>
New Topic
>
Reply<
Esato Forum Index
>
Sony Ericsson / Sony >
General
> K800 vs C902 pictures please
Bookmark topic
Lol, whats special about those leaves? Are you happy because they look like leaves?
--
Posted: 2008-08-23 10:36:23
Edit :
Quote
well there does seem to be quite alot of clear detail showing on the leaves for a photo taken that distance away.
--
Posted: 2008-08-23 10:54:42
Edit :
Quote
nobody can post comparision pics of C902 and K800 that's why I'm requesting to close this thread
-
once again you're praising C902 and once again other phone must be worse. nothing new but man, we all are tired of this. nobody is saying that C902 sucks but if you're telling me that K800 cannot make sharp pictures then you lie. in fact this isn't important for me, I see two different things: your words and pictures from my K800 and you know what? I believe in my pictures, not in your anti-K800 manifest. I have K800 and I know about this phone's camera much more than you. notice that I never wrote wrong word about C902, all the time I'm only trying to defend K800 against your unreasonable attacks
you wrote that my picture of the leaf doesn't have sharpness like on your pic. my question is: how you can compare sharpness on two very different pics? didn't you noticed that my leaf is much less detailed in structure? from when details level is equal to sharpness level?
I will not answer on your next post here, I will not go into next off-topic flamewar with you
--
Posted: 2008-08-23 11:18:53
Edit :
Quote
On 2008-08-23 10:34:00, plankgatan wrote:
Tomato ? Its no tomato.
That looks like
Rosehip ("nypon" in Swedish).
--
Posted: 2008-08-23 12:44:16
Edit :
Quote
yes, my fault, I focused my eyes on leafs only
--
Posted: 2008-08-23 12:53:25
Edit :
Quote
ok let see here if we have the same thoughts ???
c902 vs k810:
----------------------
low light.............C902
night pics...........C902
daylight.............. both phones produce similar quality. good colors & sharpness. (but C902 have little better details, and K810 have little less noise)
indoor.............C902. (remember when i first bought my k800 (and then later K810) long time ago. the indoor pictures didnt blow me away directley. C902 is more simple to get better quality with)
flash pics.......... K810 (Xenon)
_________________
I
C902,
W810 &
T29
------------------------------------
http://www.flickr.com/photos/21179102@N07/
(t610, t630, k700, k750, k800, k810, k850)
[ This Message was edited by: plankgatan on 2008-08-23 15:19 ]
--
Posted: 2008-08-23 16:15:18
Edit :
Quote
The c902 low-light & night pics arent better than the k800i's, if anything the k800i is better because the sensor has less megapixels loaded on to it so it's less noisey anyway and doesn't need as much post-processing so the pics are more deatailed.
--
Posted: 2008-08-23 17:03:31
Edit :
Quote
?????? (sometimes i wonder how you see things man...)
i havnt seen many k810-Night pictures (WITH ORIGINAL CAM DRIVER) who have the same quality as C902. thats for sure.........
C902 have a larger sensor who handle more light better, (and this time a very good, balanced cam-software who runs the hardware). except that C902 sensor can handle more light, it also use a higher ISO-number then K810, which make the difference in night & low light shoots.
just a example what im talking about:
_________________
I
C902,
W810 &
T29
------------------------------------
http://www.flickr.com/photos/21179102@N07/
(t610, t630, k700, k750, k800, k810, k850)
[ This Message was edited by: plankgatan on 2008-08-23 17:32 ]
--
Posted: 2008-08-23 18:03:52
Edit :
Quote
The c902 isn't using a bigger sensor, theres no way a bigger sensor would even fit in it, it's no better at handling light than the k800 and the k800 uses higher iso's on auto mode it's range is 80-640 the c902 is 64-??? 320 i think, my s700 is 160-4000.
--
Posted: 2008-08-23 18:13:53
Edit :
Quote
ehh... I'm sick when watching at pics described as 'low light' which are far from being low light. let me explain people
look at pic above - nice pic isn't?
Plank used label 'low light' for it
this pic is quite dark, so can we call it 'low light'? let's find out...
what we can find in EXIF data?
exposure time = 1/1000s, ISO = 64
ouch! you probably guess what this mean? do you want to know how much light have this scene and how much light was on sensor? this much:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/virgilefontaine/2778191086/meta/
surprised? well, you shouldn't be because you have sunlight in front of the camera. what do you think about next pic?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/virgilefontaine/2778192686/meta/
is this low-light? no it's not right? what do you see in exposure time? 1/160s so this is still ~6x longer exposure time than on Plank's pic (1/1000s) and this means that pic with horse have less light (but it's not low-light!) than Plank's pic ('low-light'). funny isn't?
conclusion:
if picture is dark this doesn't mean that it is low-light
Plank's pic is far away from low-light
1. EXIF will tell you everything
2. I just wanted to explain this and nothing more (not to be rude)
EDIT:
K800, ISO 80, exposure time (1/100s) 10x longer (a lot less light) than on Plank's pic
anything amazing? pfff...
_________________
K800 R1KG001
raider.4shared.com
flickr.com/photos/raiderek
[ This Message was edited by: Raiderski on 2008-08-23 20:10 ]
--
Posted: 2008-08-23 20:17:48
Edit :
Quote
New Topic
Reply
