so why not a full phone review?? i think you should focus on the complete package, because i'm not going to buy this phone instead of a camera...
also, there have been a lot of reports about the phone's poor battery life, so make sure you tell us what that's like...right now it sounds to me like they tried to do too much with this little device and it's more a prototype with room for a lot of improvements to make it a really reliable, day to day phone, instead it's a gadget junkies phone.
I don't know, i'm not an expert in cameras...but as i can see there's over sharpening all over the edges...just like with the camera on 6280, 6233...as i said, it just may be my opinion, correct me if i'm wrong
What is annoying is that the article implies heavily that this phone is capable of producing very good photos buy saying that it is a 'Substitute for camera'. It's nowhere near the performance of a real camera.
IMO this article is ridiculous.
if i'm lloking for some articles about some digital camera performances and/or comparisons,
i'll go to www.dpreview.com or www.steves-digicams.com or www.dcresource.com instead.
I think that the picture of n95 is really good but the comparison with digital camera is not write>they should make a comparison with LG kg920.5MP vs 5MP!
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...
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.
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...
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.
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.