>
New Topic
>
Topic Locked
Esato Forum Index
>
Sony Ericsson / Sony >
General
> K850i vs N95 pic quality
Bookmark topic
agreed, but really such a detailed analysis and comparison will only be of interest to a few real photographers here, and those just wishing to make a point, but I'm sure most of us here agree that we are pretty happy with the results we get from both phones in casual use.
If I want superb photos I'll revert to my DSC-T100 but not being much of a photographer or camera buff I screw those up too occasionally meaning it sometimes takes me a few shots to get the picture right.
I suspect most "persons on the street" phone buyers will be very happy with the results both these phones give
--
Posted: 2007-10-30 10:17:12
Edit :
Quote
On 2007-10-30 10:02:55, mongoose3800 wrote:
. . .
Both of them are rather mediocre anyway.
. . .
Exactly! I think the aim of this thread should not be which one is the best, because neither of them are. Instead try to agree which one sucks the least! In one or two years' time
both N95 and K850i owners will be looking back at the photos they took with their camera phones and moan, saying "what a piece of sh*t that was! I can't believe I actually paid for it! And think that I was defending it at Esato!"
--
Posted: 2007-10-30 10:30:23
Edit :
Quote
If I want superb photos I'll revert to "my"(i wish) Swedish made H3D-II, (Hasselblad)....he he
(integrated GPS receiver for geotagging your gigantic digital pictures, 39 Mpix capture units, 48x36 mm CCD image sensors, etc...........
------------------------------------------------------------------
or i just use my cell phone...(think the most pictures I/we get with k850 is good enough for 10 x 15cm photos (and even larger).
_________________
I
k850i,
w810i &
T28
[ This Message was edited by: plankgatan on 2007-10-30 09:43 ]
--
Posted: 2007-10-30 10:41:50
Edit :
Quote
The problem is this: With the older K750/w800 you could actually get quite decent photo's most of the time. They were generally very well focused and in good light looked very good when viewed full screen. And, if you rule out the antialiasing that affects the K800 at full res most of its pictures come out pretty good full screen as well. Now we have a 5mp contender that should out perform both it's predecessors but it doesn't. The photos appear grainy and blurry - this is just not right.
I have to wonder why there are so many good full resolution K750/K800 photos in Esato's Mobile phone photo section. If the K850 is as good as some claim why is so poorly represented in this section - there are only 34 or so images all up. If you rule out the first few fakes almost all of the other photo's are very grainy and well below the quality you'd expect. By now you would think people would be posting pictures boasting how good the camera is - they're not. My bet is most are extremely disappointed by the camera and have next to nothing worth posting. I would so like to be proven wrong by seeing some good quality photo's posted. I ask all you k850 owners to post images and silence those of us who think the K850 is a disappointment when it comes to photography.
[ This Message was edited by: mongoose3800 on 2007-10-30 10:02 ]
--
Posted: 2007-10-30 11:00:36
Edit :
Quote
I'll try my best when my phone arrives, hopefully tomorrow.
So now we're in a situation where we have 5 esato members, two not a bit impartial, waiting for Plankgatan to post a full sized pic, just so that it can be judged fairly?
On 2007-10-30 10:17:12, masseur wrote:
I suspect most "persons on the street" phone buyers will be very happy with the results both these phones give
Too true! I don't think many will be rushing out to print poster sized pics just yet.
[ This Message was edited by: goldenface on 2007-10-30 10:19 ]
--
Posted: 2007-10-30 11:02:59
Edit :
Quote
this picture is rather decent for K850:
http://www.esato.com/phonepho[....]make=sony+ericsson&model=k850i
--
Posted: 2007-10-30 11:25:23
Edit :
Quote
As I understand it 1mp is good for printing 6"x4", 2mp is good 5"x7", 3mp is good for 8"x10" and 5mp should be good for 11"x14". I'd be keen to see what K850 image looks like printed at 11x4
--
Posted: 2007-10-30 11:26:33
Edit :
Quote
The K850 jpeg algorithm is seriously noisy. Whilst not helped by any camera shake, even a fast shutter speed photo will have colour noise, blur, jpeg artefacts that really shouldn't be there.
Here is a shrunk down photo taken in very bright light (1/1000s ISO100):
Looking at 100% you can see all sorts of noise:
And now (still at 100%) jpeg noise that makes the photo look like a cartoon:
--
Posted: 2007-10-30 11:36:20
Edit :
Quote
Not bad but very hard to judge when there is only really green and brown. At full screen the photo looks quite good indeed. However, at full res it's a different story - The photo doesn't quite look real, you can pick up the graininess and there is quite strong compression. The photo next to this (
http://www.esato.com/phonepho[....]make=sony+ericsson&model=k850i ) pales in comparison. It's grainy, out of focus and suffers really bad purple fringing on the slide. Purple fringing is the result of a cheap lens focusing light incorrectly.
--
Posted: 2007-10-30 11:47:12
Edit :
Quote
On 2007-10-30 11:36:20, apotts wrote:
The K850 jpeg algorithm is seriously noisy. Whilst not helped by any camera shake, even a fast shutter speed photo will have colour noise, blur, jpeg artefacts that really shouldn't be there.
Here is a shrunk down photo taken in very bright light (1/1000s ISO100):
Wow, at 100 ISO in full light there should be no graininess. This is quite clear evidence of lens that is too small provide enough light to the sensor.
--
Posted: 2007-10-30 11:51:00
Edit :
Quote
New Topic
Topic Locked
