Related
Welll, having used my O2 Orbit to take some pictures outside recently (for the first time) I can only say I am disappointed with the results. Every photo appears to be blurred and out of focus around the outer edge of the photo. Is this the best I can expect of the built in camera? Or am I driving it wrongly? As far as I know, the settings are default and I am set for the best resolution. Is this how they are, or do I have a faulty one?
Any suggestions?
Thanks a lot.
Tony
The cameras on the Artemis are not brilliant, they should look ok on the phone, but on a PC they do usually end up blurry.
I'd say that it is normal, but you could play around with the settings to see if u can get a better pic. Sometimes the Multi-Shot setting is good for getting a non-blury picture, but it means you have to go through them all and choose the best one lol.
i have the same experience as u. i've been very dissapointed with the quallity of photos, even my 2 years old N6230i can make much more better pictures then this and after 5 months of using ORBIT i didn't find the way how to increase the quality. good luck
the only time i've had half decent photos, are in the middle of the day, outside, with the sun out (behind you) lol. The camera doesnt seem to like un-natural light (strip lights paticularly). Changing the settings only usually seems to change the Hue lol.
Its a mobile phone, not a digital camera.
People think that the megapixels mean its going to compare to a real camera but nothing could be further from the truth. The megapixles basically mean how big the image is. The quality is still down to the cmos sensor, lens type (in this case crappy plastic). Focus ability etc.
The artemis is a phone/PDA, not a camera. Infact no phone is a camera, they all have flaws.
Yep, not the best camera in my experience...
I assumed that like other phones you could still take pics at 2MP in L (640x480) to keep the file size down and still get a reasonable photo. Alas, the L (640x480) picture quality is so much poorer vs. the 2MP (1600x1200) so I'm guessing to get the best out your camera you need the 2MP mode in Super Fine.
I knew I was losing camera quality upgrading to the Orbit, but my decision was a calculated one. Yes, it's a shame the camera isn't the best, but I've gained so much more (that sounds so cheesy ).
HTC is innocative, but someone @ HTC had a brain fart, who decided to leave out the camera flash.
Is it really a big loss? The flashes on the previous three htc phones I owned all sucked and weren't effective for shots more than two feet away. The only thing it was good for was using it as a flashlight but using the screen for that purpose suffices. My complaint about the camera is that I can't take a decent, sharp shot unless I lean it against a wall or a tree or something. Not sensitive enough to light either because the lens is too small, the light sensor thingies are too poor or the digital equivalent of ISO is too slow.
I also miss the flash... my old XV6800 (titan) had it, and it actually worked pretty darn well, and could even be used as a flash light / strobe light.
I dont get why they took it out.
No flash? OK by me...
I would much rather they put a new and better camera in this phone than a flash. We're so close on the evolution to "all-in-one" appliances. The phone's other features are exceptional. If HTC would put a good camera in it, I might be able to leave my regular P&S camera at home most of the time (not my Nikon D40X, though).
the flash was not good for the camera on the tp1. i always had it disabled for taking pictures. it was an excellent flash light though and in that form, i miss it.
Think different - if they equipped TP2 with a better camera, a faster processor and maybe a new technology screen, it would be the best such device on the market making the HD2 and all the rest totaly unsellable. There have to be differences so that HTC can find a target for everyone of their phones. So does every other company in the market. I once thought - why don't they combine all the best features of their phones into one - they have the technology. And I think that they just have to make a number of different models. But on the other hand - Apple has the iPhone. One and only. A different marketing strategy?
I wonder if it's possible to solder in a flash led. I have my old touch pro still & it's broken, but the flash still works. I only miss the flash for flashlight purposes as well, so I wonder if theres a way...
i think the reason the touch pro line doesnt and may never have a capacitive screen is they are meant to be business phones. you can take notes with a stylus better than only being able to use your uncovered finger. htc does make resistive screens better than anyone. dont say you can write notes easily with your finger on an hd2 or iphone. it either ends up liney or looking like you take notes with crayon.
