[tkong]

If I want to take good pictures I use my Canon.

Good point cheers.

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

[crackcookie]

So the 97xx had autofocus? I honestly didn't like the pictures that came out of that phone but I will eventually get the Torch 2, since it will be 50 dollars. And try it out and maybe in a year or so, Rim will release the QNX phone with a keyboard later on.

If the camera is bad, it is bad. That is a problem with the world now a days. The marketing behind a device is finished before the actual device itself is.

But we are to blame too, customers demand a product and confirmation so there is so much pressure for a device to come out.

I can only hope that Rim's next devices come out when they are ready, not rushed without email features, not rushed without a proper camera or battery.

[donnation]

Why even argue this point. It doesn't have AF so if that's a big deal to you then don't get the phone.

[belfastdispatcher]

This arguing is plain stupid! All of a sudden, if u say the phone takes crappy pics, then your a moron and have no idea how a camera works, and you get blasted by people saying get over it and use a real camera. I'll make this pretty simple for all those that are against the people who think the camera sucks. IT DOES!!! Plain and simple, without auto focus it sucks! My Bold 9700 was awesome as far as taking pictures go, the 9930 can't hold a candle to it! So yes, RIM should have found a way to get auto focus in this phone. The iphone is thinner, and it's camera blows this camera away? Its a BS excuse, someone said it right, this questions RIMS's engineering dept!

Does this make the phone a POS...absolutly not!!! Its an awesome phone, but yes the lack of Auto focus is a real bummer, and should have never been left out! Case Closed...there is no arguing this fact!

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

Really? You seem so sure. Please tell me which one of this photos taken with my 9900 sucks? All of them would be imposibile to take with your 9700 autofocus camera. Can't have the water drops and buildings in focus or the rock and landscape with an autofocus camera, and it wouldn't be fast enough to snap my kid jumping like that without one sign of blur.

[greggebhardt]

I'm sorry to inform you, but Bold 99xx owners got the EDoF camera so RIM could make the device as thin as they possibly could. .

Sorry I can not believe that. I am using a Samsung Galaxy S2 and it is way thinner than the 9900, has 8mp and focuses down to an inch or two from the screen. It will focus any where you touch the screen instantly with no hesitation.

RIM might have had reasons to use the EDoF camera but it was not to keep the 9900 thin.

[greggebhardt]

I always find it funny when I hear people ohh and aww about a 5,6,7,8mp camera. Its not about the mp I always say its more about how it takes pictures.
My 3.2 on my 9650 kills my friends evo with an 8.

Sent from my BlackBerry 9650 using Tapatalk

Sorry but pixels DO make a difference. I use both a Lieca M9 and Nikon D3x and additional pixels give an image "snap" that you will not get with 3.2

[ysss]

Read up about EDoF, it's basically 'always focused' on any objects from 1m (3') to infinity:

EDoF versus Auto-focus: Understanding the compromises involved

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.

[Xterra2]

I always find it funny when I hear people ohh and aww about a 5,6,7,8mp camera. Its not about the mp I always say its more about how it takes pictures.
My 3.2 on my 9650 kills my friends evo with an 8.

Sent from my BlackBerry 9650 using Tapatalk

Bleh
Someone needs some photography lessons

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

[TomCanuck]

Sorry I can not believe that. I am using a Samsung Galaxy S2 and it is way thinner than the 9900, has 8mp and focuses down to an inch or two from the screen. It will focus any where you touch the screen instantly with no hesitation.



RIM might have had reasons to use the EDoF camera but it was not to keep the 9900 thin.

This is RIM we're talking about. They've proven time and time again, just because someone else can do something doesn't mean RIM can or that they even want to try.

Example: Other companies can make phones that don't "hourglass", can RIM?

Sent from my BlackBerry 9780 using Tapatalk

[Crucial_Xtreme]

Sorry I can not believe that. I am using a Samsung Galaxy S2 and it is way thinner than the 9900, has 8mp and focuses down to an inch or two from the screen. It will focus any where you touch the screen instantly with no hesitation.

RIM might have had reasons to use the EDoF camera but it was not to keep the 9900 thin.

