The race for megapixels from digital photography has gradually moved to IP video surveillance. Our customers are increasingly asking for cameras 3, 4, 5 megapixel and even higher. Most of them are absolutely sure that the higher the resolution, the more megapixels the camera has, the better it will show, the higher the detail of the frame will be. Manufacturers to please consumers are releasing cameras with high resolution, 12 megapixel IP cameras, now fashionable in 4K format, are already being sold with might and main.

We decided to find out - does the video quality of IP cameras really increase with the increase in megapixels? Is it worth overpaying for high resolution cameras, NVR processing power, high network bandwidth, and terabytes of storage required for such a high resolution. We have selected several cameras from the warehouse with different resolutions - from 1 to 5 megapixels. We also ordered several expensive 5 - 8 MP IP cameras from manufacturers for this test. This is who came to our test.

We gave preference to outdoor IP cameras with a fixed lens, because they do not need to be adjusted and flaws in the tedious adjustment of varifocal lenses will not affect the quality of the video image. True, we did not find 5-megapixel cameras with a fixed lens and tested 5-megapixel variofocal cameras. We installed all the cameras in the same place and pointed to the opposite wall, where we have several homemade "test charts" hanging.

Let's see what we got. All snapshots were taken through the web interface of the cameras using the IE browser and the ability to save a snapshot built into each camera. In the following table, we have placed a reduced frame to a resolution of 640x480 (or 640 by 360, if the camera has a widescreen matrix with an aspect ratio of 16: 9), as well as a crop (cut out of the frame) with a resolution of 200x360 pixels. It more clearly shows the quality of the "drawing" of small details of the image - in particular, the letters on the Sivtsev table (a table for testing eyesight).

To view a full-size frame from an IP camera, click on its thumbnail copy in the table.

1 megapixel IP camera: Space Technology ST-120 IP Home, resolution 1280x720, 1/4 matrix, 3.6 mm lens
1 megapixel IP camera: Polyvision PN-IP1-B3.6 v.2.1.4, resolution 1280x720, 1/4 matrix, 3.6 mm lens
1.3 megapixels IP camera: MATRIXtech, resolution 1280x960, matrix 1/3, lens 3.6 mm
2 megapixels IP camera: Space Technology ST-181 IP Home, resolution 1920x1080, 1/3 matrix, 3.6 mm lens
2 megapixels IP camera: MATRIXtech MT-CW1080IP20, resolution 1920 × 1080, matrix 1 / 2.8, lens 3.6 mm
3 Megapixel resolution. IP camera: Dahua IPC-HFW-1300S-0360B, 2048x1536 resolution, 1/3 matrix, 3.6mm lens
4 Megapixel resolution. IP camera: Dahua IPC-HFW-4421EP-0360B, 2560x1440 resolution, 1/3 matrix, 3.6 mm lens
5 Megapixels resolution.
5 megapixels	>

What we noticed when comparing these frames:

1. Cameras have different aspect ratios. IP cameras with a resolution of 1, 2, 4 megapixels have a widescreen frame with a ratio of 16: 9. And cameras with a resolution of 1.3, 3 and 5 megapixels - 4: 3. Those. the latter have a greater vertical viewing angle. This is very important for those cameras that will "look" at an angle from top to bottom on the object. For such cameras, there will be fewer dead zones under the camera, both near and far. It is interesting to note that the 3MP camera in relation to the 4MP camera has not only a greater vertical viewing angle, but also a resolution: 1536 versus 1440 pixels.
2. Cameras have different viewing angles, and it depends not only on the lens, but also on the size of the matrix. Budget IP cameras with a 1/4 matrix and a standard 3.6mm lens have a horizontal viewing angle of no more than 60 °. But the 5MP IPEYE camera with a 1 / 2.5 matrix has a wide viewing angle both vertically and horizontally (more than 110 °). True, there the lens in the shortest focus has a distance of 2.8 mm.
3. Well, and the most important thing we wanted to pay close attention to was the permission. If you carefully examine all the frames, you will notice that, undoubtedly, as the resolution (megapixels) increases, the detail increases. But NOT PROPORTIONALLY! Not colossal. A 4MP camera in relation to a 2MP camera does not double the picture. Detail increases insignificantly... In any case, not a single camera could "cope" with the second line from the bottom of Sivtsev's table. And already the 6th bottom line (the right letters "BK Y") is confidently "read" by cameras with a resolution of 4 and 2 MP.

