The kind of faith that the young Chinese phone makers have in themselves in unparalleled. Companies like UMi, Elephone, and more recently, Vernee have been daring of late, not worried of what people would think of their marketing strategies. It goes your way sometimes, and other times, the other.
Anyway, we’ve been sent some camera samples from the upcoming UMi Super, which may have an uninspiring name but it does seem to have a camera that is capable of a thing or two. These samples are supposedly taken in low-light environments, so as to show exactly what the camera is capable of. Take a look below:
Gizchina News of the week
Must say, the shots look pretty good. That said, fluorescence can make even a pedestrian sensor look pro, which I hope isn’t the case here. What do you think of these samples?
Expect a review of the UMi Super in the coming weeks (with samples across varying light surroundings), once the phone does start shipping. Meanwhile, you can stay up to date with the news around this device here.
In related news, UMi also set up a ‘UX’ page for easier before- and after-sales support, which can be accessed here.
These ads are needed to run a website. Karal rights them like they are a press release from the company. Yash on the other hand knows how to be objective and not write like everything UMi says is pure gold.
From the first tease of the umi super, this site hasn’t missed a single day without an ad about this phone.
This is pathetic
I agree that Yash has a level of objectivity in putting forward the ads whereas I have some doubt that Karal really exists (a fictitious name added to UMI and Elephone press releases?).
Where I am not sure that I agree with you is that these ads are necessary to run a website. There are already a lot of banners on the site and there is a commercial arrangement with a chinese reseller. I would not object to other banners and overt advertisements. What is objectionable is that these are put on the site as “articles” which is not very transparent and an insult to the intelligence of the readers. If you look on http://www.yahoo.com you will see various articles that are indicated as “Sponsored” with a little asterisk. If the site is being compensated for it that would be an appropriate solution in my opinion and would restore integrity.
Websites are incredibly expensive to run and maintain. You’ll find these same type of articles on almost every website.
Thanks for the reply… So we just have to guess they’re good just because it’s advisement material? xD
And some people have found samples online that look very very similar to these which makes them even more suspect. I never believe company provided shots to begin with.
I would like to see more than just the reference shots. They chose two “low light” scenes, where there was plenty of light available.
those are not easy situation for the camera, because light isn’t uniformed in the scene, just try to find a sony camera or omnivision used on these cheap manifacturers that comes close, around the light it will all be noisy, grainy and all messed up colors.
seems this panasonic sensor has really some good potential.
Most cameras could reproduce the results above due to the amount of light already in the scene. Plus we don’t know if these were touched up at all The sensor type though has a very minor affect on low light. The lens is much more important. But overall Sony, Omni and Samsung sensors are better than Panasonic.
yeah, I assume you tried dozen of panasonic sensors.
lens is also secondary, nowadays they all use above average ones (and usually the same ones), it’s mediatek shitty rom that gives absimal results.
That’s why sony, omnivision perform shit on ulefones, elephones, umis and the rest, but if you see panasonic cam on ulefone vienna you can notice an overall boost in quality over OV or IMX cameras on these products.
Then there are top class lenses and optimizations that you can see on Vivo, Samsung, Huawei and the others, but panasonic seems the winner on generic china phones right now,
Lens is no way close to secondary in fact it’s more important than the sensor is. And they don’t all use the same ones. The lens is one of the reasons why two phones can use the same sensor and have drastically different results. The other is the software optimization. Most cheaper phones use cheaper optics and they don’t spend anytime optimizing the sensor.
That is correct!
Even if generic Chinese brands use a very good sensor, they usually ruin it with horrible software optimizations/algorithms and awful lenses, that are just slapped over the sensor and no calculations are done whatsoever. Even if they use good lenses, without optimizations and tests, the result is mediocre at best.
As a result you get various pink/grey/green spots, blurry image and other effects like that.
These ads are needed to run a website. Karal rights them like they are a press release from the company. Yash on the other hand knows how to be objective and not write like everything UMi says is pure gold.
From the first tease of the umi super, this site hasn’t missed a single day without an ad about this phone.
This is pathetic
I agree that Yash has a level of objectivity in putting forward the ads whereas I have some doubt that Karal really exists (a fictitious name added to UMI and Elephone press releases?).
Where I am not sure that I agree with you is that these ads are necessary to run a website. There are already a lot of banners on the site and there is a commercial arrangement with a chinese reseller. I would not object to other banners and overt advertisements. What is objectionable is that these are put on the site as “articles” which is not very transparent and an insult to the intelligence of the readers. If you look on
I agree that Yash has a level of objectivity in putting forward the ads whereas I have some doubt that Karal really exists (a fictitious name added to UMI and Elephone press releases?).
Where I am not sure that I agree with you is that these ads are necessary to run a website. There are already a lot of banners on the site and there is a commercial arrangement with a chinese reseller. I would not object to other banners and overt advertisements. What is objectionable is that these are put on the site as “articles” which is not very transparent and an insult to the intelligence of the readers. If you look on
you will see various articles that are indicated as “Sponsored” with a little asterisk. If the site is being compensated for it that would be an appropriate solution in my opinion and would restore integrity.
Websites are incredibly expensive to run and maintain. You’ll find these same type of articles on almost every website.