Yuppers. Been saying that for quite a while to my friends that have Nokia cam phones. To me, only the N82 and the N95 are worth anything. The other Carl Zeiss cams are crappola coupled with even crappier software. If I am outside and need to take a shot, I tend to use the iPhone as I will on average get a better shot.
You mentioned Zeiss. Companies are using lenses from Schneider, Leitz and Zeiss.
Big deal!
These lenses are no better than the lenses used by other manufacturers. A $5 lens budget will get the same lens quality from anywhere.
Those companies make great lenses when there is essentially NO budget on their lenses.
They decided to get into the contract lens market because that's the only way for lens manufacturers to make money these days.
Their lenses for compact cameras are no better than the Canon, Nikon, and other lenses used.
I'm sure you can figure it out. The real question is how do we get you to stay on topic.
DO YOU EVER ASK YOURSELF THE EXACT SAME QUESTION?
I was merely responding to a post regarding email. You on the other hand don't even respond- you BARK.
And FYI- 2 cool posters on here actually gave me the answer which is what this place is all about- discussing relevant topics and helping each other out.
I also had a cellphone at the time iPhone came out, that used the same quality/type of sensor and cost 400 bucks new that couldn't take a picture even half as good. The images were smaller, the compression was out of this world, and the blurry-ness and pixelation were obvious and highly noticeable. I'm sure you could point to some obscure Nokia phone available in Europe that took better pictures, but that's not the point. The point is what the average or typical camera phone pic looked like before the iPhone came along, and it wasn't pretty.
.
I saw an article a year or so back comparing photos taken by a high-end Carl-Zeiss lensed Nokia with the iPhone. The authors were clearly *trying* to show how rubbish the iPhone camera was but, in spite of their best efforts, some of the iPhone pictures actually looked better than the Nokia's in some aspects. I now have a Nokia 7210 with a 2 mp camera that produces two million pixels per snap of washed out blue haze (the Nokia was a gift.. no iPhones in Fiji The now famous picture of the end-of-the-rainbow taken from a moving car and that the one of the airliner ditched in the Hudson show that the iPhone camera can do what a camera phone is supposed to do and do it rather well.
That said, the new picture comparisons look more than anything like the 2.2 had a nasty fingerprint on the lens (by far the most common cause of blurry pictures from compact cameras and camera phones). Looking forward to some more precise comparisons. iPhone has a lot of processing power compared to real cameras - and Apple has employed imaging engineers (remember the ads) - so it might be that Apple has made major advances in producing silk purses from sows' ears.
Their isn't much Zeiss can do to make those tiny lens much better.
What this is called is cross brand marketing. Nokia pays Zeiss to put the name Zeiss on their phones, so that people who don't understand how optics work think they are getting a superior camera.
In reality you are getting a mediocre camera with the name Zeiss next to it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by teckstud
Sorry but I have to disagree. A precision German lens is much more preferable to a generic mayonnaise Chinese lens.
Their isn't much Zeiss can do to make those tiny lens much better.
What this is called is cross brand marketing. Nokia pays Zeiss to put the name Zeiss on their phones, so that people who don't understand how optics work think they are getting a superior camera.
In reality you are getting a mediocre camera with the name Zeiss next to it.
Kind of like what AT&T does with Apple?
Seriously and the alternative is a brand name camera/phone with a lousy lens?
I'd opt for the great camera and Zeiss lens. The point is - you have to read reviews, ask questions on all this stuff.
Sorry but I have to disagree. A precision German lens is much more preferable to a generic mayonnaise Chinese lens.
These ARE generic mayonnaise Chinese lenses.
Where do you think they are made?
Every company these days has access to the same lens software. They can all design lenses to whatever specs they need. But phone cameras are crap, and so are the lenses.
A five dollar Leitz or Zeiss lens is still a five dollar lens.
