[Pilchard]

I was at a friend's house yesterday and tried to take a photo indoors of a clock winding engine (he rents a converted church). With my 9900 and the flash switched on I basically captured no discernible image. Another guest standing next to me had what I think was a Samsung Galaxy and her photo from the same position looked like it had been taken on an SLR with a great flash.

Why is the 9900 camera so poor relative to the competition? It wouldn't make me choose a non-BB phone but I don't see why I should be so disadvantaged by choosing BB.

[anon(153966)]

I've always said the camera on the 9700 is much better than the camera on the 9900. I have a Samsung Galaxy S3, too, and with the settings just right, it takes decent photos.

The 9900 sometimes needs the flash off for better images, thus using the room lighting. Most annoying really.

What I hate most is no option for auto focus! I don't get it...

[boldkeyboardholic]

because of the "very important" "it needs to be as thin as possible"...

I really like the 9900 and it's the best phone/BB I have had. I'm even not really into photos so the poor to medium picture quality is not that important to me.

Still I wish it would have got 1mm to 2mm more and maybe the old 15x0 mAh batteries... (even so I got mine to only 1% drain per hour and it last even on busy days one full day plus a small backup)

BB were never great with the camera. The cam will probably lose to almost every new phone.

But the SGSIII definitely will lose against a SLR

You probably (thread creater) have compared the pictures from the screens of the two devices, haven't you?

[Pilchard]

Yes I did compare them on the screens. However, I have just noticed a setting on the right of the camera screen that I have not noticed before and I was set on sports mode so I may well be being unfair. Maybe it's a new feature in OS 7.1 or maybe I was just being dopey.

[BigBadWulf]

This thread is more than enough on the subject.