that bothered, buy a digi cam! I think 0.3mpx is good enough, you see it clearly, not bad quality, so i dont see the point in having 5mpx
I agree 100%
Though what if they bought a phone looking exactly the same as the k750' or the k700 and it was 5megapixel, would you want it then?
The samsung is a werid one, what sort of crowd is it aimed at and who would buy it?
Obviously not diehard photographers. Looks to ugly to be part of anythin good, and is going to cost too much for any averages joe!!
I think the problem now is that samsung made it out to look to much like a phone, and some of us; most of us on esato can only judge from the materials of the phone that it is going to be heavy. Unless they've gave out specs which ive missed saying how much it weighs..
... although noone has held it in hand.
Good move, yet not so good move!
--
Posted: 2005-04-10 13:39:33
Edit :
Quote
Quote:
On 2005-04-10 09:48:45, Aikonoklast wrote:
More pixels doesn't mean better quality! Every digicammer knows that. As for optical zoom it's too bulky for phones...
exactly,we want more quality than quantity,at least i prefer that (when i have mp resolutions) .
Quote:
On 2005-04-10 03:52:32, govigov wrote:
I would really like to have a phone that captures video at VGA res and 30fps. I think that dir'n is where cam phones are headed and not bigger pixels.
This message was posted from a K500
i think the bottleneck here is the processing power in most cases not cam. itll take a lot of processing power to capture video even at cif at 30fps.
--
Posted: 2005-04-10 14:53:29
Edit :
Quote
Making a move from 1.3 to 2 MP is just for the label of 2 MP there isnt a difference in quality between the S7 ad the K750, this is because if they do not incorporate CCD technology theres not going to be much difference. (As masseur pointed out several times before). Hence a move to the larger Megapixel cameras are only going to change size and not quality.
--
Posted: 2005-04-10 15:15:23
Edit :
Quote
Quote:
On 2005-04-10 15:15:23, Yazan24 wrote:
Making a move from 1.3 to 2 MP is just for the label of 2 MP there isnt a difference in quality between the S7 ad the K750, this is because if they do not incorporate CCD technology theres not going to be much difference. (As masseur pointed out several times before). Hence a move to the larger Megapixel cameras are only going to change size and not quality.
cmos can produce very good images (even better than ccd) , in most slr cameras with >8,9mp cmos sensors are used,i think i dont have to say about the image quality of it here. ccd is used mainly in mid resolutions as far as i understand.
_________________
There are a terrible lot of lies going around the world, and the worst of it is half of them are true - Winston Churchill
This report, by its very length, defends itself against the risk of being read - Winston Churchill
[ This Message was edited by: shyam335 on 2005-04-10 14:33 ]
--
Posted: 2005-04-10 15:26:46
Edit :
Quote
Both types of imagers convert light into electric charge and process it into electronic signals. In a CCD sensor, every pixel's charge is transferred through a very limited number (often one) of output nodes to be converted to voltage, buffered, and sent off-chip as an analog signal. All of the pixel can be devoted to light capture, and the output's uniformity (a key factor in image quality) is high. In a CMOS sensor, each pixel has its own charge-to-voltage conversion, and the sensor often also includes digitization circuits, so that the chip outputs digital bits. These other functions reduce the area available for light capture, and with each pixel doing its own conversion, uniformity is lower. But the chip requires less off-chip circuitry for basic operation.
--
Posted: 2005-04-10 16:22:41
Edit :
Quote
http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:JkNigycQQSUJ:www.melbpc.org.au/report/CMOS-CCD.pdf
--
Posted: 2005-04-10 16:32:52
Edit :
Quote
I'd like a camera phone where the output is not squeezed-down jpg's but where a less reducing jpg would actually make it possible to get the most out of the camera that is in it.
A 0.3 mpx camera produces 0.3mb pictures, Right? so why are they about 50k? And better colour reproduction and less noise.
That would be a big step forward. I'd rather have decent vga-pictures in a small phone than 1MP or 2MP pictures with the same "quality" we have now only bigger.
--
Posted: 2005-04-10 17:21:05
Edit :
Quote
Yazan24, are you mad ? the K750 can capture noticably better pictures than the S700i - it doesnt take pictures of the same quality but better, which is even easier to prove since with a 2mp picture over a 1.3mp picture you're able to see more because of the enlarged picture size.
One point everyone in this thread is missing is cost. It costs companies like SE a lot of money to research and develop their mobile technology. Before they move on and incorporate more features into phones, they have to cover the costs of developing the current technology they have.
Sony know how to make 7mp cameras, but i doubt they'd ever put one in a phone like the K750 until they've covered the costs of developing the 2mp camera the K750 has.
In short, a company wont release new technology until they've made enough to cover the costs of developing whats available NOW.
--
Posted: 2005-04-10 19:29:09
Edit :
Quote
@yazan24: ........*cough*ummmm, not all of us have high levels/grades in camera stuff, in fact, ive not even left school!:P:lol:
I suppose just having a digi cam in your phone would be handy, before i knew about k7, i had either k500, or Siemens CX65, i picked k500 because of the mp3, even thogh i alredy had a 128mb mp3, ended up with k700. To be honest, the only thing that could be imrpoved with k7 is video capture, maybe more zoom
--
Posted: 2005-04-10 20:09:48
Edit :
Quote
@Shyam, it is difficult to compare between the two types, they have pros and cons, but if u consider the settings mobile phones are usually in when taking pics, indoors, CCD doesnt seem as good a choice, but when expanding to further types of shots a CCD IMHO is better, also the k750 was compared to a CMOS 2MP phone and beat it in indoor photos, however a 1.3 MP CCD from Motorola was compared with the S700 and it beat the crap out of it.
So its hard to compare. But I personally think that CCD is the way to go if they want to go beyong 2 MP.
@ETAAB, STFU you dont even know what we're talking about. Obviously the pictures are going to be larger, there are more pixels. Thanks for pointing out the obvious. Dumbass.
--
Posted: 2005-04-11 00:12:35
Edit :
Quote
New Topic
Reply
