Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Mobile Phones - Battery Life
23 views
Skip to first unread message
Martin Brown
Apr 18, 2013, 6:33:48 AM4/18/13
to
I can't be the only one that needs a compact robust mobile phone that
doesn't need recharging every day and does the basics very well. I have
had a Nokia 6303i for ages and that was ideal until it had a terminal
encounter with a bucket of water. I have gone back to my previous 6300
but its battery life was never much good when new and is much worse now.
I am in the market for a new mobile phone, but I have very specific
requirements for maximum standby time and talk time between charges. I
have no need of facebook, twitter or 3G on this phone. It does need to
last well and work when it accepts incoming calls on lowish battery. It
is no use if it bumbles along and then dies sounding the ringtone!
It is likely to be used a lot in regions of poor 2G signal coverage and
so when in use will be transmitting at or near maximum power.
My jaundiced view of the present mobile phone market is that touch
screen all singing all dancing web browser things are now de rigeur. Not
what I want at all. Even considering buying another 6303 secondhand
which would at least give me something I know my way around.
A quick survey of classic mobile phones gives me the following
candidates (but it is hard work finding talk/standby hours).
Ranked in order of battery life (and probable robustness)
Talk Standby / hours
Samsung XCover 19 1000
Samsung GT S5260 II 7 900
Nokia Asha201 7 890 (alpha keypad)
Nokia 206 20 680
Nokia C5 12 600
Nokia C7 5 650
All in theory with better figures than the 6303.
I have my suspicions that makers standby hours are measured inside a
hermetically sealed Faraday cage with no ambient RF signals at all. I
never get anything like the makers claimed standby life on mine.
Any other suggestions for well built classic mobiles with *really* good
battery life (or with extended life aftermarket batteries)?
Any experience of these phones and suggestions of which to avoid?
(some come in various flavours with variations in battery life)
In theory the Samsung XCover would appear to be a good candidate and
would have survived the dunking that killed its predecessor.
It is a bit on the chunky side though...
Thanks for any enlightenment.
--
Regards,
Martin Brown
Message has been deleted
stuart noble
Apr 18, 2013, 7:21:48 AM4/18/13
to
couldn't read anything on the screen outdoors. I couldn't even see the
clock, so it's now languishing in a drawer
Bill
Apr 18, 2013, 8:05:12 AM4/18/13
to
In message <l_Pbt.9531$CA4....@newsfe14.iad>, Martin Brown
<|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> writes
near a receiver, so the transmit power can be negotiated down.
If it were me, I'd try to get another 6303i, and probably end up
storming out of these useless mobile phone shops.
I like clamshell phones and am fairly happy with my Nokia 2720, which I
bought in an emergency for daughter when she dropped her phone in the
bath. She then lost this one, she bought another, and I inherited this
when it re-appeared.
It bends a bit when I sit on it, but hasn't broken. The battery lasts
from 4 to 7 days, even though it has a relatively small battery
(850mAh?) = fairly quick to charge. The camera is mediocre and, because
of the clamshell, is often behind a hand or finger.
What depresses me is the price. I bought this at �30, the second one was
�40 and they now seem to be �70 or �80, which is ludicrous for a basic
phone.
I've been into quite a few phone shops over the years because of
daughter, phones and the bath, and am always amazed by the lack of
choice for basic models. I can't understand why clamshells seem so rare.
--
Bill
<|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> writes
>I have my suspicions that makers standby hours are measured inside a
>hermetically sealed Faraday cage with no ambient RF signals at all.
I think you might have that the wrong way round. I suspect they test
>hermetically sealed Faraday cage with no ambient RF signals at all.
near a receiver, so the transmit power can be negotiated down.
If it were me, I'd try to get another 6303i, and probably end up
storming out of these useless mobile phone shops.
I like clamshell phones and am fairly happy with my Nokia 2720, which I
bought in an emergency for daughter when she dropped her phone in the
bath. She then lost this one, she bought another, and I inherited this
when it re-appeared.
It bends a bit when I sit on it, but hasn't broken. The battery lasts
from 4 to 7 days, even though it has a relatively small battery
(850mAh?) = fairly quick to charge. The camera is mediocre and, because
of the clamshell, is often behind a hand or finger.
What depresses me is the price. I bought this at �30, the second one was
�40 and they now seem to be �70 or �80, which is ludicrous for a basic
phone.
I've been into quite a few phone shops over the years because of
daughter, phones and the bath, and am always amazed by the lack of
choice for basic models. I can't understand why clamshells seem so rare.
--
Bill
Scion
Apr 18, 2013, 8:43:14 AM4/18/13
to
Martin Brown put finger to keyboard:
> I can't be the only one that needs a compact robust mobile phone that
> doesn't need recharging every day and does the basics very well. I have
> had a Nokia 6303i for ages and that was ideal until it had a terminal
> encounter with a bucket of water. I have gone back to my previous 6300
> but its battery life was never much good when new and is much worse now.
>
> I am in the market for a new mobile phone, but I have very specific
> requirements for maximum standby time and talk time between charges. I
> have no need of facebook, twitter or 3G on this phone. It does need to
> last well and work when it accepts incoming calls on lowish battery. It
> is no use if it bumbles along and then dies sounding the ringtone!
<snip>
Look at the Samsung E1200
http://www.tesco.com/direct/sim-free-unlocked-samsung-e1200-
black/786-3368.prd
I have an earlier model but with the same battery specs (800hr standby,
10hr talk) and I only recharge once every week or two.
> I can't be the only one that needs a compact robust mobile phone that
> doesn't need recharging every day and does the basics very well. I have
> had a Nokia 6303i for ages and that was ideal until it had a terminal
> encounter with a bucket of water. I have gone back to my previous 6300
> but its battery life was never much good when new and is much worse now.
>
> I am in the market for a new mobile phone, but I have very specific
> requirements for maximum standby time and talk time between charges. I
> have no need of facebook, twitter or 3G on this phone. It does need to
> last well and work when it accepts incoming calls on lowish battery. It
> is no use if it bumbles along and then dies sounding the ringtone!
Look at the Samsung E1200
http://www.tesco.com/direct/sim-free-unlocked-samsung-e1200-
black/786-3368.prd
I have an earlier model but with the same battery specs (800hr standby,
10hr talk) and I only recharge once every week or two.
Nightjar
Apr 18, 2013, 8:46:30 AM4/18/13
to
On 18/04/2013 11:33, Martin Brown wrote:
...
> Ranked in order of battery life (and probable robustness)
> Talk Standby / hours
> Samsung XCover 19 1000
> Samsung GT S5260 II 7 900
> Nokia Asha201 7 890 (alpha keypad)
> Nokia 206 20 680
> Nokia C5 12 600
> Nokia C7 5 650
>
> All in theory with better figures than the 6303.
>
> I have my suspicions that makers standby hours are measured inside a
> hermetically sealed Faraday cage with no ambient RF signals at all. I
> never get anything like the makers claimed standby life on mine.
>
> Any other suggestions for well built classic mobiles with *really* good
> battery life (or with extended life aftermarket batteries)?
>
> Any experience of these phones and suggestions of which to avoid?
> (some come in various flavours with variations in battery life)
I had the Nokia C5, mainly because it was the one of the few phones for
> Talk Standby / hours
> Samsung XCover 19 1000
> Samsung GT S5260 II 7 900
> Nokia Asha201 7 890 (alpha keypad)
> Nokia 206 20 680
> Nokia C5 12 600
> Nokia C7 5 650
>
> All in theory with better figures than the 6303.
>
> I have my suspicions that makers standby hours are measured inside a
> hermetically sealed Faraday cage with no ambient RF signals at all. I
> never get anything like the makers claimed standby life on mine.
>
> Any other suggestions for well built classic mobiles with *really* good
> battery life (or with extended life aftermarket batteries)?
>
> Any experience of these phones and suggestions of which to avoid?
> (some come in various flavours with variations in battery life)
which I could get a carrier that would link it into my car's hands free
system and built-in aerial. I then kept forgetting to take it out of the
car when I got out, so it usually ended up staying in my shirt pocket,
linked to the car by Bluetooth, instead. I have quite a lot of low
signal areas around here and I doubt that being inside a car improves
reception. I never had any problems with battery life while putting it
on charge once or twice a week.
Colin Bignell
chris
Apr 18, 2013, 9:11:46 AM4/18/13
to
On 18/04/2013 11:50, Jethro_uk wrote:
>
> Got SWMBO an HTC Wildfire last year. It came preloaded with Facebook, and
> unless you go through some quite technical hoops, it can't be removed.
I wouldn't recommend that. I had one and it needed charging every day to
ensure it didn't run out of juice. I didn't use it very heavily.
> On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 11:33:48 +0100, Martin Brown wrote:
>
>> I am in the market for a new mobile phone, but I have very specific
>> requirements for maximum standby time and talk time between charges. I
>> have no need of facebook, twitter or 3G on this phone. It does need to
>> last well and work when it accepts incoming calls on lowish battery. It
>> is no use if it bumbles along and then dies sounding the ringtone!
>
> Sounds like you are in the market for an *old* mobile phone ;)
>
>> I am in the market for a new mobile phone, but I have very specific
>> requirements for maximum standby time and talk time between charges. I
>> have no need of facebook, twitter or 3G on this phone. It does need to
>> last well and work when it accepts incoming calls on lowish battery. It
>> is no use if it bumbles along and then dies sounding the ringtone!
>
>
> Got SWMBO an HTC Wildfire last year. It came preloaded with Facebook, and
> unless you go through some quite technical hoops, it can't be removed.
I wouldn't recommend that. I had one and it needed charging every day to
ensure it didn't run out of juice. I didn't use it very heavily.
Fevric J. Glandules
Apr 18, 2013, 9:44:45 AM4/18/13
to
Bill wrote:
> What depresses me is the price. I bought this at �30, the second one was
> �40 and they now seem to be �70 or �80, which is ludicrous for a basic
> phone.
>
> I've been into quite a few phone shops over the years because of
> daughter, phones and the bath, and am always amazed by the lack of
> choice for basic models.
Try a supermarket instead:
> What depresses me is the price. I bought this at �30, the second one was
> �40 and they now seem to be �70 or �80, which is ludicrous for a basic
> phone.
>
> I've been into quite a few phone shops over the years because of
> daughter, phones and the bath, and am always amazed by the lack of
> choice for basic models.
http://www.tesco.com/direct/sim-free-unlocked-nokia-100-black/326-4349.prd?skuId=326-4349&pageLevel=
Nineteen quid.
which I found from here:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/08/18/ten_phones_for_seniors/print.html
> I can't understand why clamshells seem so rare.
Different things are popular around the world. IIRC the clamshell
is more popular in the East, BICBW. An example I am more confident
of is that the USA really *likes* (or liked) little stubby aerials
coming out of the top of their mobe, and the Europeans really
*disliked* such.
Steve Firth
Apr 18, 2013, 9:56:51 AM4/18/13
to
Martin Brown <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> I can't be the only one that needs a compact robust mobile phone that
> doesn't need recharging every day and does the basics very well.
[snip]
> I can't be the only one that needs a compact robust mobile phone that
> doesn't need recharging every day and does the basics very well.
http://www.doro.co.uk/
Simple phones, big buttons, long battery life.
--
<•DarWin><|
_/ _/
Terry Fields
Apr 18, 2013, 10:16:49 AM4/18/13
to
On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 11:33:48 +0100, Martin Brown wrote:
> I am in the market for a new mobile phone, but I have very specific
> requirements for maximum standby time and talk time between charges. I
> have no need of facebook, twitter or 3G on this phone. It does need to
> last well and work when it accepts incoming calls on lowish battery. It
> is no use if it bumbles along and then dies sounding the ringtone!
>
> It is likely to be used a lot in regions of poor 2G signal coverage and
> so when in use will be transmitting at or near maximum power.
Buy a phone for its features, and power it from one of these:
> requirements for maximum standby time and talk time between charges. I
> have no need of facebook, twitter or 3G on this phone. It does need to
> last well and work when it accepts incoming calls on lowish battery. It
> is no use if it bumbles along and then dies sounding the ringtone!
>
> It is likely to be used a lot in regions of poor 2G signal coverage and
> so when in use will be transmitting at or near maximum power.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B0098EO61S
12000mAh in your shirt pocket should see you OK, and you'll find a plethora of uses for it.
I use one of these, had it for a couple of years:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B000NDQ92W
Charge it from your computer's USB port.
--
Terry Fields
Roland Perry
Apr 18, 2013, 10:43:06 AM4/18/13
to
In message <kkor93$t61$2...@dont-email.me>, at 14:11:46 on Thu, 18 Apr
2013, chris <ithi...@gmail.com> remarked:
battery, it'll last a week. Probably; mine does.
--
Roland Perry
2013, chris <ithi...@gmail.com> remarked:
>> Got SWMBO an HTC Wildfire last year. It came preloaded with Facebook, and
>> unless you go through some quite technical hoops, it can't be removed.
>
>I wouldn't recommend that. I had one and it needed charging every day
>to ensure it didn't run out of juice. I didn't use it very heavily.
