This seems to sound rather violent... Hope SE fans haven´t started commiting suicides yet... Tarantula has a good point in his post, optics definitely don´t make a difference in the MOBILE-camera world.
@ilta also has got a point, N73 is the best. You can come up with excuses about colours and flashes, but it will still be the best...
What plastic lenses?? You must know that K800 uses glass lenses, sharp uses glass lenses, motorola 2mp V3x uses glass lens. ¿Do you say that CZ is the best, and later say that sony cyber-shot DSC isnt the best and its a crap?. Now we are in the 3MP age, maybe VGA camera phones comes with plastic optics, but now the history is different.
And cyber-shot DSC isnt the best, that is true. It uses CZ lenses. Why nokia will be the best with the same optics?
In the world there are a lot of optics elements makers and CZ is knowed by sony cameras. Other camera makers uses own tech in optics like Nikon (nikkor lens), olympus, even leica and schneider make better lenses than CZ. CZ usage is a comercial move, no more. A camera phone dont need great optics for now because is a phone, low end digital still cameras took better pics than any camphone today and cheap cameras doest have CZ, nikkor, leica or other optics.
You must known that oversaturated pics is a sensor/software processing issue, it isnt a optics issue. Nokia buy camera sensors from third part maker like SE and LG buy it from sony.
Remember this: more pixels not necessarity mean better quality, the quality mainly deppends of sensor/software processing.
you can deny what im saying, but you will be denying yourself the truth; nokia and sony ericsson seems to have changed their gears; now sony ericsson launches 10 of the same phones as nokia did once (6682, 6630, 7610, 6670, etc) like w800, w810, w700, what is this? plus, nokia is getting really advanced and SE has bugs too. argue all you want, and i like both companies, but you know that this is true.
so do cyber shot...ummphhh just marketing...neway i agree with u...cybershot or carl zeiss means nothing. I saw the pics took by N90 jeez..what a shame, the quality is really the worst among the other even my 6630(1,3MP) can Knocks Out N90(2MP)!!
carl zeiss doesnt mean anything,picture quality doesnt get better because of the carl zeiss optics,just marketing,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,carl zeiss was a glass manufacturer like swarovski
hellowww N73 using Carl Zeiss optic which is made from glass so no doubt n73 can catch nice images better than K800? does K800 using glass optics? i don think so..
looked all pictures, although it depends on stability of hands while capturing and angle, all pictures are not from same angle. every minor angle difference can cause much change in picture even taken with same camera.
picture captured using SE k800 are grate in my opinion, also if used in macro mode SE K800 is leader.
keep in mind Sony Ericsson K800 integerated with cyber shot camera, sony is already professional camera manufacturer, and having vast experience in electronics as compare to samsung and nokia, so why I would like Sony Ericsson.
hey guys, calm down take a look those photo clearly espcially the car's Tyre ones. SE camera even cant show the dirt(on the blue color) on the car clearly,so blurr.and when i compare with nokia one, its different nokia can even without any label on their camera
there are 330 and more comments in this comparison.there are 5 nokia fans that have sent more than 100 comments.every 4 comment there is one of those 5 people saying n73 is better.get finally a life and accept it k800 rocks!!!
put attention to this one http://www.sotovik.ru/catalog/...i-3-rev.html then the k750 colors are oversaturated? don't even try to say something about nikon because Nikon its well known brand in protography.
you found quite alot of reviews. either way the brainwashed sony ericsson fans still won't accept the fact the n73 takes better pictures. i am sure one fanboy will pop up and says "the k800 its the winner it takes better pictures, the n73 colors are unnatural and it takes overexposed pictures"... so untrue =/
Four more comparisons are online:
and this GSMarena one and an old mobile-review.com one.
They all show washed k800's washed out colors and low contrast.
Think! There is a comparison between Nicon 3100, LG KG920, Sharp 903, Nokia N93, N80 and n93.
And only N80 loses K800 because the lack of AF.
Nicon 3100 is the best, then KG920, then N73, then Sharp 903, then N93, then K800 and N80 in the end!
