Camera combat: Nokia 6300 vs Sony Ericsson K810i vs Nokia N95 vs Canon IXUS 70 vs Canon 400D

MattWed 25 April, 2007 4:19am

The difference in color from the 95 and the dSLR might also be white balance settings. An outdoor shot would be a nice comparison as well. Overall I am surprised in the quality of the images these phones have taken. However they do not have nearly as many options as a dSLR. They are strictly point and shoot type cameras, no messing with ISO or aperture there.

AnonymousWed 25 April, 2007 5:11am

You're clearly using different lighting as the shadows of the figures suggest.
Take the picture with different lights and the same camera and you'll be amazed to notice how different the photos will look.

AnonymousWed 25 April, 2007 5:14am

Pretty sure the cameras were not white balanced at first, aswell.

AnonymousWed 25 April, 2007 5:22am

This is a useless review written by someone who knows very little about cameras or how to compare their quality. Don't even consider making a buying decision based on this (mis)information.

AnonymousWed 25 April, 2007 6:17am

did the janitor sneak a review in at cnet?

the commentary is written by someone who is feigning knowledge of anything camera related. don't use big terms you hardly understand (white balance, vibrance, etc),

TonyWed 25 April, 2007 6:36am

although I agree that the reviewer may know little indepth info about cameras and photography, what is true is that this is the case with many people.

The majority pick up their camera or camera-phone and make no adjustments at all. What I find interesting is that the quality of the N95 image is quite good for a point and click, certainly worth considering as an alternative, providing battery life is reasonable (which i suspect is not the case). SLR is always going to make a better picture, particularly when setup correctly.

AnonymousWed 25 April, 2007 7:07am

I couldn't control my laughter. Cnet doing things like this comparing the SLR with a mere Nokia ??. No doubt N95 is good but only in Cam phones. No point comparing with the real cameras even to point n shoot (Forget about SLRs).

Jonathan van ZuijlekomWed 25 April, 2007 7:25am

Scaling the images down to 540x444 pixels removes all of the grain from the images and we can't really see howmuch the pictures are blurred. I'd like 1:1 crop's of the images to show this.

I'd like to know the ISO value en shutter speed of the camera's when possible. In real world situations people don't tend to stand still like the plastic figurines in these photo's.

The N95 looks good because it's default White Balance is probably Incandescent, wee need to see an outdoor shot to verify.

AnonymousWed 25 April, 2007 7:27am

Anyone else notice that even a basic digital camera from 1998 shoots better pictures than latest phone cameras? e.g. http://www.dpreview.com/gallery/photo.aspx?gallery=minolta1500_samples&photo=10
or
http://www.dpreview.com/gallery/kodakdc280_samples/

d. driverWed 25 April, 2007 7:32am

Sorry, but this is one of the worst pieces of technical journalism I've ever seen (in twenty years or so I've been loosely following the genre).

"Obviously these images have been resized to fit the Web [...] Given that most people compress their digital photos to publish on the Web" -- you sure people buy DSLR equipment for several hundred dollars and more just to throw 98% of all their images' information away? 2% is all what's left in the shown pictures from the 10 megapixel shot. (by the way, ever heard of 'prints'?)

"This difference in colour is likely due to the N95 processing the shot after it was taken" -- brilliant! Ever seen a digital camera the output characteristics of which were *not* in a great measure due to internal after-shot processing?

AnonymousWed 25 April, 2007 7:46am

this is among the worst camera reviews i have ever read. no qualifications, no taking into consideration that the point of the piece is to compare consumer cellphone cams vs. amateur-enthusiast/almost professional camera equipment. I don't even have to go into all of the specifics, as most have already been adressed by other comments. but really, you are failing to provide images that actually reflect what each camera is capable of (i.e. you are resizing all images to the same tiny size). not all people simply post their pictures on myspace, some dedicated hobbyists (and even some people who make a living on this stuff and call themselves "photographers") actually make high resolution prints of their images which can be nigh indistinguishable from a real chemical photograph given the right camera. Then there are the issues of which "raw" image (try getting a .RAW out of a cellphone, HA!) more accurately reflects reality in terms of color balance and saturation, and also who cares given the power of image manipulation programs where resolution is the main factor. This whole article is crap, the very idea that a cellular phone camera can approach the ability of a dSLR is utterly absurd. This has gravely and probably permanently damaged my opinion of CNET.