[begin rant]
I am so tired of specs right now because the more you know the more you sink in to the mud-hole. Give me something that I can "touch", "see" & "feel" as better.
Eg.
My current 2 of 3 phones:
1. iphone 3g has 412Mhz processor.
2. Pure has 528Mhz processor
3. iphone 3g has 2 Megapixel camera
4. Pure has 5 Megapixel camera
But does it run faster or take better pictures? NO
For picture quality comparison of the 3g vs pure, See here
Note: my 3rd phone is the iphone 3GS.
So F*k the specs.
[end of rant]
Hei, easy tiger
Why do you rant about Pure vs iPhone here? Take it somewhere else ...j/k.
You are right, at the end, it is not the hardware spec, but "user experience".
That is (user experience) what Microsoft currently is trying to bring with their new product, WP7S.
You know, it is a "new" product. It does not even exist yet (purchaseable).
Still a lot of questions unanswered (which you will have some more clues after MIX10).
So, take it easy
Btw, about "that actually works" ... that's really depend on the user, the person who use the device.
Some users want to have full access to the device, OS, hardware, hack this, hack that, fully-super-duper-multitasking, bunch of sensors.
Some users just want to use the phone as it is ... enough with web browser, play youtube, facebook, twitter and email.
Some users just want to use the phone ... you know, for calling someone else
Like my wife, she is using Touch Dual. Why? Because she hates touch phone! Yupe, she hates iPhone, and all "latest" Windows Mobile devices.
She likes to use the phone for ... calling me and her friends, playing Solitaire (that's all) and occasionally using the TomTom 6 for navigation.
My other friend bought HTC Touch Diamond 2 and she does not have any clue. She "asked" why I have to re-charge the battery every afternoon?
I looked into her phone and I saw bunch of apps running in the background: Contact, Fring, ActiveSync, SMS ...
I told her, you must close those! She again asked "Why? Cant they close them self automatically?"
I said "Sometimes, no" ... and I could not continue. I told her husband to put custom ROM ... bla bla (of course they cant do it!).
For my wife, the HTC Touch Dual "does works", big time.
For my friend, the HTC Touch Diamond 2 "does not work" (They are now thinking to switch to iPhone).
Although HTC Touch Dual is way less spec wise!
Since I had a Touch HD and done lots of comparison shots to the iPhone 3G, I am sure the Pure's camera is actually quite a bit better.
The Pure is certainly not faster, though, and definitely less fluid. The MHz count of the Pure's processor is misleading, as it is really quite slow. Plus, Windows Mobile doesn't have nice animations and fluid physics - it has ugly screen redrawing (though it's actually not slower than iPhone OS, but a lot less fluid).
Anyway,
specs do matter. The problem is, you never get to know all the specs. The MHz and Mpixel numbers simply aren't ebough to say whether a processor is fast or a camera chip is good.
There are lots of other factors involved. But they won't tell you the "performace per clock" numbers or the "light sensitivity" and size of the camera sensor.
So, it's not that specs don't matter, it's just that you don't get to know the numbers that actually do matter. What can you do? Well, I know it's hard, but you actually have to inform yourself as much as you can, so that reading spec sheets will give you the knowledge you need before buying a device.
And you have to try for yourself. And I know it's hard, often you don't get the possibility to try a handset without buying it, and reviews usually don't give enough information, especially if you care about "small features" that usually don't get talked about in reviews.
So, keep cool
Specs can be misleading, but only because regular people don't look behind the raw numbers and have no clue about what really counts. But that doesn't mean phone makers should take away the spec sheets... some users do know what really counts, and spec sheets help them a lot to make their desicion.
Actually, they're helpful more often than not, e.g. I know Snapdragon, Cortex and ARMv7 mean "faaaast". Regular people may not know that, but it won't hurt them to read "Snapdragon" on the spec sheet either. Because in the end, they'll always have to try the phones for themselves (or at least try to get enough info from reviews).