Leitz and Zeiss don't even make all of their multi thousand dollar lenses anymore. They haven't for almost two decades. Chinon makes lenses for Leitz, for example. Panasonic makes lenses for Zeiss.
ok...so here is the scoop, the difference you see is based on movement, what apple has done is used the accelerometer as an image stabiliser somehow. ie taking the photo when no motion is detected.....so my bet would be this plus a software treak on iso in low light.
but it is mostly movement that is flooring everyone. basic photography, slow shutter equals blurry photos, low light equals slow shutter so by tweaking the iso in lower light they are allowing a faster shutter speed.
ok...so here is the scoop, the difference you see is based on movement, what apple has done is used the accelerometer as an image stabiliser somehow. ie taking the photo when no motion is detected.....so my bet would be this plus a software treak on iso in low light.
but it is mostly movement that is flooring everyone. basic photography, slow shutter equals blurry photos, low light equals slow shutter so by tweaking the iso in lower light they are allowing a faster shutter speed.
Bullseye! A true photographer knows his ISO. Hence the better definition because of the stabilization. thank you, thank you.
Leitz and Zeiss don't even make all of their multi thousand dollar lenses anymore. They haven't for almost two decades. Chinon makes lenses for Leitz, for example. Panasonic makes lenses for Zeiss.
Hi Mel,
Either you or I am having a blonde moment here... as a I believe that should be Leica, not Leitz.
Cheers
PS the best lens I've used is the Minolta on my Sony DSLR. Razors ain't in it!
PPS mystery solved: Leitz is the name of the enlarger and projector lenses that Leica makes (see WikiP).
What is sad about the two year time frame? Software can usually always be improved. That is why it is upgraded. Companies can't sit around until software is perfect or products would never ship. Apple does a lot in it's iPhone upgrades.
Quote:
Originally Posted by teckstud
While it's interesting that they "look better" now, it also rather sad that 2 years later with the same camera only now produces better results. Video could have also been captured with the same camera- no doubt. In other words it's not the camera but the software that was lacking- as I've always stated but was struck down by the fanboyz.
You mentioned Zeiss. Companies are using lenses from Schneider, Leitz and Zeiss.
Big deal!
These lenses are no better than the lenses used by other manufacturers. A $5 lens budget will get the same lens quality from anywhere.
Those companies make great lenses when there is essentially NO budget on their lenses.
They decided to get into the contract lens market because that's the only way for lens manufacturers to make money these days.
Their lenses for compact cameras are no better than the Canon, Nikon, and other lenses used.
Uhhh..... Melgross, are we arguing here? Maybe I did not phrase my response in the right way but I tend to agree with what you have said. I did not fall for the Carl Zeiss hype as I know that no matter what you do, it comes down to sensor, lens, and finally software. This is why I feel (my opinion) that anyone who uses a cameraphone as their main photographic system is pretty much stupid. When I want to shoot images and have them processed, I whip out the Nikon D300 and start snapping away. I use the cams in my phones only when I am about in town, and see something interesting. I never rely on either phone as my main source for taking photos.
Uhhh..... Melgross, are we arguing here? Maybe I did not phrase my response in the right way but I tend to agree with what you have said. I did not fall for the Carl Zeiss hype as I know that no matter what you do, it comes down to sensor, lens, and finally software. This is why I feel (my opinion) that anyone who uses a cameraphone as their main photographic system is pretty much stupid. When I want to shoot images and have them processed, I whip out the Nikon D300 and start snapping away. I use the cams in my phones only when I am about in town, and see something interesting. I never rely on either phone as my main source for taking photos.
I seem to have worded that poorly. I wasn't arguing with you. It's just that when someone mentions a brand name in a way that seems to predispose a quality level to it, there is that assumption that the person is valuing it.
My statement was more generally aimed, but it did result from your post.
I seem to have worded that poorly. I wasn't arguing with you. It's just that when someone mentions a brand name in a way that seems to predispose a quality level to it, there is that assumption that the person is valuing it.
My statement was more generally aimed, but it did result from your post.
No worries dude. I figured as much. I am really anxious to see how things shake out with the N97 when it comes out.
Comments
Yuppers. Been saying that for quite a while to my friends that have Nokia cam phones. To me, only the N82 and the N95 are worth anything. The other Carl Zeiss cams are crappola coupled with even crappier software. If I am outside and need to take a shot, I tend to use the iPhone as I will on average get a better shot.