AnonymousWed 25 April, 2007 9:27am

All of my old trust to CNet's reviews lost on few minutes !!

AnonymousWed 25 April, 2007 9:37am

Thank you.

I think this was a great review, it does show what I think most people should now. Nowdays, a camera phone is enough for most uses. But then again I'm not a camera elite, I have no idea how to use ISO400, or how to set the white balance.

I agree that most of the camera phones lacks "color depth", you just see a big blob of "vibrant colors". So I would guess it would be pretty easy to make the Cannon 400D look like the other photos.

But in the end, it comes down to convenience it's alot easier to take photos with your mobile phone. I have increased my photo album by several orders of magnitude in the year I've owned a 2MP camera phone. (500 times more)

AnonymousWed 25 April, 2007 9:40am

Where are the original full size pictures? All noise and unsharpness disappears when you scale down the picture to 640x480. It does not require much from a camera to take a good VGA resolution picture, but a good 5Mpx picture, that's another story. Also, there are no straight lines in the picture so it's impossible to say anything about barrel distortion. E.g. N95 does not have a straight horizon in landscape pictures. Good colors is not the only thing to measure in picture quality. Also, you clearly didn't use the automatic setting of 400d because the flash was not used. This means you changed a DSLR camera settings and compared the result with a totally automatic camera.

AnonymousWed 25 April, 2007 9:43am

"All of my old trust to CNet's reviews lost on few minutes !!" - SAME HERE!!!

AnonymousWed 25 April, 2007 9:45am

I currently own my 7th and 8th digital camera, a Nikon D80 and Canon 850IS and regularly read digital camera reviews. My first digital camera was a Canon Powershot 350 (350 because it had 350,000 pixel ie 1/3 Megapixel).

A lot of people discredit this review as not being appropriate. I think it is fine - it is a great, simple review - just using the default settings as 90%+ of the population just leave their cameras in dummy mode. Besides the results do not lie. If someone wanted a DSLR they would not consider a phonecam, yet it just shows how far technology has come.

A high end camera phone has reasonable quality today, far better than my Canon Powershot 350 which cost me fast more than a Nokia N95 (I remember just paying $400 for the 10MB CF card). Sure in low light conditions the small sensor on the N95 struggles but hey this is a hell of a camera and technology has come a long way.

In 5-10 years time I believe that low end point and shoot cameras will be dead. As sensor technology improves phones will take over to obsolete the low end p&s cameras.

AnonymousWed 25 April, 2007 9:55am

What a waste of time! It is clear than the review was made by a total ignorant in the topic.

AnonymousWed 25 April, 2007 10:46am

Latest camera phones are indeed great! They take decent pictures which could satisfy most of the people who just want to snap at everything that moves. However, you seem to forget that photography is all about light! LIGHT LIGHT LIGHT! You need to be able to manually regulate the shutter speed, F and ISO settings to obtain a good/original photo. Phones have decent camera but they'll remain relegated as kid's toys, and so they should!

SlickWed 25 April, 2007 10:42am

Very humurous review.
Obviously, a Digi-cam with more pixel rate will take a better pic. Second, Wonder how any one can compare Digicams with Mobile cam..sounds funny. Third N95 gives vibrance to the pics coz of the latest perspective technology. Finally, the pics are compressed/edited for the webpage and it is unfair to judge the quality based on it. Phew...!

AnonymousWed 25 April, 2007 10:47am

I think the review is good. basically it's talking bout meeting needs. for those who is going for print they can use SLR. for the rest of the world, ppl wouldn't consider upgrading cam anymore but instead picking a better hp with good built in cam.

