[cold war kid]

Knowing that there are phones that are even thinner than the 9900 (ie: iPhone 4, Gallaxy SII) that DO have auto-focus cameras, there is no possible way this can be true. Someone in the know please confirm!!

[howarmat]

its sadly true

[bighap]

Neither does the PlayBook. It uses the same camera which happens to take great pictures.

[kbz1960]

I've read they do not.

[willtothewong]

wow that is a major bummer...

[terreos]

Neither does the PlayBook. It uses the same camera which happens to take great pictures.

I've read they do not.

If it uses the same camera as the playbook what's your take on the playbills camera?

[kbz1960]

I've only had mine a couple weeks and have barely used the camera....seems to take good pics but with no flash of any kind in low light they are grainy.

[cold war kid]

wow that is a major bummer...

Major bummer indeed.

I just doesn't make sense to me though. How cam RIM be releasing a major FLAGSHIP device in mid-2011 with a fixed focus camera?!? And the reason? To keep it thin?!?

iPhone 4: 9.3mm thick
Galaxy S: 9.9mm thick
Galaxy S 2: 8.49mm thick
All 3 with auto-focus sensors.

So how could RIM possibly not fit an auto-focus sensor into a device that is 10.5mm thick?

[wxmancanada]

In a video CB Kevin just posted, it showed having AF...?

[brucep1]

Geez.... what's the problem here? You use a phone to primarily take pictures or make/receive telephone calls??? If you're into photography, there are great pocket-sized digital cameras on the market these days that have DSLR features (aperture settings, exposure control, etc). A phone isn't meant to replace those.

How come people that buy digital cameras don't complain that the camera's phone signal is weak, or that they can't play games or use flash??

I, for one, much prefer having a phone with strong signal, good battery life and above average call quality than worrying about autofocus on a phone with a camera.

Good grief.

My iphone has done a good enough job that its replaced my digital camera..the photos i take were just as good as the old nikon coolpix camera I had.

For some people, a quality camera on a device is important. Personally, I only use my camera for ebay auctions and sporting events, and my iphone does just fine, so I cant justify buying a $300 digital camera

[Masahiro]

Well that would explain the one-stage convenience key and the quick shots that are advertised.

UrbanGlowCam also posted a thread a while ago expressing concern about the alleged of EDOF (or all-focus) instead of auto-focus: http://forums.crackberry.com/blackbe...cameras-629174

[terreos]

I've only had mine a couple weeks and have barely used the camera....seems to take good pics but with no flash of any kind in low light they are grainy.

I haven't used any phones that I would say take good photos in the dark. Regardless if they have flash, autofocus, higher mp count it's always grainy. As long as the pictures are ok for still shots I'll be happy. I normally carry my camera if I want good photos.

Geez.... what's the problem here? You use a phone to primarily take pictures or make/receive telephone calls??? If you're into photography, there are great pocket-sized digital cameras on the market these days that have DSLR features (aperture settings, exposure control, etc). A phone isn't meant to replace those.

How come people that buy digital cameras don't complain that the camera's phone signal is weak, or that they can't play games or use flash??

I, for one, much prefer having a phone with strong signal, good battery life and above average call quality than worrying about autofocus on a phone with a camera.

Good grief.

We're bored and want our new Bolds. So we're passing the time by learning new things about the phone.

[pythons]

If that's actually the reason they removed it that was a very bad move.....
...Without AF, on average, the Bold 9650 would take better pictures.
...We will have to see what some photos look like taken from the device.

[howarmat]

i think the PB gets decent photos from what i have seen. Much better video though. it will come down to the conditions probably but i think AF would provide the better overall experience

[twigg]

I honestly think that RIM was being flat out CHEAP. There are phones that are far thinner that have AF cameras, there is no reason they couldn't find the part. Considering that EDoF cameras are cheaper than AF cameras and that they were already using it in the PB, I'd say they were just being cheap.

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

[Masahiro]

Here's an informative article that UGC posted: EDoF versus Auto-focus: Understanding the compromises involved

[cold war kid]

Geez.... what's the problem here? You use a phone to primarily take pictures or make/receive telephone calls??? If you're into photography, there are great pocket-sized digital cameras on the market these days that have DSLR features (aperture settings, exposure control, etc). A phone isn't meant to replace those.

How come people that buy digital cameras don't complain that the camera's phone signal is weak, or that they can't play games or use flash??

I, for one, much prefer having a phone with strong signal, good battery life and above average call quality than worrying about autofocus on a phone with a camera.

Good grief.

Calm down, Charlie Brown!

I was expecting a response like this from someone. And believe me; I understand where you're coming from. Having a phone that functions primarily as a phone, and does it well. However; different people have different needs for their phones and certain features may be more important than others, as pointed out by brucep1. Maybe YOU don't need a phone with a good camera, but someone else might.

The point I was trying to make however, and the reason for my disbelief & confusion comes down to the current state of RIM and the importance of the decisions they make. A lot of people in the tech world are talking about how "RIM is in trouble", "no one wants BlackBerries anymore."