How do you think companies can give you something to "touch", "see" & "feel"? Free try&buy devices? Not going to happen. Spec sheets give at least some hints, since there's no better alternative. And if you do your homework, they will be quite helpful
Calm down... nothing to rant about here
Thanks for the warm note my friend.....
I am a spec guy myself, but I feel as if I was cheated/scammed this time, partly because I am not a mobile device person, and definitely was not aware of this crazy MSM and ARM differences. Now I know....ha ha
Now as far as the camera goes, I know quite a bit as I am in it for a few years now, enough to say that megapixels are just the tip of the iceberg. Higher megapixel within the same sensor family is better, but then there are chips that provide better pictures at the same or less megapixels. i.e. CMOS vs. CCD . On top of that, there is the lens and the processing engine to add on to it.
The camera software in the Pure is not very good. I will tell you that. It takes quite some time for it to find the right white balance under room lighted conditions. The iphone is pretty good/better at that.
The camera software in the Pure is not very good. I will tell you that.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I know. It's quite bad, actually. That's what I hated about my Touch HD. But nevertheless, my HD took much better pictures than the iPhone 3G (in most cases, at least). I'm sure that's also the case with the Pure.
When it comes to cellphone cameras, however, spec sheets are mostly useless.
They never tell you about anything other than the Mpixel number - which of course means nothing (though I wouldn't want to have less than 5).
The camera is very important to me. Reviews are mostly useless, because they never make direct comparisons under the same conditions. I end up buying several phones, comparing the cameras, and then selling them again... crazy, but that's all I can do
The HD2's camera is actually the first smartphone camera I would be satisfied with - if I could make the flash not overexpose everything that's less than 3m away
seed_al said:
I know. It's quite bad, actually. That's what I hated about my Touch HD. But nevertheless, my HD took much better pictures than the iPhone 3G (in most cases, at least). I'm sure that's also the case with the Pure.
When it comes to cellphone cameras, however, spec sheets are mostly useless.
They never tell you about anything other than the Mpixel number - which of course means nothing (though I wouldn't want to have less than 5).
The camera is very important to me. Reviews are mostly useless, because they never make direct comparisons under the same conditions. I end up buying several phones, comparing the cameras, and then selling them again... crazy, but that's all I can do
The HD2's camera is actually the first smartphone camera I would be satisfied with - if I could make the flash not overexpose everything that's less than 3m away
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Flash overexpose - now if only they would provide TTL flash intensity control. Goodness....
2M vs 5M
My LG-VU actually took much better pictures than the iphone 3G and Pure. The only problem was that you would not realize that until you transferred it to your PC, courtesy of the crappy resistive plasticky screen.
I still have it. Maybe I will use it as a camera only
Cameras... bleh. All smartphone cameras are awful.
But I do have to agree here: Even though one phone may have a snapdragon processor, and the iPhone may have a 412mhz processor, the iPhone navigates so much faster.
Of course, I know the reason for this, but it certainly does make me hope that Microsoft sorts this out with WP7S.
(Though, never, EVER, would I buy anything that supports Apple...)
EDIT: Also, I've had lots of people say that my Touch Pro's screen was "less sensitive/accurate than iPod/iPhone's". Even though I've tried to explain it, the average user just doesn't get it.
Even though one phone may have a snapdragon processor, and the iPhone may have a 412mhz processor, the iPhone navigates so much faster.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No way
It's not going to beat a Snapdragon phone.
The iPhone 3G isn't that fast, actually. It's barely faster than the QCOM MSM phones, but of course much more smooth/fluid (and that despite it has 100MHz less).
Smartphone cameras? Yes, they're not good. But I'm not going to buy a dumbphone because of the camera.
Jaxbot said:
Even though one phone may have a snapdragon processor, and the iPhone may have a 412mhz processor, the iPhone navigates so much faster.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You won't say that once you gets your hands on a HD2 (with or without custom rom I might add). It's probably the 1st (and last) HTC WinMo 6.5 phone with enough grunt to power thru practically anything. The only reason why an iPhone might feel faster is because it presents you with a flashy animation before actually loading up the app. WM phones don't do this.
