Pv9c haha k800 won macro against N93, Daylight pictures are better in k800 only down is the overexposure in sunlight which makes n93 better, so you have to take pictures with your n93 in always overexposed environment in order for itto be beter. Lol! hahaha! it's hard for the Nokia Fans to accept the fact they are again looser so they post many bashes to K800, How Pathethic! Accept the truth please!
to my eyes nokia won, nokia pictures are sharper, without purple marks, the SE colors looked better with the vegetables but with direct sunlight it fails and the real colors somewhere inbetween so i can't declare SE the winner there. =P that should shut up SE fans for sometime. in the real test the area scenario SONY ericsson lost XD
hey guys don't judge now remember when gsmarena reviewed n90 camera and said it is the final version and the camera is very bad then it made another review saying that the last one was a prototype and then said that n90 has great camera may be the last review like that and they will review the last version later remember n90 u will find it on the site read the first topic in the review
It doesn´t make sense that a newer firmware would somehow damage the photographic quality of the device. I mean, why would adjustements in stability, UI or something else which does not have anything to do with the cam itself, have a negative effect on the camera? Weird, but we´ll see...
Well, I dont know about you guys, but I'm STILL waiting for my N93 with exitement.....
What ever you all say: It has the best videofunction, camera and menues of of all present phones. And the price is for that!
ANd....would you develope a cameraphone for lots of years for nothing? Think gys, think!!!
is it true that even by having a 3.2 mp camera and carl zeis optics the image quality is not good and so is the video quality
You are right, it should be a bit more patient ;). What i concluded so far with the info i've been given on forums by people who have the model and post pictures videos, etc, is the following:
The PROTO model had a better algorithm for taking pictures than the final versions given to these testers. I found a couple russian sites, where they test the N93 proto vs. K800 and it smashes the K800 in daylight. No grains, pics are beautifull. Other N93s with different firmware really dissapoint :( :( :(. Or maybe ppl have no idea how to use the phone :P.
N93 (the guy with that name that is)
I totally agree with you, I too like to do some extensive research before i purchase ANYTHING. I´m not into the N93 because of the high price, I´m seriously considering the N73.
But hey, I strongly doubt that the image quality presented on some shabby website resembles the real quality, if I would be you, which I´m not though, I would wait for the actual reviews and comparations on either mobile-reivew.com or here at gsmarena. And remember, making a good review takes time, so be patient regarding the review. Don´t make hasty decisions is all I´m saying.
I research before i buy something. Maybe you fall into the other category where people buy stuff and then they have a "kinder" surprise on their expense with buggy firmware/os, etc. So please accept my apologies if I want to know detailed information about a phone with a price tag similar to a good laptop. You do what you want with your money, i'll do what i want with mine. I wanted this phone since i first saw it online. I was willing to pay even 1000 euros for it. After seeing the camera capabilities on the final product, i am not as keen as before to spend so much on this.
You know N93 , you talk alot. You seem to think you know alot too. Talk about prices, you really think products with big names you actually pay for their product costs? I am betting you can't afford an N93, so please go look in the Pantech page. The N93 is a breakthrough for what's coming in the future, not perfect but as good as you can get. We used to be happy not even 5 years ago with a 1 Mega pixel camera, so best is for you to clam up, and let those who want to buy one experience it for themselves.
Nokia N93 website:
"Take a sharp shooter wherever you go. The Nokia N93 also features a 3.2 megapixel camera, Carl Zeiss optics and 3x optical zoom, enabling you to get up close and personal while shooting the sharpest quality images possible. Once captured, edit your photos directly on your multimedia computer and share them on the web with your friends. All this in one single device."
This is the biggest lie. More and more N93 final version testers pray their phones are damaged because photo quality is miserable!
New benchmarks with the N93:
Please explain. The manufacturing process probably costs 1/4 of the final price. You think the price tag is fair? We are paying for two things: NOKIA name on the phone and the Carl-Zeiss name on the camera lens. That is it.
why do people buy such lousy and pricey phones? This kind of attitude keeps the prices higher and higher on succeeding phone models. Why dont you just buy a more practical phone and donate the money to the poor, who are 80% of the world's population.
Follow that link to see pics with the N93 with the final firmware version.
They are better but still not as good as the K800 :( :(. I wanna buy this one and not the K800 !!!!!!I will never buy a SE phone. NOKIA 4 LIFE!
Some more info :
N93 JBenchmark 3D Performance results:
Triangles ps: 48370
E61 JBenchmark 3D Performance results:
Triangles ps: 40039
P990i JBenchmark 3D Performance results:
Triangles ps: 9418
Dreadthought, i hope you are right.
Some info for you guys:
N93 JBenchmark HD Performance results:
Smooth triangles: 337205
Textured triangles: 319504
Fill rate: 13813 kTexels
Gaming: 508 (16.9 fps)
E61 JBenchmark HD Performance results:
Smooth triangles: 64850 (5 times less!)
Textured triangles: 55444 (5 times less!)
Fill rate: 1251 kTexels (over 10 times less!)
Gaming: 92 (3.1 fps) (6 times less!)
P990i JBenchmark HD Performance results:
Smooth triangles: 70265
Textured triangles: 79494
Fill rate: 9495 kTexels
Gaming: 177 (5.9 fps)
I totally agree that the pics in the link posted by Vargas are quite poor indeed.
But I doubt that they are real, I believe that they are fakes.
I mean, the prototype shots in the old mobile-review review were better. I also don´t beleieve that Nokia would be stupid enough to launch a camera-phone with that price tag if the results were that bad. It is also possible that those shots were real, but they were taken with lowered settings, for example: image quality-poor or that they used close up macro on longer distances or beach/snow mode in the dark...
Don´t panic, I believe those shots aren´t real.