>
New Topic
>
Reply<
Esato Forum Index
>
Sony Ericsson / Sony >
General
> c902 vs Canon Ixus 85is
Bookmark topic
I bought a little ixus 85is today. Nice price in the store so i couldn´t resist buying the little beauty.
I have always loved Canon for their crisp and bright pictures and i seldom get surprised with bad pics from them.
I have always praised the c902 for it´s "good light" point and shoot capability so i just took a few pics for fun. Thought i could expand with more comparison shots in the future.
Looking at pics in "normal" monitor size as most people actually do in reality the c902 copes well. Ofcourse it´s totally doomed in worse lightning and indoors, flash and so against a real digicam but out in nice weather it does a good job.
Alls shots in plain Auto, no adjustments
c902
Ixus 85
c902
ixus 85
In a monitor viewingsize they both look very good. When we start to look at the pics in 100% the difference shows.
c902
Ixus 85
c902
Ixus 85
Then we should also note that the canon picture is much bigger in size (10mp) against the c902s smaller size and 5Mp but still quite little noise in them.
To do a real fair comparison we should first downsize the Canon pic to 5mp and then take a 100% crop of it. The the result will be as follows
Ixus 85 100% crop of pic downsized to 5mp
So why do this comparison. Well i dont really know and i am a little bored today. I saw some comparison earlier that showed that the phone was nearly as good as a digicam but clearly our phones has a long way to go before they compete against a small cheap digicam.
It´s also a thought to all those who are thinking of upgrading to an amazing expensive cameraphone. It could be more worth buying a real digicam instead for those special moments. I bought the Ixus för only 200$ and it seems well worth the money.
c905, innov8, Renoir or any other phone would not stand a chance either. But we should also think of how we use our pics. If we just use them in small size and for web posting and so, the phone cams copes quite well and could be enough for many of us.
[ This Message was edited by: Pitzon on 2009-04-25 17:54 ]
--
Posted: 2009-04-25 18:51:57
Edit :
Quote
What I think is that, in low light, even these 'cheap' digital cameras dont stand a chance. The pics they produce at 100% crops are just hopeless. So in low light you have an 'utterly hopeless' phone camera and a 'just hopeless' digital camera. I would not want either of those.
Both cheaper digital cameras and phone cameras do a good enough job at day light, infact from the pics you posted, they are 99.9% similar (except for the useless 100% crop which no one uses everyday).
--
Posted: 2009-04-25 19:39:06
Edit :
Quote
From the resized pics, i prefer the c902's colour it's more natuaral looking compared to the ixus 85is dark & blue tinted colours, in fullsized theres no doubt the ixus 85is proper lens and sensor make a huge difference.
The digicams have the roughly the same sized sensors as the camphones a 6-9megapixel digicam will have a 1/2,8″” to 1/2,5″” sensor 10-13mp have normally 1/2,3″” - 1/1,7″” sensors , like the phones there not big enough to effectivly do the job even a ccd with such a small µm will produce noise and fringing and over problems, the phonecam and digicam will have the roughly the same µm , the digicam will be better though because there ccd , have alot bigger & better lens and better image processing.
i choose my digicam carefully and went for a old sony P100 , it has a 1/1,8″” ccd with only 5megapixels on it, so even on iso400 noise doesn't even really exist.
--
Posted: 2009-04-25 20:05:32
Edit :
Quote
I've got a Canon IXUS 85 IS 6 month now. It is a very good camera taking very bright pictures in low light. Best if you know how to use manual settings.
It can even take bright photos in almost complete dark without flash by using Long Shutter (up to 15 sec).
I will post some photos later.
[ This Message was edited by: StevenC on 2009-04-25 19:08 ]
--
Posted: 2009-04-25 20:07:19
Edit :
Quote
woah, great pics man....c902 RoCkS
(in normal size
(like most cellphones
)
--
Posted: 2009-04-25 21:29:54
Edit :
Quote
Both cameras suck big time.
--
Posted: 2009-04-25 21:41:51
Edit :
Quote
well, Mr."Editor-in-chief of USEB and administrator at SE-NSE"(or whatever), im sure your super-slim camera is MUCH better.
--
Posted: 2009-04-25 21:56:33
Edit :
Quote
Whats so great about it being thin? just means its easier to lose. id rather have a chuncker device that performs better.
--
Posted: 2009-04-25 22:34:25
Edit :
Quote
On 2009-04-25 21:56:33, plankgatan wrote:
well, Mr."Editor-in-chief of USEB and administrator at SE-NSE"(or whatever), im sure your super-slim camera is MUCH better.
Being that I use professional equipment only, I have no super-slim camera.
--
Posted: 2009-04-25 22:36:52
Edit :
Quote
On 2009-04-25 22:34:25, number1 wrote:
Whats so great about it being thin? just means its easier to lose. id rather have a chuncker device that performs better.
and some of us just want a small one that performs ok.
not everyone carries a tripod with a D50 with him all the time!
--
Posted: 2009-04-25 23:03:34
Edit :
Quote
New Topic
Reply
