6280 camera better than N80

Has anyone else compared the N80 and 6280 cameras?
Sis-in-law has just got a 6280 and the cam is alot better than the N80.
I thought the N-Series was meant to be superior top other Nokias?
I'm starting to wish I'd gone for the 6280 instead after having a look at her phone.
Orange Handsets : Nokia 51 > NK702 (6130) > 6210 > 6310i (silver)> 7210i > 6230 > 6230i (silver) > N80 (silver) > N95-1
T-Mobile: N96

05-Jun-2006
09:52 PM
seatibiza8 wrote:
Hi Getsurfers i used to have the 6280 and trust me you dont want that heap of junk!!! THe N80 is better in every way.If you plan on putting pics on the PC or printing the N80 is streets ahead.No contest N80 wins.
OK, image quality is better when printed or on PC.
But wouldn't you agree on my screen and blurring comments?
Orange Handsets : Nokia 51 > NK702 (6130) > 6210 > 6310i (silver)> 7210i > 6230 > 6230i (silver) > N80 (silver) > N95-1
T-Mobile: N96

Similar Messages

Why are the jpgs that are generated in my camera better than the ones i create from the nef file in camera raw?

i shoot raw+ jpg in camera, for some reason the jpgs that come from my camera (nikon D300) always seem better than the jpgs i create
from the nef files in camera raw. i am saving at the highest quality. the jpgs from the camera seem to have more detail in highlights
better color more vibrant, sharper. could my camera be doing some enhancements to the jpgs before processing?

I had similar thoughts back when I first started shooting raw. Really, it's just a matter of editing to your personal taste.
Yes, that camera applies lots of presets before creating the jpeg, as Trevor.Dennis mentioned. Also, as he said, you can far surpass native jpegs with raw.
If you need it more vibrant, make it so. If you need to bring down the highlights, do so. Need sharpening? Apply some.
Here is one of my edits that I made a tutorial of: Sunrise Raw File Edit - Adobe Lightroom - Landscape Photography - YouTube. It is one of my less dramatic edits, but still a good one.
I don't want to clutter this thread with links, but if you take a look at my Facebook page, I put a lot of before and afters up in January and February. A Google search for Benjamin Root Photography will bring it up.
I shoot in raw, and highly recommend it.
I'll leave you with a nice NEF RAW file before and after:
BTW, D300 is a nice camera, I've used it...
Benjamin

C7 camera - better than iphone?

I find my C7 camera rather nice, better than the reviews so say.
Just wonder what people think - and how does it compare to the iphone camera?

I think it takes excellent photos myself.
Regarding the iphone no idea about the quality of camera.People have their own opinions of quality too.
If i have helped at all a click on the white star below would be nice thanks.
Now using the Lumia 1520

I've read a lot of comments/suggestions about camera issues that it turns black when opening the phone camera but nothing is worked for me. I'm so frustrate on my iPhone 5s im using it like for a month, I thought its more better than Samsung but I failed.

I've read a lot of comments/suggestions about camera issues that it turns black when opening the phone camera but nothing is worked for me. I'm so frustrate on my iPhone 5s im using it like for a month, I thought its more better than Samsung but I failed. Please help!!! I hope apple has something to do about this. Thanks.

I would have had the phone looked at long before a month of problems.
First thing to try is to reset your device. Press and hold the Home and Sleep buttons simultaneously until the Apple logo appears. Let go of the buttons and let the device restart. See if that fixes your problem.
If that doesn't help Make an appointment at an Apple Store to have your device examined by a technician. Or contact Apple Support. You phone is under warranty and someone at an Apple store can help you.

Are the screens on white iMac 20" better than those on new 24"?

I have read so much about the troubles with the 20" and 24" Aluminum iMac screens that I'm afraid to buy one now, and was thinking of buying a refurb'd white (plastic) iMac from Apple. Is the screen tech in the white version better than that in the 24" Alum? I have an old 2.0 white iMac and have never had any trouble with the screen at all.