If you disable GPS, wifi and 3G (use just 2G) and attach a "pregnant"
>> unless you go through some quite technical hoops, it can't be removed.
>
>I wouldn't recommend that. I had one and it needed charging every day
>to ensure it didn't run out of juice. I didn't use it very heavily.
battery, it'll last a week. Probably; mine does.
--
Roland Perry
Bill
Apr 18, 2013, 10:55:52 AM4/18/13
to
In message <kkotcd$e38$1...@dont-email.me>, Fevric J. Glandules
<f...@invalid.invalid> writes
Power
Standby Time (hrs) 840
Talk Time (hrs) 432
which surely cannot be right.
And I went to Tesco looking for a clamshell phone. They had nothing
suitable.
And I have a Sony Xperia which is great for listening to internet radio
at home via wifi, but would be hopeless carried round in my pocket with
the keys, coins, tape measure etc etc. Its battery lasts 48 hours at
most, and it never makes a phone call.
--
Bill
<f...@invalid.invalid> writes
>Bill wrote:
>
>> What depresses me is the price. I bought this at £30, the second one was
>> £40 and they now seem to be £70 or £80, which is ludicrous for a basic
>> phone.
>>
>> I've been into quite a few phone shops over the years because of
>> daughter, phones and the bath, and am always amazed by the lack of
>> choice for basic models.
>
>Try a supermarket instead:
>http://www.tesco.com/direct/sim-free-unlocked-nokia-100-black/326-4349.p
>rd?skuId=326-4349&pageLevel= Nineteen quid.
>
>which I found from here:
>http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/08/18/ten_phones_for_seniors/print.htm
>l
That Tesco site for the Nokia 100 says
>
>> What depresses me is the price. I bought this at £30, the second one was
>> £40 and they now seem to be £70 or £80, which is ludicrous for a basic
>> phone.
>>
>> I've been into quite a few phone shops over the years because of
>> daughter, phones and the bath, and am always amazed by the lack of
>> choice for basic models.
>
>Try a supermarket instead:
>http://www.tesco.com/direct/sim-free-unlocked-nokia-100-black/326-4349.p
>rd?skuId=326-4349&pageLevel= Nineteen quid.
>
>which I found from here:
>http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/08/18/ten_phones_for_seniors/print.htm
>l
Power
Standby Time (hrs) 840
Talk Time (hrs) 432
which surely cannot be right.
And I went to Tesco looking for a clamshell phone. They had nothing
suitable.
And I have a Sony Xperia which is great for listening to internet radio
at home via wifi, but would be hopeless carried round in my pocket with
the keys, coins, tape measure etc etc. Its battery lasts 48 hours at
most, and it never makes a phone call.
--
Bill
polygonum
Apr 18, 2013, 11:06:55 AM4/18/13
to
Talk time (2G): 6.7 h
http://www.nokia.com/gb-en/phones/phone/100/specifications/
--
Rod
Theo Markettos
Apr 18, 2013, 11:13:54 AM4/18/13
to
In uk.d-i-y Martin Brown <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> A quick survey of classic mobile phones gives me the following
> candidates (but it is hard work finding talk/standby hours).
>
> Ranked in order of battery life (and probable robustness)
> Talk Standby / hours
> Samsung XCover 19 1000
> Samsung GT S5260 II 7 900
> Nokia Asha201 7 890 (alpha keypad)
> Nokia 206 20 680
> Nokia C5 12 600
> Nokia C7 5 650
Nokia 105:
> A quick survey of classic mobile phones gives me the following
> candidates (but it is hard work finding talk/standby hours).
>
> Ranked in order of battery life (and probable robustness)
> Talk Standby / hours
> Samsung XCover 19 1000
> Samsung GT S5260 II 7 900
> Nokia Asha201 7 890 (alpha keypad)
> Nokia 206 20 680
> Nokia C5 12 600
> Nokia C7 5 650
talk 12.5
standby 842
http://www.techradar.com/reviews/phones/mobile-phones/nokia-105-1133526/review
and apparently GBP13, though I'm not sure you can buy it yet.
Theo
Martin Brown
Apr 18, 2013, 11:22:09 AM4/18/13
to
(and at that price it is easy enough to take a punt on it)
--
Regards,
Martin Brown
chris
Apr 18, 2013, 11:36:26 AM4/18/13
to
I've passed it onto my wife.
I used it primarily for 3G and wifi, she won't.
robgraham
Apr 18, 2013, 11:43:22 AM4/18/13
to
On Apr 18, 4:22 pm, Martin Brown <|||newspam...@nezumi.demon.co.uk>
wrote:
how long I get without having to charge it. My requirements were much
like the OP's and it has satisfied them with the only drawback being
that it pushes the width of the phone pocket in my jacket a bit.
Rob
wrote:
> On 18/04/2013 16:13, Theo Markettos wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > In uk.d-i-y Martin Brown <|||newspam...@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >> A quick survey of classic mobile phones gives me the following
> >> candidates (but it is hard work finding talk/standby hours).
>
> >> Ranked in order of battery life (and probable robustness)
> >> Talk Standby / hours
> >> Samsung XCover 19 1000
> >> Samsung GT S5260 II 7 900
> >> Nokia Asha201 7 890 (alpha keypad)
> >> Nokia 206 20 680
> >> Nokia C5 12 600
> >> Nokia C7 5 650
>
> > Nokia 105:
> > talk 12.5
> > standby 842
> >http://www.techradar.com/reviews/phones/mobile-phones/nokia-105-11335...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > In uk.d-i-y Martin Brown <|||newspam...@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >> A quick survey of classic mobile phones gives me the following
> >> candidates (but it is hard work finding talk/standby hours).
>
> >> Ranked in order of battery life (and probable robustness)
> >> Talk Standby / hours
> >> Samsung XCover 19 1000
> >> Samsung GT S5260 II 7 900
> >> Nokia Asha201 7 890 (alpha keypad)
> >> Nokia 206 20 680
> >> Nokia C5 12 600
> >> Nokia C7 5 650
>
> > Nokia 105:
> > talk 12.5
> > standby 842
> > and apparently GBP13, though I'm not sure you can buy it yet.
>
> > Theo
>
> BINGO!! Thanks Theo - that looks like it should hit the spot.
> (and at that price it is easy enough to take a punt on it)
>
> --
> Regards,
> Martin Brown
I got a Nokia 201 recently (£40) and have been seriously impressed by
>
> > Theo
>
> BINGO!! Thanks Theo - that looks like it should hit the spot.
> (and at that price it is easy enough to take a punt on it)
>
> --
> Regards,
> Martin Brown
how long I get without having to charge it. My requirements were much
like the OP's and it has satisfied them with the only drawback being
that it pushes the width of the phone pocket in my jacket a bit.
Rob
Theo Markettos
Apr 18, 2013, 11:50:56 AM4/18/13
to
In uk.telecom.mobile Martin Brown <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> BINGO!! Thanks Theo - that looks like it should hit the spot.
> (and at that price it is easy enough to take a punt on it)
And a note about the Samsungs... I don't know the XCover and whatever OS it
> BINGO!! Thanks Theo - that looks like it should hit the spot.
> (and at that price it is easy enough to take a punt on it)
runs, but I've used their CDMA featurephones (SGH-something) which look a
bit like the E1200. The OS drove me up the wall - simple things like
turning off the keypad tones seemed to be impossible, so my pocket made
beeping sounds as I walked around. And they have a navpad where the central
click doesn't do anything - you have to press a separate button to the left
to accept/OK/whatever. A truly horrid experience, and I was happy to get
back to a basic Nokia asap.
Theo
Andy Champ
Apr 18, 2013, 12:41:36 PM4/18/13
to
On 18/04/2013 11:33, Martin Brown wrote:
>
> Thanks for any enlightenment.
>
Got a Samsung GT-C3350. Battery life is _weeks_. Supposed to be
waterproof, though I haven't tested it.
Andy
D.M.Chapman
Apr 18, 2013, 12:41:03 PM4/18/13
to
In article <l_Pbt.9531$CA4....@newsfe14.iad>,
No fancy internet or anything, just a solid phone. Probably why they still
demand decent money :-(
http://www.nokia6310i.co.uk/
(never used these people btw, no idea on how good/bad they might be!)
Darren
>It is likely to be used a lot in regions of poor 2G signal coverage and
>so when in use will be transmitting at or near maximum power.
Get an old 6310? Probably the best phone I've ever used for reception.
>so when in use will be transmitting at or near maximum power.
No fancy internet or anything, just a solid phone. Probably why they still
demand decent money :-(
http://www.nokia6310i.co.uk/
(never used these people btw, no idea on how good/bad they might be!)
Darren
Message has been deleted
Tim+
Apr 18, 2013, 1:42:51 PM4/18/13
to
Martin Brown <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> I can't be the only one that needs a compact robust mobile phone that
> doesn't need recharging every day and does the basics very well.
> Thanks for any enlightenment.
> doesn't need recharging every day and does the basics very well.
Nokia 105?
Tim
Roland Perry
Apr 18, 2013, 2:53:13 PM4/18/13
to
In message <erb0n85rkf248pg53...@4ax.com>, at 18:42:02 on
Thu, 18 Apr 2013, Peter <occassional...@nospam.co.uk> remarked:
>All the fancier models have relatively crap battery life because the
>screens use so much power.
It's also because 3G takes much more power than 2G. How quickly people
forget that the first tranche of 3G phones were much delayed because
they couldn't get the battery life up to an acceptable level (8-10hrs
standby perhaps).
--
Roland Perry
Thu, 18 Apr 2013, Peter <occassional...@nospam.co.uk> remarked:
>All the fancier models have relatively crap battery life because the
>screens use so much power.
It's also because 3G takes much more power than 2G. How quickly people
forget that the first tranche of 3G phones were much delayed because
they couldn't get the battery life up to an acceptable level (8-10hrs
standby perhaps).
--
Roland Perry
Sam Plusnet
Apr 18, 2013, 3:08:11 PM4/18/13
to
In article <wxrme3P4...@itsound.demon.co.uk>, Billa...@gmail.com
says...
about right, so it's a typo.
--
Sam
says...
> That Tesco site for the Nokia 100 says
>
> Power
> Standby Time (hrs) 840
> Talk Time (hrs) 432
>
> which surely cannot be right.
>
>
If you take that "Talk Tine" as minutes rather than hours, it sounds
>
> Power
> Standby Time (hrs) 840
> Talk Time (hrs) 432
>
> which surely cannot be right.
>
>
about right, so it's a typo.
--
Sam
Sam Plusnet
Apr 18, 2013, 3:32:57 PM4/18/13
to
In article <GcUbt.110079$yV1....@newsfe29.iad>,
|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk says...
I agree, but as far as I can tell it's not available in the UK.
I did see a review which said
"Set to launch at the end of March, we're still awaiting UK pricing and
availability for the Nokia 105"
but "launch" may refer to some other country, not here.
--
Sam
|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk says...
I did see a review which said
"Set to launch at the end of March, we're still awaiting UK pricing and
availability for the Nokia 105"
but "launch" may refer to some other country, not here.
--
Sam
tony sayer
Apr 18, 2013, 4:02:14 PM4/18/13
to
In article <9P8FhCN4...@itsound.demon.co.uk>, Bill
<Billa...@gmail.com> scribeth thus
years;!...
>and probably end up
>storming out of these useless mobile phone shops.
Yes most useless establishments they are..
>
>I like clamshell phones and am fairly happy with my Nokia 2720, which I
>bought in an emergency for daughter when she dropped her phone in the
>bath. She then lost this one, she bought another, and I inherited this
>when it re-appeared.
>
Used to have a Motorola clam shell but it was involved in an accident. I
survived it didn't;!,...
>It bends a bit when I sit on it, but hasn't broken. The battery lasts
>from 4 to 7 days, even though it has a relatively small battery
>(850mAh?) = fairly quick to charge. The camera is mediocre and, because
>of the clamshell, is often behind a hand or finger.
>
>What depresses me is the price. I bought this at �30, the second one was
>�40 and they now seem to be �70 or �80, which is ludicrous for a basic
>phone.
Shows that their good then;).
those who just need a simple phone!...
--
Tony Sayer
<Billa...@gmail.com> scribeth thus
>In message <l_Pbt.9531$CA4....@newsfe14.iad>, Martin Brown
><|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> writes
>>I have my suspicions that makers standby hours are measured inside a
>>hermetically sealed Faraday cage with no ambient RF signals at all.
>
>I think you might have that the wrong way round. I suspect they test
>near a receiver, so the transmit power can be negotiated down.
>
>If it were me, I'd try to get another 6303i,
Got one of they and its now on it's original battery for some 3
><|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> writes
>>I have my suspicions that makers standby hours are measured inside a
>>hermetically sealed Faraday cage with no ambient RF signals at all.
>
>I think you might have that the wrong way round. I suspect they test
>near a receiver, so the transmit power can be negotiated down.
>
>If it were me, I'd try to get another 6303i,
years;!...
>and probably end up
>storming out of these useless mobile phone shops.
>
>I like clamshell phones and am fairly happy with my Nokia 2720, which I
>bought in an emergency for daughter when she dropped her phone in the
>bath. She then lost this one, she bought another, and I inherited this
>when it re-appeared.
