Read with atention: In M-R N93/K800 comparisson are made with BETA FIRMWARE in BOTH PHONES! This situation make a lot of difference between NOW and PAST.
I am surprised with the quality of final firmware in N93, as you say, it was better, now it isnt the situation as you clearly seen in the last GSMarena comparisson between N93/K800.
I view a lot of pics of N73, all have oversaturated colors. I see a lot of pics of N93, all have a lot of noise. In all links that you post here is the same scenario
Please read this link:
Here youll find arguments and facts, not only say wich one is the best without an explanation, i hope that you understand the analisys.
I see comments from the SE camp and they talk about appertures, ISO and camera speed, f-stop, exposure compensation, lighting, etc. to backup their claims -- sounds like they know what they are talking about. Ont he other hand, the Nokia camps just keeps insisting "Nokia's the winner!"... - what the heck?
FYI, samsung phone is always the BENCHMARK in the mobile world even it's simpliest 3 megapixel cam can compete with all other best phone out there in terms of photos but videos will be another story because samsung is the best not mentioning its design and unique software and user interface that set them apart from other phones and always loved by many.
I am proud of premium samsung.
in here there is not clear winner?, n73 took better pictures! you really are not reading the posts, Ilta posteds lots of links did you check them?
in info sync they don't post pictures
planete nokia pictures did you check the pictures? its not the site its the content,
mobile review, reviewer its a professional and he already stated the n93 takes better pictures, and the n93 its weaker to the n73 its photography at least.
enough? or want more? because i look everywhere on the internet to show you more.
1st- Here no set a winner, only publish the samples to user give an opinion.
2nd- In mobile-review i dont see any comparisson between N73 and K800, i see a comparisson between N93 and K800, but both phones are in beta stage and recently i see a comparisson between these phones here, and K800 win.
3rd- In infosync world they not make any photographic review, i dont see any pics.
4th- In planete nokia is obious the result
5th- In the link posted below i see a photographer opinion about cameras capabilities, he give an professional opinion.
new mobile k800, VS n73 gsmarena, sotv, mobilereview, infosync and planete nokia.... i think the n73 have more sites backing it up as the winner.
I am a photographer working for Yahoo!. I saw the samples and I drew the conclusion that if you want to take attractive pictures (may not be accurate to the real look of the object), I would advise you to try N73
The real winner announced here by actual photographers:
they named k800 cybershot becouse they actuly used a cybershot inspired motherbord
the k800 is abel to take pictures at 1/2sec at iso 80 very well
and it has speed of up to 1/3200(or higher)
i agree with kal....even samsung doesnt used CZ or Cybershot it can still compete with n73 and k800. and samsung phone take nice pics too but i suggest if u want to put samsung into this comparison, better watch p850 it is design for advance camerphone user....end this battle up dude!
Here we go again!
Is this true that D900 was a prototype in this comparison?
Mobile-review.com has just published D900 camera review, and pics look awesome! Also in the D900 camera review is a comparison with N93 and K800, and samsung is generally worse than both two, but sometimes it did the job even better!
PS: Mobile-review.com compared all final samples, and again the N93 is better than the K800, again it produced more vivid pics, brighter colors and more details, noisy though.
So you guys are realizing facts now huh. good.
Whats the point in going for brand names...and spending for so called "Carl zeiss" and "cybershot"..they failed to produce a decent picture in my opinion. Sony is not that dumb that they will launch a great camera phone and loose their digicam market share.So why go pay for Cybershot and Carl Zeiss.
The fact is, we still use cell phone as immergeny camera..incase we forgot to carry the regular one..you know.
I would rather say D900 did a great job with its tiny non-CZ regular lense, that phone shouldnt even be in the comparison though.(should be P850 or Z710 here).It wont be expensive compared to the K800 and N73 either. Do some editing in photoshop and that's it. You got a nice pic and call it a day.
check this out guys....
...to end all arguments.. : )
xcuse me, im not a nokia fan or ane other...im just telling da truth...look at the car tyre pics, cybershot cant takes those dirts on blue color ones clearly, but nokia does...and i have to admit nokia failed in n90 who everybody expect it will becoming a next generation of camraphone because of its CZ!!! and im so dissapointed but i also have to admit that nokia repair it on its n73..and i still have to say nokia didi the best on this competition lol
http://www.sotovik.ru/images/review/Nokia/N73/mp/Nokia_N73_001.jpg this looks quite awesome o.o
the thing its you don't have too, and the overexposed picture excuse doesn't work because the k800 also overexpose pictures and causes purple fringing. in the n93 samples.
It's obvious that there are a lot of amateur photographers in here, such as ones who are easily mesmerized by bright colurs and over saturated photos. I'm not sure if you even realize that the final photos you're looking at all have been poorly post-processed by the camera's software? This has nothing to do how well the optics are, but how they are processed by the software. I think the SE shots leaves a lot more natural detail (which can further be tweaked via photoshop) while the N73 leaves you with nothing else but bad lighting, jaggy edges, and poor color saturation. How about the D900? nuff said.
k take a good picture with your n73 in a club and then we will talk
i like the k800 pics more becouse if i wan't i may get the same rezult as noki by oversatureting averxposing the picture(it's software)