General discussions : Other manufacturers : SharpWX-T930 vs Samsungi8510's image quality!
>
New Topic
>
Reply<
Esato Forum Index
>
General discussions >
Other manufacturers
> SharpWX-T930 vs Samsungi8510's image quality!
Bookmark topic
For those who do not understand Chinese guess which pictures came out from which phone??
http://www.eprice.com.tw/mobile/talk/?prod_id=3319&tid=4043673
--
Posted: 2009-02-27 14:40:07
Edit :
Quote
Interesting comparison which shows how a poor camera driver can ruin photo quality. Compare
this i8510 photo with
this from the T930. The i8510 shoots the same scene with low ISO and slower shutter while the T930 uses high ISO and fast shutter and then beats the sh*t out of the picture with its noise reduction. Depressing. SHARP have truly earned the right to wear to dunce cap.
Looks like the i-mobile 902 will not be beaten in the foreseeable future when it comes to noise-free low light shots...
[ This Message was edited by: AbuBasim on 2009-02-27 17:21 ]
--
Posted: 2009-02-27 18:16:22
Edit :
Quote
On 2009-02-27 18:16:22, AbuBasim wrote:
Interesting comparison which shows how a poor camera driver can ruin photo quality. Compare
this i8510 photo with
this from the T930. The i8510 shoots the same scene with low ISO and slower shutter while the T930 uses high ISO and fast shutter and then beats the sh*t out of the picture with its noise reduction. Depressing. SHARP have truly earned the right to wear to dunce cap.
Looks like the i-mobile 902 will not be beaten in the foreseeable future when it comes to noise-free low light shots...
[ This Message was edited by: AbuBasim on 2009-02-27 17:21 ]
you're rong,dude..its already being beaten by c905...where do you live,outer space,or middle ages??:D
--
Posted: 2009-02-27 21:01:32
Edit :
Quote
I was expecting the sharp to be alot better with it's ccd sensor but it's let down by poor software, also the samsung has a better lens with a larger aperture.
--
Posted: 2009-02-27 21:07:09
Edit :
Quote
C905 better than i-mobile 902 in low light? WHOA! Abu wrote about 'noise-free' not 'details-free' pictures. nevermind, joke was excellent! thanks
--
Posted: 2009-02-27 21:14:03
Edit :
Quote
On 2009-02-27 21:01:32, masada1971 wrote:
you're rong,dude..its already being beaten by c905...where do you live,outer space,or middle ages??:D
I'm realistic, especially when looking at photos like
this one by GLOBALCOMM for example.
Compare that with
this C905 shot...
Shall I post side-by-side comparison crops?
It's difficult to beat a camera with a three times more sensitive sensor and that shoots low light shots with 4 second exposure at ISO 50 without noise reduction (up to 10 seconds with EV +2)...
[ This Message was edited by: AbuBasim on 2009-02-27 21:00 ]
--
Posted: 2009-02-27 21:57:25
Edit :
Quote
The c905 lol the daylight pics are just as bad as the lowlight 1's, which dont make the low light 1's good.
--
Posted: 2009-02-27 22:47:44
Edit :
Quote
On 2009-02-27 21:57:25, AbuBasim wrote:
Compare that with
this C905 shot...
That pic are taken with a edited camdriver
(high iso+low shutter speed = crap)...
Ex:
Iso100 1s -
http://www.esato.com/phonephotos/viewfullsize.php?id=16156 (shaked but ok...)
Iso100 1/2s -
http://www.esato.com/phonephotos/viewfullsize.php?id=15746
Not good as a ccd sensor but acceptable.
--
Posted: 2009-03-02 06:04:02
Edit :
Quote
I agree. I just picked up the first example of a low light C905 shot and it's not fair to compare brands with a modified camdriver used in the C905 shot.
--
Posted: 2009-03-02 06:52:40
Edit :
Quote
New Topic
Reply