You mentioned Zeiss. Companies are using lenses from Schneider, Leitz and Zeiss.
Big deal!
These lenses are no better than the lenses used by other manufacturers. A $5 lens budget will get the same lens quality from anywhere.
Those companies make great lenses when there is essentially NO budget on their lenses.
They decided to get into the contract lens market because that's the only way for lens manufacturers to make money these days.
Their lenses for compact cameras are no better than the Canon, Nikon, and other lenses used.
How do you turn off the obnoxious byline in emails "sent from my iPhone/iPod"?
I'm sure you can figure it out. The real question is how do we get you to stay on topic.
DO YOU EVER ASK YOURSELF THE EXACT SAME QUESTION?
I was merely responding to a post regarding email. You on the other hand don't even respond- you BARK.
And FYI- 2 cool posters on here actually gave me the answer which is what this place is all about- discussing relevant topics and helping each other out.
You mentioned Zeiss. Companies are using lenses from Schneider, Leitz and Zeiss.
Big deal!
These lenses are no better than the lenses used by other manufacturers. A $5 lens budget will get the same lens quality from anywhere.
Those companies make great lenses when there is essentially NO budget on their lenses.
They decided to get into the contract lens market because that's the only way for lens manufacturers to make money these days.
Their lenses for compact cameras are no better than the Canon, Nikon, and other lenses used.
Sorry but I have to disagree. A precision German lens is much more preferable to a generic mayonnaise Chinese lens.
I also had a cellphone at the time iPhone came out, that used the same quality/type of sensor and cost 400 bucks new that couldn't take a picture even half as good. The images were smaller, the compression was out of this world, and the blurry-ness and pixelation were obvious and highly noticeable. I'm sure you could point to some obscure Nokia phone available in Europe that took better pictures, but that's not the point. The point is what the average or typical camera phone pic looked like before the iPhone came along, and it wasn't pretty.
.
I saw an article a year or so back comparing photos taken by a high-end Carl-Zeiss lensed Nokia with the iPhone. The authors were clearly *trying* to show how rubbish the iPhone camera was but, in spite of their best efforts, some of the iPhone pictures actually looked better than the Nokia's in some aspects. I now have a Nokia 7210 with a 2 mp camera that produces two million pixels per snap of washed out blue haze (the Nokia was a gift.. no iPhones in Fiji
That said, the new picture comparisons look more than anything like the 2.2 had a nasty fingerprint on the lens (by far the most common cause of blurry pictures from compact cameras and camera phones). Looking forward to some more precise comparisons. iPhone has a lot of processing power compared to real cameras - and Apple has employed imaging engineers (remember the ads) - so it might be that Apple has made major advances in producing silk purses from sows' ears.
What this is called is cross brand marketing. Nokia pays Zeiss to put the name Zeiss on their phones, so that people who don't understand how optics work think they are getting a superior camera.
In reality you are getting a mediocre camera with the name Zeiss next to it.
Sorry but I have to disagree. A precision German lens is much more preferable to a generic mayonnaise Chinese lens.
Their isn't much Zeiss can do to make those tiny lens much better.
What this is called is cross brand marketing. Nokia pays Zeiss to put the name Zeiss on their phones, so that people who don't understand how optics work think they are getting a superior camera.
In reality you are getting a mediocre camera with the name Zeiss next to it.
Kind of like what AT&T does with Apple?
Seriously and the alternative is a brand name camera/phone with a lousy lens?
I'd opt for the great camera and Zeiss lens. The point is - you have to read reviews, ask questions on all this stuff.
Sorry but I have to disagree. A precision German lens is much more preferable to a generic mayonnaise Chinese lens.
These ARE generic mayonnaise Chinese lenses.
Where do you think they are made?
Every company these days has access to the same lens software. They can all design lenses to whatever specs they need. But phone cameras are crap, and so are the lenses.
A five dollar Leitz or Zeiss lens is still a five dollar lens.
Leitz and Zeiss don't even make all of their multi thousand dollar lenses anymore. They haven't for almost two decades. Chinon makes lenses for Leitz, for example. Panasonic makes lenses for Zeiss.
