- CrackBerry Genius of Geniuses
08-23-2011, 08:36 PM #51
- 8,907 Posts
You really should read the link posted above, its very enlightening:
EDoF versus Auto-focus: Understanding the compromises involved
So nine possible use cases for your smartphone photos, of which only the last two present any kind of problem. And, notably, in three of the use cases the EDoF-equipped phone will produce better results than an auto-focus equipped device.
All of which belies the roasting that Nokia's new devices have been getting in online reviews, again emphasising that the very people who write the reviews are the geeks, the power users, the top few percent of phone users in terms of technical awareness, who love snapping macro photos (of phones, accessories, meals, signs and so on). Nokia are betting that most (normal) people will fit into the first 6 or 7 use cases above and therefore will get as good, or maybe better results with EDoF than auto-focus. Certainly real beginners will shoot better photos, since there's less to understand and therefore less to mess up.I'd rather laugh with the sinners than cry with the saints...
- 08-23-2011, 08:56 PM #52
The slogan for all the advertising for the Bold is "The thinnest Blackberry yet" as if that's it's biggest selling point. They didn't say it's the "fastest" Blackberry yet, or the "lightest Bold" yet. The selling point (for RIM anyway) is thinness.
Personally, I never had a problem with the thickness of RIM's phones. They always felt solid and quality. I think they stuffed up with this whole "thinness" business on their flagship. I think they should have made it normal depth and had a great battery life and a decent camera.
I *know* why they did the whole "thin" thing. But they picked the wrong model to go all consumeristic on. They should have maybe done it to the 9860 range. A cool thin all screen device would be cool for the "cool" set.
I would have bought a thicker 9900. I think most of us would, and I think anyone wanting the "flagship" product would have too.
- 08-23-2011, 09:26 PM #55
I too had problems with the 9930 camera, though much was explained now by that article. My problem is that 90% of the stuff that I take pictures of is close up such as documents. Oh well, can't please everyone.
- CrackBerry Newbie
08-23-2011, 09:45 PM #56
- 1 Posts
I appreciate belfastdispatcher and id.gadgetman with constructive information, sample photos and possible optimizations.
Would anyone with a 9930 provide sample photos of id.gadgetman's idea of: "For any objects below its minimum distance (3'), then it'll be blurry. Position your camera 3'+ away and use the digital zoom to get an optimal picture."?
- CrackBerry Newbie
08-23-2011, 09:54 PM #57
- 7 Posts
You can be assured no one here but you is assuming that implementing manual focus in a smart phone would need to entail "focus rings" from DSLRs. (To recap, after setting up this preposterous scenario you trilled "hhahaha" ... failed to punctuate, then misspelled a bunch of stuff while trying to cast the OP as dense and you smart. Sometimes it's just not worth trying so hard).
Point-to-focus gestures using AF mechanisms are as "manual" as focus is ever likely to be in this kind of camera, and BB could have implemented both in the new models. This "always in focus" marketing pap was used to sell cheap 35mm point-and-shoots back in the 70s, BTW.
- CrackBerry User
- 73 Posts
- CrackBerry User
09-20-2011, 05:49 AM #62
- 15 Posts
@lbcrackberry & belfastdispatcher: notice that I did not say 'great' or even 'good' (macro) pictures.... I said 'optimal' picture. Given the circumstances (EDoF), macros will suck.
Oh, plenty of light would help too.
@dcnats: true. digital zoom will only 'crop' your picture from the same starting detail/resolution, resulting in smaller images. The main use of OS7-style digital zooming, I guess, is to make the crop on one go so you can send the 'final' picture to your bbm/email contacts. (and 'check' your image on screen before snapping the shot).
I bought a 9810 cause I thought I would be happy with the (normal focus) camera and bigger screen... but after consuming 9900's keyboard 'bliss', I'm hating the 9810's keyboard so far.
- CrackBerry Master
11-27-2011, 03:58 PM #63
- 1,328 Posts
...For it assumes there is nothing out there except a DSLR or point and shoot that can take a good shot.
...I'm talking about the 99XX inability to shoot quality close up's LIKE RIM's previous Bold's. - Such as my 9650.
I've heard this apologetic many times here on the forums - 'go get a real camara', 'go get a scanner'...
..."Go get a notebook", etc, etc, etc. - well instead of doing those thing people just got Droids or iphones.
...And they did it in droves.A reluctant iPhone 4s user who would STILL be a Blackberry user had RIM not messed it's own bed by putting a "Fisher Price Camera" in it's "flagship" Blackberry Bold 9930.
- 11-27-2011, 04:48 PM #64
I read through that whole thread, and others, before deciding to order the 9900. Like everyone else, I was concerned about the potential problem with close-up pictures. And if that were my main use for the camera, it would have been a dealbreaker for me. But it isn't. I only rarely take pictures of text or other close-up subjects, so I don't mind having to back away and zoom once in a while. And since I have had more than a few photos ruined by the auto-focus lag on the 9780, I'd say it evens out.
There are enough superb photos in the thread referenced above to prove that this is no Fisher-Price camera, but it definitely isn't the right tool for every user.