I'm pretty much tired with this camera issue, but that's the exact reason. The EDoF camera saved tons of space. Just look at how thin the battery is, another space saver to get thin. If the EDoF was just so superior it would be in the brand new 9850 & 9860. The EDoF is half the size of an AF camera & has no moving parts.
As I said, I like the 9900 aside from the camera and use one. But it bugs me a bit when people act as though it wasn't a sacrifice of function when it most certainly was. Same with the battery; faster CPU that actually has a GPU, higher screen res plus H+ and they lower the mAh battery. That's fine it does pretty well considering, but let's not act like it wasn't to get as thin as possible either.
I'm officially done speaking about the camera.

[belfastdispatcher]

This is RIM we're talking about. They've proven time and time again, just because someone else can do something doesn't mean RIM can or that they even want to try.

Example: Other companies can make phones that don't "hourglass", can RIM?

Sent from my BlackBerry 9780 using Tapatalk

Yeah right, all phones "hourglass" except instead of the spinning clock they just give you lag.

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

[waterfrontmgmt]

when are you getting an hour glass with the 9900/9930?

Example: Other companies can make phones that don't "hourglass", can RIM?

[Crack_pot101]

hhahaha apparently the OP doesnt know how camera lenses work, and even if he did -- how the heck would they impliment MANUAL focus on a smartphone?? have you ever used a DSLR, OP? focus rings are neither small, inexpensive, or quick to use... thats why we got the EDoF cam-- people were b*tchin about how "long it takes to focus blah blah blah" and "it never focuses correctly, wahhh!" so essentially, the community got what they asked for and are STILL unhappy about it. seriously -- if the picture is that important then carry around a point+shoot or a DSLR; it may not be as convenient as using it on your bb, but at least you cant complain about picture quality.

Apparently smijes doesn't know how camera lenses work, either. You think manual focus requires *focus rings*? Seriously?

There are a ton of digicams on the market which offer touchscreen point-n-focus manual focus. No "focus rings" required. This BB could have offered a mechanism for auto and manual focus well within the form factor.

As for those offering photography lessons to the poster who claims his 3mp phonecam puts out better photos than the friend's 8mp, back to photog school for you (or just study the database samples on DPReview). Cramming more MP on the little chips these phones use can make for some pretty craggy results even if you downsample the big noisy pics later. Mr. Leica/Nikon Guy should know this stuff if he's into photography beyond buying the high-end gear.

[SaMaster14]

Apparently smijes doesn't know how camera lenses work, either. You think manual focus requires *focus rings*? Seriously?

There are a ton of digicams on the market which offer touchscreen point-n-focus manual focus. No "focus rings" required. This BB could have offered a mechanism for auto and manual focus well within the form factor.

As for those offering photography lessons to the poster who claims his 3mp phonecam puts out better photos than the friend's 8mp, back to photog school for you (or just study the database samples on DPReview). Cramming more MP on the little chips these phones use can make for some pretty craggy results even if you downsample the big noisy pics later. Mr. Leica/Nikon Guy should know this stuff if he's into photography beyond buying the high-end gear.

Is that like the iPod touch camera?? that device is thinner than the 99XX and when I tap it focuses in on the area I tapped. Regardless, iPods still camera sucks, video recording is good though.

[experiment 626]

The bottom line is EDoF was used to get the device as slim as possible. Although others are even slimmer with autofocus. Says a lot about the engineering eh? If the EDoF was so dang good, and it's implementation was because of slow autofocus complaints, then why isn't it in the 9850/9860 and the new 9810?? That's right, it's not because having the device as slim as possible wasn't a priority on those devices..

The thing is, I never read complaints about the thickness of any BlackBerry.Now maybe the Bold 9000's width got complaints(giving us the downsized 97xx and 96xx Bolds).If anything it seems most Bold lovers miss the deeper,leather-covered back of the 9000. With RIM it always seems like it has to cut corners. Just like it was OK to delete the camera flash on the 85xx and 93xx series Curves since people "never needed it on a cameraphone anyway".

[papped]

Sorry I can not believe that. I am using a Samsung Galaxy S2 and it is way thinner than the 9900, has 8mp and focuses down to an inch or two from the screen. It will focus any where you touch the screen instantly with no hesitation.

RIM might have had reasons to use the EDoF camera but it was not to keep the 9900 thin.

SGS2 being thinner than the 9900 is not a comparison though... The SGS2 is thinner because it doesn't have to have anything like a physical keyboard, etc. All the internals are different.

