Well, if I ever had any doubts about the megapixel count and sensitivity of the the N900 sensor, it pretty much gone. If it's good for astrophotography, it's good for anything

http://talk.maemo.org/showthread.php?p=394424

The camera is great, but the flash stinks. I have become so annoyed at the terrible things the flash does, I leave it disabled. And if I need to enable it, I ask myself, "Can I live without this picture?" Only if the answer is no do I turn on the flash and take an awful picture of the subject.

Hard to contradict that one Had to teach myself to keep fingers far enough... Also, have you tried to take photos with the backplate OFF (no haze, uneven lighting, etc) ? It's amazing how much that helps (not that it's a practical solution

Or how about because Maemo is a relatively new operating system and it costs money to do these things? Yes, it takes time to take Symbian features and migrate them to Maemo. No, Nokia cannot do everything before it releases Maemo 5 (some things have to wait for Maemo 6 -- just like some things have to wait for the next release of OSX or Windows). That does not have to imply that Maemo 5 was rushed out the door.

The more I read here, the more I see evidence of unrealistic expectations. Oh well, many of the "old timers" saw this coming.

I've been reading the Droid forums today. Without a contract, the Motorola Droid is $600. It has a list of problems/bugs that apparently has many people lining up to return it before their 30 day Verizon return window closes (judging from my reading of the forums). Reading over there is exactly like reading this forum. Some people are complaining. Some people have hardware that doesnt' work. (And some people are loving their devices, just like here.)

So it appears that the current state of the art in technology is that new "smart phones" cost around $600 and they are far from perfect. If Google/Motorola/Verizon can't make a $600 phone with a camera that is good, then we must recognize that some of this isn't trivial. Apparently, these companies are pushing the envelope.

At least the N900 camera is a heck of a lot better than the one on the Droid (even after the recent fixes the Droid required).

I realize (now) that this is the 3rd time in a row I quoted you. It is just a coincidence. I'm just reading in a bit of a random way and I keep seeing your posts

I saw you say that you were a long time Linux user. But I have to assume that you have never been a developer. Adding features adds tremendous complexity. The rule of (good) software development is to keep it simple and to not try to put everything into version 1. Release early (and release often) is a good rule. It is actually smart to release new software with fewer features. (When teams do not do this, they almost always release crap or -- quite often -- never release a working product at all.)

Seems clear to me:
the N900 is the successor to N810, N800, etc. (3 digit names go with Maemo).
The recent N-series phones seem to have 2 digit names, but since I have never owned a Nokia phone, I may be wrong. Anyway, the name implies lineage with the NITs and I think that is proper.

@MountainX

I think I've already gone in this circle with several other people. I think the camera app on the N900 is incomplete to an extent that it feels rushed out the door on. You an others think this is too much to expect from a new platform.

It's obviously a subjective judgement. The camera app is incomplete on the N900, compared to other recent N series phones. That's a fact. In fact, from reviews I'm reading now that the phone is out, the camera app is more sparse than I had thought. So no amount of excuses will make features be there that aren't there. The question is just whether or not you think the incompleteness is acceptable. You and others do. I don't.

I understand that the N900 is a new device, as well as the Maemo 5 platform being new in many ways. And I understand the complexities of development. But I think Nokia is releasing the N900 as a consumer device and it will inevitably be compared to other devices that already exist, including preceding devices from Nokia. In the consumer marketplace this is an entirely fair comparison to make and that's a real problem for Nokia if it wants to sell the device and create a market for Maemo.

Not every device that is released has the same number of bugs and missing features. Some are done much better than others, upon release. So the fact that the Droid has a lot of bugs to me does not excuse the state of the N900 camera. People expect a certain level of quality from Nokia N series cameras and if Nokia doesn't think those expectations will carry over to the N900, they're just bizarrely naive for a company that's been in this business so long.

So I get that the development process is difficult and complex. But when you bring a device to market, none of that matters. People will judge the device as it actually is. I think, as far as the camera app goes, Nokia has released a device that does not live up to the N series.

Here's the page from GSMArena's review of the N900 that covers the camera:

http://www.gsmarena.com/nokia_n900-review-421p7.php

They were basically disappointed with the camera. They noted right away that the camera application is "basic" and missing features. And they found the actual image quality to be "about average" for 5MP phone cameras, with "pretty high" image noise.

On the video application, in terms of basicness, they found it "took things to the extreme," even compared to the already basic camera application. And they felt the video capture was really flawed. They found the N900 was not able to sustain its specified framerate and produced choppy video.

In general, they found the N900 looks better on paper than in actual performance.

*

I'm providing this information and the link to the review, just because I thought people might be interested (view the video sample and images, make your own conclusion).

But to me this further confirms my feeling that the N900 camera function was rushed out the door and/or not a priority. If I accept MountainX's argument that it's better to keep it simple and add features later, then Nokia ought to at least have focused on having the images and video created be high quality. But they even fall short here, compared to other devices currently on the market from Nokia themselves.

Also, the GSMArena review I think further confirms that from the perspective of the consumer marketplace (to which the N900 is geared) the camera is going to be viewed as incomplete and disappointing. The GSMArena review actually gives Nokia a lot of slack in other areas, acknowledge that the big Linux developer community will probably fill in the blanks and fix things later. And GSMArena's review overall is very positive and excited about the N900. But on the camera they seem to just think it falls short.

Here are the direct links to the video samples from GSMArena for the N900 and N86 (the N86 has been seen by some as having one of, if not the, best video capture on a phone). Both videos are shot in the same location, although not at the same time. The sample files have the same name, so you'll have to change one name if you download them.

N900: http://pic.gsmarena.com/vv/reviewsim...arena_v001.mp4

N86: http://pic.gsmarena.com/vv/reviewsim...arena_v001.mp4

It's really too bad about the sudden jumps and chops in the N900 video. Because the higher resolution of the N900, over the N86, is nice, I think. And the more subdued colors on the N900 I like better too. Too many cameras seem to be oriented toward a taste for oversaturated colors. There is something a little fuzzy about the N900 video though, perhaps that's the compression.

Here's hoping the video capture gets fixed in firmware. That sort of "maybe in the future" position is not very inspiring for me, though, when I think of whether or not I want to buy this device. It's okay for other things, for me, but not the camera.

Im also concerned about the N900's camera quality (More on the video side) so I made this thread.

http://talk.maemo.org/showthread.php?t=35071

Do you guys think it might be a hardware issue (hardware too constrained) or simply a software/firmware issue (needs a better camera app)?