The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to HLing For This Useful Post: | ||
|
2012-11-16
, 18:58
|
|
Posts: 491 |
Thanked: 299 times |
Joined on Jul 2012
@ Pordenone IT
|
#2
|
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to lorenzo For This Useful Post: | ||
|
2012-11-16
, 19:26
|
Posts: 10 |
Thanked: 15 times |
Joined on Nov 2012
|
#4
|
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to HLing For This Useful Post: | ||
|
2012-11-16
, 20:23
|
Posts: 55 |
Thanked: 138 times |
Joined on Jul 2011
@ Bulgaria
|
#5
|
I'm curious to find out if it's a change in Nokia's production, or if one of the unit is a fake....Thanks for your input in advance!
|
2012-11-16
, 21:25
|
|
Posts: 1,625 |
Thanked: 998 times |
Joined on Aug 2010
|
#7
|
|
2012-11-16
, 21:44
|
|
Posts: 356 |
Thanked: 217 times |
Joined on Aug 2010
@ Netherlands
|
#8
|
|
2012-11-16
, 22:02
|
|
Posts: 198 |
Thanked: 150 times |
Joined on May 2012
|
#9
|
I have acquired a 16G N9 first (Nokia RM-696 board, Revision 1603), and was learning its ways. I liked it and wanted to get a 64 G (Nokia RM696 board, Revision 1601) one for myself. Aside from other difference in what came with the device, a noticeable difference is in the physical camera lens itself. I'm posting the picture in hopes of finding some answers here. I'm curious to find out if it's a change in Nokia's production, or if one of the unit is a fake....Thanks for your input in advance!
Last edited by HLing; 2012-11-18 at 22:50. Reason: Added Hardware and Revision info