[johndoe086]

The camera is fine for everyday use.

People are just using the text close up as an excuse. Just be honest, you want to be an "Anthony Weiner", taking close up pictures of your private part. This is truly pathetic !!

I see mine every time I p***, no need to take pictures of it to post online like the complaining "Anthony Weiner".

[Skeevecr]

It doesn't bother you one bit that both OLDER model 9700 & 9780's take photo's that are at a minimum twice as better than the 9900/9930? If so, than it totally speaks for yourself. But in the natural progression of a products life cycle, it's supposed to gradually get better. Not get worse.

If you are going to make up claims of the older phones be x times better, why limit yourself to merely twice as good, really go for it and claim they a one million times better.

Also, if you decide to let some honesty creep into your comments, you should not be claiming photos in general are better when the reality is that a few particular types turn out better on the older devices, whereas most are as good or even better on the new devices.

[nicnoc]

Whilst I don't consider myself to be an expert by any means as a user of the 9900 I am perfectly happy with its camera and video capabilities. An example I'll use is how yesterday, whilst visiting my neice and nephew with my kids, I was able to take some great shots without missing that perfect smile whilst waiting for the camera to focus. In the time it would take to take 1 photo with my torch I could take 2/3 with the 9900 (truth).
Now I appreciate others may use their phone camera differently and have their views on it but for those who are considering the phone hopefully my experience will be helpful for them.

Peace out x

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

[johndoe086]

If you are going to make up claims of the older phones be x times better, why limit yourself to merely twice as good, really go for it and claim they a one million times better.

Also, if you decide to let some honesty creep into your comments, you should not be claiming photos in general are better when the reality is that a few particular types turn out better on the older devices, whereas most are as good or even better on the new devices.

Exactly!! You are one of the few people with common sense here. The rest of the bashers are just plain "Anthony Weiner".

[Skeevecr]

Oh, I assure you this isn't whining, not by a long shot - what you will watch take place is an online education of the general public on every review board that allows a post and you can take it to the bank it just won't be me doing it.

So not merely whining, but a concerted campaign of whining, you must be so proud of yourself.

[johndoe086]

Whilst I don't consider myself to be an expert by any means as a user of the 9900 I am perfectly happy with its camera and video capabilities. An example I'll use is how yesterday, whilst visiting my neice and nephew with my kids, I was able to take some great shots without missing that perfect smile whilst waiting for the camera to focus. In the time it would take to take 1 photo with my torch I could take 2/3 with the 9900 (truth).
Now I appreciate others may use their phone camera differently and have their views on it but for those who are considering the phone hopefully my experience will be helpful for them.

Peace out x

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

Others are using the camera on the phone to become "Anthony Weiner".

[Skeevecr]

And an intentional omission of a relevant fact IS a lie...
...We have users here WITH the 9900 that have posted pictures.
....We also have pro EDOF articles which are saying the SAME thing the pictures posted so far have demonstrated.

You mention those pro EDOF articles and yet you and others seem to conveniently ignore the positives of those articles and continue to claim that the camera is non-functional when what you actually mean is that it is not ideal for your particular use because the reality is that the camera is worse for some things, as good as for others and better at some.

It is fair enough that you have a complaint about the camera not suiting your needs, there is always the 9810 or a phone from another company, but there seems no need to lie about the camera on the 9900 in the way that you do since you are deliberately misleading people and weakening your own point because others are going to reply to you.

Compare these two scenarios, you post complaining that the lack of AF makes posed single person phots and close-ups worse, there is no argument there and people agree with you or you could do as you have done which is to claim the camera is always worse and then you get people replying saying that you are wrong, lying or blowing things out of proportion and your actual message gets lost in the arguments.

[pythons]

It all depends on what pics you tend to take with you camera, for many uses the camera in the 9900 is actually much better than the old one even before you consider the vastly improved speed and video, there are a few instances where it is worse and that isn't ideal, but these childish rants that a few seem to feel are needed on every single topic (go look at the vzw stuff on the frontpage) are just pointless and idiotic.

