The Gadget Show's verdict on the Sony Ericsson Satio

[Raven]

Fair enough I guess Yes, the Satio performs better in low light conditions, that's what I meant by mentioning the Xenon flash.

Anyway, I just watched the Gadget Show's 'verdict on the Sony Ericsson Satio' video, and the reviewer did actually say that, overall, the Satio probably has The Best camera in the world right now (amongst camera-phones), but that it wasn't by as large a margin as he'd hoped... So, again, I am far from impressed with the 'summary' posted here on AAS.

[clonmult]

Originally Posted by Raven

Fair enough I guess Yes, the Satio performs better in low light conditions, that's what I meant by mentioning the Xenon flash.

Anyway, I just watched the Gadget Show's 'verdict on the Sony Ericsson Satio' video, and the reviewer did actually say that, overall, the Satio probably has The Best camera in the world right now (amongst camera-phones), but that it wasn't by as large a margin as he'd hoped... So, again, I am far from impressed with the 'summary' posted here on AAS.

True ... the lack of Xenon on the N86, and Nokias explanation as to "why????" does beggar belief.

My only real issue is that so far SE have only got the Xenon right on one product (the MXE-60 add on for the W550, K750 and W810). The K800 was terrible, and the K810 and 850 were barely any improvement. Flash range and metering were absolutley dire.

My only other irritation is the flash positioning - its almost always wrong. It shouldn't be placed right next to the lens - thats the best way to get chronic red eye, and the red eye reduction rarely works.

[yade]

People keep saying that the Satio performs better in low light situations. What you actually find is that it uses the flash not just in low light but almost all shots indoor. That shows that the sensor is not picking up much light. Turn the flash off and compare it to N86 and i8910 and it is the worst performer. In strong light it under expsoses which give the impression of good dynamic range but its really not great. The noise levels are unacceptable and make the 12MPX pointless, I have an N86 at the moment also and am pretty unimpressed. I am suprised to find that the i8910 is providing the best images in my comparisons. That also has its down sides, the shutter lag is awful and the images aren't as crisp as I used to get with my i8510.

Originally Posted by clonmult

True ... the lack of Xenon on the N86, and Nokias explanation as to "why????" does beggar belief.

.

Why does it beggar belief? Nokia have an established camera system, both hardware and software. Changing to Xenon would change the whole system. You can't just bolt on a xenon flash to an existing camera. You need mechanical shutter instead of rolling, meaning a whole new set of software and processing algorithms. And there is a whole list of other facts that count against xenon. Personally, for a poor camera such as you get in phones, I prefer LED.

Xenon on a phone camera, turns a crap camera into a crap camera that works a bit better in low light for close subjects. Not worth the bother.

Originally Posted by Raven

All right then, ye of little faith: http://mobilen.no/wip4/review/store-...d.epl?id=41352

The test was performed in a lab and is the same kind of test done with real DSLR cameras.

The main focus (no pun) of this test was on the camera, but things like specs, user-friendliness, screen, price etc. were also taken into account.


EDIT: The first link is more of a summary, the actual test was shown on Norwegian TV2: http://www.tv2underholdning.no/hjelp...r-3016902.html

Ahh. TV. Disregard that one then.

[clonmult]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Why does it beggar belief? Nokia have an established camera system, both hardware and software. Changing to Xenon would change the whole system. You can't just bolt on a xenon flash to an existing camera. You need mechanical shutter instead of rolling, meaning a whole new set of software and processing algorithms. And there is a whole list of other facts that count against xenon. Personally, for a poor camera such as you get in phones, I prefer LED.

Xenon on a phone camera, turns a crap camera into a crap camera that works a bit better in low light for close subjects. Not worth the bother.

LED is a poor substitute for stills, and great for video.

How many dedicated cameras use an LED flash? I haven't seen one.

The N86 has a mechanical shutter, so thats not an issue. The N82 and N95 had the same camera, with the N82 adding a well metered Xenon flash - and it showed on images taken, and I'm still keeping an eye on the local 2nd hand shops to see if I can pick one up.

For still images a Xenon flash easily beats LED. LED is always on for a little too long and tends to make people close their eyes, whereas Xenon you're just likely to get a little issue with red eye.

Have you actually taken any pictures with any phones to justify the "crap camera" comment?

Over the last few years I've had :
W810 - probably the best phone camera I've owned, took beautiful pictures, especially with the addon flash.
K800 - xenon flash was useless 95% of the time
N73 - took surprisingly good images, excellent focusing, ultimately blighted by the whacky colour balance
N95 - probably worse overall than the N73
N85 - dual LED makes for better video recording than the N95, but doesn't help in the slightest with still images of people.

I've taken plenty of pics on all of these to know that they can all take pictures of good quality, easily good enough for printing - had a few from the N73 that looked pretty good even at A4 size.

Originally Posted by clonmult

For still images a Xenon flash easily beats LED. LED is always on for a little too long and tends to make people close their eyes, whereas Xenon you're just likely to get a little issue with red eye.

That's not in question.

Originally Posted by clonmult

Have you actually taken any pictures with any phones to justify the "crap camera" comment?

Yes. Have you ever seen a half decent compact camera with a lens that looks like one on a phone? (to extend your dedicated cameras line)

Originally Posted by clonmult

I've taken plenty of pics on all of these to know that they can all take pictures of good quality, easily good enough for printing - had a few from the N73 that looked pretty good even at A4 size.

Good quality? Image quality we are talking about. I've never seen one from a phone camera with quality anywhere near a half decent dedicated camera. Can you justify "good quality" by showing a phone image that does stand up? Even the competition winning images that I've seen (they have to have their own category because they are not as good) are poor under scrutiny (relative to a camera).

They are toys, regardless of the flash.

[clonmult]

Must not feed the troll, must not feed the troll .... sod it.

Okay, take one of your dedicated compacts. Compare its lens to that on an SLR. Its crap in comparison, therefore all compact cameras are dire. You really do NOT understand cameras, do you?

Okay, the lenses are small - they are on compacts as well (especially those with mega zooms, that are hugely compromised in order to get the wow factor).

The contributing factors are the aperture, lens and sensor. With the increasing race towards higher pixel counts with similarly sized lenses and sensors, the sweet spot on image quality has been passed, the law of diminishing returns is coming rapidly into effect.

I have done plenty of side-by-side comparisons of dedicated compacts and phone cameras. Phone cams can do a surprisingly good job in good lighting, and only those with a well configured xenon can easily equal a dedicated indoors. I happily used my W810 with the MXE-60 on nights out and it got results easily equal to a dedicated camera.

The fact that nothing since then with the possible exceptions of the N82 and maybe the Satio has actually come close to the low light imaging abilities of that old 2mp walkman phone shouldn't really be surprising.

@clonmult
The compacts may include zooms. But did you ever see a small prime lens that performs well?
Nice to chuck in lines like "you really do not understand". Cheap shots. I could do it back but it's cowardly.

The outward appearance of the lenses on phones, and their ability ot have a small relative aperture for an equivalent stop indicates a small sensor. A tiny cheap CCD or CMOS.

The phones that can produce pictures that match dedicated cameras will have examples posted on the web. Show me.