Pier Rodelon wrote:
Thanks for these pix. I have two more questions,
1) Previous poster suggests that specs for the white iMac screens were lower
than specs for ALU iMac screens--is this true and in what particulars?
Other than viewing angle and brightness, Apple doesn't publish any meaningful
screen specs.
The ALU screens are a little brighter -- entirely too bright -- and they don't have
sufficient adjustment range to reduce the brightness for comfortable viewing with
normal home lighting levels.
The 20" ALU viewing angle specs are much poorer than the white 20" or any of
the 24" models. In practice, the difference is easily noticable even to the most
casual observer.
2) Does the 24" white iMac have the same screen that the 20" white iMac has?
All 24" iMacs have expensive S-IPS LCD panels. That's the same basic technology
and from the same manufacturer as the Apple Cinema Displays. (As discussed
previously, some (many?) 24" ALUs have/had problems with uneven backlighting.)
Some white 20" units use exactly the same S-IPS panel as 20" Cinema Displays;
some others came with an excellent-quality S-PVA display. I believe all 20" iMacs,
at least as far back as the G5 PPC, used similarly high-quality (gorgeous!) panels.
The 20" ALU iMacs all have much lower-quality TN panels (from various sources).
The 17" white Intel iMacs also use the lower-quality TN panels.
To see what display you currently have, cut-n-paste the following command line
into Terminal.app -- then look it up in the panel database at tftcentral.co.uk:
ioreg -lw0 | grep IODisplayEDID | sed "/\[^<\]*</s///" | xxd -p -r | strings -6
I don't know if the 24" white iMac refurb would be a better choice than the 20"
white (or the 20/24" ALU).
IMO, there's no contest in 20" size -- the white iMac displays are vastly superior.
If you're lucky enough to get a good display, the ALU 24" is very attractive; OTOH,
I have no performance complaints with my white 2.16 GHz Core 2 Duo -- and it
was $600 less than my 24" ALU reject.
Looby

IMovie capture quality better than anything FCP can offer for consumer DV?

As a newbie to FCP, I have not found Capture, sequence, and export settings that is equal to or better than what iMovie 08 can create. Prior to this, I've been using iMovie 08 which is extremely user friendly. Just plug in the fire wire connections and it auto detects only one setting for DV. I am not sure what format it captures in but it does a good job. When I export out of iMovie 08 I use "using Quicktime" and choose the Uncompressed 8-bit NTSC method. The result is a decent, non-interlaced looking .mov file.
The first time I tried to capture with FCP I chose the easy setup, where I would capture in the NTSC DV, sequence would be NTSC DV and export using the current settings in quicktime. The result was an interlaced and lowered quality vid.
I have also tried the following combinations with no success with quality comparisons w/ iMovie 08:
capt: NTSC dv, seq: NTSC DV, progressive exp: Uncompressed 8-bit
capt: Uncompressed 8-bit, seq: Uncompressed 8-Bit exp: Uncompressed 8-bit
This last one came close, but still iMovie 08 was better.
My assumption is that FCP would contain the settings to duplicate or even out perform iMovie's export quality for consumer video dv. I viewed iMovie as little brother and FCP as big brother. Shouldn't FCP produce equal to or better quality than iMovie 08? And what are the settings for this?
Thanks

Thank you for clearing up my confusion. How is my export from iMovie 08, using "Uncompressed 8-bit" coming out progressive (I see no interlaced, odd/even scan lines)? Is this export dropping lines/information? If so, uncompressed is not an appropriate name for the export.
I understand what you are saying about "getting quality back" on export. My initial question was comparing the quality of an iMovie 08 export vs. FCP export and having the problem of a lowered output from the FCP export.
If anyone has the time, would they try a short experiment:
1. From your DV source, camera or deck connect to your computer
Capture a short clip via iMovie 08 a short clip in standard 4:3.
Export using Quicktime, Uncompressed 8-bit setting
2. From your DV source, camera or deck, connect to your computer.
Capture the same short clip to FCP using Easy set up for NTSC DV. Export with current settings.
3. Compare the two.

PP CS5/5.5 chroma key better than AE CS4?

