This can't possibly be true, please confirm.

honestly the consumer buying the phone probably will never know. But they might notice that the pics they take arent as good as hoped and probably not know why.

The real problem i see is getting thru the reviews because this will be something they will note. The pictures will be good I suspect but many reviewers will probably not the lack of autofocus and mention how previous BBs have better cameras or that phone x, y, z take better pics. Hopefully it doesnt become the next "power" button. I do agree RIM cheaped out with it though

The 99xx takes good photos sans auto focus. The only time the camera shows it's lack of auto focus is on really close up pictures. Here's some info on EFoD.

http://www.allaboutsymbian.com/featu...us_Underst.php


---
- Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by howarmat

honestly the consumer buying the phone probably will never know. But they might notice that the pics they take arent as good as hoped and probably not know why.

The real problem i see is getting thru the reviews because this will be something they will note. The pictures will be good I suspect but many reviewers will probably not the lack of autofocus and mention how previous BBs have better cameras or that phone x, y, z take better pics. Hopefully it doesnt become the next "power" button. I do agree RIM cheaped out with it though

Consumers won't notice at all, especially when initially viewing shots on a 2.8" screen. The majority of people just don't have very high standards when it comes to camera quality on their cell phones, they're not expecting much. As long as it looks decent to them they're happy. Techies, reviewers, and some people on this site might care, but the general market won't even notice as long as the EDOF camera in the new Bold takes acceptable photos/video, and if the PlayBook's camera is anything to by there won't be too much complaining.

booooooooerns

Originally Posted by chiefbroski

I've tried to take a few pictures using my playbook of things far away and the pictures are great! Trying to take some macro shots of a sample at work, the camera just does not focus well so I have to use the Storm. Autofocus is useful! Not necessary, but I've grown to like it

So, if you needed to take pictures of rock chips in a windshield or a scratch in a paint job...
....The camera that's in the PB & the new Bold would not be the thing to use?
....As in from your experience your BB Storm takes better pics?

Could you comment on the following pics taken from an older BB and tell me if at this distance...
...The pics taken from a Playbook would look as detailed?
...Or no way would they be?

Originally Posted by Crucial_Xtreme

The 99xx takes good photos sans auto focus. The only time the camera shows it's lack of auto focus is on really close up pictures. Here's some info on EFoD.

EDoF versus Auto-focus: Understanding the compromises involved

---
- Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I already posted that link, but I don't think anyone bothered to read it. :P Everyone thinks there's nothing in place to act as a replacement for AF.

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

Originally Posted by orangepit

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.

Well, it eliminates the possibility that the phone could have barcode scanner apps for instance. It also won't run apps that scan documents. All these kinds of apps require autofocus.

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

I've asked about photo quality in numerous posts but no real reply yet. I use my phone a lot for photos instead of lugging around my camera so it's one of the things that I look for.

But for y'all who really want to know, do you remember point and shoot cameras? Some of them were actually quite good including the disposable ones. That was because of the sensor within. So please don't think that having all the bells and whistles means it the best.

For an analogy - a well built but cheapo vehicle, is far better than a poorly built but expensive vehicle.

But, a fixed focus camera does have a major advantage. Super quick photography. I am looking forward to that.

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

Also better low light photography. Since it is essentially a pinhole camera.

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

No autofocus, no problem. Better have great reception!!!

Cannot do good macro shots obviously and the video camera will probably not be good unless the software wizards at RIM will work it's magic.

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

Originally Posted by Masahiro

I already posted that link, but I don't think anyone bothered to read it. :P Everyone thinks there's nothing in place to act as a replacement for AF.

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

In all honesty I believe my old 1st Gen BB Storm took better shots than the ones posted at that link. The close up shot was terrible.

Seeing as how my Tour took better pics than some of my friends' higher spec'ed Android phones, I will reserve judgement until I see the pics. I trust that RIM has made sure the thing takes pictures that are as good as most will require.

Originally Posted by rdef

Well, that made up my mind. And yet one more brainless decision by RIM.

Also, for those of you that put up a strawman argument like, "I'd rather have a phone that has good call quality that one that has a good camera," your brains are about as big as the brains at RIM. As if today we need a make a choice between one or the other.

I didnt make that comment but to say someone that did is brainless is dumb. To judge a phones camera before using is dumb. I remember people saying the iphone 4's camera was gonna be a fail when they announced 5 mp and we see how good it is.

