Nokia N95 camera review: High five
- shou
- Report
it's not fair comparing cameraphone to digicam.
even the cheapest digicam has a dedicated chip for digital image processing in it.
i think GSMarena starting to make-up things...
- Reply
- 2007-04-19 10:10
- PB1%
- fdf
- Report
How can the phone's picture s be compared to a real digital camera. My 3.2MP can take better pictures than this! Megapixels aren't everything, and all the details on the pictures are missing. Look at the leaves; it's a big smudged mess of green, along with the ground. It's all like a large watercolour painting. You implied the only difference was the colour which is very untrue.
It's OK for a cameraphone, but nowhere near the quality of real cameras.
- Reply
- 2007-04-19 08:17
- 2CLx
- mnm
- Report
i-mobile 902 camera is far more better thn n95 n the price is also dirt cheap...these branded phones just fool people spcly nokia...sony ericsson is good...but i have got a i-mobile 902 5mp camera with xenon flash using the sony camera is awesome n at dirt cheap price...
- Reply
- 2007-04-19 07:47
- PIdT
- SeF
- Report
forgot to mention,.. sony is known for their images with lesser barrel distortion while maintaining sharpness and exposure at once. while canon is known for the sharpness and accuracy.
- Reply
- 2007-04-19 07:32
- whBi
- SeF
- Report
i think nokia don't really focus the digital camera quality on their phone instead they just add megapixels and settings for further improvement over their past camera phones. their primary target is the consumers not the digital imaging crown or TIPA award. on the other hand, SE aims to be the best mobile imaging company and also just like nokia, wants to attract costumers. all in all both companies have slightly different aims on the market.
- Reply
- 2007-04-19 07:28
- whBi
Note: Sponsored advertising links are in green.
RSS feed