Hi everyone.
I think I read somewhere a while back that the chroma key in PP CS5/5.5 is better than AE CS4's Keylight. In fact, the PP effect may be an improved Keylight , but I can't recall this for certain.
Can anyone verify this?
Thx.
Paul

I've keyed with the same camera for a couple of years now, and it's got a pretty narrow band in which greens are easily keyed. DVCPRO HD is not well-reputed for its handling of greens, or at least as a result of it's use with an older 1/3" sensor. I've gotten the best results with the exposure on the screen at about 50-60IRE, but that's just in my scenarios. Most of my material is recorded to P2 cards (though I did one long shoot with OnLo and a green screen), but the footage encoding is the same--it's all DVCPRO HD. I've got some stuff that I did recently that keyed like buttah with Ultra--I literally had a solid key in 20 seconds with just picking the background color and tweaking a couple parameters.
So, since "brightly lit" and "lower lit" are subjective terms, it's hard to give you any specific recommendations other than to try to stick in a particular exposure range. All I know is that when your green screen footage is evenly lit and at mid-range exposure, Ultra does a pretty good job with minimal effort.

Is the external isight better than the internal?

I have a macbook, but I am considering purchasing an external isight as well. I know the external has auto focus (I do not believe the internal does) but I am more interested in color. Does the external have better color and low-light picture? Is the same 1/4 inch chip from the external used in the internal, or is the internal a lessor chip?
I enjoy the macbooks isight, but I would like to make some movies with iMovie. The internal is not overly impressive with it's colors when doing this. Sharpness is also not excellent, it seems the external will definitly improve upon this.
Any input is greatly appreciated. I would really like to hear from owners of both cameras who could possibly compare and contrast these two.
Kalel

Hi Kalel,
I agree with Eddie. I have an external mounted on my G5 at the office and an internal on an Intel iMac at home. If nothing else, the ability to reposition makes the external the hands down winner.
Personally, I believe the external records ambient light better than the internal, but I have different lighting situations at both locations.
Both the internal and external have autofocus.
One of the best additions you can get for either one is a program called iGlasses. I has been mentioned many times in this forum with plenty of user comments.
Good Luck
John

Quick preview looks better than processed raw image...??

Hey all, probably a bit of a "newb" question here... so forgive me, and thank you...
Using a D7000 and often times when I shoot - the preview image on the camera looks BRIGHT, VIVID and ROBUST ... after import however - when reviewing my shots, JUST as I arrow over to the next shot - many of the preview images tend to look better than the processed image that aperture displays once it's done spinning it's wheels.
Perhaps I've messed up a Raw Fine Tuning setting?
When I click on quick preview and browse through an import, the pictures truly look nicer to me than the when aperture processes them.
Without question, the display on my acer monitor is a far cry from the miniature compressed image on the back of my nikon, however the more i shoot, the more I realize a disconnect between what I think I should see, and what I'm ultimately seeing in Aperture.
Are their specific settings to fine tune the import of raw d7000 shots?
Thanks much.. gk

I take it you're shooting and processing RAW images?
It's worth remembering that if you have a picture style selected (i.e. vivid etc), your camera might be applying extra contrast and saturation etc to the image you see on the back of the camera. Camera manufacturers do this so that we can give our pictures some extra punch and colour automatically.
I'd also be wary of comparing what you see on your camera to what you see on your monitor. Unless both are calibrated, you shouldn't trust either of them 100%. The best example of monitor calibration is going to look at TV's in an electronics store. You'll probably notice that in a wall of TV's, some pictures will be darker, some lighter, some more vivid, some more saturated. Using a calibration tool adjusts the picture your screen and monitor displays so that it is 'accurate'.
It's a bit like having a room full of scales and adjusting them so that they all read 1 kilogram when a 1 kilogram weight is placed on each of them. Calibrating monitors will mean that when you display an image on it, it will always look the same rather than getting the some light/some dark problem you saw in the TV store.
It's a tricky subject to explain (don't worry if it doesn't make sense), but you might like to have look around YouTube for videos on the subject.

Better than DVD-quality on .mac - but which size?

Hi, that was what Steve Jobs said that there is the possibility to have better than DVD-quality movies on .mac Is this only with HD-cameras and material because they can´t be burnt at that resolution onto a DVD? Or is it also true with standard cameras? And which file sizes are we are going to expect while up- and downloading such movies? Are they even playable for the average internet user?
Thanks in advance for clarifying - Christoph

Steve may have left out the word "current" when he mentioned better quality than a DVD.
DVD's (currently) use MPEG-2 format and only the newest players can handle high definition.
Your Web based files can use high definition formats. Just like those HD trailers at http://apple.com/trailers
You can also publish larger dimension SD video.
Obviously the file size of these larger dimensions would require a fast Internet connection and a very patient viewer.

