09-11-11 11:23 PM
185 1234 ...
tools
  1. cellinator's Avatar
    I think you provided good information. However, I DO use my phone to take important shots that I email or keep on hand as a reference. Most of these shots are text. I was playing with a 9930 in a Verizon store and I could not take a reasonably legible picture of the text information for the phone. I tried different depths, settings, etc. to no avail. Each image could not be read at all. The text was very fuzzy. For me, this is extremely important because it's integrated into a part of my day for the work that I do. I NEED my phone to take good photos so I can share information.

    Sure, I could have a camera with me, but this defeats the purpose of being able to email the picture immediately after taking (again, something I do in my work quite a bit!).

    My wife sells real estate and needs the same feature. She often takes pictures of the inside and outside of homes and immediately uploads the information to her site. For her, this is essential in pleasing a lot of clients. The camera cannot be a hit or miss with her.

    My opinion, despite your explanation, is that the camera is "sub par" to my old Bold 9700 camera for the reasons stated above. I respect your knowledge and expertise, but I cannot use something that doesn't work for me. Shutter lag is irrelevant to me as I simply need sharp, crisp shots (as does my wife).

    In my opinion, ALL phones should have a very capable camera by default. I know it won't replace my regular point and shoot, but it's SO important for a lot of people. The "carry a camera" argument just doesn't cut it in this day and age of smartphones.

    That aside, my new Torch 9810 takes beautiful shots and is even better than my old 9700 camera!
    09-06-11 10:11 PM
  2. Duvi's Avatar
    Disclaimer: I'm not a camera junkie
    From what I heard, the auto focus camera used by RIM has a small amount of mechanical movement that allows it to focus, thus the small delay. An EDOF camera has no movement, and thus is a thinner component, but can't have its focus changed and is not a continous AF.
    Personally, I like the EDOF setup on the 9900 I used in the store. The speed reminded me of the Pre, but with better quality

    Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com
    I'm not gonna lie, the Pre had an amazing camera.
    09-06-11 10:28 PM
  3. Duvi's Avatar
    Thanks for the post
    09-06-11 10:29 PM
  4. adiafzal's Avatar
    Thank you, OP, for the detailed explanation.

    But I'd still prefer to have an AF camera for the reasons mentioned by a few people here e.g. to take legible picture of documents, notes, memos, etc.

    Thank God nobody is suggesting "get a scanner" whenever people like me said we need AF to be able to take good or legible pictures of documents, notes and memos.

    Plus, I don't have a dedicated camera like some of you here so AF is a big deal to me.

    Having said that, 9900 is a great device ~ for other people. It completes them.
    09-06-11 10:31 PM
  5. congz's Avatar
    In a sense, I rather have the ability to toggle between continuous shot (no AF) and single shot (with AF). That way I can choose when I need the quick snapping of photos and when I need the details. I love the 9900, but because of the camera, I may just go with the 9810 instead. But with the 9810 also means missing out on the awesome keyboard and NFC. Sigh. Bloody tough choice.
    09-06-11 10:37 PM
  6. mkehoe's Avatar
    I have to disagree with most of the information in this post. The camera in the 9900 is a major step backwards for RIM.

    The photos in perfect light are blurry. They are all be blurry, even when selecting the correct profile as someone suggested.

    My last device was a 9800 and before that I owned a 9700. Both devices produced superior images to the 9900.

    I could take a picture of a book with my 9800, print it and read it. I cant do that with the 9900.

    I don't need beautiful pictures for my work, however they do need to be clear. I can't do my job with 9900. I will have to make a decision to carry a second camera or return the 9900.