Jaxbot said:
EDIT: Also, I've had lots of people say that my Touch Pro's screen was "less sensitive/accurate than iPod/iPhone's"
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Used to have a Touch HD and preferred resistive touchscreens. Several months with a HD2 changed my mind I do think resistive touchscreens are actually more accurate though, I can touch-type way faster on my HD than I can on the HD2. But that could just be a Wm 6.5 limitation.
Ok. here's the deal. CCD sensors are more noisy and most HTC camera probably use CCD sensor given the noise in low light pictures.
after researching a bit, I found out that the iphone uses CMOS sensors which actually produce a smoother, less noisy picture. No wonder.....my eyes can see the difference.
fyi...Canon uses CMOS sensors across it's line of decent to high end digital cameras, a big reason why it leads the market.
update: i also just found out that the HD2 uses a CMOS sensor too. no wonder u hd2 owners love the picture quality of the hd2.
seed_al said:
No way
It's not going to beat a Snapdragon phone.
The iPhone 3G isn't that fast, actually. It's barely faster than the QCOM MSM phones, but of course much more smooth/fluid (and that despite it has 100MHz less).
Smartphone cameras? Yes, they're not good. But I'm not going to buy a dumbphone because of the camera.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm not referring to the speed, I'm referring to the navigatability (and how "fluid" it is).
Of course, I always laugh when I see the animations on someone's iPhone, because it really does make it seem like the app loads faster than it does (Hint to Microsoft?).
chiks19018 said:
Ok. here's the deal. CCD sensors are more noisy and most HTC camera probably use CCD sensor given the noise in low light pictures.
after researching a bit, I found out that the iphone uses CMOS sensors which actually produce a smoother, less noisy picture. No wonder.....my eyes can see the difference.
fyi...Canon uses CMOS sensors across it's line of decent to high end digital cameras, a big reason why it leads the market.
update: i also just found out that the HD2 uses a CMOS sensor too. no wonder u hd2 owners love the picture quality of the hd2.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Then check again.
CCD was always superior to CMOS and probably will be for a long time(that is why they use it in science).
Almost all mobile phones(there are only few that use CCD - mostly in japan) today use CMOS sensors because they're cheaper.
Basically mobile phones are mostly using 1/3.2" sensors if not smaller and at that size CCD would offer better picture quality and low light sensitivity but would be bigger so the phone would be bigger that is why ODM's are using CMOS sensors.
More expensive CMOS sensors are used in DSLR's but show me just one P&S camera that uses CMOS.
So both HTC(all HTC's) and iphone use CMOS sensors but probably from different manufacturers hence the difference in quality and noise level.
So once and for all. For mobile use CCD would be better but it is bigger and not as cheap as CMOS sensor. In high end DSLR market it is not so clear that is why both CCD and CMOS sensors are used.
I am back to fk the specs....
It appears that at this time, there is no clear defining line between CCD and CMOS. both are very competitive, both offering it's own advantages, strengths and weaknesses.
CMOS is the future
Canon making CMOS for compact cameras
Turns out that Canon surprised everyone with its amazing CMOS
technology. Imagine that surprise that its CMOS sensor has a much
better noise performance than any known CCDs. Even Phil Askey said
the image was "silky smooth" - some wondered, "it looks too smooth,
some details must have been removed" but a closer examination found
no evidence.
Link
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
chiks19018 said:
I am back to fk the specs....
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
haha
chiks19018 said:
I am back to fk the specs....
It appears that at this time, there is no clear defining line between CCD and CMOS. both are very competitive, both offering it's own advantages, strengths and weaknesses.
CMOS is the future
Canon making CMOS for compact cameras
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I never said CMOS was worse for DSLR. On the contrary I admitted that today both CMOS and CCD fair well in DSLR's. Considering the size of the sensor low light sensitivity seems to be equal between the two.
