There's something we all miss in here, some may say Nokia is better in outdoors cause its pictures are more colorful, SE picturesare warmer, or Samsung pictures are more soft, but there should be a comment under each set of pictures telling the light & colors conditions in order for us to tell which camera is more successful in rendering colors at its accurate degree, Nokia may be a bit brighter but who knows, maybe the actual condition (light & colors) is exactly as it is in SE or Samsung pictures !
whatever u guys say i just know one thing, k800 shows reality
1. SE 60% 2.Samsung 35% 3.Nokia 5%.... This is the real.... Nokia is the winner at video recorder but SE have most beatiful photos....
Photo quality, I'm sad to say the nokia wins imho, but given the choice I'd go for the K800 without a 2nd thought.
The image quality on the D900 sucked balls in every photo there, wouldn't touch that with a barge pole.
Nice comparison images guys, good to see the differences at full res :)
I have sold both extensively and bought one of them. Software rigitity in the phone far outweighs any photo quality issues. If u want seamless software integration and ease of use - go the K800 - this being from a VERY reluctant Sony advocate.
k800 bad graphics ?!?!?! hahahahahahahahahahahaahah
jezz at lest read first and then wright
it hase verry good graphics and a excelent video playback(beter then the m600 or i belive that any nokia)
nokia fan boys can't accept the fact that SE is better in camera (not talking abt design, otherwise that brick will lose again).
N73 got great graphics than other two og them. D900 got bad graphics and K800 too.N73 got cool shape.
It would be better if GSMarena comment results, it would be easy and fans (aspecially SE and Samsung fans) would not screaming that their phones are best when actually they Loose.
And note we're not talking about design and features here, we're talking about cameras.
So samsung is the biggest looser on which pics you can't look without weeping, SE is good, but daylight photos are blurry and less colorful, thought the best at night, and nokia is best in light conditions by far with its vivid bright detailed pictures.
This is how GSMarena conclusion would look like.
It all depends on what you want:
Nokia N73 for user friendliness, nice, simple design, and pretty decent pictures.
Samsung D900 for phone design, camera quality, and usability
Sony Ericsson K800i for best camera and music feature.
Personally, I think that Samsung did a fantastic job with the D900, fantastic quality pictures for the size of the phone, while SE has the best camera easily, even in darkness it killed the competition (loved the quality of the flash) while the N73 had fantastic picture quality with simple, easy to use phone design.
I'd say: if you're into fantastic cameras on phones, definately go the K800i. If you're looking for great picture quality AND a good phone, get the D900. If you're looking for great pictures and simple phone, N73 it is.
After looking at the pictures using Adobe Photoshop, here's my standing:
try to look at it using photoshop, and you'll know the difference
...and to tell you the truth GSMarena left us to decide who is best to generate more traffic and revenue. and we all are fighing here. There are people posting again and agian to be heard. But who is listening.
If you are a Nokia fan you would like N73 for its functionality and features, If you are a SE fan you will like it for its music capability and if you are a Samsung fan you will buy it for its design.
Its useless debate. peace!
Yes I did say that you can process the D900 or K800 pictures in photoshop and adjust the colors to get a nice image. I said that coz I'm a graphics designer by profession. I do it for a living. I'm not bashing any brand, neither I'm a blind fan of SE or Samsung.
I preety much agree with "TomMm " and "captchaos" here. their post makes sense. The person who is saying you can post process N73 pics as well doesnt know that when you loose the details you can't get it back. its irreversible. D900 lacks color depth and contrats (K800 a little bit in some pics) which you can always add. But you cant do anything with a image that is already processed.
I can always adjust D900 pics to look good. but sorry, to get the right color and details of what N73 did with the purple flower image or with the green trees...ohh!.its useless to explain and waste time. Some blind nokia fans won't get it. No complains, basically you guys dont do any color correction ot adjustment to any image before you print it....you just print it as it is. So you guys should be happy with the N73.
K800 pics are fair enough. I would rather say D900 did a nice job with it's tiny non-carl zeiss cam. That phone shoud'nt even be in the compariosn.
take a look on this !