Of course, here you need to make an allowance for a different viewing angle. Indeed, with an increase in the viewing angle, we seem to move away from the scene being shot and the detailing deteriorates. This is especially true for a 5-megapixel IPEYE camera - the combination of a matrix and a lens gives too wide a viewing angle. And if you make the angle on it the same as for 2MP cameras (about 90 °), then the letters of this table will be read more confidently.

Interestingly, another 5MP IP camera with the same declared parameters (2.8-11 lens, 1 / 2.5 matrix) had a slightly narrower viewing angle in the shortest focus than the IPEYE-3802VP. Detailing is approximately at the same level, the picture is somewhat noisier in the dark areas of the frame, although the cost of the BEWARD camera is several times higher. But she has a motorized lens and you can control the viewing angle while sitting in front of a computer. A picture with a maximum focus of 11 mm will then look like this:

Maybe someone needs it, given that every time the focus of the lens is changed, you need to either manually or by pressing the "autofocus" button to adjust the sharpness of the image. And it takes 5 to 20 seconds. But here you can confidently read the second line from the bottom of the eye examination table.

Later, we tested a pair of 2-megapixel IP cameras with a 2.8 - 12mm varifocal lens. there is an opinion that they show better than "fixes". Here's what we got:

2 megapixels IP camera: MATRIXtech MT-CW1080IP40, resolution 1920 × 1080, matrix 1 / 2.8, lens 2.8 - 12 mm
2 megapixels IP camera: Hikvision DS-2CD2622FWD-I, resolution 1920x1080, 1/3 matrix, 2.8-12 mm lens

As you can see, the result is not much different from the previous one. The detail is almost the same as that of 2MP IP cameras with a fixed lens. Even for an expensive 2-megapixel (!) Hikvision camera (retail price of which in February 2016 was 21,990 rubles) with a viewing angle of 50 degrees set at the factory (and in order to change it, we had to open the camera, which we categorically did not want) the readability of Sivtsev's table turned out to be no more than 5 lines from the bottom.

Perhaps varifocal lenses have a higher light sensitivity and IP cameras with them "see" better in the dark, but this is a topic for a completely different test and another article, which we may refer to later. But varifocal lenses have practically no effect on the resolution. Moreover, the slightest inaccuracy in focusing can lead to disastrous results, and all megapixels will be useless. And whoever has ever set up a variofocal lens on an IP camera will agree with me that it is oh, how difficult it is, given the delay with which the signal from the camera comes to the monitor.

5 megapixels

This is the first camera with a 1 / 1.8 sensor size that came into our hands. In addition, this camera is capable of delivering a stream at a speed of 25 fps at a 5-megapixel resolution (2592x1920 px). Others cannot do this yet. The maximum they are capable of is 12-15 fps at maximum resolution. The wide angle of view of this camera is immediately evident. At 3.6mm focus, it is wider than 5MP 1 / 2.5 cameras with 2.8mm focus. The resolution of the BSP Security camera is on par with other 5MP cameras, even a little sharper. At least the contrast of the picture is higher. However, the situation is slightly overshadowed by the blurring of the left side of the frame. Perhaps we were unlucky and came across a camera with a slightly skewed matrix.

And finally, 4K IP cameras with a resolution of 8MP came to our warehouse. It is a hemisphere with DAHUA DH-IPC-HDW-4830EMP-AS fixed lens. Here's a shot from that camera:

8 megapixels IP camera: DAHUA DH-IPC-HDW-4830EMP-AS, resolution 3840 * 2160, matrix 1 / 2.5, lens 4 mm

To open a frame at full resolution, in the browser, right-click on the picture and select the "open image" menu item.

We did not stop our test with office pictures, we also wanted to see real footage of a street scene. To do this, we directed the lenses of our cameras to the nearest parking lot, visible from our window. We did it deliberately in rather difficult light conditions - early twilight. Here's what we got.

1 megapixel IP camera: Space Technology ST-120 IP Home, resolution 1280x720, 1/4 matrix, 3.6 mm lens
1 megapixel IP camera: Polyvision PN-IP1-B3.6 v.2.1.4, resolution 1280x720, 1/4 matrix, 3.6 mm lens
1.3 megapixels IP camera: MATRIXtech MT-CW960IP20, resolution 1280x960, 1/3 matrix, 3.6 mm lens
2 megapixels IP camera: Space Technology ST-181 IP Home, resolution 1920x1080, 1/3 matrix, 3.6 mm lens
2 megapixels IP camera: MATRIXtech MT-CW1080IP20, resolution 1920 × 1080, matrix 1 / 2.8, lens 3.6 mm
3 megapixels IP camera: Dahua IPC-HFW-1300S-0360B, 2048x1536 resolution, 1/3 matrix, 3.6mm lens
4 megapixels IP camera: Dahua IPC-HFW-4421EP-0360B, 2560x1440 resolution, 1/3 matrix, 3.6 mm lens
5 megapixels IP camera:, resolution 2592x1920, matrix 1 / 2.5, lens 2.8 - 12 mm