What I meant is that for small sizes CCD is best(almost all point&shoot cameras) and mobile phones where unfortunately manufacturers decide to use cheaper CMOS sensors - remember that there are better CMOS used in high end cameras and cheap ones used in mobile phones and PC cameras. Unfortunately we get cheap sensors in our mobile phones.
I think he reason why they are making the spec's high is because they want everything to touch and feel better. So why f*** the specs? I'm pretty sure that's going to be important. You put a 538mhz proc in a WP7 it's probably not going to want to move.
Wishmaster89 said:
I never said CMOS was worse for DSLR. On the contrary I admitted that today both CMOS and CCD fair well in DSLR's. Considering the size of the sensor low light sensitivity seems to be equal between the two.
What I meant is that for small sizes CCD is best(almost all point&shoot cameras) and mobile phones where unfortunately manufacturers decide to use cheaper CMOS sensors - remember that there are better CMOS used in high end cameras and cheap ones used in mobile phones and PC cameras. Unfortunately we get cheap sensors in our mobile phones.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
chill man, I am not arguing with you, nor I am putting you down. In fact I liked your post. made me do some more research!
The specs that the phone companies provide are like a girl saying she wears DD bra size.
When you take it off you realize that it was padded on a B size
OMG I just solved the flash exposure issue with a new driver from HTC!!
Wow that feels good! What a great camera phone I have now!!
Sorry, guys, for being OT, but I'm so happy^^
*LOL* ..... Thanks for that! I got a good laugh
chiks19018 said:
The specs that the phone companies provide are like a girl saying she wears DD bra size.
When you take it off you realize that it was padded on a B size
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
having had the mozart for a week I'm thinking of changing it to the samsung cause i'm not that happy with it :s
poor loudspeaker sound volume
dolby just seems to be pointless and not an improvment to sound
seems to have poor battery usage
havn't had a samsung version in my hand yet so can any comment on at least those 2 problems? is it worth the swap.
The screen on the sammy i'd probs prefer as its a lot more vivid (cant from a desire anyway to wp7) and the slightly bigger screen size and I can loose the camera and be happy with 5MP instead of 8MP.
But is the phone actualy better? any advice would be handy before I blow more money lol
The battery life should be better on the Samsung.
All the reviews I read stated that the Omina is better than the Mozart.
* Most HTC WP7 devices are known to have very weak batteries (sometimes 1.230mAh). The Omnia 7 has a 1.500mAh battery.
* The Omnia has a great S-AMOLED screen when the HTC only has a S-Lcd or even an old Lcd screen.
* Also the Omnia 7 has apparently a high quality camera and can take nice pictures or videos. The camera of the HTC is not that good.
* Speakers are always awful on most HTC phones, so the Omnia 7 can only be better.
I used to like HTC, but definitely the Omnia 7 is far far better
think all phones have a battery problem these days they need to discover a new way to power things A day's power on a phone shouldnt be a hard acheivment though rather than say half a day.
thanks artur thats a good help and from the vids etc I'm starting to think the sammy could be better
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKvRNcYyx1E
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IEvjM_w5e3Y
Difference between S-Amoled and Lcd:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qKtqWFeUynM
People are blowing AMOLED out of proportion. Remember that the WP7 UI is pretty text and contrast heavy. The Pentile pattern in AMOLED lends itself well to pictures, but not at all to text. You'll be having color fringing on all text.
If you go with SLCD, you might have a little light bleed on dark surfaces, that's mostly just noticeable when it's pretty dark around you, but you get really sharp text and no in-your-face colors (yeah, AMOLED has vibrant colors, but they're annoying with time).
Also, when lit up bright, AMOLED draws way more power than SLCD. If a majority of your activity is browsing the web, you'll be dealing mostly with websites that have white or bright backgrounds.
yer i've scoured youtube like a hooker lol all the vids are kinda the same so wanted someone with a voice now think i'm gonna swap to sammy. HTC hub isnt even that good yet anyway so that's no loss.