I see a lot of people here liking the Nokia. I can see why, but I disagree:
The Nokia does look attractive at first because of the saturated and warm colors and high contrasts, but if we take a further look at the detail in the pictures the first thing we see is that the Nokia has a very agressive noise-cancelling algorhytm. This is especially apparent when you look at plants and trees. The combination of the noice-cancelation the high contrasts and the saturated colors give the photos from the Nokia a very 'painting'-like apearance. Appealing to a lot of users, but something that defines a bad camera rather than a good one.
Compared to that the Samsung looks very noisy. It also seems to lack contrast and color saturation. I guess the quality of the lens is indeed inferior to the Nokia, but because the images of the Samsung are not as processed as the Nokia's the result is often better. Especially the trees and plants show the difference. So surprisingly(at least to me), I would pick this camera over the Nokia.
In the end we have the Sony-Ericsson. This one has both strong and weak points. To me the lens seems to be the best of the three camera's. The dynamic range too is better than on the other cameras. But here again we see a sort of processing which does two things. It blurs low contrasts and strongly enhances strong contrasts. Because of that at the same time we see details that get lost or accented in the process. In the end you see that some interesting details get blurred, which you would even find back on the Nokia. Alltogether still this would be the camera of my choice, because I like the result from the better lens over the other two. Still there is no denying that none of these camera's can compare to a normal 2 megapixel digital camera.
if you just click the pictures and look closer you will notice that :
1) nokia pictures are bright, but are overprocessed, smudged details, you cant even read the letters in the printed page.
2) the samsung photos have all the details preserved and the pictures are natural and with less purple fringing. you can actually read the letters! but for some maybe the colors do not pop.
3) the sony pictures have some processing, smudging some detail. its a middle stand between over artificial nokia look and natural dull looking pics of samsung.
personally i like the samsung because its the real photo. others may like the sony because it appeals to the consumer. nokia pics are for the novice who like clown pictures !!!!
To those who say "Nokia photos do look better, but the winner is K800 because it is SE and uses famous Sony brand" - Isn't it a stupidity?
The comparison showed us that cybershot is nothing but a label only, the k800 results are average.
d900 is the worst by far and only samsung fans can't admit this...
the guy saying that you can edit d900 pictures don't know that you can use photoshop qith n73 pictures too.. but because n73 pictures are so nice why should we waste the time in it?
I'd say that the real competition is between Nokia N93 and Sony Ericsson K800. Samsung D900 is weaker if compared to the other two phones.
In the first colune of pictures we can see that Nokia shows more vivid colors with warmer tones in a sharper, while SE shows colder color tones and a picture more smooth than N73's. This is an advantage to N73. The problem is that shaper pictures when seen in full resolution may look more noise and crop. On col 2, the SE focus makes a small mistake and the picture may look a little too smooth. Both phones show purple frining in the car's front grill, but it can be seen strongly on N93 due to the bigger sharpness. The third picture is good in both cases, but Nokia again show more vivid colors. In this case SE gives a photo with a "dead" look. Macro works fine in both cases. Photo number 4 gives a clear advantage to SE. Colors are more real, while in Nokia they are too red-like and SE delivers more details and if you look at the tree, Nokia will show a more artificial tree. Picture 5 is good in both cases, the only difference is that it is a little dark in k800 then in N73, but nothing that you make a big difference. The sixth picture show that the brighter pictures of N73 can make a big difference and SE seemed a little blured. At pictures 7 and 8 you can see almost the same thing you've seen on pictures 1 and 6. Nokia's color are better, more vivid and more detailed. Pictures in other hand gives a point to SE the same way picture 4 did. Better focus, colors are not so forced and picture is more pleasant to look at.
In this first part of the review (OUTDOORS) we can say that both phones will deliver good quality picture under the sun light or cloudy weather. While Nokia is more ballanced and can shoot well in many different situations, it shows a big problems when there's a tree on the scene. In this case SE is way better. If you're gonna take pictures of tree or with them in the background go with SE, but if you're not the "green type" Nokia will fit you better.
This is the first part of the review. Soon I will post the rest. If you liked, please contact me through my e-mail (firstname.lastname@example.org). Thanks.