Related
There was suddenly a piece of small plastic that's coming out of the Butterfly. It's located where the black piece of the phone meets the speaker-like mesh on the left side. Looks like it's part of the rubber that prevents water ingress.
It's really small and has a golden brown color. Has anyone else seen this on their phones?
No, do you have some shots of it ?
Kroutnuk said:
No, do you have some shots of it ?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I think it will be very hard to do a close up shot of it.
little far away shot will also be helpful ...
i saw that before in my previous returned Butterfly (for touch screen malfunction), but don't worry, it is just the exceed glue, it won't impact the phone water resistance quality (told by the service guys, don't blame me if it is not true)
same here!
if it's kinda sticky, yes. it's the same. kinda worried though it might affect the phone being splash-proof.
but hey, it's not the (Sony Xperia) Z that we'll soak in water, is it?
Yep, I've also concluded before that it's just the glue. How'd I know? I peeled the 'speaker-like' sticker and put it back. Yes, it's just a sticker for decoration.
Something under the lens, near the top: http://imgur.com/a/SMXPU
I'm not sure what this is but looks like a speck of dust? But I'm not sure. What do you think? Is there a way to remove it without taking off the back cover completely (e.g. tapping the phone downwards, tapping the covert itself, etc.)
Not sure how it affects (or if it even does) image quality.. haven't noticed anything too unusual
Yep, looks like dust to me and I have mixed thoughts. One hand I say don't worry if it doesn't impact images, but also think if dust got in how dust/water proofed is the device?
cliffr39 said:
Yep, looks like dust to me and I have mixed thoughts. One hand I say don't worry if it doesn't impact images, but also think if dust got in how dust/water proofed is the device?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm thinking more like dust went inside during the assembled of the device
Sent from my E6653 using Tapatalk
I have the same thing and quite a bit... Doesn't affect most outdoor images, but if you I a desk light at a certain angle, the dust spots are more apparent (they look like floaters in your eye). I had the lens cover replaced when I had the left blur problem. JerryRigEverything said the lens cover is plastic and scratches and loosens up very easily if you use a knife to poke it...
It looks like water vapors to me. Did you sink it in water? That's how my HTC camera looked after taking water. Could be that your device is not hermetic anymore. There is a test for that, using your service menu / pressure sensor and gently pushing on the screen. Google it up.
If it's not water but dust, you'd better test it though, as you don't want to put it in water if it's not water/dust proof anymore.
Xperia Z5 E6653
Hi guys, please see pictures. Is this normal?
There's a tiny gap between my top side of the screen and the frame (fits 2 lotto papers easily.)
It is annoying because the bottom side is perfect; the back side is also perfect.
Any body has this problem?
Hey, well i was curios too, .... for me the top is very very tight , close and no gap , no paper is going in.
But for the bottom is not, easy enter a papper in the gap , and you can see it .
I'm not concern about the bottom beacuse i will NOT put it in water !
Check my pictures ( recomend use , and google plus classic , for zoom
https://plus.google.com/photos/113360088344058276817/albums/6369905804234775025
Wasn't this answered elsewhere, in that the gap is deliberate to allow for expansions and contractions in temperature? We may need to be careful not to become too paranoid with the design, as some will gratuitously return the handsets which may raise the bar for those with a genuine warranty claim. If it's a waterproofing concern, I don't think we're supposed to be submerging the handsets, which are more water resistant than waterproof as I understand it. Apologies if this sounds a bit "preachy" and feel free to correct me if I'm way off here......
On my unit the top, bottom and the left side of the screen/frame connection are tight, but the right side where the power button is does have sligthly bigger gap, very tiny difference.
I'm sure if the phone passes the pressure test, it shouldn't be a concern about it beeing water resistant.
If it doesn't pass the pressure test, take it to service and demand a new one.
But If you go to a dealer and look at other phones on a store display you'll see they all have this tiny gap somwhere, not each on the same place, so I guess it's there for a reason and there's a tolerance for it.
As I said, if it passes pressure test, don't worry about it and don't try to adjust it or re-glue it or something.