>
survived it didn't;!,...
>It bends a bit when I sit on it, but hasn't broken. The battery lasts
>from 4 to 7 days, even though it has a relatively small battery
>(850mAh?) = fairly quick to charge. The camera is mediocre and, because
>of the clamshell, is often behind a hand or finger.
>
>What depresses me is the price. I bought this at �30, the second one was
>�40 and they now seem to be �70 or �80, which is ludicrous for a basic
>phone.
>
>I've been into quite a few phone shops over the years because of
>daughter, phones and the bath, and am always amazed by the lack of
>choice for basic models. I can't understand why clamshells seem so rare.
Suppose the is the market as perceived by the makers they never think of
>I've been into quite a few phone shops over the years because of
>daughter, phones and the bath, and am always amazed by the lack of
>choice for basic models. I can't understand why clamshells seem so rare.
those who just need a simple phone!...
--
Tony Sayer
Java Jive
Apr 18, 2013, 4:43:11 PM4/18/13
to
It's definitely NOT what the OP was asking, but here's my 2p worth ...
On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 18:42:02 +0100, Peter
<occassional...@nospam.co.uk> wrote:
> The best phone ever is indeed the 6310i and you may as well get
> another one.
I think I had one of the Nokia 62xx series. It was good for the time,
but I wouldn't want to go back to it now.
> All the fancier models have relatively crap battery life because the
> screens use so much power.
Yes, but the important word there is relatively.
> In fact ALL the smartphones are crap on battery life, compared to the
> 6310i and other phones from that era, but most people have accepted
> that, in return for the multimedia functionality.
>
Yes.
Having actually dispensed with mobiles altogether for a number of
years, I approached buying a new one with a very great deal of
scepticism. However, I needed one while I was between houses, and
bought a Samsung Galaxy II GT-N7100, together with a car charger, and
now I wouldn't want to be without it.
While I was between houses, I was able to read email, browse the web,
check my bank account, etc. If only because the phone had an
unfamiliar interface, it wasn't as hassle free as being back in my own
home and using ADSL and a laptop is now once more, but at the time
such a phone was absolutely essential for managing my life. I was
able to keep it charged up using the car charger as I drove around
looking at houses.
Now, I simply charge it overnight next to my bed, and its alarm will
wake me in the morning.
Besides being just a phone, there are so many other things I find
useful about it ...
+++ I can read most things on it without glasses, and certainly all
the important things.
+++ It seems to be fairly robust. I thought that it might break when
I dropped it, and/or the screen scratch really easily. I've dropped
it onto tarmac from around chest height, and, although I had to clip
some of the back into place, it seems none the worse for it. I'm
quite careful about protecting the screen as far as possible. I
either put it in a pocket with nothing else in it, or at least ensure
the screen is facing the material of which the pocket is made. After
six months, it's virtually pristine - there are a couple of very
small blemishes in one corner, probably from the drop, but otherwise,
still smooth and shiny, which is much better than I expected.
+++ The excellent camera. It's really surprisingly good and
versatile, again much better than I ever expected it to be.
Although I still use a torch and mirror to see into inaccessible
places, the camera is also very good at that too.
Photos of the labels on the underside of my laptops, scanner, etc, so
that I have readable and permanent proof of ownership. Yes, I could
do that with my digital camera, but the batteries don't last two
minutes.
Photos of events on the notice-board outside the local shop. Photos
of the local chippy's opening times.
Happly holiday snap pictures in all sorts of lighting conditions, even
driving rain at dusk (as long as you don't get water on the actual
lens, which is so small that the result will be blurred, but that's
easily cured just by wiping it clean):
http://www.macfh.co.uk/PrivTest/Kylerhea-SquallAtDusk.jpg
Panoramas - more years ago than I care to admit remembering, I
staggered to the top of Ben Cruachan with a rucksack full of some
fairly expensive still film camera equipment, with which I hoped to
create a panorama from the top. However, because I forgot that I
should take them all at the same exposure (doh!), I was never able to
join the individual pictures together. Now my mobile phone, which,
though large, still fits in my trouser pocket, can do a better job -
I say 'can', by which I mean that in about 1 or 2 out of 10 attempts,
the result will be near perfect, with barely visible or completely
invisible joins, in about 6 the joins will be visible to a greater or
lesser extent, and another 1 or 2 just won't work at all. However,
it, too, doesn't take the pics all at the same exposure, and I think I
could get a higher percentage of usable results if I had more control
over the stitching process. Nevertheless here are two pretty good
examples:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/PrivTest/Lochalsh.jpg
http://www.macfh.co.uk/PrivTest/CommandoMemorial.jpg
+++ Travel directions - set up the journey, and have it warn you by
'voice' of upcoming junctions and tell you which way to turn. This is
especially useful where you need to turn off a main road onto a side
road, as it saves you missing the turning. Would like to be able to
wipe the history list though. This drains the battery quite fast, but
I have the car charger.
+++ Dropbox or equivalent syncing mechanism
Previously, I used to carry my shopping list in my head, confident in
the knowledge that, should I forget anything, I was at least within
walking distance to the nearest supermarket. Now, I live a LONG way
from the nearest decent supermarket, so it's VERY important NOT to
forget things! However, I maintain a permanent shopping list on my
PC, and when in the supermarket I can scroll through it on the phone
to check I haven't forgotten anything.
Likewise, I keep a list of local services such as shops, library,
recycling centre, etc (-: now including the chippy :-), with their
rather odd opening times. That too is replicated on my phone.
+++ Google Maps and Streetview
Essential tools when looking for a house to buy.
+++ Internet - before buying, can check prices and opinions for
products one sees in a shop, etc.
+++ Alarm/Timer - also available on older phones, of course.
+++ Can read downloaded literature. In fact, I keep that in my
Dropbox as well, so that it's available on any machine I use.
+++ Apps, for example:
QR and barcode recognition app
RSPB bird recognition app
UK Tides app
Surely I must have some dislikes about it? Yes ...
- It's relatively large size, though great for avoiding the need for
glasses when wearing it, does mean that it needs quite a large pocket.
Also, in certain pockets, and having its on-off switch buttons on its
side, sometimes when I bend over, say to tie a bootlace, the phone
reboots.
--- The legends on the maps are often illegibly small, so that, for
example, you can't even read a road number such as A87.
--- Would really like to share at least the camera and other data
folders so that I can manage files and back it up via Wifi from a PC.
There are apps that allow this, but they all require rooting (gaining
root, administrator, access to) the machine. However, I can at least
back it up by direct connection via USB.
--- Would like the phone's software to work with W2k. After all, it's
the same major version number as XP, so how different can it be under
the bonnet? However, at least I've managed to upgrade my standard W2k
build to XP, at last, so this laptop can talk to it.
> On 18/04/2013 11:33, Martin Brown wrote:
> >
> > Thanks for any enlightenment.
experience above shows, even an old sceptic like me can be converted
to a smartphone!
However, if you really do need just a basic phone, then doubtless some
of the other suggestions will do.
--
=========================================================
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html
On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 18:42:02 +0100, Peter
<occassional...@nospam.co.uk> wrote:
> The best phone ever is indeed the 6310i and you may as well get
> another one.
I think I had one of the Nokia 62xx series. It was good for the time,
but I wouldn't want to go back to it now.
> All the fancier models have relatively crap battery life because the
> screens use so much power.
> In fact ALL the smartphones are crap on battery life, compared to the
> 6310i and other phones from that era, but most people have accepted
> that, in return for the multimedia functionality.
>
Yes.
Having actually dispensed with mobiles altogether for a number of
years, I approached buying a new one with a very great deal of
scepticism. However, I needed one while I was between houses, and
bought a Samsung Galaxy II GT-N7100, together with a car charger, and
now I wouldn't want to be without it.
While I was between houses, I was able to read email, browse the web,
check my bank account, etc. If only because the phone had an
unfamiliar interface, it wasn't as hassle free as being back in my own
home and using ADSL and a laptop is now once more, but at the time
such a phone was absolutely essential for managing my life. I was
able to keep it charged up using the car charger as I drove around
looking at houses.
Now, I simply charge it overnight next to my bed, and its alarm will
wake me in the morning.
Besides being just a phone, there are so many other things I find
useful about it ...
+++ I can read most things on it without glasses, and certainly all
the important things.
+++ It seems to be fairly robust. I thought that it might break when
I dropped it, and/or the screen scratch really easily. I've dropped
it onto tarmac from around chest height, and, although I had to clip
some of the back into place, it seems none the worse for it. I'm
quite careful about protecting the screen as far as possible. I
either put it in a pocket with nothing else in it, or at least ensure
the screen is facing the material of which the pocket is made. After
six months, it's virtually pristine - there are a couple of very
small blemishes in one corner, probably from the drop, but otherwise,
still smooth and shiny, which is much better than I expected.
+++ The excellent camera. It's really surprisingly good and
versatile, again much better than I ever expected it to be.
Although I still use a torch and mirror to see into inaccessible
places, the camera is also very good at that too.
Photos of the labels on the underside of my laptops, scanner, etc, so
that I have readable and permanent proof of ownership. Yes, I could
do that with my digital camera, but the batteries don't last two
minutes.
Photos of events on the notice-board outside the local shop. Photos
of the local chippy's opening times.
Happly holiday snap pictures in all sorts of lighting conditions, even
driving rain at dusk (as long as you don't get water on the actual
lens, which is so small that the result will be blurred, but that's
easily cured just by wiping it clean):
http://www.macfh.co.uk/PrivTest/Kylerhea-SquallAtDusk.jpg
Panoramas - more years ago than I care to admit remembering, I
staggered to the top of Ben Cruachan with a rucksack full of some
fairly expensive still film camera equipment, with which I hoped to
create a panorama from the top. However, because I forgot that I
should take them all at the same exposure (doh!), I was never able to
join the individual pictures together. Now my mobile phone, which,
though large, still fits in my trouser pocket, can do a better job -
I say 'can', by which I mean that in about 1 or 2 out of 10 attempts,
the result will be near perfect, with barely visible or completely
invisible joins, in about 6 the joins will be visible to a greater or
lesser extent, and another 1 or 2 just won't work at all. However,
it, too, doesn't take the pics all at the same exposure, and I think I
could get a higher percentage of usable results if I had more control
over the stitching process. Nevertheless here are two pretty good
examples:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/PrivTest/Lochalsh.jpg
http://www.macfh.co.uk/PrivTest/CommandoMemorial.jpg
+++ Travel directions - set up the journey, and have it warn you by
'voice' of upcoming junctions and tell you which way to turn. This is
especially useful where you need to turn off a main road onto a side
road, as it saves you missing the turning. Would like to be able to
wipe the history list though. This drains the battery quite fast, but
I have the car charger.
+++ Dropbox or equivalent syncing mechanism
Previously, I used to carry my shopping list in my head, confident in
the knowledge that, should I forget anything, I was at least within
walking distance to the nearest supermarket. Now, I live a LONG way
from the nearest decent supermarket, so it's VERY important NOT to
forget things! However, I maintain a permanent shopping list on my
PC, and when in the supermarket I can scroll through it on the phone
to check I haven't forgotten anything.
Likewise, I keep a list of local services such as shops, library,
recycling centre, etc (-: now including the chippy :-), with their
rather odd opening times. That too is replicated on my phone.
+++ Google Maps and Streetview
Essential tools when looking for a house to buy.
+++ Internet - before buying, can check prices and opinions for
products one sees in a shop, etc.
+++ Alarm/Timer - also available on older phones, of course.
+++ Can read downloaded literature. In fact, I keep that in my
Dropbox as well, so that it's available on any machine I use.
+++ Apps, for example:
QR and barcode recognition app
RSPB bird recognition app
UK Tides app
Surely I must have some dislikes about it? Yes ...
- It's relatively large size, though great for avoiding the need for
glasses when wearing it, does mean that it needs quite a large pocket.
Also, in certain pockets, and having its on-off switch buttons on its
side, sometimes when I bend over, say to tie a bootlace, the phone
reboots.
--- The legends on the maps are often illegibly small, so that, for
example, you can't even read a road number such as A87.
--- Would really like to share at least the camera and other data
folders so that I can manage files and back it up via Wifi from a PC.
There are apps that allow this, but they all require rooting (gaining
root, administrator, access to) the machine. However, I can at least
back it up by direct connection via USB.
--- Would like the phone's software to work with W2k. After all, it's
the same major version number as XP, so how different can it be under
the bonnet? However, at least I've managed to upgrade my standard W2k
build to XP, at last, so this laptop can talk to it.
> On 18/04/2013 11:33, Martin Brown wrote:
> >
> > Thanks for any enlightenment.
> >I can't be the only one that needs a compact robust mobile phone that
> >doesn't need recharging every day and does the basics very well. I have
> >had a Nokia 6303i for ages and that was ideal until it had a terminal
> >encounter with a bucket of water. I have gone back to my previous 6300
> >but its battery life was never much good when new and is much worse now.
...
> >had a Nokia 6303i for ages and that was ideal until it had a terminal
> >encounter with a bucket of water. I have gone back to my previous 6300
> >but its battery life was never much good when new and is much worse now.
