Samsung M8910 Pixon 12 specs

By Edward Chester


Quick Glance
Screen Size (inches) 3.1
Touchscreen Yes
Height 108
Width 53
Depth 13.8
Weight 120
Available Colours Black
Touchscreen Yes
Screen Size (inches) 3.1
Screen Resolution 480x800
Processor and Internal Specs
CPU 800MHz
Internal Storage 0.15
Camera 12
Camera Flash LED
Front Facing Camera Yes
Charging/Computer Connection microUSB
3.5mm Headphone Jack No
3G/4G Yes
WiFi Yes
Bluetooth Yes

Daniel Gerson

September 14, 2009, 4:29 pm

What about some low light/flash sample pics?


September 14, 2009, 4:49 pm

Quote: "Overall results are pretty impressive with a level of detail (in good lighting) that noticeably surpasses my own compact camera. Exposure is generally accurate, the flash is well-metered, and colours look natural."

Can you please explain what camera phone are you talking about in these two sentences, as I fail to agree on your observations looking at included sample photos? If your first sentence is correct, I'd suggest your next purchase to be a new compact camera (any but the one you already have, really), not the 500 pounds camera phone like this. Wonderful world of photography seems to have many positive surprises left on store for camera phone enthusiasts. Personally, I'm appalled by how bad the IQ is with this whooping 12MP cam phone. Exposure is only half right on the focused subject, other 8/9ths of the picture are extremely over/under-exposed with extreme chromatic aberration, using flash results in uneven lighting across the picture even at closer ranges and produces awful colour shifts, and colours don't look anything natural to anyone not suffering partial or full colour blindness. I've seen way better pictures taken with a 5 pound or less worth disposable cameras.

iain coghill

September 14, 2009, 5:56 pm

Why can't manufacturers just bung some phone electronics into one of those dinky little compact cameras that can be had for < £200? I can't see why you couldn't get decent quality pics and an ok phone for well under £250.


September 15, 2009, 5:34 am

Never mind the quality feel the megapixels.


September 15, 2009, 1:30 pm

@miha: I've added the shots I used for comparison taken with my Canon 850 IS so you can see for yourself. It is a slightly older compact camera so doesn't have some of the more sophisticated chromatic aberation removal features of many new compacts but it's still a very good camera. The Pixon clearly beats it for raw detail and pretty much equals it on every other level. Again, though, this only really counts in good lighting.

As for flash, considering the size of flash you can expect to get on a phone, its results are very impressive (the sample shot was taken in a nearly completely dark room).

Obviously the Pixon's not perfect but is it good enough to replace a basic cheap compact? Arguably, yes. Your comment to the contrary (better pictures taken with a 5 pound or less worth disposable cameras) is utter rubbish.

@Iain: Three things:

1. I'm not sure that many people would actually buy such a device.

2. I think it really is easier said than done. You'd end up with quite a bulky device.

3. It would cost a damn site more than £250 if you wanted half the features of a modern phone. You could argue that they drop all the fancy stuff and just make it have really basic phone features that do only add £50 to the cost of the camera but then who would want such a basic device? I'd personally rather just have the camera and a slightly more feature rich phone.

comments powered by Disqus