Jah WombleWed 25 April, 2007 10:49am

People slagging this review off are missing the point "Worst piece of technical journalism" indeed! If you want indepth digcam reviews, they are available on this site in the reviews section or on dpreview. But the average user (and CNET.co.uk is clearly a mainstream site) does use nth degreee functionality and usually points-and-shoots. And given that the company who sold the most cameras last year is Noki, it is very relevant. Most of the pictures I take of mychildren are with my phone, because they are opportunistic. I find this article useful, slightly tongue-in-cheek, and perhaps a few of the tech heads out there getting themselves raged up should take themselves and this article a little less to heart.

Jouni OsmalaWed 25 April, 2007 11:55am

I liked this review. I don't want to read X,Y,Z things about cameras. I don't really care.
The images just did show me, that under 5Mpic camera phones don't produce good enough images. While 5Mpix camera phone produced images good enough for me.

A hint I don't know about cameras, and I don't really care, its not a hobby to me nor profession. I just like the idea that I could take pictures of some situations.
For me this review was perfetc.

Also about putting real cameras on same review with camera phones.
I've seen too many computer equipment reviews where they compare multiple versions of equal class and equal pricing. And not put anything to show up the difference between classes, and thats a failure.
One such thing is computer memory. People review all the expensive models and give their relative performance compared to each other, and fail to include a single reference point of some value ram that is put in almost every computer.
In other direction, there is interesting question. If I buy 100$ graphics card, or 200$ or 500$ what kind of advantage I can get for the money for expensive model over the cheaper ones. I can find answers to this question in some of the reviews. Sure there is good to have reference points that are not directly comparable the class of equipment being reviewed. Since atleast somepeople need to make decisions about what class of equipment is good enough for them as much as deciding best out of the price class.

AnonymousWed 25 April, 2007 11:35am

The other key factor to consider when evaluating digital cameras and phones is the shutter speed. Some phones and cheaper cameras have a slow fixed speed meaning it's almost impossible to capture a moving picture and you need to rest your phone on a wall or tripod to get a non blurred image, particularly on those night shots.

AnonymousWed 25 April, 2007 11:49am

I'm stunned at how bad this piece is. I've always found CNet stuff lightweight and ill researched but this one takes the biscuit. if you use a dSLR like a P&S camera then you may as well use a P&S. They are a specific tool for people whose needs are more sophisticated that owners of a camera phone and comparing the two is just laughable.

AndreWed 25 April, 2007 1:19pm

I am surprised this article passed the C-Net review process (is there one?). It was written by someone who has no knowledge of photography. And although that is true for most of the phone camera consumers, it is not true for someone who purchased a digital SLR camera. The phone camera's are designed for point and click, the digital SLR not. Please get someone who knows how to operate one to do this kind of test next time.

AlexWed 25 April, 2007 3:11pm

This is not a bad example if you want to take shots up close, but consider you want to take shots far away and you will find the phone cameras just not enough. If they did a review where the objects were at different ranges in different light conditions then this review would have been worth something, but the scam of this review is that it is just another advertisement of digital cameras being compared at the BEST conditions. If you are a consumer then please get fooled by this and waste money. The other thing you will see is that the pictures with the phone cameras are ALL taken with flash or have light directly shon at the objects. While the pictures from the DSLR did not have flash and that is clearly outlined by the shadows you see on the pictures from the phone cameras. Imagine that little bulb shining at a person 3 meters or 10 meters away from you and you will understand that the flash has little use and the objects will obviously seem LESS detailed shots with much more noise. I am not even going to get into things like focus and shutter speed. The phones are NOT ready for normal digital photography so don't count on them unless you just want to fool around.

AnonymousWed 25 April, 2007 3:39pm

What is the point of this test? If you want to do a comparison based on how users take pictures in real life. You need real life subjects, not a bunch of toys. And what is 'medium' lighting?

DSLRguyWed 25 April, 2007 4:07pm

Just compare phones to phones. I have a DSLR with photos, that have been WB correctly, that will beat the pants off any camera phone. The nokia phone takes the best photo's compaired to the other camera's.. but is this such a shock with the sensor that is 2x any of the others? To me this is like compairing a V8 to a 4 cylinder motor and going.. WOW the V8 engine sure does have MORE power!

AnonymousWed 25 April, 2007 4:17pm

What's next, TV quality on cell phones versus TV quality on a 50in plasma??