> >My jaundiced view of the present mobile phone market is that touch
> >screen all singing all dancing web browser things are now de rigeur. Not
> >what I want at all. Even considering buying another 6303 secondhand
> >which would at least give me something I know my way around.
You might care to try actually owning one for a while. As my
> >screen all singing all dancing web browser things are now de rigeur. Not
> >what I want at all. Even considering buying another 6303 secondhand
> >which would at least give me something I know my way around.
experience above shows, even an old sceptic like me can be converted
to a smartphone!
However, if you really do need just a basic phone, then doubtless some
of the other suggestions will do.
--
=========================================================
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html
alan
Apr 18, 2013, 5:13:08 PM4/18/13
to
On 18/04/2013 14:11, chris wrote:
>
> I wouldn't recommend that. I had one and it needed charging every day to
> ensure it didn't run out of juice. I didn't use it very heavily.
>
Most smart-phones seem to default to everything switched on.
>
> I wouldn't recommend that. I had one and it needed charging every day to
> ensure it didn't run out of juice. I didn't use it very heavily.
>
The charge in my smart-phone battery lasted less than a day when first
purchased. It now lasts 4 days+
Screen backlight turned down to a minimum
3G turned off most of the time (GSM only rather than WCDMA preferred)
GPS turned off until needed
Wi-fi turned off until needed
Mobile network turned off until needed
Bluetooth turned off until needed
--
mailto:news{at}admac(dot}myzen{dot}co{dot}uk
Alan LeHun
Apr 18, 2013, 5:23:31 PM4/18/13
to
In article <6ke0n8998afm25b5h...@4ax.com>,
ja...@evij.com.invalid says...
> I'm
> quite careful about protecting the screen as far as possible. I
> either put it in a pocket with nothing else in it, or at least ensure
> the screen is facing the material of which the pocket is made. After
> six months, it's virtually pristine - there are a couple of very
> small blemishes in one corner, probably from the drop, but otherwise,
> still smooth and shiny, which is much better than I expected.
>
>
Gorilla glass. I too have been very impressed with the scratch resistant
capabilities of this glass on my s3. I would not now buy a smartphone
without it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gorilla_Glass
--
Alan LeHun
Reply-to is valid. Add "BPSF" to subject: to bypass spam filters.
ja...@evij.com.invalid says...
> I'm
> quite careful about protecting the screen as far as possible. I
> either put it in a pocket with nothing else in it, or at least ensure
> the screen is facing the material of which the pocket is made. After
> six months, it's virtually pristine - there are a couple of very
> small blemishes in one corner, probably from the drop, but otherwise,
> still smooth and shiny, which is much better than I expected.
>
>
capabilities of this glass on my s3. I would not now buy a smartphone
without it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gorilla_Glass
--
Alan LeHun
Reply-to is valid. Add "BPSF" to subject: to bypass spam filters.
Martin Brown
Apr 19, 2013, 5:41:04 AM4/19/13
to
On 18/04/2013 21:43, Java Jive wrote:
> It's definitely NOT what the OP was asking, but here's my 2p worth ...
>
> On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 18:42:02 +0100, Peter
> <occassional...@nospam.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> The best phone ever is indeed the 6310i and you may as well get
>> another one.
>
> I think I had one of the Nokia 62xx series. It was good for the time,
> but I wouldn't want to go back to it now.
>
>> All the fancier models have relatively crap battery life because the
>> screens use so much power.
>
> Yes, but the important word there is relatively.
It depends critically on whether you want an all singing all dancing
> It's definitely NOT what the OP was asking, but here's my 2p worth ...
>
> On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 18:42:02 +0100, Peter
> <occassional...@nospam.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> The best phone ever is indeed the 6310i and you may as well get
>> another one.
>
> I think I had one of the Nokia 62xx series. It was good for the time,
> but I wouldn't want to go back to it now.
>
>> All the fancier models have relatively crap battery life because the
>> screens use so much power.
>
> Yes, but the important word there is relatively.
Swiss army knife that requires carefully sharpening every night or a
titanium blade pen knife that works almost forever without any fuss.
>
>> In fact ALL the smartphones are crap on battery life, compared to the
>> 6310i and other phones from that era, but most people have accepted
>> that, in return for the multimedia functionality.
>
> Yes.
Which is fine if you want to watch video on a screen the size of a
>> In fact ALL the smartphones are crap on battery life, compared to the
>> 6310i and other phones from that era, but most people have accepted
>> that, in return for the multimedia functionality.
>
> Yes.
postage stamp and do battle with a miniscule touch screen. I don't.
If I want to browse the web I use an Android tablet or iPad. I have
(access to) a Samsung Galaxy. I don't like it the battery doesn't last
that is why I want something compact and reliable as a *MOBILE PHONE*
and yes I am shouting because some people still don't seem to have got
the message. My specification is precise, knowledgeable and deliberate.
I want a near minimalist phone with the longest possible battery life
that will work well in a low signal area. End of story.
> Having actually dispensed with mobiles altogether for a number of
> years, I approached buying a new one with a very great deal of
> scepticism. However, I needed one while I was between houses, and
> bought a Samsung Galaxy II GT-N7100, together with a car charger, and
> now I wouldn't want to be without it.
>
> While I was between houses, I was able to read email, browse the web,
> check my bank account, etc. If only because the phone had an
> unfamiliar interface, it wasn't as hassle free as being back in my own
> home and using ADSL and a laptop is now once more, but at the time
> such a phone was absolutely essential for managing my life. I was
> able to keep it charged up using the car charger as I drove around
> looking at houses.
better user experience. A MyFi for a little bit more better still.
My Three 3G connection at home in a borderline signal area at 5Mbps is
actually twice the speed of my ADSL landline on a prehistoric exchange.
If I didn't burn so much data bandwidth I would consider dropping my
ADSL service. Mobile coverage for 2G at home is even more borderline.
> Now, I simply charge it overnight next to my bed, and its alarm will
> wake me in the morning.
Unfortunately the market seems determined not to provide it! :(
The GUI fluff just gets in the way and eats battery to no good end.
> However, if you really do need just a basic phone, then doubtless some
> of the other suggestions will do.
>
--
Martin Brown
stuart noble
Apr 19, 2013, 7:43:14 AM4/19/13
to
MB
Apr 19, 2013, 8:14:22 AM4/19/13
to
On 18/04/2013 11:33, Martin Brown wrote:
> I can't be the only one that needs a compact robust mobile phone that
> doesn't need recharging every day and does the basics very well. I have
> had a Nokia 6303i for ages and that was ideal until it had a terminal
> encounter with a bucket of water. I have gone back to my previous 6300
> but its battery life was never much good when new and is much worse now.
I leave mine switch off and only turn on very occasionally so the
> I can't be the only one that needs a compact robust mobile phone that
> doesn't need recharging every day and does the basics very well. I have
> had a Nokia 6303i for ages and that was ideal until it had a terminal
> encounter with a bucket of water. I have gone back to my previous 6300
> but its battery life was never much good when new and is much worse now.
battery lasts for ages though I do have to keep setting the clock and
calendar!
Martin Brown
Apr 19, 2013, 8:26:15 AM4/19/13
to
On 19/04/2013 12:43, stuart noble wrote:
> On 19/04/2013 10:41, Martin Brown wrote:
>> I want a near minimalist phone with the longest possible battery life
>> that will work well in a low signal area. End of story.
>>
>>
> On 19/04/2013 10:41, Martin Brown wrote:
>> I want a near minimalist phone with the longest possible battery life
>> that will work well in a low signal area. End of story.
>>
>>
> As already suggested.........
>
>> http://www.doro.co.uk/
>
> Simple phones, big buttons, long battery life.
Unless I have missed something for the functionality they offer they are
>
>> http://www.doro.co.uk/
>
> Simple phones, big buttons, long battery life.
nothing to write home about with 12hour talk 500 hour standby.
Most of the ones I listed were nominally 600 hours standby or more.
--
Regards,
Martin Brown
Tim+
Apr 19, 2013, 8:26:11 AM4/19/13
to
Martin Brown <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> On 18/04/2013 21:43, Java Jive wrote:
>
>> Now, I simply charge it overnight next to my bed, and its alarm will
>> wake me in the morning.
>
> If it works for you then fine, but I know exactly what I want.
> Unfortunately the market seems determined not to provide it! :(
Well you know why that is? "There's no call for it guv...". ;-)
>
>> Now, I simply charge it overnight next to my bed, and its alarm will
>> wake me in the morning.
>
> If it works for you then fine, but I know exactly what I want.
> Unfortunately the market seems determined not to provide it! :(
Of course there is some call for it but more & more people want a smart
phone these days and that's where the money is to be made. Even my 87 yr
old mother is agitating for an iPhone.
Hopefully the Nokia 105 will make it to these shores.
Tim
Grimly Curmudgeon
Apr 19, 2013, 10:39:41 AM4/19/13
to
On 18 Apr 2013 14:16:49 GMT, Terry Fields
<no.spa...@thanks.invalid> wrote:
>Buy a phone for its features, and power it from one of these:
>
>http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B0098EO61S
>
>12000mAh in your shirt pocket should see you OK,
It certainly would, if true. You could jump your car from that.
>Buy a phone for its features, and power it from one of these:
>
>http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B0098EO61S
>
>12000mAh in your shirt pocket should see you OK,
Message has been deleted
Rick Hughes
Apr 19, 2013, 4:06:37 PM4/19/13
to
On 18/04/2013 11:33, Martin Brown wrote:>
> I can't be the only one that needs a compact robust mobile phone that
> doesn't need recharging every day and does the basics very well.
> I can't be the only one that needs a compact robust mobile phone that
> doesn't need recharging every day and does the basics very well.
> I have my suspicions that makers standby hours are measured inside a
> hermetically sealed Faraday cage with no ambient RF signals at all. I
> never get anything like the makers claimed standby life on mine.
> hermetically sealed Faraday cage with no ambient RF signals at all. I
>
For normal use I have Samsung Galaxy S3 ... superb SMART phone.
On odd occasions where I want max battery life and just phone
functionality I use my Nokia 6310i .... superb device.
Best Nokia phone ever made
BTW if it were in a Farady cage ,... battery life would be worse as it
would be polling on high power to get a connection
Message has been deleted
DrTeeth
Apr 21, 2013, 7:06:23 AM4/21/13
to
On Fri, 19 Apr 2013 15:39:41 +0100, just as I was about to take a
herb, Grimly Curmudgeon <gri...@gmail.com> disturbed my reverie and
wrote:
>You could jump your car from that.
If it were at 12 v of course.
--
Cheers,
DrT
** Stress - the condition brought about by having to
** resist the temptation to beat the living daylights
** out of someone who richly deserves it.
herb, Grimly Curmudgeon <gri...@gmail.com> disturbed my reverie and
wrote:
>You could jump your car from that.
--
Cheers,
DrT
** Stress - the condition brought about by having to
** resist the temptation to beat the living daylights
** out of someone who richly deserves it.
Mark
Apr 22, 2013, 4:20:16 AM4/22/13
to
On Fri, 19 Apr 2013 20:13:53 +0100, Peter
<occassional...@nospam.co.uk> wrote:
>I have the Nokia 808 and it has saved me carrying a camera, because
>its camera (40MP, downsampling to 8 or 12MP) totally outclasses any
>camera you can stick in your pocket, and I mean including the �400
>ones. In fact, in favourable daylight conditions, still subjects, it
>is almost as good as a DSLR. To me, a keen photographer, that has real
>serious value, in reducing how much junk one has to carry.
Sorry but I find that hard to believe. AFAIK it's just not possible
to fit a good lens in a phone-sized object.
I've not tried the Nokia 808 but would it really be better than a
small system camera (which would also fit into a pocket)?
--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) If a man stands in a forest and no woman is around
(")_(") is he still wrong?
<occassional...@nospam.co.uk> wrote:
>I have the Nokia 808 and it has saved me carrying a camera, because
>its camera (40MP, downsampling to 8 or 12MP) totally outclasses any
>camera you can stick in your pocket, and I mean including the �400
>ones. In fact, in favourable daylight conditions, still subjects, it
>is almost as good as a DSLR. To me, a keen photographer, that has real
>serious value, in reducing how much junk one has to carry.
Sorry but I find that hard to believe. AFAIK it's just not possible
to fit a good lens in a phone-sized object.
I've not tried the Nokia 808 but would it really be better than a
small system camera (which would also fit into a pocket)?
--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) If a man stands in a forest and no woman is around
(")_(") is he still wrong?
charles
Apr 22, 2013, 4:39:02 AM4/22/13
to
In article <3fs9n8hubp93f46lo...@4ax.com>,
suspect cost considerations are the killer.