    Either way, I disagree that this is the best blackberry to date. It's just a mera short of that statement.
    Robert22 likes this.
    09-06-11 10:38 PM
  7. eelect's Avatar
    I have to say a few things about the 9930 camera. I used to take pictures of fedex shipping label with the tracking number which is very small. I cannot do that with the 9930. Second thing is scanning 3D barcodes with scanlife is a challenge too which went pretty well with the 9650. The other part of the camera is awesome, but has it's disadvantages too.
    09-06-11 10:54 PM
  8. mikeyyy's Avatar
    I also disagree with the op. Your post is interesting but it still does not change the fact that the bold 9900 has very limited macro abilities. To be able to take very clear close up shots and then have that feature removed is unacceptable. Why not have both choices and the user can choose what they need. You cannot try to justify the lack of an af option. If there was an af option in the first place this post would not even be here. The 9900 camera is a step backwards. Period.
    blackmoe, Robert22 and funnykindel like this.
    09-06-11 10:56 PM
  9. ekafara's Avatar
    I had no problems with the camera when I went and played with the 9900. Worked as it should. Too bad Apple didn't do this first with their phone. It would have been "revolutionary".

    Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com
    alexanderjxiv and funnykindel like this.
    09-06-11 11:05 PM
  10. Outbacker's Avatar
    So is the 9900 capable of taking a photo/scan of a barcode, say a BBM barcode? Based on some of these posts it appears that may be a problem.
    09-06-11 11:16 PM
  11. takeo's Avatar
    So sorry, but the whole post is nonsense.

    The BB 9900 does not have any focusing-technology, but instead has a fixed aperture/focus distance.

    That's why its called "all focus" camera.

    Pics taken at clubs at night are overbright because the aperture is open too wide - you have to step away a lot. The old BBs could change the aperture according to the distance of the focus and make the pic clear.

    Just try it, go to a dark room and take a pic about 1 meter away *snapshot-distance at a club*

    Will be messy.

    Thanks for the efforts of the OP, but its just not true.
    09-06-11 11:23 PM
  12. iieeann's Avatar
    Thanks for the great explanation. I am satisfied with 9900 camera for fast snapping and my need for photo is just to show myself or people "what the item is" and not "how good the item looks like". So the issue of colour/contrast bla bla is not important to me.

    Close shot is not as good as AF camera but that can be overcome by far shot and crop.
    09-06-11 11:36 PM
  13. congeetime's Avatar
    Close up option does absolutely nothing. I held my camera in the same position and switched it and it does nothing but maybe correct some of the colors. A step back for sure. 9900 is still the best blackberry i've ever used even if the camera sucks.
    09-06-11 11:48 PM
  14. nfsw's Avatar
    I think you provided good information. However, I DO use my phone to take important shots that I email or keep on hand as a reference. Most of these shots are text. I was playing with a 9930 in a Verizon store and I could not take a reasonably legible picture of the text information for the phone. I tried different depths, settings, etc. to no avail. Each image could not be read at all. The text was very fuzzy. For me, this is extremely important because it's integrated into a part of my day for the work that I do. I NEED my phone to take good photos so I can share information.

    Sure, I could have a camera with me, but this defeats the purpose of being able to email the picture immediately after taking (again, something I do in my work quite a bit!).

    My wife sells real estate and needs the same feature. She often takes pictures of the inside and outside of homes and immediately uploads the information to her site. For her, this is essential in pleasing a lot of clients. The camera cannot be a hit or miss with her.

    My opinion, despite your explanation, is that the camera is "sub par" to my old Bold 9700 camera for the reasons stated above. I respect your knowledge and expertise, but I cannot use something that doesn't work for me. Shutter lag is irrelevant to me as I simply need sharp, crisp shots (as does my wife).

    In my opinion, ALL phones should have a very capable camera by default. I know it won't replace my regular point and shoot, but it's SO important for a lot of people. The "carry a camera" argument just doesn't cut it in this day and age of smartphones.

    That aside, my new Torch 9810 takes beautiful shots and is even better than my old 9700 camera!
    totally agreed.
    siopow and Robert22 like this.
    09-07-11 12:15 AM
  15. rafiks's Avatar
    Maybe its not the camera. maybe its because we've got a better screen . :-)
    09-07-11 12:26 AM
  16. blackmoe's Avatar
    Sorry but this post is totally inaccurate. The phone has a fixed focus lens period.
    09-07-11 12:31 AM
  17. bull_thumper's Avatar
    So sorry, but the whole post is nonsense.

    The BB 9900 does not have any focusing-technology, but instead has a fixed aperture/focus distance.

    That's why its called "all focus" camera.

    Pics taken at clubs at night are overbright because the aperture is open too wide - you have to step away a lot. The old BBs could change the aperture according to the distance of the focus and make the pic clear.