AnonymousWed 25 April, 2007 4:34pm

Incompetent review. Any image can look more "vibrant" if you increase the saturation, but that doesn't make it any better. The question is how realistic it is. Comparing images at these sizes misses the whole point of a high-quality phone camera. You should have printed the images out at 8x10 and compared them that way. There would have been no contest between the Canon cameras and the phones. Then the question would have been how large can you print them and get acceptable results. The author should not be allowed to write reviews of this type until he or she has learned at least a little bit about comparing images objectively.

AnonymousWed 25 April, 2007 4:52pm

This is not a review, this is a shame...
It is even hard to talk about such a crap. Comparing something to something else with certain settings against something else then not checking the results and telling subjective information about something that is not a result. And doing this without doing the test conditions even similar.

I'd delete off the company logo from this review...

AnonymousWed 25 April, 2007 6:50pm

The reviewer does not know how to use that 400D. I think you should learn how to take pictures with dSLRs before commenting about it, and please, shoot manual. dSLRs are not meant to be used in full auto - otherwise, what's the point of getting a dSLR?

There are many places where you can take courses.

AnonymousWed 25 April, 2007 7:42pm

Shows the total lack of experience in any kind of photography by the reviewer!!

AnonymousWed 25 April, 2007 7:47pm

This article is no different than having a guy with a law degree review a surgical instrument. In fact, his attempt falls short of even a pedestrian attempt at comparing apples to oranges. Obviously this person has no education, training or background in photography. This article should be pulled and the publisher and author should post a retraction. This is damaging to credibility of Cnet, and should be treated as such.

DavidWed 25 April, 2007 7:59pm

I own an XTI and a few lenses including the "kit" lens used in this "review".

While I'm sure Nokia paid cnet well for this ad, er I mean "review" it was, as mentioned above, poorly written garbage.

Look, people that buy and use an XTI are capable of setting their white balance - this reviewer was not. Also, the kit lens is an F/4 at the brightest and does take a bit more light for it's shots - if he'd taken the photos with the 'nifty 50' F/1.8 stopped down to F/2 or so after setting the white balance you might get a better idea for the XTI's abilities.

If you'd like a 'real' review to see the XTI and many others used, try dpreview's website instead of this guy's reviews.

All that said, sure the cell phone "reviewed" seems to take good photos - so why mess with the real photographic community, pushing people like us away?

Note to CNET: Fire this moron.

AnonymousThu 26 April, 2007 1:59am

Trully all you complainers missed the disclaimer at the beginning of the article. Go back and re-read the "grabber question". If that doesn't apply to read then skip it. most of you should have. Remember these were taken straight out of the box, the way most people use them. Maybe not cnet readers. And for all your complaining you only prove your lack of savvy for where to look for real camera reviews that matter. Cnet is not the place to trust camera vs camera (vs. camera) reviews for knowlegable camera users. The article was merely an exercise.

AnonymousThu 26 April, 2007 8:49am

Very useful review that showed me that it is possible to take reasonable photos using a phone. Most of the readers who are complaining about the poor technical knowledge of the writer missed the point: this article is not even trying to be an in-depth camera review. It is posted in Mobile Phones category.

ausGeoffThu 26 April, 2007 6:26pm

Far too many of the comments here are totally missing the point of this exercise! It's not meant to be an in-depth, highly technical comparison - it's simply a lightweight answer to an interesting proposition. And it's proved it's point - the difference between the top of the range cameras and phone cameras isn't as major as one would expect, particularly from a pricing viewpoint. But then, dSLR owners are renowned for getting precious about their $1000 investments! I for one congratulate CNET for having the insight to publish such a simple, but meaningful review - well done guys!

AnonymousFri 27 April, 2007 5:54pm

Very very poor comparison/test.
Whats the point of this nonsense?

AnonymousFri 27 April, 2007 9:01pm

nice try, apparently the person doing this review has way to much time on their hands to take pictures, but not enough time to to set the photos in a uncompressed form so we can
really see the difference. if all you are going to do is send email photos, who cares what camera you use.