The problem with S-Amoled:
S-Amoled is great for black. Because the contrast is very high and the black will be truly black.
But on the contrary S-Amoled will not be good for white. It's kind of blue.
Therefore it will be more difficult to read the text on webpages than with lcd.
Also S-Amoled is supposed to consume more battery when the screen displays white color (e.g. when you browse on the Internet).
S-Amoled is also weaker when you are outside.
****
Why you would not wait for the DELL Venue Pro. I think it will be the best WP7 device?
omnia 7 and if thats not upto scrath then i'm going desire HD again on android.
BTW the 8MP camera on the htc seems pretty crap, lots of blur and unviewable pics even though its clear on the screen. There's a long delay with the 2 flashes and the pic taking which makes it terrible. Thats with the default settings though as i've not touched it.
Omnia or Mozart? Are ou kidding?
The Omnia 7 is one of the best WP7 device on the market. The Mozart just an average phone.
Omnia 7 definitely. for the quality of the camera, for the quality of the screen, for the bigger battery, etc.
the sound dosnt seem to be that loud on my samsung omnia 7 either. im goona try different headphones.......
How are you finding the Omnia 7? I have a HD7 I bought a week ago and am unhappy with it, I'm thinking of returning it and getting a Omnia 7 instead.
The only thing i'm concerned about is the camera...I really like both phones. And in my opinion the only diffrences is the display and the camera. I know the diffrences between SAMOLED and SLCD...So the only thing missing is the diffrence in camera.
Is the Mozart 8mp camera better, or is the omnia 5mp camera better.
Could someone, whos tried both tell me his/hers opinion.
I know omina have more camera options, but does that give omina better pictures than mozart.
And how about startup time, from pocket to actually taking the picture.
Mozart have a LED flash, omnia has camera light only, does that give mozart advantage?
So if someone can help me in not buying the wrong device...
I can tell you right now the Omnia will have a better camera. It's not about pixels. The sensor is what matters and HTC's usually are pretty bad.
ericc191 said:
I can tell you right now the Omnia will have a better camera. It's not about pixels. The sensor is what matters and HTC's usually are pretty bad.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I agree that HTC camera usually are pretty bad...But what about now?
Is Omnia the better one? I know that the sensor are the key feature here...But still 8mp are more than 5 mp...
But which one is the sharpest?
I got the Omnia 7 nearly 2 weeks ago and can say without a shadow of a doubt its better than and HTC device Ive ever owned (from early win mo, to android, its been HTC all the way for me - just to provide evidence of non bias).
The camera is excellent on the Omnia, for both pics and video (I'm editing some bonfire night footage right now so will link to it once done), will also link to some random shots taken in different environments.
From boot time, to general use the phone is simply blazingly fast - and from what I read in another post it seems that samsung used Nand memory in this phone, hence the blazing speeds for games and boot (opposed to built in SD card).
The only negative is its 8GB, and thats it, but I never intended my phone to hold a musical backup nor do I see it as a grind to swap out music thats getting tired, videos are another story as they are generally a 'watch once' media (especially on the phone).
I cant faukt sound quality, I moved from a hero and the difference on audio quality is astounding (mainly use it in the car using the stereo audio in), brilliant.
The screen, well - this is simply astounding, its so clear, no blurring like people have mentioned and the colours are brilliant, to the point where non techy and techy folks are WOW'd by it completely! its my iPhone killer
gingepaul79 said:
I got the Omnia 7 nearly 2 weeks ago and can say without a shadow of a doubt its better than and HTC device Ive ever owned (from early win mo, to android, its been HTC all the way for me - just to provide evidence of non bias).
The camera is excellent on the Omnia, for both pics and video (I'm editing some bonfire night footage right now so will link to it once done), will also link to some random shots taken in different environments.
From boot time, to general use the phone is simply blazingly fast - and from what I read in another post it seems that samsung used Nand memory in this phone, hence the blazing speeds for games and boot (opposed to built in SD card).