Perhaps we chose a still too bright part of the day (17.10 - 18.00 in February), but all cameras coped with this kind of lighting perfectly. True, the 1.3 MP MT-CW960IP20 camera turned out to be slightly darker than the others, which is rather strange, because 1/3 matrix should have better light sensitivity in relation to 1/4 matrix.

As for the detail of the picture, the situation is similar to the test results in the office. Although it increases with the increase in megapixels, it does not significantly increase. Renault's license plate was read by both 4 and 2 megapixel cameras. True last Little worse.

IP cameras with a resolution of 1.3, 4 and 5 megapixels with their wide viewing angle "saw" even the number of our van, on which we carry all these IP cameras)). And the 5MP camera even saw a car parked to the left of the van. The viewing angle is amazing!

In March, we received two more 5-megapixel IP cameras BEWARD and BSP Security for testing. Let's compare how they show on the street.

5 megapixels IP camera:, resolution 2592x1944, matrix 1 / 2.5, zoom lens 2.8 - 11 mm
5 megapixels IP camera: BSP Security, resolution 2592 * 1920, matrix 1 / 1.8, lens 3.6 - 11 mm

The cameras were tested at the same time (18:00 mid-March). It is interesting to note that although the BSP Security camera has a wider angle, it has slightly better detail. State the number for the blue Ford can almost be read, which cannot be done on the frame from the BEWARD camera. Affected by the size of the matrix - 1 / 1.8 versus 1 / 2.5.

What conclusion can we make?

1. The treacherous pursuit of megapixels is practically useless and only manufacturers play into their hands (well, what a sin - we, the sellers of these IP cameras, recorders and hard drives) get more profit from them.
2. In the overwhelming majority of cases, 1-, 2-megapixel IP cameras are sufficient. And if you need better detailing of distant objects, then you need to solve such a problem not by mindlessly increasing megapixels, but by decreasing the viewing angle using a varifocal lens. By doing this we will "bring" the picture closer to ourselves and will be able to consider everything that we need. And an increase in the number of video cameras. Perhaps such a solution will be a little more expensive, but it will certainly solve your problem. And perhaps the price of a pair of 2-megapixel cameras with a viewing angle of 50 ° (for example, "fixes" with a 6mm lens) will be less than the price of one 5- or even 4-megapixel camera with an angle of 100 °. But they will give us much more information about the observed territory.
3. It should be borne in mind that with an increase in the number of pixels without an increase in the physical size of the matrix, it only worsens the sensitivity of the video camera, since the pixel area becomes smaller, and less light falls on its surface.
4. Real high-quality lenses with optics that allow you to get all the advantages of multi-megapixel sensors cost at least $ 1000. What can you expect from a $ 20,000 12MP camera?
5. And the last thing to remember - with an increase in "megapixel" you will additionally overpay for the processing power of the recorded devices, storage devices (HDD), network bandwidth and traffic when browsing the Internet.

P.S. We will continue to test in this way the IP cameras that fall into our hands. Several test samples have already been requested from various vendors with a resolution ranging from 5 to 12 megapixels. Therefore, visit this page periodically for new information on the megapixel race in IP video surveillance.

P.P.S. If any manufacturer or supplier wishes to test their cameras on our "test bench" - welcome, contact us by e-mail: kb063_sobaka_yandex.ru

Since the moment when cameras on smartphones have become widespread, there is a widespread opinion in society that the number of megapixels directly affects the quality of the photo. In most cases, the more megapixels, the sharper your photos will be. However, is it really that important? In this article, we'll take a look at why megapixels don't always play an important role.

Many of you love to post photos to Facebook or Instagram. Our colleagues from phonearena compared the quality of the original photos and those already posted on the social network. The results can be surprising.

This comparison demonstrates the quality of the photo before and after being compressed by Facebook. The original image size is 5312 x 2988 pixels (in comparison, the photo was cropped to see the difference in quality), the photo "weighs" 5.84 MB. Facebook, thanks to its compression system, was able to reduce the size to 313KB (more than 17 times). The resolution of such a photo is already 2 megapixels.