The simple nature of a keyboard is that you have to have a contact board layer, then you have to have physical keys that rest above the contact layer (so that they can travel). Then that whole thing has to be stuck on top of the main board. Then the camera sticks out the back end of the mainboard.

That's why it can't be as thin as the SGS2.

[morrsn]

Well, not sure how this works, and I could be totally wrong, but my iPod Touch 4th gen is thinner than the 9930 and has a camera that I assume is lacking any sort of focus. It does shoot 720p video, but the camera is pretty bad (horrible if you zoom with it), but if you tap the screen a little box appears and kinda brings the area you tapped on into focus a bit more (works with both the video recording and still picture camera).

Is the iPod Touch just a manual focus camera, or is it like the 9930's EDoF?

I'd like to know this as well. Somebody enlighten us camera rookies please

[experiment 626]

Read up about EDoF, it's basically 'always focused' on any objects from 1m (3') to infinity:

EDoF versus Auto-focus: Understanding the compromises involved

Thanks for the article.

[bbboyjr]

I'm pretty much tired with this camera issue, but that's the exact reason. The EDoF camera saved tons of space. Just look at how thin the battery is, another space saver to get thin. If the EDoF was just so superior it would be in the brand new 9850 & 9860. The EDoF is half the size of an AF camera & has no moving parts.
As I said, I like the 9900 aside from the camera and use one. But it bugs me a bit when people act as though it wasn't a sacrifice of function when it most certainly was. Same with the battery; faster CPU that actually has a GPU, higher screen res plus H+ and they lower the mAh battery. That's fine it does pretty well considering, but let's not act like it wasn't to get as thin as possible either.
I'm officially done speaking about the camera.

This is the only explanation that makes sense.

And people who are disappointed have a right to be. The 9900 was shaping up to be the perfect blackberry for many of us, but having a sub-par camera and sub-par battery life just to make the device a little thinner isn't worth the trade-off.

[papped]

Battery life isn't subpar unless you consider the older devices to have subpar battery life.

Basically it's par battery life, rather than improved.

[smijes]

Fanboy

Just because the camera took too long to auto focus, doesn't mean you take away the capability itself..

Terrible logic >_<

fanGIRL!!!! lol

[ibigberries]

I think my 9930 takes decent pictures. If i need to take a picture of something up close i still have my 9700 active. If i really want to take pictures i jsut use my d-lux 4. no biggie. As far as battery life, I have gotten 17 hours on a full charge (heavy use). and on light use its lasted me 4 days.

[OniBerry]

I think my 9930 takes decent pictures. If i need to take a picture of something up close i still have my 9700 active. If i really want to take pictures i jsut use my d-lux 4. no biggie. As far as battery life, I have gotten 17 hours on a full charge (heavy use). and on light use its lasted me 4 days.

Sorry, I have to call BS on that. Unless you have also turned off all connections and made the phone sleep 22.5 hours/day.

I really wish people would stop embellishing the amount of time their phone is working. Both to the plus and minus

[smijes]

Apparently smijes doesn't know how camera lenses work, either. You think manual focus requires *focus rings*? Seriously?

There are a ton of digicams on the market which offer touchscreen point-n-focus manual focus. No "focus rings" required. This BB could have offered a mechanism for auto and manual focus well within the form factor.

As for those offering photography lessons to the poster who claims his 3mp phonecam puts out better photos than the friend's 8mp, back to photog school for you (or just study the database samples on DPReview). Cramming more MP on the little chips these phones use can make for some pretty craggy results even if you downsample the big noisy pics later. Mr. Leica/Nikon Guy should know this stuff if he's into photography beyond buying the high-end gear.

you think that constitutes as actual manual focus? that is a software designed autofocus LMAO. see, manual focus is where you, the user, actually adjust the focus of the lens by hand. not "tap on a screen and it focuses for you." thats not manual focus. although if you want to claim it as that retronym and look like an ignoramus, be my guest.

[Danf]

I see the whole EDOF fiasco with the New Bold as yet more evidence that the Co-chairmen are out of touch with what people want. And they were dumb enough to think that people would rather have the "thinnest blackberry ever" instead of auto focus.

I mean seriously these two dimwits cannot figure out that taking something away from your flagship model that users previously had and enjoyed ( and some relied on) isn't going to tick people off?

They decided that people wouldn't mind plunking down premium prices for a flagship model that lacks what even free feature phones have?

It is missteps like this that make me wonder if the calls for those two to step aside are not correct.