That's the truth, cybershot is no more but a marketing only... :(
If you are expert, it's simple to see the CLEAR difference between muddy plastic lenses in k800 and coated glass CZ optics in the N73.
the hardware of the n73 its quite good too, the lenses are doing a goob job, still the k800 takes overexposed pictures too, i like the n73 colors because they are bright, when you print them they look better. i noticed on reviews n93 produces colors close to canon cameras still the noise its not welcome
the k800 camera quality isn't that great, you sometimes sound like you are brainwashed by the Sony Cybershot Branding. because in alot of pictures the n73 took better pictures.
most cameras take picture like the k800 , but no camera takes pictures that are that overexposed ore as oversaturated like n73 does(not even the chep ones chet like this)
lock at the grass abd evrething it's way off base i am surprized that you can't see that
and when it comes to camera n73 loses just when you say light please(xenon vs pice of creap diod not even as good as the one on k750)
so tarantula is right
as we can see carl zeiss can't work mirecle
in my opinion in this caind of cameras thers no nead for carl zeiss (maybe it's neded in cameras like sony h5 witch takes extremly good pictures)
and if sony would like to add carl zeiss to there phone it wol probebly cost them a lot leser then what it costs nokia(becouse they use carl in there cameras)
but lo at k750vsn90(carl zeiss) and at k800vsn93(carl zeiss) and so on
the lenses are very important but the hardware and software inside are more important
1.- Nokia N73
2.- Samsung SGH-D900
3.- Sony Ericsson K800 the worse camera
Dont expect that K800 be perfect, but overally is better than N73. I dont say that K800 is a "lot better" The problem for me with N73 is oversaturated pics, dont look natural and this is clear in all pics!! ¿are you blind?
N73 take great pics, that is unquestionable but K800 wins. Not in all circumstances and the difference is minimal.
Yes, nokia phones are high quality phones (except 3650, i hate it) but ericsson and later sony ericsson are good phones too. I have T610 and now dont present any problem, now i use it with my W800. I had a ericsson T39, it is the best phone that i ever use, with outstanding battery life (a week with average use), past year it die because i loose it in the sea! Otherwise i use it now
the tons of picutres in comparisons, that proof. some sony ericsson fans tread nokia like all their phones were a piece of crap and they aren't, nokia its doing a good job now. i known nokia phones for years and its the only brand i have seem with a high durability, i have seen a nokia 51** still being in use here.
and talking about the camera overexposed? http://img1.gsmarena.com/i/rev...k800_006.jpg
What proof?? Here all people talk about camera phones, dont talk about digital cameras, if it was the case at least sony makes very good DSC cameras... and nokia?????? nothing!!
And the pics demonstrate this statement, nokia never win over SE in this field (maybe you are happy with your oversaturated and overexposed pics) but K800 quality is superior than N73. Carl zeiss do all that they can but nokia dont have the know-how like sony in digital imaging technology.
Texas Instrument makes good processors and chips, in sound field sony has own name with walkman and genezzi. N91 is a top phone in music field, the upcoming W950 will compete with the brick, and i read in some reviews that quality sound of W950 (i forget W850) are in the same level with N91.
You can say a lot of things but only with a direct comparisson like here you clearly view the difference, like here.
I actually own a Nokia and a Sony Ericsson right now... i love both phones but I like the SE a little better, even tho as a phone I like the Nokia better but picture quality SE takes the win... Samsung sucks, I had a D500 and a D600, both phones sucked.... i hate samsung forever... bad reception and retarded phones... but i love nokia and SE...
K800 by far.. obviously, even though the Nokia makes great pictures, no doubt... it really is a great phone, and has a great camera.. but let's be serious here, you have to be blind not to see the difference between the K800 and it's competitors. I guess, that one could go either for the K800 or the N73 and not really notice too much of a difference... the D900 is outta' there... looks more like a cheap digital camera than a real camera phone.. sorry Samsung.. this one's not so good... awaiting the 5mpx camera phone.. maybe that will do some "damage" :D