If you take Instagram, the situation is even bigger. The app compresses photos down to 0.4 megapixels (640 x 640). The size of such a photo is only 115 KB, while the original size was a whopping 5.84 MB. This kind of compression is really impressive. Unfortunately, they did not manage without quality losses - alas, they do not have Richard Hendrix (approx. The main character of the series "Silicon Valley") in the team.

However, let's take a look at the photo in full size (the top is compressed, the bottom is original, but also compressed by the site to 2 MB. To view the full size, click on this link). There is practically no difference, and this despite the fact that the photo size has been reduced to 17 times. In this case, the point of using cameras with a large number of megapixels is completely lost.

The second point lies in the quality of the photos themselves. Let's compare two gadgets: and the iPhone 6.

Both photos were taken at the same time of day and cropped to the correct size. As you can see, the difference between the One M9's 20.7-megapixel camera and the iPhone 6's 8-megapixel camera can be overlooked. Moreover, the color rendering of the iPhone 6 is, in our opinion, better.

Probably, the One M9 frame was not made on the latest firmware, hence such a low quality. Indeed, in a recent update, the company added RAW support and significantly improved the quality of the images themselves. However, why not initially release a normal camera, which, by the way, still lacks even software stabilization?

Thus, the presence of a high number of megapixels in devices is not always justified. It is much better to have a larger sensor, which will allow you to get excellent quality even at low resolutions.

It is also interesting to know the opinion of our readers. Are megapixels so important in smartphones?

Traditionally, we did not stay away from new products and present to your attention the results of a comparison of IP video cameras: 2MP (widely used) and relatively new, not yet firmly taken place in their niche, 4MP cameras. The experiment involved two cameras, one robot and bills of various denominations.

Camera characteristics:

Camera No. 1

Permission: 1920х1080 (2MP), 25 fps, h.264

Matrix: 1 / 2.8 SONY EXMOR sensor

Sensitivity: 0.05 Lux (day) / 0.005 Lux (night) / 0 Lux

Lens: f = 3.6mm, horizontal field of view 77

Camera No. 2

Resolution: 2592 * 1520 (4MP), 15 fps, h.265 / h.264 / MJPEG codecs

Matrix: 1/3 "4Mega CMOS OV4689 (USA)

Sensitivity: 0.01 Lux

Lens: f = 3.6mm, horizontal field of view 75

Promobot Bastik was located at a distance of 7m from the stand with cameras. We present to your attention screenshots (for original resolution, click on the image):

2MP camera

4MP camera

The naked eye can see that the image quality differs significantly, namely 2 times. For greater clarity, below are screenshots from the monitor screen with a resolution of 1600x900. The original image was opened in a graphics editor at scale:

50%

2MP camera

4MP camera

100%

2MP camera

4MP camera

2MP camera

4MP camera

Also, I would like to separately mention the H.265 codec. It allows you to almost double the compression ratio of digital video data compared to H.264. Thus, the size of the archive from a 4MP camera at maximum settings slightly exceeds the archive of a 2MP camera. With the same data density settings, H.265 can significantly improve the image quality (almost 2 times).

Ask for video cameras 2MP and 4MP in the wholesale and retail network "Bastion".

Views: 11592

At a special event in New York, Google announced the new flagship Pixel 3 and Pixel 3 XL smartphones. The screens of both devices have gotten bigger thanks to thinner bezels, and at the back there is at least one better camera with AI functions.

Theverge.com

The display size of the Pixel 3 has grown from 5 to 5.5 inches, and the Pixel 3 XL has grown from 6 to 6.3 inches. The second one has a notch on top for the sensors.

On the back, both smartphones have one 12.2-megapixel camera, which is able to choose the best shot from the series and improve the quality of photos taken with a magnification. But there are now two cameras in front: thanks to the wide viewing angle of one of them, a fairly large number of people can fit.

theverge.com

Inside, the phones have a Snapdragon 845 processor and 4GB of RAM, as well as a Titan M chip to protect data, logins and passwords. There are stereo speakers in front. There is support for Bluetooth 5.0.

With an all-glass back cover, the new Pixels support up to 10W wireless charging - including the new Pixel Stand, which was also unveiled at the event and sold separately for $ 79. When the phone is connected to the latter, useful information is displayed on its screen - for example, data from Google Assistant. If you put the gadget in a horizontal position, then it works like a photo frame.

google.com

The devices run Android 9 Pie and come with software capabilities to support "digital well-being" - that is, those that keep you from hanging around your phone all day. Also Pixel 3 and Pixel 3 XL got rid of three virtual buttons at the bottom of the screen - now they use gesture navigation.