--
From KT24
Using a RISC OS computer running v5.18
Mark <i...@dontgetlotsofspamanymore.invalid> wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Apr 2013 20:13:53 +0100, Peter
> <occassional...@nospam.co.uk> wrote:
> >I have the Nokia 808 and it has saved me carrying a camera, because
> >its camera (40MP, downsampling to 8 or 12MP) totally outclasses any
> >camera you can stick in your pocket, and I mean including the ￜ400
> On Fri, 19 Apr 2013 20:13:53 +0100, Peter
> <occassional...@nospam.co.uk> wrote:
> >I have the Nokia 808 and it has saved me carrying a camera, because
> >its camera (40MP, downsampling to 8 or 12MP) totally outclasses any
> >ones. In fact, in favourable daylight conditions, still subjects, it
> >is almost as good as a DSLR. To me, a keen photographer, that has real
> >serious value, in reducing how much junk one has to carry.
> Sorry but I find that hard to believe. AFAIK it's just not possible
> to fit a good lens in a phone-sized object.
why not? The are plenty of good optical instruments with small lenses. I
> >is almost as good as a DSLR. To me, a keen photographer, that has real
> >serious value, in reducing how much junk one has to carry.
> Sorry but I find that hard to believe. AFAIK it's just not possible
> to fit a good lens in a phone-sized object.
suspect cost considerations are the killer.
--
From KT24
Using a RISC OS computer running v5.18
Martin Brown
Apr 22, 2013, 4:44:12 AM4/22/13
to
On 22/04/2013 09:20, Mark wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Apr 2013 20:13:53 +0100, Peter
> <occassional...@nospam.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> I have the Nokia 808 and it has saved me carrying a camera, because
>> its camera (40MP, downsampling to 8 or 12MP) totally outclasses any
>> camera you can stick in your pocket, and I mean including the �400
>> ones. In fact, in favourable daylight conditions, still subjects, it
>> is almost as good as a DSLR. To me, a keen photographer, that has real
>> serious value, in reducing how much junk one has to carry.
>
> Sorry but I find that hard to believe. AFAIK it's just not possible
> to fit a good lens in a phone-sized object.
>
> I've not tried the Nokia 808 but would it really be better than a
> small system camera (which would also fit into a pocket)?
It could well be better than most - see the review at:
> On Fri, 19 Apr 2013 20:13:53 +0100, Peter
> <occassional...@nospam.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> I have the Nokia 808 and it has saved me carrying a camera, because
>> its camera (40MP, downsampling to 8 or 12MP) totally outclasses any
>> camera you can stick in your pocket, and I mean including the �400
>> ones. In fact, in favourable daylight conditions, still subjects, it
>> is almost as good as a DSLR. To me, a keen photographer, that has real
>> serious value, in reducing how much junk one has to carry.
>
> Sorry but I find that hard to believe. AFAIK it's just not possible
> to fit a good lens in a phone-sized object.
>
> I've not tried the Nokia 808 but would it really be better than a
> small system camera (which would also fit into a pocket)?
http://www.pcpro.co.uk/reviews/smartphones/376030/nokia-808-pureview
They don't like the phone though!
--
Regards,
Martin Brown
Steve Terry
Apr 22, 2013, 5:00:53 AM4/22/13
to
Bill wrote:
> In message <l_Pbt.9531$CA4....@newsfe14.iad>, Martin Brown
> <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> writes
<snip>
> In message <l_Pbt.9531$CA4....@newsfe14.iad>, Martin Brown
> <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> writes
> I've been into quite a few phone shops over the years because of
> daughter, phones and the bath, and am always amazed by the lack of
> choice for basic models. I can't understand why clamshells seem so
> rare.
>
Although they are very popular in the USA, the hinge adds an extra level of
> daughter, phones and the bath, and am always amazed by the lack of
> choice for basic models. I can't understand why clamshells seem so
> rare.
>
unreliability
Steve Terry
--
Get a free GiffGaff PAYG Sim and �5 bonus after activation at:
http://giffgaff.com/orders/affiliate/gfourwwk
Steve Terry
Apr 22, 2013, 5:45:45 AM4/22/13
to
Theo Markettos wrote:
> In uk.d-i-y Martin Brown <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> A quick survey of classic mobile phones gives me the following
>> candidates (but it is hard work finding talk/standby hours).
>>
>> Ranked in order of battery life (and probable robustness)
>> Talk Standby / hours
>> Samsung XCover 19 1000
>> Samsung GT S5260 II 7 900
>> Nokia Asha201 7 890 (alpha keypad)
>> Nokia 206 20 680
>> Nokia C5 12 600
>> Nokia C7 5 650
>
> Nokia 105:
> talk 12.5
> standby 842
> http://www.techradar.com/reviews/phones/mobile-phones/nokia-105-1133526/review
> and apparently GBP13, though I'm not sure you can buy it yet.
> Theo
>
But are those times correct?
> In uk.d-i-y Martin Brown <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> A quick survey of classic mobile phones gives me the following
>> candidates (but it is hard work finding talk/standby hours).
>>
>> Ranked in order of battery life (and probable robustness)
>> Talk Standby / hours
>> Samsung XCover 19 1000
>> Samsung GT S5260 II 7 900
>> Nokia Asha201 7 890 (alpha keypad)
>> Nokia 206 20 680
>> Nokia C5 12 600
>> Nokia C7 5 650
>
> Nokia 105:
> talk 12.5
> standby 842
> http://www.techradar.com/reviews/phones/mobile-phones/nokia-105-1133526/review
> and apparently GBP13, though I'm not sure you can buy it yet.
> Theo
>
I don't believe any of those will out last a Nokia 6310i
Steve Terry
Apr 22, 2013, 5:50:59 AM4/22/13
to
Java Jive wrote:
> It's definitely NOT what the OP was asking, but here's my 2p worth ...
>
> On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 18:42:02 +0100, Peter
> <occassional...@nospam.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> The best phone ever is indeed the 6310i and you may as well get
>> another one.
>
> I think I had one of the Nokia 62xx series. It was good for the time,
> but I wouldn't want to go back to it now.
>
6210 isn't a 6310i
> It's definitely NOT what the OP was asking, but here's my 2p worth ...
>
> On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 18:42:02 +0100, Peter
> <occassional...@nospam.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> The best phone ever is indeed the 6310i and you may as well get
>> another one.
>
> I think I had one of the Nokia 62xx series. It was good for the time,
> but I wouldn't want to go back to it now.
>
Although they look similar 6310i has a better battery and lower power
consumption
Accept no substitutes; the Nokia 6310i is the one to choose
Steve Terry
Apr 22, 2013, 5:53:00 AM4/22/13
to
Martin Brown
Apr 22, 2013, 5:57:01 AM4/22/13
to
On 22/04/2013 10:45, Steve Terry wrote:
> Theo Markettos wrote:
>> In uk.d-i-y Martin Brown <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>> A quick survey of classic mobile phones gives me the following
>>> candidates (but it is hard work finding talk/standby hours).
>>>
>>> Ranked in order of battery life (and probable robustness)
>>> Talk Standby / hours
>>> Samsung XCover 19 1000
>>> Samsung GT S5260 II 7 900
>>> Nokia Asha201 7 890 (alpha keypad)
>>> Nokia 206 20 680
>>> Nokia C5 12 600
>>> Nokia C7 5 650
>>
>> Nokia 105:
>> talk 12.5
>> standby 842
>> http://www.techradar.com/reviews/phones/mobile-phones/nokia-105-1133526/review
>> and apparently GBP13, though I'm not sure you can buy it yet.
>> Theo
>>
> But are those times correct?
> I don't believe any of those will out last a Nokia 6310i
That is a good question - which is why I asked. I was hoping a few
> Theo Markettos wrote:
>> In uk.d-i-y Martin Brown <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>> A quick survey of classic mobile phones gives me the following
>>> candidates (but it is hard work finding talk/standby hours).
>>>
>>> Ranked in order of battery life (and probable robustness)
>>> Talk Standby / hours
>>> Samsung XCover 19 1000
>>> Samsung GT S5260 II 7 900
>>> Nokia Asha201 7 890 (alpha keypad)
>>> Nokia 206 20 680
>>> Nokia C5 12 600
>>> Nokia C7 5 650
>>
>> Nokia 105:
>> talk 12.5
>> standby 842
>> http://www.techradar.com/reviews/phones/mobile-phones/nokia-105-1133526/review
>> and apparently GBP13, though I'm not sure you can buy it yet.
>> Theo
>>
> But are those times correct?
> I don't believe any of those will out last a Nokia 6310i
owners might chime in with how long theirs lasts between charges. Only
interested in models that survive a week or more without any trouble.
(and preferably two weeks)
--
Regards,
Martin Brown
Steve Terry
Apr 22, 2013, 6:16:37 AM4/22/13
to
battery
Only it's a bit bulky being the same size as the original 900mAh Ni-Mh
battery used on the 1997 Nokia 5110.
Java Jive
Apr 22, 2013, 7:05:53 AM4/22/13
to
On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 10:50:59 +0100, "Steve Terry" <gfou...@tesco.net>
wrote:
> Java Jive wrote:
> >
> > I think I had one of the Nokia 62xx series. It was good for the time,
> > but I wouldn't want to go back to it now.
>
> 6210 isn't a 6310i
I didn't say that it was.
> Although they look similar 6310i has a better battery and lower power
> consumption
>
> Accept no substitutes; the Nokia 6310i is the one to choose
However, I did say that I wouldn't want to go back to it now.
wrote:
> Java Jive wrote:
> >
> > I think I had one of the Nokia 62xx series. It was good for the time,
> > but I wouldn't want to go back to it now.
>
> 6210 isn't a 6310i
> Although they look similar 6310i has a better battery and lower power
> consumption
>
> Accept no substitutes; the Nokia 6310i is the one to choose
Andy Champ
Apr 22, 2013, 9:29:49 AM4/22/13
to
On 22/04/2013 09:20, Mark wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Apr 2013 20:13:53 +0100, Peter
> <occassional...@nospam.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> I have the Nokia 808 and it has saved me carrying a camera, because
>> its camera (40MP, downsampling to 8 or 12MP) totally outclasses any
>> camera you can stick in your pocket, and I mean including the £400
>> ones. In fact, in favourable daylight conditions, still subjects, it
>> is almost as good as a DSLR. To me, a keen photographer, that has real
>> serious value, in reducing how much junk one has to carry.
>
> Sorry but I find that hard to believe. AFAIK it's just not possible
> to fit a good lens in a phone-sized object.
>
It's possible to make a small lens which will take good pictures "in
> <occassional...@nospam.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> I have the Nokia 808 and it has saved me carrying a camera, because
>> its camera (40MP, downsampling to 8 or 12MP) totally outclasses any
>> camera you can stick in your pocket, and I mean including the £400
>> ones. In fact, in favourable daylight conditions, still subjects, it
>> is almost as good as a DSLR. To me, a keen photographer, that has real
>> serious value, in reducing how much junk one has to carry.
>
> Sorry but I find that hard to believe. AFAIK it's just not possible
> to fit a good lens in a phone-sized object.
>
favourable daylight conditions" of "still subjects".
Andy
Mark
Apr 22, 2013, 10:36:04 AM4/22/13
to
On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 14:29:49 +0100, Andy Champ <no....@nospam.invalid>
wrote:
I interpreted Peter's claims to be more general:
"the Nokia 808 ... totally outclasses any
wrote:
"the Nokia 808 ... totally outclasses any
camera you can stick in your pocket, and I mean including the £400
ones".
This is the part that I really have trouble with.
ones".
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Andy Champ
Apr 22, 2013, 3:16:47 PM4/22/13
to
On 22/04/2013 15:36, Mark wrote:
> I interpreted Peter's claims to be more general:
>
> "the Nokia 808 ... totally outclasses any
> camera you can stick in your pocket, and I mean including the £400
> ones".
>
> This is the part that I really have trouble with.
Hmmm yes I see your point.
> I interpreted Peter's claims to be more general:
>
> "the Nokia 808 ... totally outclasses any
> camera you can stick in your pocket, and I mean including the £400
> ones".
>
> This is the part that I really have trouble with.
Andy
alexd
Apr 22, 2013, 4:13:38 PM4/22/13
to
Martin Brown (for it is he) wrote:
> http://www.pcpro.co.uk/reviews/smartphones/376030/nokia-808-pureview
What kind of measurement is "1/1.2in"? One one-point-twoth?
--
<http://ale.cx/> (AIM:troffasky) (UnSoEs...@ale.cx)
21:12:30 up 38 days, 12:08, 5 users, load average: 0.39, 0.35, 0.35
Qua illic est reprehendit, illic est a vindicatum
> http://www.pcpro.co.uk/reviews/smartphones/376030/nokia-808-pureview
What kind of measurement is "1/1.2in"? One one-point-twoth?
--
<http://ale.cx/> (AIM:troffasky) (UnSoEs...@ale.cx)
21:12:30 up 38 days, 12:08, 5 users, load average: 0.39, 0.35, 0.35
Qua illic est reprehendit, illic est a vindicatum
Grimly Curmudgeon
Apr 22, 2013, 7:55:07 PM4/22/13
to
On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 09:20:16 +0100, Mark
<i...@dontgetlotsofspamanymore.invalid> wrote:
>Sorry but I find that hard to believe. AFAIK it's just not possible
>to fit a good lens in a phone-sized object.
YOu must write to Zeiss and tell them, immediately.
<i...@dontgetlotsofspamanymore.invalid> wrote:
>Sorry but I find that hard to believe. AFAIK it's just not possible
>to fit a good lens in a phone-sized object.
Mark
Apr 23, 2013, 4:00:13 AM4/23/13
to
On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 18:51:41 +0100, Peter
<occassional...@nospam.co.uk> wrote:
>
>Mark <i...@dontgetlotsofspamanymore.invalid> wrote
Nice pics. It's hard to predict what they would have been like if
they were taken with a £400 camera though.
Would you mind telling me where the countryside pics were taken?
<occassional...@nospam.co.uk> wrote:
>
>Mark <i...@dontgetlotsofspamanymore.invalid> wrote
>
>>Sorry but I find that hard to believe. AFAIK it's just not possible
>>to fit a good lens in a phone-sized object.
>>
>>I've not tried the Nokia 808 but would it really be better than a
>>small system camera (which would also fit into a pocket)?
>
>See e.g. http://peter-ftp.co.uk/808/
>>Sorry but I find that hard to believe. AFAIK it's just not possible
>>to fit a good lens in a phone-sized object.
>>
>>I've not tried the Nokia 808 but would it really be better than a
>>small system camera (which would also fit into a pocket)?
>
Nice pics. It's hard to predict what they would have been like if
they were taken with a £400 camera though.
Would you mind telling me where the countryside pics were taken?
DerbyBorn
Apr 23, 2013, 4:36:03 AM4/23/13
to
Grimly Curmudgeon <gri...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:bejbn817u8lp5qkt7...@4ax.com:
I find it annoying that we continue to refer to 35mm equivilant when
describing focal length. Many users will have never owned a 35mm camera in
the past. I think we should use "Angle of view" as a universal description.
news:bejbn817u8lp5qkt7...@4ax.com:
describing focal length. Many users will have never owned a 35mm camera in
the past. I think we should use "Angle of view" as a universal description.
polygonum
Apr 23, 2013, 4:43:30 AM4/23/13
to
non-specialists. Fine as a secondary part of the description, but angle
has got to be the best. I do have a mental idea of 35mm focal lengths -
but as soon as the format changes, I am thrown and have to think
everything through - slowly!
--
Rod
The Natural Philosopher
Apr 23, 2013, 5:17:02 AM4/23/13
to
horses for doing work with.
...it is however nice that my DSLR with a 400mm strapped on the front
behaves like a 600mm used to on the old film camera..
About the same power as a pair of binoculars.
Now if only the air would keep still.
--
Ineptocracy
(in-ep-toc’-ra-cy) – a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.
DerbyBorn
Apr 23, 2013, 7:14:37 AM4/23/13
to
>>
>> I find it annoying that we continue to refer to 35mm equivilant when
>> describing focal length. Many users will have never owned a 35mm
>> camera in the past. I think we should use "Angle of view" as a
>> universal description.
>>
> +1 - Agree. The use of focal length at all has plagued real cameras
> for non-specialists. Fine as a secondary part of the description, but
> angle has got to be the best. I do have a mental idea of 35mm focal
> lengths - but as soon as the format changes, I am thrown and have to
> think everything through - slowly!
>
I would however,love to see a "Angle of cone of view" description though. I
also wonder how long modern cameras will continue to offer the sound effect
of an old mechanical SLR.
Perhaps we also need a new description for "footage" when describing video.
Message has been deleted
Java Jive
Apr 24, 2013, 11:24:51 AM4/24/13
to
Some nice pictures, especially of the surrounding countryside. Roughly
where is that? Looks like Welsh borders to me, Shropshire say, or
possibly a bit further south, Herefordshire, west Gloucestershire.
Talking of snow, see what you make of this, and what has it in common
with the second shot (both taken with film SLRs, the first definitely
a Canon FTb, the second, which is actually earlier, might have been
that, or a Practika):
http://www.macfh.co.uk/PrivTest/Ex1.png
http://www.macfh.co.uk/PrivTest/Ex2.png
On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 18:51:41 +0100, Peter
<occassional...@nospam.co.uk> wrote:
>
> Mark <i...@dontgetlotsofspamanymore.invalid> wrote
>
where is that? Looks like Welsh borders to me, Shropshire say, or
possibly a bit further south, Herefordshire, west Gloucestershire.
Talking of snow, see what you make of this, and what has it in common
with the second shot (both taken with film SLRs, the first definitely
a Canon FTb, the second, which is actually earlier, might have been
that, or a Practika):
http://www.macfh.co.uk/PrivTest/Ex1.png
http://www.macfh.co.uk/PrivTest/Ex2.png
On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 18:51:41 +0100, Peter
<occassional...@nospam.co.uk> wrote:
>
> Mark <i...@dontgetlotsofspamanymore.invalid> wrote
>
> >Sorry but I find that hard to believe. AFAIK it's just not possible
> >to fit a good lens in a phone-sized object.
> >
> >I've not tried the Nokia 808 but would it really be better than a
> >small system camera (which would also fit into a pocket)?
>
> See e.g. http://peter-ftp.co.uk/808/
> >to fit a good lens in a phone-sized object.
> >
> >I've not tried the Nokia 808 but would it really be better than a
> >small system camera (which would also fit into a pocket)?
>
Message has been deleted
tony sayer
Apr 24, 2013, 3:39:18 PM4/24/13
to
In article <e05gn898lurjvnpju...@4ax.com>, Peter
<occassional...@nospam.co.uk> scribeth thus
>
>Mark <i...@dontgetlotsofspamanymore.invalid> wrote
>808 and the Canon S95 (�360 a year or two ago) and the 808 outclasses
>it very obviously.
>
>I also have taken some comparison shots with a Pentax K5 and those are
>better, as one would jolly well expect given the K5 body alone was
>�1000 when it came out, but not massively better.
>
>In fact I would sell the K5 now, if it wasn't for the much greater
>flexibility / control (shutter speed etc) and much better low light
>performance. For "easy" targets in daylight I would not bother with a
>DSLR at all.
>
>The raw camera in the 808 is awesome and if Nokia bothered to deliver
>some decent control (AV, TAV, M, etc) - which they won't because they
>can't be bothered - they would have an amazing product whose only
>weakness would be the low light performance.
>
>Let me see if I can take a pic with all three...
>
>As is sadly all too often the case nowadays! And google trawls the net
>and picks up all photos it finds with GPS data in the EXIF header and
>drops them all over google maps...
>
>It's in Sussex, mostly, I think. North of Brighton.
No doubt about it England's is still in most parts a fine looking
country:)..
You can see some differences like the blue fringing on the extremities
of the top of the 808 pix but all in thats very good...
--
Tony Sayer
<occassional...@nospam.co.uk> scribeth thus
>
>Mark <i...@dontgetlotsofspamanymore.invalid> wrote
>
>>On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 18:51:41 +0100, Peter
>><occassional...@nospam.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>Mark <i...@dontgetlotsofspamanymore.invalid> wrote
>>>
>>>>Sorry but I find that hard to believe. AFAIK it's just not possible
>>>>to fit a good lens in a phone-sized object.
>>>>
>>>>I've not tried the Nokia 808 but would it really be better than a
>>>>small system camera (which would also fit into a pocket)?
>>>
>>>See e.g. http://peter-ftp.co.uk/808/
>>
>>Nice pics. It's hard to predict what they would have been like if
>>they were taken with a �400 camera though.
>
>I have got a fair selection of pics of the same scene taken with the
>>On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 18:51:41 +0100, Peter
>><occassional...@nospam.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>Mark <i...@dontgetlotsofspamanymore.invalid> wrote
>>>
>>>>Sorry but I find that hard to believe. AFAIK it's just not possible
>>>>to fit a good lens in a phone-sized object.
>>>>
>>>>I've not tried the Nokia 808 but would it really be better than a
>>>>small system camera (which would also fit into a pocket)?
>>>
>>>See e.g. http://peter-ftp.co.uk/808/
>>
>>Nice pics. It's hard to predict what they would have been like if
>>they were taken with a �400 camera though.
>
>808 and the Canon S95 (�360 a year or two ago) and the 808 outclasses
>it very obviously.
>
>I also have taken some comparison shots with a Pentax K5 and those are
>better, as one would jolly well expect given the K5 body alone was
>�1000 when it came out, but not massively better.
>
>In fact I would sell the K5 now, if it wasn't for the much greater
>flexibility / control (shutter speed etc) and much better low light
>performance. For "easy" targets in daylight I would not bother with a
>DSLR at all.
>
>The raw camera in the 808 is awesome and if Nokia bothered to deliver
>some decent control (AV, TAV, M, etc) - which they won't because they
>can't be bothered - they would have an amazing product whose only
>weakness would be the low light performance.
>
>Let me see if I can take a pic with all three...
>>
>>Would you mind telling me where the countryside pics were taken?
>
>The latitude and longitude should be in the EXIF data ;) ;)
>>Would you mind telling me where the countryside pics were taken?
>
>
>As is sadly all too often the case nowadays! And google trawls the net
>and picks up all photos it finds with GPS data in the EXIF header and
>drops them all over google maps...
>
>It's in Sussex, mostly, I think. North of Brighton.
No doubt about it England's is still in most parts a fine looking
country:)..
You can see some differences like the blue fringing on the extremities
of the top of the 808 pix but all in thats very good...
--
Tony Sayer
Message has been deleted
Martin Brown
Apr 24, 2013, 5:31:25 PM4/24/13
to
On 24/04/2013 21:45, Peter wrote:
> When I get a moment I will do a comparison of cameras.
>
> What is especially impressive on the 808 (BTW I am using the Camera
> Pro 3rd party camera app, which offers some advantages over the
> built-in camera app) is the way the jpeg compression handles
> vegetation (leaves, grass) well. On most cameras you get a mess.
You shouldn't unless you are daft enough to use any of the less than
highest quality settings of in camera JPEG compression. They are all
hyperbolically named so that "good" = poor, "very good" = good etc.
You are right that high contrast green vegetation is amongst the most
tricky things for a JPEG encoder to get right. The others are faint
black detail on a blue or red background. eg Veins in flowers.
> But I shoot with a 100% jpeg quality setting, which produces ~10MB
> files. The built-in app does ~2.5MB files. Obviously there is bound to
> be a difference in the image quality...
You should find that around 98% gives the best size performance
trade-off without faithfully digitising thermal noise for posterity.
Regards,
Martin Brown
>
> tony sayer <to...@bancom.co.uk> wrote
> When I get a moment I will do a comparison of cameras.
>
> What is especially impressive on the 808 (BTW I am using the Camera
> Pro 3rd party camera app, which offers some advantages over the
> built-in camera app) is the way the jpeg compression handles
> vegetation (leaves, grass) well. On most cameras you get a mess.
You shouldn't unless you are daft enough to use any of the less than
highest quality settings of in camera JPEG compression. They are all
hyperbolically named so that "good" = poor, "very good" = good etc.
You are right that high contrast green vegetation is amongst the most
tricky things for a JPEG encoder to get right. The others are faint
black detail on a blue or red background. eg Veins in flowers.
> But I shoot with a 100% jpeg quality setting, which produces ~10MB
> files. The built-in app does ~2.5MB files. Obviously there is bound to
> be a difference in the image quality...
You should find that around 98% gives the best size performance
trade-off without faithfully digitising thermal noise for posterity.
Regards,
Martin Brown
>
> tony sayer <to...@bancom.co.uk> wrote
John Williamson
Apr 24, 2013, 5:39:57 PM4/24/13
to
myself, but I rarely print bigger than A4, and crop in camera. I can
live with the larger file size now that storage is so cheap and
plentiful, and the increased time to store a frame makes me think more
carefully about what I want to shoot. No compression artifacts at all,
so no coloured fringes on high contrast edges, apart from some slight
chromatic aberration.
(1) (9 megapixel using third party applications, 14 using Fuji's own
converter, which can access the stored information from the smaller,
interposed sites that the sensor design has in it.)
--
Tciao for Now!
John.
Message has been deleted
Andy Champ
Apr 25, 2013, 4:50:39 PM4/25/13
to
On 25/04/2013 08:27, Peter wrote:
> I am uploading three versions of the same photo here
>
> http://peter-ftp.co.uk/808/3-camera-test/
>
> I didn't take any care to match shutter speeds etc... The K5 was in
> TAV move, 1/250 F7.1 auto-ISO. The S95 was in P mode.
The exposure is rather different. However look at the pigeon behind the
bush on the bottom left, and the twigs.
Andy
> I am uploading three versions of the same photo here
>
> http://peter-ftp.co.uk/808/3-camera-test/
>
> I didn't take any care to match shutter speeds etc... The K5 was in
> TAV move, 1/250 F7.1 auto-ISO. The S95 was in P mode.
The exposure is rather different. However look at the pigeon behind the
bush on the bottom left, and the twigs.
Andy
Message has been deleted
MB
Apr 28, 2013, 10:27:05 AM4/28/13
to
On 22/04/2013 10:53, Steve Terry wrote:
> MB wrote:
>> On 18/04/2013 11:33, Martin Brown wrote:
>>> I can't be the only one that needs a compact robust mobile phone that
>>> doesn't need recharging every day and does the basics very well. I
>>> have had a Nokia 6303i for ages and that was ideal until it had a
>>> terminal encounter with a bucket of water. I have gone back to my
>>> previous 6300 but its battery life was never much good when new and
>>> is much worse now.
>>
>> I leave mine switch off and only turn on very occasionally so the
>> battery lasts for ages though I do have to keep setting the clock and
>> calendar!
>>
> Sounds like your clock backup battery needs changing
>
> Steve Terry
>
Possible, the phone is quite old. But not worth the hassle of getting
it replaced (phone or clock battery).
> MB wrote:
>> On 18/04/2013 11:33, Martin Brown wrote:
>>> I can't be the only one that needs a compact robust mobile phone that
>>> doesn't need recharging every day and does the basics very well. I
>>> have had a Nokia 6303i for ages and that was ideal until it had a
>>> terminal encounter with a bucket of water. I have gone back to my
>>> previous 6300 but its battery life was never much good when new and
>>> is much worse now.
>>
>> I leave mine switch off and only turn on very occasionally so the
>> battery lasts for ages though I do have to keep setting the clock and
>> calendar!
>>
> Sounds like your clock backup battery needs changing
>
> Steve Terry
>
Possible, the phone is quite old. But not worth the hassle of getting
it replaced (phone or clock battery).
MB
Apr 28, 2013, 10:29:34 AM4/28/13
to
excellent photographs in the right conditions.
I will stick to my 'real' camera though.
Message has been deleted
Andy Champ
Apr 28, 2013, 3:51:56 PM4/28/13
to
On 28/04/2013 15:12, Peter wrote:
> What is your view (no pun intended)?
Pentax canon nokia in that order.
Andy
> What is your view (no pun intended)?
Pentax canon nokia in that order.
Andy
Java Jive
Apr 28, 2013, 6:10:37 PM4/28/13
to
No interest in these shots then? FTR, the thing that a little
different about them is that they were taken using only moonlight. I
was pleased with the first, disappointed with the second (which was
chronologically earlier, and my first attempt to use moonlight - the
most difficult thing about it apart from judging the exposure was
getting our Pyrenean Mountain-of-a-Dog to lie still for long enough -
finally he did settle down, but the picture was still rather
disappointing) ...
I just thought someone might be interested in the unusual 'look', but
apparently not!
On Wed, 24 Apr 2013 16:24:51 +0100, Java Jive <ja...@evij.com.invalid>
wrote:
different about them is that they were taken using only moonlight. I
was pleased with the first, disappointed with the second (which was
chronologically earlier, and my first attempt to use moonlight - the
most difficult thing about it apart from judging the exposure was
getting our Pyrenean Mountain-of-a-Dog to lie still for long enough -
finally he did settle down, but the picture was still rather
disappointing) ...
I just thought someone might be interested in the unusual 'look', but
apparently not!
On Wed, 24 Apr 2013 16:24:51 +0100, Java Jive <ja...@evij.com.invalid>
wrote:
>
> Talking of snow, see what you make of this, and what has it in common
> with the second shot (both taken with film SLRs, the first definitely
> a Canon FTb, the second, which is actually earlier, might have been
> that, or a Practika):
> http://www.macfh.co.uk/PrivTest/Ex1.png
> http://www.macfh.co.uk/PrivTest/Ex2.png
> Talking of snow, see what you make of this, and what has it in common
> with the second shot (both taken with film SLRs, the first definitely
> a Canon FTb, the second, which is actually earlier, might have been
> that, or a Practika):
> http://www.macfh.co.uk/PrivTest/Ex1.png
> http://www.macfh.co.uk/PrivTest/Ex2.png
tony sayer
Apr 28, 2013, 7:29:42 PM4/28/13
to
In article <l47rn8h7gqlqgiiut...@4ax.com>, Java Jive
<ja...@evij.com.invalid> scribeth thus
--
Tony Sayer
<ja...@evij.com.invalid> scribeth thus
>No interest in these shots then? FTR, the thing that a little
>different about them is that they were taken using only moonlight. I
>was pleased with the first, disappointed with the second (which was
>chronologically earlier, and my first attempt to use moonlight - the
>most difficult thing about it apart from judging the exposure was
>getting our Pyrenean Mountain-of-a-Dog to lie still for long enough -
>finally he did settle down, but the picture was still rather
>disappointing) ...
>
>I just thought someone might be interested in the unusual 'look', but
>apparently not!
>
>On Wed, 24 Apr 2013 16:24:51 +0100, Java Jive <ja...@evij.com.invalid>
>wrote:
>>
>> Talking of snow, see what you make of this, and what has it in common
>> with the second shot (both taken with film SLRs, the first definitely
>> a Canon FTb, the second, which is actually earlier, might have been
>> that, or a Practika):
>> http://www.macfh.co.uk/PrivTest/Ex1.png
>> http://www.macfh.co.uk/PrivTest/Ex2.png
Missed those what sort of level of Moonlight full, half can you say?..
>different about them is that they were taken using only moonlight. I
>was pleased with the first, disappointed with the second (which was
>chronologically earlier, and my first attempt to use moonlight - the
>most difficult thing about it apart from judging the exposure was
>getting our Pyrenean Mountain-of-a-Dog to lie still for long enough -
>finally he did settle down, but the picture was still rather
>disappointing) ...
>
>I just thought someone might be interested in the unusual 'look', but
>apparently not!
>
>On Wed, 24 Apr 2013 16:24:51 +0100, Java Jive <ja...@evij.com.invalid>
>wrote:
>>
>> Talking of snow, see what you make of this, and what has it in common
>> with the second shot (both taken with film SLRs, the first definitely
>> a Canon FTb, the second, which is actually earlier, might have been
>> that, or a Practika):
>> http://www.macfh.co.uk/PrivTest/Ex1.png
>> http://www.macfh.co.uk/PrivTest/Ex2.png
--
Tony Sayer
Martin Brown
Apr 29, 2013, 4:11:10 AM4/29/13
to
On 28/04/2013 16:20, Peter wrote:
>
> MB <M...@nospam.nospam> wrote
> It is interesting to see just how close a small-lens camera like the
> 808 phone gets to a £1000+ DSLR with a £500 lens.
>
> Conventional wisdom would suggest that the little one would be
> massively diffraction limited (a physical limit which nobody can
> avoid) but that is obviously not the case.
No. Conventional optical theory says that the camera will have the
resolution characteristics roughly of a diffraction limited ~3mm
aperture. That is not so dissimilar to the best human eye which manages
around 3' arc fine detail on a good day (or about 30 pixels/degree).
(and that still isn't fully diffraction limited)
The diffraction limit for a 3mm aperture is about 100 pixels/degree.
That is 1.22*lambda/D = 1.22*5e-7/3e-3 = 2e-4 radians ~ 1/100 degree
The lens on the 808 is apparently 8mm/2.4 = 3.3mm working aperture. The
sensor is 1/1.2" which is roughly 14mmx10mm so with an 8mm focal length
the apparent fov is about 100 x 70 degrees or 10000 x 7000 pixels. The
lens is operating below its theoretical diffraction limit. The Zeiss
precision mass producible miniature lens is still a tour de force.
The CCD linear scale depends only on the focal ratio of the lens it is
used with and diffraction limited optimums are at around the f5.6-f8 in
terms of sharpest image with the least effort. A faster lens may not be
fully diffraction limited but it will have better light grasp and might
still be a bit sharper even if not quite perfect. The hard bit is
avoiding vignetting at the edge of the field in these extreme geometries
as there is not a lot of space to play with internally.
> Or, at least, the 808
> (F2.4) is similar to a DSLR which is closed down to say F16 (my guess
> at the diameter of the "hole" through which the light is passing). And
> *obviously* a DSLR can take stunning pics at F16 or even F22. So a
> small lens, per se, is not the limiting factor.
>
> The next challenge is to make the glass smooth enough, which evidently
> they have managed to do.
The amazing thing is that they can design it so that the unavoidable
exposed outer lens surface does not get ruined in the rough and tumble
existence of being a part of a mobile phone.
--
Regards,
Martin Brown
>
> MB <M...@nospam.nospam> wrote
> 808 phone gets to a £1000+ DSLR with a £500 lens.
>
> Conventional wisdom would suggest that the little one would be
> massively diffraction limited (a physical limit which nobody can
> avoid) but that is obviously not the case.
No. Conventional optical theory says that the camera will have the
resolution characteristics roughly of a diffraction limited ~3mm
aperture. That is not so dissimilar to the best human eye which manages
around 3' arc fine detail on a good day (or about 30 pixels/degree).
(and that still isn't fully diffraction limited)
The diffraction limit for a 3mm aperture is about 100 pixels/degree.
That is 1.22*lambda/D = 1.22*5e-7/3e-3 = 2e-4 radians ~ 1/100 degree
The lens on the 808 is apparently 8mm/2.4 = 3.3mm working aperture. The
sensor is 1/1.2" which is roughly 14mmx10mm so with an 8mm focal length
the apparent fov is about 100 x 70 degrees or 10000 x 7000 pixels. The
lens is operating below its theoretical diffraction limit. The Zeiss
precision mass producible miniature lens is still a tour de force.
The CCD linear scale depends only on the focal ratio of the lens it is
used with and diffraction limited optimums are at around the f5.6-f8 in
terms of sharpest image with the least effort. A faster lens may not be
fully diffraction limited but it will have better light grasp and might
still be a bit sharper even if not quite perfect. The hard bit is
avoiding vignetting at the edge of the field in these extreme geometries
as there is not a lot of space to play with internally.
> Or, at least, the 808
> (F2.4) is similar to a DSLR which is closed down to say F16 (my guess
> at the diameter of the "hole" through which the light is passing). And
> *obviously* a DSLR can take stunning pics at F16 or even F22. So a
> small lens, per se, is not the limiting factor.
>
> The next challenge is to make the glass smooth enough, which evidently
> they have managed to do.
The amazing thing is that they can design it so that the unavoidable
exposed outer lens surface does not get ruined in the rough and tumble
existence of being a part of a mobile phone.
--
Regards,
Martin Brown
MB
Apr 29, 2013, 5:04:47 AM4/29/13
to
On 28/04/2013 16:20, Peter wrote:
> Conventional wisdom would suggest that the little one would be
> massively diffraction limited (a physical limit which nobody can
> avoid) but that is obviously not the case. Or, at least, the 808
> Conventional wisdom would suggest that the little one would be
> massively diffraction limited (a physical limit which nobody can
> (F2.4) is similar to a DSLR which is closed down to say F16 (my guess
> at the diameter of the "hole" through which the light is passing). And
> *obviously* a DSLR can take stunning pics at F16 or even F22. So a
> small lens, per se, is not the limiting factor.
That is the same as saying that you can take stunning photographs with a
> at the diameter of the "hole" through which the light is passing). And
> *obviously* a DSLR can take stunning pics at F16 or even F22. So a
> small lens, per se, is not the limiting factor.
pinhole camera in bright sunlight. Unfortunately not all my pictures
are taken in bright sunlight.
Andy Champ
Apr 29, 2013, 5:14:10 AM4/29/13
to
On 28/04/2013 23:10, Java Jive wrote:
> I just thought someone might be interested in the unusual 'look', but
> apparently not!
Many years ago I woke up in the middle of the night, and looked out of
> I just thought someone might be interested in the unusual 'look', but
> apparently not!
the window to see unusually bright moonlight, and the garden lit up with
this beautiful silvery effect. So I got my camera and tripod out, and
took a shot.
When I got the film back some months later it took me a while to work
out why I'd taken a shot of the garden. It looked just like day.
Andy
Java Jive
Apr 29, 2013, 5:27:48 AM4/29/13
to
AFAICR, full or pretty nearly so in both cases.
On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 00:29:42 +0100, tony sayer <to...@bancom.co.uk>
wrote:
On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 00:29:42 +0100, tony sayer <to...@bancom.co.uk>
wrote:
>
> Missed those what sort of level of Moonlight full, half can you say?..
--
> Missed those what sort of level of Moonlight full, half can you say?..
--
Java Jive
Apr 29, 2013, 7:49:11 AM4/29/13
to
Yes, I have some examples of those, here's one taken at the same time
as Ex1:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/PrivTest/Ex3.png
I took several shots of the same scene, with increasing exposures, and
it's noticeable how the longer the exposure, the more they just look
like daylight. The above was apparently the longest. As with Ex1,
the other, shorter exposures are more bluey.
Another thing that's very noticeable about the shorter exposures is
how the scene darkens in the corners of the shot. You can see it a
little here, but it's much more pronounced on the shorter exposures.
It happens with all lens photography, but we don't normally notice it
with daylight shots, only when the film is 'challenged' by marginal
exposures.
Both Ex1 and this one Ex3 were taken in the winter of 79/80, in the
vicinity of Woodchester Park. I don't have precise shooting details,
but AFAICR a wide-angle to near telephoto zoom on the FTb, onto
Kodachrome slides, with exposures of the order of just under a minute
to about two minutes.
On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 10:14:10 +0100, Andy Champ <no....@nospam.invalid>
wrote:
as Ex1:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/PrivTest/Ex3.png
I took several shots of the same scene, with increasing exposures, and
it's noticeable how the longer the exposure, the more they just look
like daylight. The above was apparently the longest. As with Ex1,
the other, shorter exposures are more bluey.
Another thing that's very noticeable about the shorter exposures is
how the scene darkens in the corners of the shot. You can see it a
little here, but it's much more pronounced on the shorter exposures.
It happens with all lens photography, but we don't normally notice it
with daylight shots, only when the film is 'challenged' by marginal
exposures.
Both Ex1 and this one Ex3 were taken in the winter of 79/80, in the
vicinity of Woodchester Park. I don't have precise shooting details,
but AFAICR a wide-angle to near telephoto zoom on the FTb, onto
Kodachrome slides, with exposures of the order of just under a minute
to about two minutes.
On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 10:14:10 +0100, Andy Champ <no....@nospam.invalid>
wrote:
>
> When I got the film back some months later it took me a while to work
> out why I'd taken a shot of the garden. It looked just like day.
> When I got the film back some months later it took me a while to work
> out why I'd taken a shot of the garden. It looked just like day.
polygonum
Apr 29, 2013, 9:23:09 AM4/29/13
to
huge impact on the final image. Agfa would tend very strongly to a sort
of dull green. IIRC Fuji was the most 'real'.
--
Rod
Martin Brown
Apr 29, 2013, 10:19:47 AM4/29/13
to
Pentax are a tadge overexposed by at least half a stop and has burned
out the sky too much and the Nokia has underexposed by half a stop
retaining too much sky detail at the expense of the rest of the image.
The internal JPEG details and average info content are:
Canon S95 uses its own custom Qtables approx
Luminance Q=93 Chroma Q~88. 2.8 bits/pixel
Pentax K5 Q=100 (both) 5.85 bits/pixel
Nokia 808 Q=100 (both) 7.1 bits/pixel
The bits/pixel is for the main image only.
So the information content in the Nokia shot *is* higher - largely
because the sky isn't burnt out and amazingly the adjacent pixels are
more nearly statistically independent. Impressive for such a tiny lens!
Zooming in hard on the TV aerial allows easy judgement of the psf. The
Cannon S95 has applied some pretty brutal unsharp masking and its image
quality might well be improved by toning it down a bit (if possible).
--
Regards,
Martin Brown
Java Jive
Apr 29, 2013, 3:43:53 PM4/29/13
to
Yes, I also remember Agfa was sh*te at low light intensities. As you
say, an awful green cast.
On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 14:23:09 +0100, polygonum <rmoud...@vrod.co.uk>
wrote:
say, an awful green cast.
On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 14:23:09 +0100, polygonum <rmoud...@vrod.co.uk>
wrote:
>
> Agfa would tend very strongly to a sort
> of dull green. IIRC Fuji was the most 'real'.
--
> Agfa would tend very strongly to a sort
> of dull green. IIRC Fuji was the most 'real'.
--
alexd
Apr 29, 2013, 4:39:32 PM4/29/13
to
Java Jive (for it is he) wrote:
> I took several shots of the same scene, with increasing exposures, and
> it's noticeable how the longer the exposure, the more they just look
> like daylight.
It's almost as if light from the moon were coming from the same place as
> I took several shots of the same scene, with increasing exposures, and
> it's noticeable how the longer the exposure, the more they just look
> like daylight.
light from the sun, but at a lower intensity.
--
<http://ale.cx/> (AIM:troffasky) (UnSoEs...@ale.cx)
21:38:33 up 45 days, 12:34, 5 users, load average: 0.35, 0.31, 0.31
Qua illic est reprehendit, illic est a vindicatum
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
tony sayer
Apr 29, 2013, 6:01:01 PM4/29/13
to
>The basic point about the Nokia 808 is that one no longer needs to
>carry a pocket camera, which I think is a great step forward, despite
>its limitations (mostly iffy autofocus, so one needs to take time on a
>shot). The bigger item is replaces rather well (again in reasonable
>light conditions) is a �1500 1080P camcorder...
All well 'n good but does it work well as a mobile phone 'tho?...
--
Tony Sayer
>carry a pocket camera, which I think is a great step forward, despite
>its limitations (mostly iffy autofocus, so one needs to take time on a
>shot). The bigger item is replaces rather well (again in reasonable
>light conditions) is a �1500 1080P camcorder...
All well 'n good but does it work well as a mobile phone 'tho?...
--
Tony Sayer
Message has been deleted
Martin Brown
Apr 30, 2013, 3:31:02 AM4/30/13
to
On 29/04/2013 22:02, Peter wrote:
>
> Martin Brown <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote
>
> I am not concerned about the Canon S95, though there should be no
> image sharpening selected. 2.8 bits per pixel is crap though...
The cheaper Canons use custom quantisation tables that are too brutal.
The image quality would be better if they used Q~95 and ~4 bits/pixel.
High end Canons use scaled versions of the canonical Qtables.
It is actually very hard to detect JPEG artefacts in Q > 95 images
unless they are designer test pieces intended to break the codec.
>
> The Pentax K5 is entirely at its default settings with no manual
> over/under exposure. I shoot at the max jpeg quality setting. Normally
> I get great results with it; the only problem is that one needs a
> waist pack to carry it! Ground shots I rarely tweak but airborne shots
> usually have a lot of haze which I try to remove using various means.
I also have a Pentax K5 it replaces my older istD (that always needed a
systematic bias added to its default exposure in most lighting). I find
the K5 performs very well after I got used to the chunky battery grip.
The Pentax ex camera image is hardly touched by unsharp masking and so
is superficially softer but that gives you the option to do it later.
You can tweak so many settings internally that it can be confusing.
> The basic point about the Nokia 808 is that one no longer needs to
> carry a pocket camera, which I think is a great step forward, despite
> its limitations (mostly iffy autofocus, so one needs to take time on a
> shot). The bigger item is replaces rather well (again in reasonable
> light conditions) is a £1500 1080P camcorder...
I am honestly astonished by how close to diffraction limited its small
lens is. I wasn't really expecting the answer that I got.
I am amazed quite how well it does in daytime conditions.
--
Regards,
Martin Brown
>
> Martin Brown <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote
>
>> Although I agree with your ranking I also think that the Canon and
>> Pentax are a tadge overexposed by at least half a stop and has burned
>> out the sky too much and the Nokia has underexposed by half a stop
>> retaining too much sky detail at the expense of the rest of the image.
>>
>> The internal JPEG details and average info content are:
>>
>> Canon S95 uses its own custom Qtables approx
>> Luminance Q=93 Chroma Q~88. 2.8 bits/pixel
>>
>> Pentax K5 Q=100 (both) 5.85 bits/pixel
>>
>> Nokia 808 Q=100 (both) 7.1 bits/pixel
>>
>> The bits/pixel is for the main image only.
>>
>> So the information content in the Nokia shot *is* higher - largely
>> because the sky isn't burnt out and amazingly the adjacent pixels are
>> more nearly statistically independent. Impressive for such a tiny lens!
>>
>> Zooming in hard on the TV aerial allows easy judgement of the psf. The
>> Cannon S95 has applied some pretty brutal unsharp masking and its image
>> quality might well be improved by toning it down a bit (if possible).
>
> Very interesting analysis - thank you.
>> Although I agree with your ranking I also think that the Canon and
>> Pentax are a tadge overexposed by at least half a stop and has burned
>> out the sky too much and the Nokia has underexposed by half a stop
>> retaining too much sky detail at the expense of the rest of the image.
>>
>> The internal JPEG details and average info content are:
>>
>> Canon S95 uses its own custom Qtables approx
>> Luminance Q=93 Chroma Q~88. 2.8 bits/pixel
>>
>> Pentax K5 Q=100 (both) 5.85 bits/pixel
>>
>> Nokia 808 Q=100 (both) 7.1 bits/pixel
>>
>> The bits/pixel is for the main image only.
>>
>> So the information content in the Nokia shot *is* higher - largely
>> because the sky isn't burnt out and amazingly the adjacent pixels are
>> more nearly statistically independent. Impressive for such a tiny lens!
>>
>> Zooming in hard on the TV aerial allows easy judgement of the psf. The
>> Cannon S95 has applied some pretty brutal unsharp masking and its image
>> quality might well be improved by toning it down a bit (if possible).
>
>
> I am not concerned about the Canon S95, though there should be no
> image sharpening selected. 2.8 bits per pixel is crap though...
The cheaper Canons use custom quantisation tables that are too brutal.
The image quality would be better if they used Q~95 and ~4 bits/pixel.
High end Canons use scaled versions of the canonical Qtables.
It is actually very hard to detect JPEG artefacts in Q > 95 images
unless they are designer test pieces intended to break the codec.
>
> The Pentax K5 is entirely at its default settings with no manual
> over/under exposure. I shoot at the max jpeg quality setting. Normally
> I get great results with it; the only problem is that one needs a
> waist pack to carry it! Ground shots I rarely tweak but airborne shots
> usually have a lot of haze which I try to remove using various means.
I also have a Pentax K5 it replaces my older istD (that always needed a
systematic bias added to its default exposure in most lighting). I find
the K5 performs very well after I got used to the chunky battery grip.
The Pentax ex camera image is hardly touched by unsharp masking and so
is superficially softer but that gives you the option to do it later.
You can tweak so many settings internally that it can be confusing.
> The basic point about the Nokia 808 is that one no longer needs to
> carry a pocket camera, which I think is a great step forward, despite
> its limitations (mostly iffy autofocus, so one needs to take time on a
> shot). The bigger item is replaces rather well (again in reasonable
> light conditions) is a £1500 1080P camcorder...
lens is. I wasn't really expecting the answer that I got.
I am amazed quite how well it does in daytime conditions.
--
Regards,
Martin Brown
tony sayer
Apr 30, 2013, 4:38:00 AM4/30/13
to
In article <vroun858aeuvtkd5f...@4ax.com>, Peter
<occassional...@nospam.co.uk> scribeth thus
>
>tony sayer <to...@bancom.co.uk> wrote
>Yes; as good as any other smartphone.
>
>I even have VOIP on it.
I ask as it seems to me that users of more modern smart phones seem to
have more trouble maintaining a connection than what users of older
phones do...
--
Tony Sayer
<occassional...@nospam.co.uk> scribeth thus
>
>tony sayer <to...@bancom.co.uk> wrote
>
>I even have VOIP on it.
I ask as it seems to me that users of more modern smart phones seem to
have more trouble maintaining a connection than what users of older
phones do...
--
Tony Sayer
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Mark
May 2, 2013, 4:42:52 AM5/2/13
to
On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 15:19:47 +0100, Martin Brown
<|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>On 28/04/2013 20:51, Andy Champ wrote:
>> On 28/04/2013 15:12, Peter wrote:
>>> What is your view (no pun intended)?
>>
>> Pentax canon nokia in that order.
+1
<|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>On 28/04/2013 20:51, Andy Champ wrote:
>> On 28/04/2013 15:12, Peter wrote:
>>> What is your view (no pun intended)?
>>
>> Pentax canon nokia in that order.
>>
>> Andy
>
>Although I agree with your ranking I also think that the Canon and
>Pentax are a tadge overexposed by at least half a stop and has burned
>out the sky too much and the Nokia has underexposed by half a stop
>retaining too much sky detail at the expense of the rest of the image.
>
>The internal JPEG details and average info content are:
>
>Canon S95 uses its own custom Qtables approx
>Luminance Q=93 Chroma Q~88. 2.8 bits/pixel
>
>Pentax K5 Q=100 (both) 5.85 bits/pixel
>
>Nokia 808 Q=100 (both) 7.1 bits/pixel
>
>The bits/pixel is for the main image only.
>
>So the information content in the Nokia shot *is* higher - largely
>because the sky isn't burnt out and amazingly the adjacent pixels are
>more nearly statistically independent. Impressive for such a tiny lens!
>Zooming in hard on the TV aerial allows easy judgement of the psf. The
>Cannon S95 has applied some pretty brutal unsharp masking and its image
>quality might well be improved by toning it down a bit (if possible).
--
(='.'=) If a man stands in a forest and no woman is around
(")_(") is he still wrong?
Windmill
May 7, 2013, 11:52:32 PM5/7/13
to
Java Jive <ja...@evij.com.invalid> writes:
>Yes, I have some examples of those, here's one taken at the same time
>as Ex1:
>http://www.macfh.co.uk/PrivTest/Ex3.png
>I took several shots of the same scene, with increasing exposures, and
>it's noticeable how the longer the exposure, the more they just look
>like daylight.
Sounds entirely reasonable. After all, you're taking a picture which is
>Yes, I have some examples of those, here's one taken at the same time
>as Ex1:
>http://www.macfh.co.uk/PrivTest/Ex3.png
>I took several shots of the same scene, with increasing exposures, and
>it's noticeable how the longer the exposure, the more they just look
>like daylight.
illuminated by reflected sunlight, though admittedly rather dim
reflected sunlight!
--
Windmill, Til...@Nonetel.com Use t m i l l
J.R.R. Tolkien:- @ O n e t e l . c o m
All that is gold does not glister / Not all who wander are lost
0 new messages