AnonymousSat 28 April, 2007 9:21pm

OMFG. What a bunch of stuffy, inside a very tiny box-thinking, no sense of humor-having, holier-than-thou a**hats most of you are! Get a grip! Did anyone who slammed this review "RTFM", so to speak? At the beginning of the review, it's mentioned that all cameras were used straight out of the box with the default/standard settings (Which, as someone else mentioned, is exactly how most average users will ALWAYS use their camera.) with no adjustments made.

In case that wasn't specific enough for the terminally technically astute, (Those so in-the-know that they can't help but freak out if they aren't made aware of the ISO speed for each shot/camera, as well as all of the other technical specifics/EXIF data, no doubt.) there are more specific notes regarding the individual camera settings used (and sometimes even notes regarding the possibility of unintentional camera shake causing blur, etc.) below their respective photos, if applicable.

In my opinion, using the shots from a dSLR for comparison was an excellent idea. It's obvious to me that the writer of this review used photos from a dSLR as an over-the-top, high-end example to perhaps partially compensate for the fact that the phones being reviewed have cameras sporting more mega pixel power than their predecessors. I feel that the writer's choice in using shots from a camera having twice the mega pixels of the most "well-endowed" camera/phone being reviewed was quite appropriate. Aren't those of you who found this review to be a tedious waste of time to read GLAD that only ONE high-end example was used?

The alternative to the article as-is, perhaps, could have easily been something really stupid and off-topic such as a review of digital point and shoot cameras vs. camera phones of equal mega pixel endowment, ad nauseam. That's the kind of archaic nonsense that would have deserved the griping, whining, techno-vocab regurgitation too many of these comments are dripping with. Do any of you "pros" expect gallery quality shots from your PHONE? I didn't think so. Do any of you use gear that produces images far superior (in your opinion) than the Digital Rebel? Exactly! So what's the BFD? Come off it, already!

AnonymousTue 1 May, 2007 8:10pm

For obvious reasons the 400D will take a better photo. The author is complete moron for even stating that the 400D captured the most detail.

AnonymousWed 2 May, 2007 5:02pm

Take this review for what it was meant to be - it is not at all in depth. Because it deals as basically as possible, it , yes, is not completely accurate. It might be quite far from accuracy. However, it serves as a simple review that points out to your average consumer (particularly one who is just beginning his/her search) the possibilities. The dSLR probably is the best to go to if one has the funds. It does have more features, but is not what your avg. customer will be looking for. Use this review to get a very general (maybe a better term would be vague) idea and go out to really learn what each camera and camera phone have to offer.

SebSat 5 May, 2007 1:13am

" ... but the shot came out a little blurry, which may have been due to moving our hands slightly when we took the shot."

Yout can't be serious. The concept of retaking the photo never crossed your mind?

tom_sFri 11 May, 2007 4:04pm

So we have shown that, for taking a picture, at close range, with a flash, of a non-moving object, to be scaled down to a small size, a 5mp cameraphone isn't too bad compared to a camera.. if you don't have shakey hands? ooookkkk.

To be fair, i think some people complaining have jumped overboard.. for many people a camera phone or a pocket camera are far more useful and productive than even a top range DSLR could ever be. But the main problems with camera phones (and i use my 3mp one quite often) aren't even considered in this test.

Shutter lag? Major problem with camera phones Autofocus time? Another major problem.. though i guess the mjority don't even have shutter lag. Shooting moving targets? Almost impossible with many cameraphones as they have to use such long exposures to get enough light.

Manual focus, RAW images and MP counts above 6 are pointless for more users.. but camera phones have a long way to go to be able to take decent photos in any conditions besides this one.. an even in this "stacked deck" they still don't preform that great.

Wonder if CNET got some Nokia sponsorship recently???