Google Assistant can control spam calls. You can either block them, or ask the assistant to remind you to call back later.

google.com

Smartphones can be pre-ordered today and will launch on October 18th. Pixel 3 with 64GB of storage will cost $ 799, and Pixel 3 XL with the same size will cost $ 899. For 128 GB, in the case of each, you will have to pay $ 100 extra.

The second half of 2005 will be marked by 2-megapixel cameras, which will begin to be massively built into both phones and smartphones / communicators. Already, built-in cameras in phones are impacting entry-level digital camera sales. In a year and a half, when the quality of cameras built into mobile devices equals that of entry-level digital cameras, such cameras will be found not only in the upper price segment, but also in the middle and lower ones, this influence will increase even more. Nowadays, built-in cameras are generally perceived as toys, no one expects high quality from them. When this attitude changes, the market for conventional digital cameras (we are talking about the amateur segment) will face a major restructuring. The segment may completely go to mobile phones, akin to how PDAs are currently being supplanted by smartphones and communicators.

As we already wrote in our review of the Nokia 6680 camera, an improvement in the quality of the captured images will inevitably lead to tougher security measures in public places and at enterprises. Manufacturers will be forced to release their products in two versions - with and without a built-in camera. So far, this process is only in its initial stage.

Among GSM phones with a 2 megapixel camera, one can note Sony Ericsson k750i, Nokia N-series models, many more models from different manufacturers are on the way. They mainly belong to the upper price segment. The quality of the cameras of Nokia N90 and Sony Ericsson k750i is very close, this has caused endless debate among fans that “Nokia N90 or Sony Ericsson k750i” is better, people on forums are ready to prove their position for days, inventing advantages and disadvantages of one or another device. The pictures on Nokia N70 are a little worse than Nokia N90 and Sony Ericsson k750i, since there is no autofocusing and, accordingly, no normal macro mode. Among smartphones Nokia N70 loses only to N-series devices, other even indirect competitors cannot compare with the model in terms of camera quality. Nokia has a strong position here.

The device uses an active slider that protects the main camera from dirt and damage. The slider can be opened without any problems with one hand, it can be done with one finger. Moreover, if you start the movement manually, then the built-in spring completes it, both when opening and closing. Compared to Nokia 6680, the slider cover is larger, has a larger amplitude, and smoother movement. Note that the cap does not scratch the edging around the lens like it did with the previous model.

When you open the slider, the phone automatically switches to capture mode, while the screen serves as a viewfinder. The maximum resolution of the resulting images is 1600 x 1200 pixels, multiplying, we get 1920000 pixels, rounding off, we get 1.92 Mp. This is the effective number of dots of the built-in 2 megapixel camera.

The resolution of the images is not explicitly indicated in the settings, you can choose 3 quality options. In this case, the number of megapixels on the screen will be indicated in the lower right corner. You cannot select the compression quality for each of the resolutions.

• Print (2 MP, 1600 x 1200 pixels)
• E-mail (0.8 Mp, 640 x 480 pixels)
• MMS (0.3 MP, 240 x 180 pixels)

After pressing the center of the joystick or the additional end key for shooting in portrait mode (serves as a shutter button), 3-4 seconds pass until the photo is saved, compared to the Nokia 6680 the speed has not changed. It is possible to make a session of 6 shots in a row (sequence mode). You can put the device on a timer (10, 20 or 30 seconds) and take a picture of yourself with friends, for example (the lower end is beveled, so you have to look for a support).

• Auto mode
• User - user-defined settings
• Portrait (1-2 meters to the object)
• Landscape / scene (subject is far away, flash off)
• Night mode
• Sports Mode (Fast Moving Objects)

The flash operates in four modes - automatic, anti-red-eye mode, off and on all the time.

White balance modes: automatic, sunny, cloudy, artificial light, fluorescent lamp. Effects are available: negative, sepia, black and white. Brightness and contrast settings are also available. The maximum digital zoom is 20x. This is a marketing figure, there is no real benefit in it.

As we said, the screen serves as a viewfinder. The top right corner shows the number of photos remaining that will fit in memory. The column of icons on the right - the set settings (flash mode, photo resolution, preset mode). Tilting the joystick up / down controls digital zoom, left / right controls flash. On the Nokia 6680, the left / right deviation switched between photo and video modes, which was very convenient.

