SHARP66 | # 861 | 2012-08-30, 13:23 | Report

caveman

canon SX120IS:10x optical zoom with 10 Mp and n900
is a big difference.
you did not shoot-ed in full resolution.
and with the N9 you take-d in slightly different condition.

---

Last edited by SHARP66; 2012-08-30 at 13:26.

caveman | # 862 | 2012-08-30, 18:28 | Report

Sure, you're right. This is by no means a fair comparison.

I believe I did. Maybe it was my mistake. In which pic?

[QUOTE]and with the N9 you take-d in slightly different condition./QUOTE]

The N900 pic was taken at about noon. The sx120 and N9 pics were taken the next morning a few minutes apart, so they are very similar.

Both the N900 and the SX120 are hw from 2009, while the N9 is from 2011.

Overall my impressions are:
* the sx120 gives the expected performance;
* the N900 sometimes gives me more than I hoped for :-)
* the N9 does a fair job if the light is great, but chooses too high ISO otherwise. I expected somewhat more from its camera.

independent | # 863 | 2012-08-30, 20:38 | Report

Thank you for that comparison. The problem I have with the built-in camera application is the amount noise-reduction in the photos with the stock camera (hardware jpeg conversion versus the better software libraries?). Excessive noise reduction appears similar to something like watercolour filter over the entire image. I really can't see it in your stock camera photo

>> EDIT: I see now the second photo is the n9 with stock camera. It is far better than n900 stock camera. Very nice indeed

However, what is noticeable is that both of the n900 photos (I mean n900 and n9 photos ) have less flare. That will happen as a Tessar design (a very old, respected lens design) is a four element 3 group lens and a zoom (on the other camera) will have many more elements--each of which will contribute to flare.

---

Last edited by independent; 2012-08-30 at 20:43. Reason: I mistook the n9 with stock camera for n900 with stock camera

SHARP66 | # 864 | 2012-08-30, 21:14 | Report

[QUOTE]i'm no pictures expert, but in this case i happen to like the n900 colors better. very striking is the difference in 2nd-plane textures between the cameras. /QUOTE]
yes... shore is very striking the difference.
i still prefer the n9 picture...as first plane and 2nd-plane, and even the wild size....everything.
with that digi cam the texture is at same level...eee...as composition maybe is not good.
after me the white is not perfectly white in the flower with n900...as should be in reality.
what is more beautiful, is the light coming from that holes between leaves forming some kind of bubbles.
but the light angle and the hour of the day makes big difference.
anyhow I envy you for cameras and flowers

teddydestodes | # 865 | 2012-08-30, 21:38 | Report

time to share mine

hendzay042182 | # 866 | 2012-08-30, 22:55 | Report

mindanao, philippines

Attached Images

    

Estel | # 867 | 2012-08-31, 08:08 | Report

Nice ones! 1st one would benefit from f Cam-derrivative "HDR Photo" quite a lot, I suppose. OTOH, it's hard to shot it without tripod (as it takes few photos with different settings, and merge them).

/Estel

mr_pingu | # 868 | 2012-08-31, 10:25 | Report

Yeah I know but hadn't installed fcam on my device that time. Not to mention I don't have tripod. Is there even a tripod for N900? The sun was directly in my lens. I have another photo which is better but there you see my finger. Actually I like the effect of the sunrays on this photo. The second photo is taken from the shadows and you see that N900's camera is just amazing for a phone Used haveh nokia 5800 so the N900 was the best upgrade ever, not only camera-wise

laith.m.y | # 869 | 2012-08-31, 13:25 | Report

in my home garden during last spring season





Cherry tree


also Cherry tree


Almond tree


Camera-ui2: Auto-Settings with iso 100

caveman | # 870 | 2012-08-31, 17:00 | Report

I really liked this one!