I would wait to write it off. I like taking pics with my phone but heck i am happy with the shooter on the Bold 9700, also happy with the pics my playbook takes. They work for what i need

Originally Posted by southlander

Seeing as how my Tour took better pics than some of my friends' higher spec'ed Android phones, I will reserve judgement until I see the pics. I trust that RIM has made sure the thing takes pictures that are as good as most will require.

Exactly....I just read through 7 pages of BS and not one pic from the 9900.

Could someone with a 9900 please post some pix taken w/it?

Does anyone know enough about this "all focus" thing to even comment?
I read smack about the 9800 for months before it dropped....I got a Torch on day one and love it.
I dig BB because of what it does well.....and what it does well helps me do my job well
Personally, I think I'll go check out the 9900 when it drops and make my own "informed" opinion. I loved my 9k when I had it

The technology is there to take very good pictures on a phone... so it's not unreasonable to expect that on a flagship device.

Perhaps the 9900 camera is good? But if it's a step back from my 9780... I won't be happy.

my storm 9530 takes garbage pictures my wifes bold 9700 takes wicked pictures.
i have three kids and i use my phone to take pictures of them and yes now adays if i spend $250 on a phone or 550 with no contract it better take great pictujres theres no excuse. to those that say you use your phone to make calls and its not a camera BS a there not phones anymore

i thought i saw one of the carriers video yesterday on the new bold and they mentioned 5mp auto focus camera.

Can someone who has the 9900 simply snap some pics with it and post them? There was a member with a cat for their avatar pic who said he/she had the 9900. Can you please post some pics and let us see how they look?

I too would like a good camera with autofocus. Seems like just ANOTHER step backwards for RIM when everyone else is moving forward...and at a rapid pace.

Maybe RIM can drop the expected price of $300 to $100 and let us spend the $200 savings on a camera!

Can someone also take a picture of a document please and show us? That will really tell the story of the Auto Focus

Let's set this straight:

THE NEW BLACKBERRY 7 PHONES HAVE CONTINUOUS AUTOFOCUS.

Check the blackberry website and other webpages.

Originally Posted by chiefbroski

Let's set this straight:

THE NEW BLACKBERRY 7 PHONES HAVE CONTINUOUS AUTOFOCUS.

Check the blackberry website and other webpages.

...but not the 9900/9930, they have all focus (EDOF)

Ya this is bs on rims part. Anyone who criticizes others for complaining about the lack of a critical feature are just as idiotic as the person at RIM who made this decision. AF is an important tool:

- scan bar codes
- read product labels
- quickly copy schedules
- close up shots for evidence
- pretty much anytime you want a close up image, record visual notes without copying it with paper and pen in a quick instant, read any type of bar codes.

In fact I use my smart phone mostly for close up shots where you need AF. Ya if I was going on vacation or to an event where I need great distance shots I'll bring my camera...

AF on a smart phone is a must if you want a serious tool for business. And enough of the hogwash "as long as it gets great reception". If that's all I was looking for then why not just buy a cheap nokia flip phone?! This is a smart phone for goodness sakes.. And it'll set you back $300 plus tax! For that price it needs to be a great business tool and no AF really limits the range of usability. Serious business users will know. Today's smart phone shoppers are becoming more knowledgeable and small short comings here and there adds up:

- no AF
- no front facing camera
- small memory for app Storage
- releasing yesterdays specs tomorrow at a premium price?!

Not trying to bash blackberry, I have been a long time user until recently. At this point I'm tired to sticking with a company that forces you to compromise and charge you a premium for it.... And for what?! Just to stick with the form factor. Sooner or later, there'll be another smartphone that is just like blackberry from the messaging/notification management, to the hardware set up. When that happens there will be absolutely no reason to get a blackberry. More companies are allowing their workers to use their own smartphones. Only the most privacy sensitive users, such as government workers, will have a need for them. Then again, what's stopping apple from eNhancing security on their servers to steal those customers from RIM. It's only a matter of time and RIM doesn't have the core competency to stay competitive with other technology goliaths of the industry. RIM is just a medium sized company that that had an idea, executed it, and are now just trying to squeeze out whats left. The End.

Originally Posted by chiefbroski

Let's set this straight:

THE NEW BLACKBERRY 7 PHONES HAVE CONTINUOUS AUTOFOCUS.

Check the blackberry website and other webpages.

No you are clearly wrong. I won't even go into the fact I know this personally, I'll just, for all intents & purposes, use the BlackBerry website for example. See pictures below.

You will notice the 9810 mentions "continuous auto focus" the 9900 does not.