AnonymousMon 14 May, 2007 3:33am

THIS IS FAKE the prolly fixed the images up for the nokia because i have a nokia n95 and it wont take pictures like that 5m? lol white balance is the key and so is iso... nokia n95 doesn't take pictures like that period

AnonymousThu 24 May, 2007 10:03pm

According to pro review, 400D's image quality is one of the best in 10mega Pixel DSLRs, and does this revi9ew imply that only Full Frame DSLR can beat Nokia now? lol

AnonymousSun 27 May, 2007 12:55pm

Wow, so many many people missed the point here. Ok, if I'd written the review I wouldn't have bothered putting the SLR in as there will be few people who would use a professional bit of kit 'straight out of the box'. However, I'm looking to get a new phone. Pretty much all phones come with cameras. I've not had a camera-phone before and was interested to see a comparison between the some of the leading new phones to see if there really was any major difference between one 2MP camera and another (since I'm never expecting to be able to do anything other than take spur of the moment snaps to put on facebook etc. If I was trying to take a professional photograph I'd use my much much better digital camera).

As such I found it very interesting to see a very quick comparison of the nokia 6300 and the SE K810i. And yes it *is* relevant to say that the photo came out a bit blurry because the reviewer moved as I want to know just how well the cameras are going to perform under genuine user conditions (ie in poor light, maybe at a party where I wouldn't get a second shot and when I don't have a tripod to mount my phone on!). Is this review exhaustive? No of course not, but since I've not yet seen anyone else at all try to make even a very basic comparison of the shots taken by different camera phones I have found this helpful and it maybe changes my decision as to which phone to buy (or not to buy).

Everyone else wanting to complain about ISOs and shutter speeds stop wasting your time reading something not even directed at you! Go look on a proper hardcore camera review site (as I did when I wanted to buy a digital camera) and not on a mobile phone section!

AnonymousFri 8 June, 2007 10:57am

This review was ingenious! I was really hoping that someone would do a review like this for many years! Not only did it reveal that picture quality has little to do with mpix, it also revealed that most people that comment on reviews are usually morons that just really have no idea of real life! The review started with the statenement "everything was shot with 'auto' settings" -nearly all missed the whole basics for this review!!
I, personally, have had over the years many digicams, dSLRs, and cameraphones, and this review reflects quite accurately the real-life-quality that should be expected from those devices!!
In situations like this, sDLRs do have major problems with auto-setting the white balance (it's no wonder that anyone that knows what WB is, sets it at a photoshoot), whereas the N95 is designed with the focus on everyday shots, and with little or no preparing for the shot.
Outside, on a sunny day, differences between these devices would have been minimal, barely noticable!
Thank you for this break-through reviewm I hope that you do more of these!! Excellent!

AnonymousFri 8 June, 2007 11:08am

Well it just goes to show, if all you want is this type of pic at this size,
in good lighting, then why the heck spend all your money on an expensive
phone or even an SLR? Thanks mate, you saved me money.

BrendanTue 12 June, 2007 10:45pm

Relieved to see that there is no red eye for the low light IXUS 70 photos, as I've just ordered it online. I was sure the peanut M&M would have red eye. What a relief!

Lol tu funnieWed 27 June, 2007 6:36pm

Damn this is the crappiest test ever. Remind not to trust this site ever again. I have never seen anything so obviously a hoax. I lack words. Crave my ass....

CNet lazinessMon 16 July, 2007 12:17pm

I agree with others out there that this is the worst comparison article ever published to the web. How could the authors be so lazy? For example: "...the shot came out a little blurry, which may have been due to moving our hands slightly when we took the shot."

For chr*sts sake, why didn't you take the shot again you lazy bums?

And comparing a camera phone to a 400D? Of course the 400D will produce better shots? It is laughable you even bothered to compare the 400Ds superior optics, sensor and processor to a tiny camera phone? You people are crazy.

Boo to CNET! If only your advertisers knew how crap the content is on your web site.

AnonymousFri 3 August, 2007 9:32am

Compare 400d to Nokia cell phone?? Is this a joke?
I have never ever seen so unprofessional test like this! Less vibrant?
LOL!!!!!!

KeithThu 30 August, 2007 10:04am

A useful review, thanks. I don't know why some people have to be so rude.

AnonymousSun 4 November, 2007 4:51pm

Its a good and useful review.I am particularly disgusted by the responses posted by others.How can they be so damn rude?????????????????????