When it can't use the .pdf scanner app that was built for "IT" because the camera isn't functional that's not the people upset at this issue being childish - it's the Camera NOT being functional for anything business related.

Get it, got it. Good.

[pythons]

I think this is the crucial point, some people just want to find negatives with any blackberry product and while for some people the change in the camera is a negative one the amount of ranting about it is blown completely out of proportion.

Wakey, wakey Skeever, the camera ISN'T functional - if you want to demonstrate how all of us are wrong by all means post some "functional" pictures, the sort used in a business.

I can assure you, if you don't have a problem with paying a premium for substandard equipment you and your money will generally be living in different areas.

[Crucial_Xtreme]

See that's a KEY point. This is something that will bother lots of the loyalists; the very people you want evangelizing your product.

If you are going to make up claims of the older phones be x times better, why limit yourself to merely twice as good, really go for it and claim they a one million times better.

Also, if you decide to let some honesty creep into your comments, you should not be claiming photos in general are better when the reality is that a few particular types turn out better on the older devices, whereas most are as good or even better on the new devices.

Because it would be unreasonable to say a million times better. Now onto the rest of your post, is the 99xx's camera going to be better for taking pictures where something is moving? Yes. But in reality these type of shots are going to be around 25%(or less) of the total pictures taken. I invite you to look back through threads in the 97xx/9800 forum where people posted pictures taken over the years. Very few of them were "action" shots.
As for video it has more to do with the software allowing HD recording than the EDoF sensor or lens. So you can say I'm complaining just to complain if you'd like but the bottom line is in terms of being an overall better camera the EDoF just isn't and the Flagship product should get better over time not worse in any sense. As I said before it shouldn't be three steps forward & two back.

This is more about RIM and their methodology and why they're in the position they're in. The EDoF camera is in the 99xx because 1) it's much cheaper 2) a quick way to make the device thinner. In other words, cutting corners to try and get a slim as the competition when said competition continues to outperform with superior hardware(thinner with full auto-focus).

The implementation of EDoF was met with lots of scrutiny internally, especially with it being the only model to employ it's use and rightfully so. I'm far from being the only one unhappy with it. I'm glad you're happy with the camera & the device as a whole. That's what it's all about.

[pythons]

You mention those pro EDOF articles and yet you and others seem to conveniently ignore the positives of those articles and continue to claim that the camera is non-functional when what you actually mean is that it is not ideal for your particular use because the reality is that the camera is worse for some things, as good as for others and better at some.

It is fair enough that you have a complaint about the camera not suiting your needs, there is always the 9810 or a phone from another company, but there seems no need to lie about the camera on the 9900 in the way that you do since you are deliberately misleading people and weakening your own point because others are going to reply to you.

Compare these two scenarios, you post complaining that the lack of AF makes posed single person phots and close-ups worse, there is no argument there and people agree with you or you could do as you have done which is to claim the camera is always worse and then you get people replying saying that you are wrong, lying or blowing things out of proportion and your actual message gets lost in the arguments.

What good it is for me that I have the ability to capture a train from a distance with my "work phone" when I can't use that same phone to do my work?

Why would someone buy a phone that would also require them to use additional equipment that their previous smartphone was able to do just fine? The average person after hearing that would tell me just go get the newer smartphone you had that did all those things.

We all realize that the 9900 IS the new Blackberry Bold, right?

I've said if I just needed to take medium and distance shots the camera would not be an issue for me...
...My problem is I wanted the new BB and RIM made it worthless for people who wanted to use it for work.
...The camera is not FUNCTIONAL.

[Phill_UK]

71 posts of whining, argumentative, repetative, tedious and utter drivel

[pythons]

71 posts of whining, argumentative, repetative, tedious and utter drivel

Given that the camera in the 99xx is not even functional for business related subjects....
...I'm proud to be the top of that list.