5530 software performance is better than 5800?

Guys,
I'm a 5800XM user and and i found recently some of the feature of new released 5530XM is even better than 5800.
1. no kinetic scrolling in 5800. Really unhappy with this, Scrololing in 5800 is quite inconvenient, the V11 firmware is worst. Why there is no kinetic scrolling in 5800?
2. camera image quality. 3.2MP camera with carl zeis len, dual flash. Image quality i not comparable with 5530. 5800 image quality is really bad for me. The image capture is like a bit blue'ish. I wash an video on youtube, the image capture by 5530 camera is really much more better than 5800, it's quality is very good.
OMG, i'm sad with this. Can anyone tell me what is the reason of this? Nokia's developer, any problem with the firmware or it is a hardware problem. 5800XM cost higher than 5530XM.

Gary Scotland wrote:
or Bean freeware also
With the following limitations (for Word Users)

Newbie-why is Indesign better than PageMaker?

Ok, I know to be current, I have to upgrade, but I don't do long documents (really past 20 pages), I liked the window shade thing in PM7, and I'm afraid those windows for everything is going to make me confused and is more time consuming...
So even tho' I have the upgrade--list your top five reasons for liking it better than pagemaker?
Thanks for your help.

Even though I do have old version of PM and Ventura, I am really liking InDesign. I have been using it since CS3 came out. It is much more fluid like when designing. It is possible to not use tags(style sheets), but I recommend using styles anyway. I haven't really been using the program long enough to have a need for using character styles, but the paragraph styles are extremely handy, as well as the object styles. But then again my needs for the program are mild compared to most that roam this forum.
One of the things that I did notice missing is the ability to switch between reader spread and printer's spread. But it is possible to manually move each page by dragging and dropping.
I think the TOC is a little more interactive it's not as intimidating to a new user as Ventura's was. I have yet to try the index feature, but I am sure it is much more user friendly as well.
Good luck...

Are Aperture's editing tools similar to or better than PS Elements?

Are the editing tools in Aperture similar to or better than PS Elements?
I'm an amateur photographer - I need images for my web site - plants and gardens, mostly, I have a perennial plant nursery.
I've been using PS Elements 2.0 to manipulate images, mostly rotation, sharpen resizing, adjusting contrast....
Aperture sounds very interesting - the tools for viewing and comparing images sound more graceful and easy to use.
Thanks - paul
MacBook Pro Mac OS X (10.4.8)

Out of interest, I went over to the Adobe Lightroom forums and found the following:
"Lightroom is aimed at being a workflow for handling raw camera images doing mostly global corrections. Photoshop Elements is meant for handling processed images mostly and allows you to do fine local adjustments
Global means adjustments which are applied to the entire image such as tonal correction etc whereas localized corrections are something like removing a hair out of place, doing composite images, or removing red-eye."
Lightroom is Adobe's soon-to-be competing product, so it's basically equivalent to Aperture (until you look at the details - but that's another topic). The comments quoted above are relevant to Aperture as well.
- Pierre

Is 1.3 Bios really better than 1.52B?? Neo2 Board and Some Observations!