Their cheap lenses are made in Taiwan or China.
http://www.ipod.info.pl/index.php/le...niz-iphone-2x/
User from Poland have other results.
but it is mostly movement that is flooring everyone. basic photography, slow shutter equals blurry photos, low light equals slow shutter so by tweaking the iso in lower light they are allowing a faster shutter speed.
ok...so here is the scoop, the difference you see is based on movement, what apple has done is used the accelerometer as an image stabiliser somehow. ie taking the photo when no motion is detected.....so my bet would be this plus a software treak on iso in low light.
but it is mostly movement that is flooring everyone. basic photography, slow shutter equals blurry photos, low light equals slow shutter so by tweaking the iso in lower light they are allowing a faster shutter speed.
Bullseye! A true photographer knows his ISO. Hence the better definition because of the stabilization. thank you, thank you.
Leitz and Zeiss don't even make all of their multi thousand dollar lenses anymore. They haven't for almost two decades. Chinon makes lenses for Leitz, for example. Panasonic makes lenses for Zeiss.
Hi Mel,
Either you or I am having a blonde moment here... as a I believe that should be Leica, not Leitz.
Cheers
PS the best lens I've used is the Minolta on my Sony DSLR. Razors ain't in it!
PPS mystery solved: Leitz is the name of the enlarger and projector lenses that Leica makes (see WikiP).
While it's interesting that they "look better" now, it also rather sad that 2 years later with the same camera only now produces better results. Video could have also been captured with the same camera- no doubt. In other words it's not the camera but the software that was lacking- as I've always stated but was struck down by the fanboyz.
Hi Mel,
Either you or I am having a blonde moment here... as a I believe that should be Leica, not Leitz.
Cheers
PS the best lens I've used is the Minolta on my Sony DSLR. Razors ain't in it!
PPS mystery solved: Leitz is the name of the enlarger and projector lenses that Leica makes (see WikiP).
Leitz. Leica is a brand name that Leitz owns. Those are the Leica cameras. Most everything else they do is branded Leitz.
Their lenses are Leitz lenses, not Leica lenses.
You mentioned Zeiss. Companies are using lenses from Schneider, Leitz and Zeiss.
Big deal!
These lenses are no better than the lenses used by other manufacturers. A $5 lens budget will get the same lens quality from anywhere.
Those companies make great lenses when there is essentially NO budget on their lenses.
They decided to get into the contract lens market because that's the only way for lens manufacturers to make money these days.
Their lenses for compact cameras are no better than the Canon, Nikon, and other lenses used.
Uhhh..... Melgross, are we arguing here? Maybe I did not phrase my response in the right way but I tend to agree with what you have said. I did not fall for the Carl Zeiss hype as I know that no matter what you do, it comes down to sensor, lens, and finally software. This is why I feel (my opinion) that anyone who uses a cameraphone as their main photographic system is pretty much stupid. When I want to shoot images and have them processed, I whip out the Nikon D300 and start snapping away. I use the cams in my phones only when I am about in town, and see something interesting. I never rely on either phone as my main source for taking photos.
Uhhh..... Melgross, are we arguing here? Maybe I did not phrase my response in the right way but I tend to agree with what you have said. I did not fall for the Carl Zeiss hype as I know that no matter what you do, it comes down to sensor, lens, and finally software. This is why I feel (my opinion) that anyone who uses a cameraphone as their main photographic system is pretty much stupid. When I want to shoot images and have them processed, I whip out the Nikon D300 and start snapping away. I use the cams in my phones only when I am about in town, and see something interesting. I never rely on either phone as my main source for taking photos.
I seem to have worded that poorly. I wasn't arguing with you. It's just that when someone mentions a brand name in a way that seems to predispose a quality level to it, there is that assumption that the person is valuing it.
My statement was more generally aimed, but it did result from your post.
I seem to have worded that poorly. I wasn't arguing with you. It's just that when someone mentions a brand name in a way that seems to predispose a quality level to it, there is that assumption that the person is valuing it.
My statement was more generally aimed, but it did result from your post.
No worries dude. I figured as much. I am really anxious to see how things shake out with the N97 when it comes out.