Perhaps in your area of the world or place in society if someone snatches a kid in the park and buggers it in the bushes it's no big deal - it does not work that way in places where people vote with their money.

RIM isn't currently in the state it finds itself in because it was listening to it's customers and actually doing "research" all this time. It's there because it acted like it knew everything and it could stuff whatever it wanted into it's large customer base like yer granny used to stuff the holiday Goose.

Those days are way over Phill, the last thing RIM needed to do at this point is to SODOMIZE it's own historical "BUSINESS SMARTPHONE" and mutate it into a phone for another demograhic, I don't know what it is but it certainly isn't "business".

The camera in it can't take functional business pictures.

[Cyborg73703]

While I dont agree with "lowering" the specs of the camera, I appreciate the thickness of the 9900. I take a fair number of shots with my cameraphone, but I have a camera for pictures too. not a big deal for me.

Once you figure out what the camera can/cant do you will adapt your picture taking to fit.

[pythons]

While I dont agree with "lowering" the specs of the camera, I appreciate the thickness of the 9900. I take a fair number of shots with my cameraphone, but I have a camera for pictures too. not a big deal for me.

Once you figure out what the camera can/cant do you will adapt your picture taking to fit.

Back 4 years ago and more you needed to have a high end point and shoot or D-SLR for work related pictures - I know, I've got two of them stuffed in a S.I. closet at work. For the last three years I've been using a Blackberry Bold / storm to take good enough pictures I didn't need those two aforementioned cameras.

RIM has produced their new business "Flagship" Bold smartphone and anyone like me, who has been using the older bolds for work will be required to pack around their HUGE DSLR's if they need any work related pictures taken.

Does that sound like progress in the right direction to you?

The average person who hears the apologetic that he can just buy the 9900 and buy a real camera if he needs to take work related pictures hears a loud and clear suggestion to go buy an iphone or droid.

That kind of rubric belongs in a kinky "cuckold society", it does not belong as a talking point for a company who is trying to keep from going out of business or sold off because it's lost the ability to conduct business.

[ratchetjaw#AC]

While I dont agree with "lowering" the specs of the camera, I appreciate the thickness of the 9900. I take a fair number of shots with my cameraphone, but I have a camera for pictures too. not a big deal for me.

Once you figure out what the camera can/cant do you will adapt your picture taking to fit.

Mine is in the mail so done deal but that pic looks perfectly fine close up for me

[pythons]

Mine is in the mail so done deal but that pic looks perfectly fine close up for me

Something tells me that pic wasn't taken with his 9900 lol.

[vrs626]

It all depends on what pics you tend to take with you camera, for many uses the camera in the 9900 is actually much better than the old one even before you consider the vastly improved speed and video, there are a few instances where it is worse and that isn't ideal, but these childish rants that a few seem to feel are needed on every single topic (go look at the vzw stuff on the frontpage) are just pointless and idiotic.

False. Go look at the blog post that Kevin did comparing the 9900 camera with the 9780 camera. In each shot the 9780 performs better.

[pythons]

Couldn't agree more ... There are already different threads with "expert" discussions regarding autofocus and EdOF.

And they all agree that the camera is NOT functional for business.

Guys, take your back-and-forth to those threads and keep on topic here. Have some modicum of civility and respect for the OP - he (she?) asked a question and it wasn't to write a thesis on the benefits/drawbacks of EdOF/autofocus. For goodness sake, some of you don't even have the phone but are already commenting on the quality of this or that.

The O.P. did ask a question about the camera and given that....
...The intentional omission of a relevant fact IS A LIE.
...We are providing the O.P. with the truth about the camera.

Of course there are those who for whatever reason hate the truth...
...That have offered flacid apologetics that the camera isn't that bad.
...These have been dealt with on a case by case basis.

Dear OP... The "problems" with the 9900 are blown out proportion. Battery life was dismal out-of-the-box, but a firmware upgrade fixed that promptly.

That appears to be true - it looks like the battery isn't an issue at all...
...Myself and others have said as much.