So in a world where it's all about iOS, Android, HTC, Motorola and the likes, how can RIM possibly justify sacrificing such a BASIC feature for such a lame reason? I could understand if the Bold 9900 was THE slimmest smartphone on the market, but it isn't. So when a dumbphone from 2009 has an auto-focus camera, and a flagship smartphone from a struggling company in 2011 doesn't, yeah that's kind of hard to swallow whether I need an AF camera or not.

[flyersfan76]

Havn't we already seen pictures taken with this phone. Seriously there are have been posts and the one I am thinking of was pretty good for a PHONE.

[ratchetjaw#AC]

This has been mentioned in a few threads and still seems to get different answers. I have seen its the same camera on the playbook( which takes good pics iMHO and is better for video) yet have seen post from people who have possession of the phone and say autofocus. Either way i will be happy with the pics it takes. I do wonder about barcode reading without autofocus though. Guess thats where NFC steps in

[flyersfan76]

This has been mentioned in a few threads and still seems to get different answers. I have seen its the same camera on the playbook( which takes good pics iMHO and is better for video) yet have seen post from people who have possession of the phone and say autofocus. Either way i will be happy with the pics it takes. I do wonder about barcode reading without autofocus though. Guess thats where NFC steps in

Which is useless if you are trying to read barcode for an app there searches a UPC database.

[jgaspar89]

Geez.... what's the problem here? You use a phone to primarily take pictures or make/receive telephone calls??? If you're into photography, there are great pocket-sized digital cameras on the market these days that have DSLR features (aperture settings, exposure control, etc). A phone isn't meant to replace those.

How come people that buy digital cameras don't complain that the camera's phone signal is weak, or that they can't play games or use flash??

I, for one, much prefer having a phone with strong signal, good battery life and above average call quality than worrying about autofocus on a phone with a camera.

Good grief.

This.

10

[simsim]

Geez.... what's the problem here? You use a phone to primarily take pictures or make/receive telephone calls??? If you're into photography, there are great pocket-sized digital cameras on the market these days that have DSLR features (aperture settings, exposure control, etc). A phone isn't meant to replace those.

How come people that buy digital cameras don't complain that the camera's phone signal is weak, or that they can't play games or use flash??

I, for one, much prefer having a phone with strong signal, good battery life and above average call quality than worrying about autofocus on a phone with a camera.

Good grief.

Word.

You know, I wanted to post the same sentiment, but any way I phrased it would sound like I was defending another poor decision by RIM to cut corners and 'cheap-out'. Or calling a failing a 'feature'. lol.

When in reality the camera is completely unimportant to me.

But I guess to others it is important, so let them blow off steam

[pythons]

Network 2G Network CDMA 800, 1900 MHz
GSM 850, 900, 1800, 1900 MHz 3G Network CDMA 1xEV-DO rev.A
UMTS 900, 2100 MHz Dimensions Size 115 x 66 x 10.5 mm Weight 130 grams Display Type TFT LCD Capacitive touchscreen Size 2.8 inch Colors & Resolution 16 Million Colors & (480 x 640) Pixels WVGA Pixel Density 287 dpi Input/ User Interface Input QWERTY keyboard (25 key backlit)
Optical Trackpad
TouchPad
Proximity Sensor for Auto turn-off System Properties Operating System BlackBerry OS 7 CPU Qualcomm 8655 Snapdragon 1.2GHz processor
768MB RAM Storage Capacity Internal Memory 8GB internal storage Memory Expansion micro-SD Card Support for 32GB Browser & Messaging BlackBerry Browser, HTML, RSS
MMS, SMS, IM, Email, Push Email Camera Still(Rear facing) - 5 Megapixels
- 2560�1920 pixels
- 4x Digital zoom
- Auto Focus - Flash, Image Stabilization, Face Detection,
- Scene modes, Geo-tagging Secondary(front side) No

Read more: BlackBerry Bold 9930 Full Specifications And Price Details - Gadgetian


Part of my job is doing damage reports for transportation damaged cars that come into the dealerships...
...This requires clear pictures of the damage - something my Bold 9650 does an excellent job at.
...If the 9930 fails at producing the same quality of pics my 9650 takes that will take me out of the running for one.

Here are some old pics I took with my berry....
...If the 9930 takes shots as good as my old berry I will be happy with it.

[anon3396357]

A phone is primarily a phone, yes. But I'd appreciate a great camera for the moments you wish to snap and share with a loved one and you don't have your digital camera with you. Also, with Social apps taking off right now people are using phone cameras to share more photos with one another.

Get moving with the times.

[FMB8900]

I honestly think that RIM was being flat out CHEAP. There are phones that are far thinner that have AF cameras, there is no reason they couldn't find the part. Considering that EDoF cameras are cheaper than AF cameras and that they were already using it in the PB, I'd say they were just being cheap.

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

This sucks. they use EDoF to supposedly make the handset cheaper.... but for some reason we are seeing documentation that the 9900 is going to be $250/$300 WITH a 2 year contract wtf?