Nokia E90 camera image sample, or “The bullshit of megapixels”

The camera of Nokia E90 communicator is “3.2 megapixel”. Here is a cut of an image, made with this camera at best light conditions possible (even sunshine, not too bright). Close your eyes, photographers: you may get sick.

nokiae90cameraexample.jpg

Such quality is not just ashaming; I’m now happy that I’m not working at Nokia any more :)

Manufacturers increase the number of megapixels, which sales well, but that does not make image any better. Sure, the file size grows, carrying these junk pixels. I always resize these “phone pictures” down at least 2 times (= 4 times file size decrease), often more, before I dare to show them. And the phone does not offer neither option to use lower resolution1, nor any software to resize the captured image. As I feel plain stupid uploading 1MB picture worth of at most 200KB to any web site, I have always to scale it on some other computer. This is called “Mobile life”, “My world with me”, “Always connected” or something like that.

I know that I should pay extra for better camera quality and I’m not objecting to this; what I do not like is the unnecessary pixels which I can’t disable. Next time I may be purposedly looking for a camera with fewer pixels!

Update: 1 I was wrong on this. Camera offers 5 resolutions, smallest 640×480 with file size about 40kB. Finding this menu was not intuitive for me, but one can blame my lack of intuition here.

RSS feed | Trackback URI

2 Comments »

Comment by Amar
2008-08-21 09:45:20

some people are never satisfied. Huh…

Comment by konstantin
2008-08-21 22:20:03

Amar, could you please be more specific in your comment. Do you find this post relevant to the fact that some people are never satisfied?

 
 
Name (required)
E-mail (required - never shown publicly)
URI
OpenID URL
Your Comment (smaller size | larger size)
You may use <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong> in your comment.