The camera is a camera - it's no digital SLR, but it serves its pupose very well.

It's not a "functional camera" but yes, it can be called a camera....
...NO ONE has a beef with it not being a digital SLR - no one expects it to be a D-SLR.
...What people have been saying is that the 9900 can't do a fraction of what RIM's cameras of three years ago can do.

That, and that it's NOT a functional camera for work, period.....
...Like the professional review from the UK said - if you want to take a picture of your family dog.
...And don't mind the picture looking like a cartoon this can be an acceptable camera for a person.

If you're thinking the camera has James Bond like qualities which shoots out rockets, does your laundry, drives your car remotely, you'll be disappointed.

Otherwise it's a very good phone and does what it does very well

Cheers!

Correction: If you think the 9900 camera is half what the bold 9700 or 1st generation BB Storm camera was...
...You will be VERY disappointed.
...The camera takes medium and distance shots of a lesser quality then RIM produced three years ago.

AND,

The camera flat out is NOT functional for the taking of business related pictures....
...For Pete's sake you can't even use the BB supported .pdf scanner on it!
...At least have the honor to treat the O.P.'s request with an honest answer.

[elgolfman]

Well we CAN NOT give you battery feed back, since the 9930 will be a different animal, it very much seems to be a radio issue with the 9900 with how the battery drains, I can't even say if the battery is good or not because 1 day the battery is crap the next day it is amazing, it is just odd right now.


as for the Camera, I haven't found any issues with it yet, compared to my torch the image quality seems to be pretty close, the BIG plus for the 9900 is I can take 2 pics for every 1 pic with the 9800, the "shutter speed" is that much faster.

Nice to hear on the camera quickness... hmmmm on the ozzy battery.

[elgolfman]

71 posts of whining, argumentative, repetative, tedious and utter drivel

Pythons does bring up good points. I am in the real estate business and staff shooting comps with the iPhone import and print fine in client documents - good color and quality. The ones shot with a Blackberry cam don't cut it - period. Thus, two devices are needed when it would be nice to carry only the phone.

[Phill_UK]

Pythons does bring up good points...

No, he brings up the same point... over and over again!

[Skeevecr]

I've said if I just needed to take medium and distance shots the camera would not be an issue for me...
...My problem is I wanted the new BB and RIM made it worthless for people who wanted to use it for work.
...The camera is not FUNCTIONAL.

Again you feel the need to resort to unfounded hyperbole that weakens your valid points, calling the camera not functional is false and each time you repeat this you will get people disagreeing with you. Your claim that they made the camera worthless for people who wanted to use it for work is similarly false unless you are arrogant enough to decide that anyone who uses one differently than you is not using their for work.

Why don't you stick to truthful statements that the camera is no use for you and unsuitable for the particular business uses you have for it, those points are strong enough to stand up on their own merits without this continual need to claim that is not functional at all when what you actually mean is unsuitable for you and your typical usage.

[s.ben]

Again you feel the need to resort to unfounded hyperbole that weakens your valid points, calling the camera not functional is false and each time you repeat this you will get people disagreeing with you. Your claim that they made the camera worthless for people who wanted to use it for work is similarly false unless you are arrogant enough to decide that anyone who uses one differently than you is not using their for work.

Why don't you stick to truthful statements that the camera is no use for you and unsuitable for the particular business uses you have for it, those points are strong enough to stand up on their own merits without this continual need to claim that is not functional at all when what you actually mean is unsuitable for you and your typical usage.

Skeevecr - Nicely stated.

[Meloco65]

I just took a picture of the daily telegraph, I took the shot a fair way back than what I usually would (close up).

I zoomed in and found the text clarity to be fairly acceptable. I really have no idea how a lot of people are making such a fuss. Yes the clarity of text is a little miffed, but tbh i'm sure you can sort it out once connecting the image to your pc. Takes all of 10 mins? Maybe less once used to the specific programs you need to use. But as of right now I'm taking pictures of documents and finding the readability fine.