The only negative is its 8GB, and thats it, but I never intended my phone to hold a musical backup nor do I see it as a grind to swap out music thats getting tired, videos are another story as they are generally a 'watch once' media (especially on the phone).
I cant faukt sound quality, I moved from a hero and the difference on audio quality is astounding (mainly use it in the car using the stereo audio in), brilliant.
The screen, well - this is simply astounding, its so clear, no blurring like people have mentioned and the colours are brilliant, to the point where non techy and techy folks are WOW'd by it completely! its my iPhone killer
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Cool, I look forward to seeing some pictures and video if you recorded some.
I've bad my omnia 7 since release date, and it's absolutely amazing. The screen is perfect, I've had no trouble in the sun, no bluey whites that people have mentioned. Also there is no problem with text at all. The phone is really nippy, and much better than other phones running off SD cards.
I also tested out the camera a lot, and love it. The pictures are amazing quality.
I also took some firework footage in 720p, i need to edit it together too. Only one thing i can fault when recording, sometimes the auto focus stopped focusing on the fireworks, which is understandable i guess. i was surprised how well it picked them up anyway. It always managed to pick up the lasers too. (please note this is coming from a complete novice to taking videos).
But overall the 720p video footages is amazing, especially from a phone :O
*EDIT*
Forgot to add, the favourite bit about my phone is the screen, because it is just amazing, when the blacks are so true, you can't see where the edge of the screen is, it blends in with the phone, what iphone can do that?!
First things first, I have the Omnia 7 and I love it. But at the same time, I know it's not going to be for everyone!
Everyone is waxing lyrical about the screen. The screen is indeed fantastic and especially with the black theme with coloured highlights and white text of WP7, the screen really is something to behold.
But having said that, there are factors which people should consider when getting this phone.
Sure it is faster than phones using the microSD cards but which would you rather have? 5GB of usable space, or upgradeable capacity?
For some, 5GB is not going to cut it...a few albums and a few videos and that's your phone full.
You can upgrade the likes of HD7 with a higher capacity card and it will run a little slower than the Omnia 7 but at least you will have most of your music stored on it.
so it's down to screen and speed vs capacity.
like I mentioned before, I have my dedicated mp3 players for music so the Omnia 7 is perfect for me.
If for some reason you prefer the below par sound that your phone will give you and would like to use your phone for music, then I'd have a good think!
plus the HD7 and Mozart screens (esp the latter) are really good.. just don't look at the Omnia 7 screen first!
I would like to here your views on the picture quality on HTC HD7
I think it is very poor compared to my HTC HD2 running Android
The focus is very bad is it just mine or is it a general problem ?
Steve
Indoor the camera seems to be iffy on quality but outdoor I haven't had an issue. It does seem that sometimes the camera doesn't want to focus but I think thats a bug.
This is one thing I hate about my HD7. Although I am not a camera guy, I still want the best out of the things I buy. I hope its just software issues, although I genuinely doubt it.
It's HTC, what did you expect? If anything they're known for their crap cameras.
On all the htc devices I have had (which is many), cameras have never been more than adequate. The camera on my hd7 is ok, better outdoors than in.
I can confirm this, I was at a bar with a friend whom have an HD2 running Haret. We both shoot the same object and the HD2 is so much more focused and sharp. the differences are huge.
considering what I use a phone camera for (twitter, facebook, quick pic messages), I consider it to be ok.
here are some taken last week:
edit: and those are default settings, haven't even played with the settings yet.
OMG, what are you eating on the last picture?
So-so
Yeah, its okay, nothing to write home about.
Inside photos can be a bit grainy, and it takes a while to focus.
But even so if you get use to it and take your time to take a photo (nothing ridiculous a few seconds more than usual) it produces decent pictures.
First photo is sharp.. although perhaps the young lady is moving a bit for the shutter...
Second photo is out of focus.
Third photo is also sharp.. and LOOKS DELCIOUS ! Now I'm hungry. sheesh...
Poor! Poor! Poor!