AnonymousSun 16 December, 2007 2:38pm

i own a nokia n95. it takes really good pictures and its pictures are even more vibrant than my nikon d1X. i am really impressed by the nokia n95's picture and video recording quality..

AnonymousSun 16 December, 2007 2:49pm

I also have a new nokia n95.I compared its picture quality with my nikon coolpix s 500 and the nokia n95 took better pictures.since then i stopped using my coolpix and used the n95 instean

AnonymousMon 17 December, 2007 1:59pm

The picture quality of all digital cameras which includes mobile phone cameras depend on the type of image processing software it is using.More megapixels does not mean that it will produce better quality images as i am also a proud owner of the n95 and it took really flamboyant pictures which was as good as my 7.1 mpx canon powershot.Thanks CNET for saving me the money of buying a camera when mobiles nowadays produce such pleasent looking shots with such a low noise level.

AnonymousTue 18 December, 2007 9:24pm

oh yah.. those who critic n95 because jealous of its image quality and cant afford it, pls be mature.. the fact is really shown here! n95 is owning!

AnonymousSun 30 December, 2007 3:24pm

whats wrong with comparing mobile phone cams to digi cams? after all mobile phone cameras are also digital cameras.I don't see why a nokia n95 shouldn't be compared to cameras like the Eos400d when the camera of the N95 is a CMOS image sensor just like most SLRs or DSLRs.

AnonymousSun 30 December, 2007 3:40pm

Hey.This review was excellent.After reading this review about three weeks ago,i bought the N95 and updated it to the latest firmware.Not surprising,the phone speed up and what i like most was the big improvement of the image quality.Coincidentally i also own a canon eos 400d and what Cnet mentioned was true.My N95 produced more flamboyant images than my eos 400d.

AnonymousWed 16 January, 2008 3:05pm

It isn't true that camera phones take poorer pictures than cameras.Having owned many SLRs and compact cameras over the years i found out that more megapixels does not mean better quality.I recently bought a nokia N95 and tested it head on with my nikon d40 6.1 mpx and there was totally negligible difference between the pictures except better colour rendering on the n95.People looking forward to buy a good camera can buy the N95 as it is surely a phone matching professional cameras.

AnonymousTue 22 January, 2008 7:30am

This a useless piece of crap, written and presented in the most unprofessional way imaginable. However, this does not provide any news or information about the conditions of the photography. First, comparing a camera is not taking 2 snaps with lights turned off and on.First, what was the white balance, ISO etc.
Definitely the N95 is a good camera in a phone. Certainly EOS400 is 100 time better than N95. I don't know if the N95 has these features, but certainly it can't match DSLRs.
And, cameras are more than megapixels. You can have a nice macro in 4MP better than those in 10MP. Megapixels are only a factor of size. It's the ISO and white balance that determines the quality of the picture to a greater extent.

AnonymousTue 29 January, 2008 2:09pm

The n95 is not as bad as you all have said.Its pictures were really perfectly staturated and fares better than my olympus SLR camera.It really has so many features and is really good despite the small sensor size(around 5 times smaller than my olympus camera sensor)

AnonymousMon 14 July, 2008 11:25am

In outdoor, all the phones and cams seem to perform equally, just that based on the MP, the resolutions will be higher. THis is based on my experience. Also, another feature that i noticed is that unless night-mode is on, only if WE shake, does the photo become blurred. if either 1.we are on a moving train and focusing a still object, or 2.stationary and focusing a moving object or 3. staniding in a moving train and focusing a moving train [which is moving in opposite directions], in all the three cases, if we avoid moving the phone in relation to us, the photos taken are always crisp and excellent.
All that is required for best results is good lighting. Any lighting equivalent to 2 tubes of 38W each illuminating a 6x6m room gives best results even without night mode for all the devices compared in this trial.

AnonymousSat 23 August, 2008 7:32pm

you must be real dumb to think that, its just to show how different they are to a real camera dummy are you 18 if yes thats understandable

AnonymousSat 23 August, 2008 7:38pm

another dummy, cnet is not aiming to compete with real cameras just to show how good phones are now, why is this hard to comprehend