this phone is disappointing tbh.
rubbish camera, No 3G and that. Its just like every other phone.
however it is quite good looking.
image processing speed is not a matter for everyone. So forget abut this thing and accept that u600 is a good phone.
YOU CANNOT ARGUE AT ALL, the actual image processing if far slower than n73 and most other low end fones on the market. i wasnt comparing the 5300 withthe u600... i was comparing the image capture speed an processing times NOT THE FONES.. the 5300 has a quicker image processing speed than the u600... GET OVER IT
i cant believe you are defending the camera on this phone!! GSMARNEA SAID THEMSELVES that the same modul for d900 had been used only made smaller so a lower specification than the previous d900... I had an SE k810i before the u600. the camera does take 7 seconds average,
GET OVER IT... ghave you tried to take a picture of somone running, or a car moving, or motorbikes if your a biker like me... It cannot cope, the blur is so bad i cant make out what im looking at. If your buying a phone for looks. this is it.. if you want a quality camera, this is not it... It has a lower spec image processor than a d900 released two years ago
NEVER COMPARE THIS TO THE N73, the colour might be slightly off.. but the image capture speed is far far wuicker than the u600
I like the look. Silver, slick, sexy,it look CEO style and just right for a professional grl like me.
What mobile u used before? I dont think so u600 takes 7 sec to capture a picture. It takes hardly 3 to 4 sec to take a picture. Compare it with Nokia slim without auto focus takes the same time wat U600 takes. Then again accessing memory card U600 takes the same time or little bit lesser wat Nokia 6270 takes.
Dont ever compare it with 5300. It doestn't have auto focus,features which owned by U600.Its flop model thats why the price of it came down by 40% with 6 months of its release.
Camera quality is better than N73 in day light.To prove this to u just try what i say below.
1. Take the same picture at a time by both U600 and N73.
2. U can find both takes same time to take picture ( 3 to 4 sec) .
3. After taking picture u can easily see U600 photo captures the same light and quality wat we see in our eyes and N73 will give bluish picture after taking.
just see the voting result meny people voted for U600 than N73. I recommend people for this mobile.
If u really dont want this then buy a brick like mobile wat Nokia and SE has or slim useless mobile wat Nokia and SE has. I never considered Motorola here bcoz its good for nothing.Haaaaaahaaaaaaaa
haha! ive just read the whole "rafsan v brendan" thing and to be fair, your BOTH taking up alot of space on this website arguing but also...Brendan is right. The camera is crap..i had this phone and it is by far the best phone ive ever had (probably because it was the 5th phone i ever had!!) but the camera takes about 6 seconds to take! its alot of money but it has alot of good things on it. Mine got nicked =[ but this phone is definatly not worth £150. sometimes slow too.
According to gsmarena :The quality of the photos is below average. It seems that Nokia is using some kind of noise suppressing algorithm, which indeed reduces the noise significantly even in low light, but gives all the pictures quite smudged look. Moreover, in an effort to make the photos look more appealing, Nokia engineers have boosted the saturation levels and the colors look rather unnatural instead.
Do you consider yourself smarter than gsmarena. 5300 is almost double than u600. 5300 really looks cheap. a toy for children.
You are camparing it with 5300. Oh man....
HaHAHaaaaa you are really out of your mind.5300 was a flop for nokia.
I am not here to fight with you man. I an just saying I find the camera better than n73. I ahve recently compared it with my frnds n73.
We have different opinions.
if you had read the GSMARENA U600 review you would have read this
"The camera module of D900 obviously has proved to be too bulky to fit in the U600. So instead, a smaller module with supposedly a bit downgraded specifications is integrated. We didn't manage to check that thoroughly, as our unit had some problem that didn't allow it to properly focus on subjects further than a meter. Therefore no usable pictures at a distance greater than that could be produced with it. It is surely a unit-specific problem, and extremely improbable that you will have a similar problem. We'd rather blame it on our bad luck."
Therefore, gsm werent able to post anything on the true performance or quality of the camera... Shows how much attention you were paying RAFSAN, you were too quick to defend this phone and you had nothing to defend it with.... i have this phone 5 months, so i know what im talking about rafsan..you dont seem to have a clue..
and yes i said at the start it wasnt a bad phone, then told you threason why it was never be anything more than "not a bad fone"
in all honesty, your paying for the looks and not performance...
you my friend...are nuts!! you think the camera is good???? HAHAHAHAHAHAHA it;s terrible, i have the fone for almost 5 months
7 seconds to take a picture, if the subject moves at all, it casues severely blurry images.. i have taken better shots with a nokia 5300 1.3mpx. this is not something someone is just making up.. this is user experiance. its a decent phone..but thats it....DECENT and no more
Actually what you are trying to say. At first you said this is not a bad phone.
After that you said everything bad about this phone.
Whats wrong with you man ??
The buttons are touch sen. and who said it hangs a lot. In my case it only hangs once and im using it more than a month.
Dont listen to them. They even didnt use it.
They just love to say bad things. This mobile is damn good and worth every single $
The camera is not bad at all. If it is that much bad gsmarena would say it in their review. I find the camera better than n73. But it is true it is a bit slow. Except that every thing is cool. By the way this phone is damn sexy.
u600 and samsung rules