I always go into settings and force it to flash when taking a picture. This seems to cut down on the blurriness I usually get.
I've found workarounds for a lot of scenarios. It requires adjusting but the camera CAN take pretty damn good pictures. I've never seen a phone that has a GREAT camera though, so I don't know why people ***** so much.
eternalemb said:
I've found workarounds for a lot of scenarios. It requires adjusting but the camera CAN take pretty damn good pictures. I've never seen a phone that has a GREAT camera though, so I don't know why people ***** so much.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
What are the workarounds you found?
well i have had an iphone 4 and now i'm on hd7..i must admit the iphone 4 is better in the camera department (even though hd7 has the same res) the camera is fine in day time but in low light conditions...it suffers & can't focus...
i hope they will fix it...
I agree with what most people have said. In good lighting conditions, the camera is good... However bring in the low-level conditions and the shutter speed is greatly reduced causing motion blur a focusing issues.
Some "Artsy" pics i've take in good lighting conditions attached, which i think are respectable for a HTC camera.
Audio said:
... bring in the low-level conditions and the shutter speed is greatly reduced causing motion blur a focusing issues.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Show me a camera that doesn't reduce the shutter speed in low light and I'll introduce you to Santa Claus. That's how cameras work. The less light there is, the longer the shutter has to remain open to get enough light to stimulate the CCD.
Elementary physics.
All you people with focussing issues, you need to half-press the button to focus, then depress all the way to take the shot. Just like any digital camera.
I've not had any issues with focussing myself.
Jim Coleman said:
Show me a camera that doesn't reduce the shutter speed in low light and I'll introduce you to Santa Claus. That's how cameras work. The less light there is, the longer the shutter has to remain open to get enough light to stimulate the CCD.
Elementary physics.
All you people with focussing issues, you need to half-press the button to focus, then depress all the way to take the shot. Just like any digital camera.
I've not had any issues with focussing myself.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm aware of how camera's work
Show me a camera/phone 5MP or more that has a shutter speed as slow or slower than that on the HTC's.
Now i don't know enough about how HTC develop their Camera's or the software for them but to me it seems all HTC's have a poor Auto-Brightness filter. It stems back to my old TyTN II where putting the phone on standby and then back on again would disable the auto-brightness, thus massively increasing FPS and shutter speed in the camera, at the cost of having a rediculously dark photo/video.
The Quality is there, It's just making best use of it that seems to be difficult.
I think it's pretty good tbh, as long as you half-press first. I haven't had any of the issues others have reported such as the quality or pinkish hue (knock on wood). For me, it's been more than enough... But that may vary with uses and expectations... I've always understood that it's a phone camera... Not a personal Nikon.
Audio said:
Show me a camera/phone 5MP or more that has a shutter speed as slow or slower than that on the HTC's.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The correct shutter speed is determined by the sensitivity of the CCD and the size of the aperture. Camera phones have a tiny aperture and probably quite an insensitive CCD so the shutter speed is always going to have to be quite slow to compensate.
Now i don't know enough about how HTC develop their Camera's or the software for them but to me it seems all HTC's have a poor Auto-Brightness filter
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Not sure what you mean by "auto-brightness filter" - cameras employ a process called "metering" to determine if a scene is over or underexposed, and metering can be done across the frame as a whole or just over a particular spot, say in the middle of the frame. If your shots are suffering from poor metering, i.e. the phone doesn't set the correct shutter speed for the scene, then you need to change the metering type. Phones don't have a very high dynamic range either, so they have trouble with scenes containing both very bright and very dark patches.
Basically, phone cameras really are not suited to anything but the most casual of photos when you don't have a proper camera to hand.
But even a phone camera can produce vaguely acceptable results if you learn the basics of photography and work with the limitations. With no control over aperture, ISO or shutter speed, and with such a microscopic lense, it'll always be a huge compromise though.
I don't know why people get so upset about the cameras on their phones - they were never meant to replace a real camera, they're just a toy.