The quality of pictures on a sunny or slightly cloudy day at an average distance is very good, the pictures look decent on the monitor screen and especially on the smartphone display. You are not ashamed to show them to your friends, print them in 10x15 format.

In the twilight, noise becomes noticeable in the photographs, but, nevertheless, the quality and detail of the photographs remain at their best.

Indoors, the shots are also good. Images are crisp, colors are not distorted, and noise is not conspicuous. The only thing that suffers is the transfer of white color of bright objects, this color in some photographs is present as a pure white spot, without shades and color transitions. The result of the image post-processing algorithm is visible.

Using the night mode for shooting in twilight and difficult conditions does not affect the final result - the automatic mode does a good job in such situations.

It is significant that even in the middle of the night you can take a photo, you can see some details on them. Although, the photographs show that the image was stretched at the level of software algorithms.

Macro shooting is far from what you can get on Nokia N90, objects at close distance (10-20 cm) look blurry, although good pictures are obtained at a distance of 1.5 meters.

The flash hits one and a half meters. If you turn on the flash in medium to good lighting, then it can ruin the photo, completely overexposing the face, for example. Recall that the anti-red-eye mode has appeared.

In addition to the main camera, the smartphone also has a front VGA camera. Its main purpose is video calls. Switching between cameras occurs automatically when you close / open the slider, or through the menu.

Let's compare the photos of Nokia 6681 and Nokia N70. The pictures show the difference between 1.3 megapixels and 2 megapixels. The main difference is in how well the details are visible.

Video

Compared to Nokia 6680, the resolution of the received clips has significantly increased, the resolution in the previous models was artificially limited in order to show the progress in the N-series models, to make marketing emphasis on video capabilities.

The maximum video resolution is 352 x 288 pixels (versus 176 x 144 pixels for the Nokia 6680). Compression format - MPEG4 (for lower resolutions - 3GPP). The maximum frame rate is 15 FPS (sometimes it can be 5 FPS), the video looks jerky, torn, so far we can blame it on the fact that in our test laboratory there was a prototype, not a commercial sample. Following the example of the Nokia 6630, the situation can be expected to improve by the time the product is commercially launched. The bitrate of the received video is about 100 Kbytes / s (without sound), that is, 30 minutes of video on the memory card will take about 350 MB.

Working with footage

The prototype that we tested had only one program for working with the footage - the Movie Director, and even then it would not start. Most likely, the set of preinstalled programs will be no poorer than the Nokia 6680, let's repeat what was said about the programs for editing the footage of this model.

Photo Editor... Photo editor. You can balance colors (a choice of three automatic modes: Darken Image, Balance Image, Brighten Image), crop a picture, insert text or a frame, expand the image.

Video Editor. The application allows you to edit clips, slow down, join, add an effect (black and white only) and an audio track.

Movie Director... The utility has migrated from the previous smartphone. You choose video clips, photos, and a music video is made on their basis. The program is interesting, you can spend some time behind it.

The resulting material can be viewed in the programs Image Manager and RealPlayer... Photos and clips can be sent to your computer in the following ways: via email, Bluetooth, cable, or simply remove the card from the device and use it.

Kodak mobile... The idea is simple - you upload photos to the server directly from your phone, the printed photos are delivered to you by courier. The service is promising, but still underdeveloped.

Image Print... An interesting feature of this program is the ability to print via USB to printers compatible with the PictBridge standard. We select images for printing, connect them to a printer via cable and print, everything is simple. From the same program, you can print via Bluetooth.

Conclusion

In terms of image quality, functionality (active slider, flash, second camera) this is the best model among smartphones / communicators, second only to Nokia N90. In the segment of monoblock smartphones it is the undisputed leader, there are no models close in quality. Very good daylight shots, excellent night mode, smooth zoom. The camera handles challenging lighting conditions. Its ergonomics have been thought over and revised relative to Nokia 6680. Rich possibilities for working with the footage. The disadvantages include the quality of video recording (recording is jerky, often torn), a poor choice of available image resolutions, not very good shots in macro mode.

Let's note the main changes of the Nokia N70 camera in comparison with the Nokia 6680/6681:

• 2 MP instead of 1 MP
• Additional camera settings have appeared, the interface has changed
• Red-eye compensation
• An additional key for taking pictures has appeared
• The active slider has changed, became larger, smoother running
• The video resolution has noticeably improved (352x288 pixels, instead of 176x144 pixels)

We will return to the Nokia N70 once again when a commercial sample of the device arrives in our test lab. We will check whether the quality of video recording changes, a set of preinstalled programs for working with footage.