I think that camera phones will never catch up with digital cameras, because in this case, the latter will be unnecessary! : cry: as a last resort, they will push them out!

Well, I don `t know, the Loox`a camera is of course, frankly a little weak, but here you are for comparison.



Post has been editedslimest - 09.04.07, 22:43

lexus74r

For comparison, what with what? If, in comparison with the picture uh-uh, well, Shishkin, for example, then crap ... not-e, not at Shishkin, but in the photo: D. If with a soapbox digital for 2 rubles with the same dead optics and a matrix, then IMHO soap dish is better. About units with normal glass optics and film cameras, and nothing to say at all. So, wherever you throw ... and this is not Rio de Janeiro, it is much worse.

Yes, just for comparison: D

Schaub people knew what, the maximum you can achieve, with the default settings (without jumping with a tambourine) and in good light (almost perfect, natural);)


Those. This, I’m not obedient to this word, is the PERFECT unedited picture obtained with the help of Loox 720, who can do better - let them throw theirs at me: yahoo:

Post has been editedlexus74r - 27.04.06, 11:32

I can try from my ASUS'a, one field of berries;). Just lazily right now, then somehow.

Well, here's another example ... From digital soap dish does not differ in quality ...

I propose to create an "important" topic:

Photos FROM YOUR devices (or Photos taken with the help of YOUR devices)

Where to place the BEST NON-EDITED Photos showing the device and settings: rtfm:

yes well 4,700 too great.

And about the camera - In my Lux full g ...
For 4 months I made 10 photos) In the dark even Nokia 3660 is better)

But my ex Rx3715 had a very good camera: blink:

Oh, not at all different? If you look only with closed eyes: D This is a full atstoy - terrible noises and color rendition. I'm not talking about the miserable semblance of focus.

Yes, the noises of the suites beat all records.

Zhuuuut. I'm scared. My A80 doesn't even go down in such a way in the dark ...: blink :: swoon:

Naturally, if my A60 was shot, I would break it on the second day after the purchase. Well, I say, the comparison is simply incorrect and offensive for devices with normal glass optics and a matrix size with a battery of the PDA (figuratively speaking, of course, and then straight shouts will begin: D). It is so comparison for comparison (Hmm, Calamburchurch-C :)). In general, all this conversation does not make sense, it has long been known - the word "quality" for the characteristics of mobile devices is not applicable. Who thinks that this is not the case, he just never saw how to remove normal cameras and believes the so-called. Cameras of all there are new-fashioned mobile in the riding perfection. Well, they are happy in their ignorance and well. Let it be so :)

rn9fal ,

Riding excellence - no, we do not. But they really take off quite __, with some reservations comparable to film soap dishes, which not so long ago took off 90% of photographers. :)

The problem is that the quality of the cameras does not correspond to the real purpose of the camera - PHOTOGRAPHY with such a quality that at least something can be disassembled. Of course, everyone has his own acceptable level of quality - someone is “jabbering” from the pictures of a digital camera, and someone has a little SLR and a pile of glass for 5 bucks. Since cameras are being built into the PDA, then at least they took the film soap box as the image quality standard for 200 rubles. But alas ...

Dimasic , I certainly respect you, but ... excuse me, only this standard is unattainable, alas, not only on such useful cameras as mobiles, but also on many times more good digital soap boxes worth hundreds of green rubles

rn9fal ,
It is not true that many digital cameras are much more decent than film soap dishes. For the price, of course, they differ tenfold, but the quality of the pictures is better, and the convenience of use. With something decently, like the same old Soviet FED or Zenith, even prosume cannot be compared, but nevertheless.

I would have shot a camera in our device with you, at least as on the SE750, we would say: “Yes, there is a camera. The quality, of course, [i] is not very], but it’s not a shame if you get drunk there or something interesting. But for normal shots, I have this and that. " Personally, except as an experiment, did you shoot something with a built-in camera? I have not been here. ;)

This ... I'm not a fan of integrated cameras! : rtfm:
I have been using digital cameras for several years now (now Minolta Xt). Just my sonerik shoots BETTER than a Genius camera for example. Verified

Do programs for working with the camera, for example, take pictures or write when someone passes by and where to find them?

Mobilography - (from Latin mobilis - “mobile”, and Greek. Γραφη - “to write”) is a type of photographic art that uses electronic devices with a built-in digital camera as a tool not originally intended for professional photography, such as mobile phones, pocket personal computers, compasses, binoculars, lighters and the like.

A distinctive feature of the genre is the capturing of difficult-to-reproduce situations and the “digital style” due to the low resolution of the camera.



Post has been editedgabby - 07.12.17, 16:52

11 views and no one answer. What all have nothing to show ??? Or is it not interesting to anyone except me ???

Erlond ,
in order for someone to act according to your plan - start this plan;)
Start laying out your creations ... simple words won't do much good.