Hi All... I read this post on the forums and it got me thinking and i did some fiddling and made some observations..
This is whith regard to the 1.3Bios being better than the 1.52B Bios.. because it would let you run in turbo mode...
Ok i've spent the last 60mins testing and i came up with the following..
1.3BIOS
With the 1.3Bios.. no matter what memory timings u set... it does'nt show in CPU-Z and it does'nt make a difference in the memory bandwith scores...
For example my ram was rated at 2.5-3-3-8 .. i changed it to 2.5-2-3-8 .. it did'nt change and my scores remained the same..
Going from Slow to Fast to Turbo.. did'nt incrase my scores.. actually.. donno how.. but i got a decrease in scores..
The only thing that was noticable was that MSI core-center overclocks the CPU a lil more than what is set in BIOS..
1.52B BIOS
With the 1.52B Bios... u can change the memory timings and it does show in CPU-Z and it makes a massive difference with Sisoft sandra.. 250mbps more..
What u set in the bios .. u get with the 1.52B.. Corecenter does'nt mess around and overclock it more..
Going from Slow to Turbo did give me an increase in scores.. slightly..
Im now running Ultra-Turbo.. and i get a sisoft bandwith score of 5250Mbps at 3.21G..
CONCLUSION
So infact i think the 1.52B is better than the 1.3 . I don't have a Radeon so i donno how these bios's work with the cards cause i've read about some problems... I'm getting one soon so 'ill post some info about that in a fortnight..
I personally think this board is great.. atleast the one i have.. never had a problem.. had it for 3 months.. i have a revision 1.. no DOT sticker.. and just the Neo2-S version... I've used Spectec 333 on this board too (dual) had no problems..
Wish i had some DDR-500 so i could test whether this board can do 1:1 above 250...whether it has a 1:1 limitation above 285 like some other boards.. that is my only doubt.. anywayz.. i hope atleast some of u are sailing as smoothly with this board as i have..
Get some nice ram .. this Twinmos Dual channel kit DDR400 with the Twinmos chips are really great.. and i recommend it..

Quote
Originally posted by DeReD
1.3BIOS
With the 1.3Bios.. no matter what memory timings u set... it does'nt show in CPU-Z and it does'nt make a difference in the memory bandwith scores...
For example my ram was rated at 2.5-3-3-8 .. i changed it to 2.5-2-3-8 .. it did'nt change and my scores remained the same..
Going from Slow to Fast to Turbo.. did'nt incrase my scores.. actually.. donno how.. but i got a decrease in scores..
That´s wrong. RAM-Settings are displayed fine. Turbo does make a BIG difference in scores. About 15% more performance. In Games and in benchmarks like 3dmark and sandra, too.

Is the iPhone 5 better than the Samsung Galaxy S4/Lumia 1020?

Is the iPhone 5 better than the Samsung Galaxy S4/Lumia 1020?

Like almost everything in this world is a matter of choice, but, if it is to logically make a choice here are a few criteria you should consider before picking up a smartphone:
Do you really need it? - if not, the money will stay better in your account;
Set up the budget and consider the fact that smartphones get upgrades faster than computers and laptops, will you be able to upgrade?
Which operating system are you familiar with?
What are your needs and expectations from the smartphone?
What type of person you are (email/chat/SMS/Social Media-man aka. communications, multimedia, productivity, gamer, etc.) this will help you chose the appropriate hardware and check out what are your options regarding the existing applications for your needs;
Are you always on the run or work in an office? - this will help you decide from the battery life point of view;
If you own a tablet you might just need a simple smartphone.
Samsung does not really innovate in terms of functionality and usability, they only copy what others do and make it their own way. Android is not a mature operating system, yet. I like some of its features, of course, but I can rely on it when it comes to productivity as I'm a person who sends 100's of emails per day and need to easily manage the messages.
You can have the best hardware in the world but that's useless if you operating system is bad at managing those resources, you will not be able to exploit the device to the fullest and you might cry over the money you've spent :-) Nevertheless Samsung has a large market share, makes good phones, but not quite smart, they are rather... intelligent, a smartphone is smart from the day you buy it, you don't have to put it in training mode :-)
As about Lumia, I don't have much to say, it's what iPhone had at the iPhone 4 version minus the 40MP camera and the operating system. If I want a good camera then I buy a camera, a Canon or Nikon :-) Yes, the Krait CPU, so what? That CPU is managed by a Wi*dows OS and that should say everything. I'm not against Micr*soft, they had/have their part in technology progress, but I'm more into stable operating systems, I'd chose Android over Wi*dows, yet Nokia were always great at hardware and batery life. Bad choice for Nokia, look at their sales and you will understand.
That's just my two cents, but iPhone is the choice of millions when they chose their first smartphone: is user friendly, solid, great hardware specs, lovely screen, wonderful support, high-level security, multimedia at its best, a design that catches the eye, looks and feels great in your hand, it's light, you have millions of verified apps in the store and a nice community to tell you all these :-)

6280 camera better than N80

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for