    Just try it, go to a dark room and take a pic about 1 meter away *snapshot-distance at a club*

    Will be messy.

    Thanks for the efforts of the OP, but its just not true.
    I agree 100%. EDOF means "extended depth-of-field", a fixed lens with no moving parts that is engineered to have critical distances always in focus, likely from about 12 inches to infinity.

    Macro capabilities were designed out in favor of having most average shots will be in focus (think about the old Kodak Instamatic 135 cameras and one-time-use 35mm cameras.) Another side effect of a wide field in focus is there is certainly no large sensor SLR soft bokah background here.

    Personally, I don't have a major issue with this. The pictures I get from my 9930 seem to be generally usable, but that is based on my needs. I try to keep a pocket point-and-shoot handy for when the situation demands and permits and use my DSLR when it really counts. For me, either scenario would happen regardless of what camera RIM chose.

    What I do have issue with is their limited dynamic range as it blows highlights to white (0xFFFFFF) and fills shadows with solid black (0x000000) way too easily. I would hope a software/OS/firmware update might rectify this.

    Sure, I would like a better camera, larger sensor and such, and wouldn't mind a bit of extra thickness to get it (and perhaps a slightly thicker battery as a side bonus.)
    Last edited by bull_thumper; 09-07-11 at 12:35 AM.
    09-07-11 12:32 AM
  18. alaskabennett's Avatar
    The post by Dr. Fever should be converted into a regular article. Thanks for a great explanation. I did think the camera was doing an excellent job, but I didn't understand how it was doing the job.
    09-07-11 12:32 AM
  19. bull_thumper's Avatar
    I just did a quick search for "EDOF" and this article came up:

    EDoF versus Auto-focus: Understanding the compromises involved

    It's about a Nokia phone but the author compares an auto-focus and EDOF model complete with a subject comparison chart that seems realistic.
    09-07-11 12:39 AM
  20. blackmoe's Avatar
    The post by Dr. Fever should be converted into a regular article. Thanks for a great explanation. I did think the camera was doing an excellent job, but I didn't understand how it was doing the job.
    No it shouldn't because it is false information.
    Graheem likes this.
    09-07-11 12:41 AM
  21. dalton4L's Avatar
    I didn't read the whole thing, but your comparison of a smartphone to a 'pocket camera' is a little bit weak. No offense.

    Just because device A(smartphone with a camera) does things another device in a completely different technology category altogether - device B(digital camera) - does not do, doesn't mean that that is a good comparison. If you're going to use a reference point, at least pick something related - sure they're both electronics, but beyond that, they hardly share any similarities.
    09-07-11 12:55 AM
  22. yeedub's Avatar
    The post about the 9900 camera is so full of fail I don't know where to begin... To say this camera has continuous focus would imply the lens has an ability to move and focus which it clearly does not. This camera is a move back towards early camera phones that didn't have autofocus at all, and not an improvement of any sort.

    Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com
    09-07-11 01:02 AM
  23. lax42's Avatar
    I had no problems with the camera when I went and played with the 9900. Worked as it should. Too bad Apple didn't do this first with their phone. It would have been "revolutionary".

    Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com
    Apple wouldn't be that stupid to do that in 2011

    Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com
    09-07-11 01:13 AM
  24. siopow's Avatar
    that never work in my case. I dont know how much light you mean. Broad day light? Ultra strong spotlight?

    I'm in a well lit office and there is no way i can do it. Could you maybe show a demo pic of a close up pic with no excessive lighting help?

    Just a quick and dirty pic to emphasize on your explaination? Please?
    I would also like to see macro/close-up pictures taken with your 9900
    09-07-11 01:26 AM
  25. andino's Avatar
    Good info on the camera side of things. However, as many have already mentioned, edof camera does not have an af system of any kind. It is a fixed focus system which probably also uses a very small (stopped down) aperture to have a deep depth of field. But since its focal point is fixed at X" or whatever, it makes it impossible to take macro shots without the lens refocusing. Macro setting or not, it does nothing since the lens lacks the motor needed for autofocus.

    Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com
    09-07-11 02:50 AM
185 1234 ...
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD