Tag: vs

Lenovo K5 Vs WileyFox Swift Vs Moto G3

Posted by – May 24, 2016

So, there’s a new value smartphone on the market, replacing the entry level Moto G (the original Moto G was £129, and since then every new Moto G has been better, but also pushed up the price, particularly if you want 2GB/16GB, which pushes the price up to £160-£170), so Lenovo, owners of Moto, have now released a new “entry level” smartphone, the Lenovo K5, priced at around £129.

Lets see how it compares to some of the other entry level smartphones… We’ve recently been impressed by the WileyFox Swift, particularly when it’s been on offer for £99 instead of the usual £129. Perhaps the Lenovo K5 will also be be offered for bargain prices. Anyway, lets see how they compare, and we’ll also compare it to the Moto G3, which is available for around £129 – if you opt for the 1GB/8GB version…

Lenovo K5 (*Vibe K5) WileyFox Swift 4G Moto G (3rd Gen), WP
13mp camera
LED flash
5mp selfie camera
FullHD video
5inch screen (HD)
1.4GHz Octacore CPU (Cortex-A53)
2GB / 16GB built-in
MicroSD slot
Dual SIM (Optional)
Removable 2750mAh battery
142mm x 71mm x 8mm
142g
Available in white, black etc
13mp f/2.5 camera, Samsung BSI
Dual LED flash
5mp selfie camera
FullHD video recording
5inch screen, HD, Gorilla Glass 3
1.2GHz Quadcore (Snapdragon 410, 64-bit)
2GB / 16GB built in
MicroSD slot
Dual SIM slots
Removable 2500mAh battery
141.15mm x 71mm x 9.37mm
135g
Available in black or white
13mp f/2.0 camera
Dual LED flash
5mp selfie camera
FullHD video
5inch screen, HD, Gorilla Glass 3
1.4GHz Quadcore CPU (Snapdragon 410)
1GB / 8GB built in (or 2GB/16GB)
MicroSD
Single SIM slot
2470 mAh battery
142.1mm x 72.4mm x 11.6mm
155g
Available in multiple colours

We’ve also compared the WileyFox Swift 4G with the BLU Life Mark 4G as well if you want another option.

BLU Life Mark 4G Vs WileyFox Swift 4G

Posted by – May 9, 2016

You might be thinking about the WileyFox Swift, or the BLU Life Mark 4G, as both phones feature a 5inch screen, and good specifications for the price (both on offer for around £99 on Amazon UK). Lets have a look at how they compare:

We recently had a look at the WileyFox Swift, and have been impressed by the smartphone, considering the price and features available, and the BLU Life Mark 4G could be a competitor.

WileyFox Swift 4G
13mp main camera, f/2.5, Samsung BSI CMOS
Dual LED flash
5mp selfie camera
FullHD video recording (rear and front camera)
5inch screen, 1280×720 (Corning Gorilla Glass 3)
1.2GHz Quadcore (Snapdragon 410, 64-bit)
2GB / 16GB built in
MicroSD slot
Dual SIM slots
Removable 2500mAh battery
141.15mm x 71mm x 9.37mm
135g
Available in black or white

Bundled with USB cable, screen protector, battery, and very little else.
BLU Life Mark 4G
13mp f/2.0 aperture main camera
LED-flash (single)
5mp selfie camera
FullHD video
5inch screen, 1280×720
1.3GHz Quadcore (MediaTek 6735)
2GB / 16GB built in
MicroSD slot
Dual SIM slot
2300mAh battery (Removable)
142.4mm x 72mm x 9.5mm
150g
Grey, White or Gold
Fingerprint sensor
Bundled with case, screen protector, USB, battery, charger, ear buds.

Looking at the specifications of both phones, they are quite closely matched in a number of ways, and the BLU Life Mark also offers a Fingerprint sensor for additional security, however the battery life is likely to be quite poor due to the lower battery rating. The Blue Life Mark is also larger and heavier, and it’s not clear what kind of protection is built in to the screen, with the WileyFox Swift offering Gorilla Glass 3.

Hi Res: HTC One X vs Samsung Galaxy S3

Posted by – October 13, 2012

HTC One X vs Samsung Galaxy S3
HTC One X vs Samsung Galaxy S3 screens, taken with the Nokia PureView 808. Click to view larger, then click again to view really high res version of the photo.

The problem with cameras on mobile phones… (Phones)

Posted by – March 26, 2010

The problem with cameras on mobile phones is that they’re all crap – do you want to know why?.

In the olden days (you know when people used film cameras) no matter what camera you had, whether it was a cheap piece of plastic crap or the best SLR in the world, it all had one thing in common: 35mm film*. And the one thing 35mm film did well, was take photos no matter what the lighting conditions. Even in dark situations, without flash, you’d still be able to get some kind of photo from it. * assuming you weren’t using a 110 or APS camera. An example on flickr, and another example above with flash (I assume the flickr link is using 35mm film which measures 24x36mm).

Night shot Casio Z120

With a digital camera – nearly all of them have flash (I’d estimate 99%) – so in dark conditions you can use the flash and get a half decent photo (generally speaking). Some of the time you can switch the flash off, setup the self-timer, put it on a wall or a tripod and take a half-decent night shot. Which is fairly impressive considering how small the sensor is in relation to 35mm film. (The average compact digital camera sensor size is 7.2mm x 5.3mm (1/1.8 sensor), this is roughly 5x smaller than 35mm film, with an average Pixel area(µm2) of 2.6 – 3.8µm2) (Using a 12mp example: Canon Powershot G9 with a 1/1.7″ sensor, the pixel area is 3.8µm2). Example above taken with the Casio Exilim Z120.

On a side note: Do you remember when Digital Cameras were still new? Like in 2002 or 2003 when digital cameras were still so new that they had to write “Digital Camera” on the front of it somewhere so that you knew it was a digital camera? Simply being a digital camera in 2001 was so exciting and new that they simply used those two words together as a marketing tool / selling point for the camera. Now you’re lucky if you even have the model number written on it, and rarely do you find the manufacturer name on the back these days. (They used to always put the manufacturers name underneath the screen – like this). Now it’s more likely the be the huge number of megapixels or optical zoom or screen size that’s plastered all over the camera.

Night shot - Nokia N86

With a camera phone – most of them don’t have a real flash (maybe 1% has a real xenon flash (the Sony Satio is the only recent one) that is equivalent to the flash you find in a Digital Camera) – and the rest – if you’re lucky (or unlucky depending how you feel about it) – has an LED or a “twin” LED flash. The problem is that even with (or without) the LED flash, the camera’s just don’t cope with low-light situations. You can put the phone on night mode (if you’re lucky), put it somewhere steady^ and switch on the self-timer, and hope it takes a successful shot. The problem is that the sensors in camera phones are even smaller than compact digital cameras. They just can’t get enough light into the sensor, and that means in low light situations they produce crap noisy images that are over-processed so much that you’re lucky there’s any image left to view. Further problems are caused due to the small sensors lacking the ability to capture dynamic range, so dark areas are underexposed, and bright areas are overexposed, further reducing detail in images (the example above taken with the Nokia N86 – where’s the detail in the steps?). The latest 12 megapixel camera phone sensors made by Sony have a 1.4µm pixel size – which is again 2.7x smaller than compact digital camera sensors. (2.6mm x 1.96mm estimation). This is roughly 13.8x smaller than 35mm film.

In a nutshell – it’s all about the light – 35mm film cameras can absorb lots of light, and therefore take photos in dark conditions and get as much colour and detail as possible. Digital Cameras, more so compact cameras, have much smaller sensors and struggle in low light, but don’t do too bad a job of it thanks to having a flash, however, they are very much on the limit of acceptable image quality (that’s why Digital SLRs get better image quality – they have larger sensors). Camera phones on the other hand have had to miniaturize to the point where image quality is badly affected, and the only way to get good photos from them is to use them in ideal light, or have a real xenon flash for times when lighting is poor.

^ Options are limited as I don’t know of any camera phones with tripod mount, and you’re generally lucky if the phone will stand on it’s side without falling over. Even on the “Photo-centric” Nokia N86 8mp you can’t stand the camera on it’s side without it falling over!