I have the same gap on the bottom edge. Washed my phone many times, took showers with it. I dont have any issues.
cizkek_ said:
I have the same gap on the bottom edge. Washed my phone many times, took showers with it. I dont have any issues.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
One has to ask, why?? All you need to do is wipe your phone with a cloth dampened with anti-bacterial spray. These phones are water resistant, not waterproof.
sunking101 said:
One has to ask, why?? All you need to do is wipe your phone with a cloth dampened with anti-bacterial spray. These phones are water resistant, not waterproof.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You are right. I was irresponsible. Always wanted to do it though
Seems like all the "Reviews" are nothing more then install video's of people saying oh its so amazing. But if you dig deeper you will find issues that a proper review would of find easy. So lets review it.
Little about my self. I am and Engineer in the fiber optics industry. I wonk on the absolute faster detectors available. We use UV optical adhesives every day. So needless to say i know a thing or two on this topic.
The concept is great and when done right the best way to attach a screen protector. But this comes at a cost. Cheap out on anything and it will show. So lets look at this.
-Full cover. errrr not really Notch cut for the camera and sensors. Odd because optical adhesive you can go full over and have zero impact on those.
-9H Hardness. "Shakes head" No..Its not. They need to stop claiming this every company. Its not 9H.
-Beveled edges. This is a must. Ask anyone who has one that is not beveled how easy they chip.
-UV curing light is a good design and has plenty of LED's to cure the adhesive. "5w max" Honestly im not seeing those being close to 1w LED's. If people want i'll take apart the light but no heat sinking as far as i can tell. So im guessing 3v 60ma .5w each total max output 3w. And honestly 3w is fine. Its very thin and easy to cure.
Fixture is great and works very well. No complaints on that. Just watch a few videos and read the instructions and you will do fine. The Fixture is well thought out so hats off to engineers who did that.
The ugly. This is where things get bad. This is where you can see the corners that were cut and boy did they cut them.
-Dust removal sticker. Don't use them. Cheap sticker and will leave residue on the screen. Save your self some time and just put them in the trash.
-Cleaning cloth. Not optical quality. Again put it in the trash it will just put stuff on the display. Cheap fabric not a quality optical cleaning cloth.
-Alcohol wipe...Well the directions say that but the wipes included are Ethanol...Please tell me these are not medical grade. If so then they have some additives. Well again trash it and use some 95% or higher Isopropyl alcohol. Make sure no color or sent has been added. You want as pure as you can get.
-Absorption pads. Now i would love to say trash them. But you need them. Make sure you give them a good rub down to remove all the lose fibers on them. And give the long fibers that hang off after a little trim. You do not want one to get under the screen or at the edge.
-Dimples on the underside of the protector. You don't need these. They do nothing but put 4 contact points to your phones display. The adhesive will flow an even coat.
-The worlds cheapest UV adhesive...Guys its bad...Real bad. Give you an idea. In bulk the quality optical adhesive is expensive. Well you get what you pay for or in Whitestone's case you don't get what you do not pay for. I searched and i found the supplier for there adhesive. How cheap is it? Well its $1 per 30ml. Stuff we use is $30 per oz. or 29.9ml. Yup that explains everything. This is why they can give you so much and still keep that price point. But for this you want less but higher quality. Combine that with tubes that are not 100% air tight and you are begging for problems. Also keep in mine UV Adhesive's have a shelf life and exposure to oxygen age them faster.
Lots of people complain about the delamination. This is from bad UV adhesive. Keep in mind you have a bare glass surface you are attaching to a glass surface with an oleophobic coating. This coating does after the adhesion of the adhesive. So you really need the proper quality adhesive. The adhesive they use never fully cures. If you check out my video in the Deamination topic you can see even after curing then putting 200w of UV on it for an addition 20sec with a proper industrial UV curing station it never fully cures. Multiple kits i have tested they all do this. But its $1 per 30ml so what do you expect.
You will see pictures of the optical property's of the adhesive. It is my opinion that it is not optical grade. Also you will see a picture of the delamination.
Overall this is a 4-10. Held back by the extremely low quality UV adhesive. The most important part is the cheapest. This is why they cut the notch in the protector. Because it would affect the caners where a proper optical adhesive would have zero affect. I'm disappointed. This was hyped so much but no one really looked at it. It's a great concept held back by cut corners. The proper adhesive this would be a 8-10. This method with the proper optical grade adhesive could do a true full cover screen protector then it would be a 10/10. But i do not recommend this. Price is to high for the corners that were cut. The adhesive issue really needs to be addressed because i would take a few other protectors over this.
Message to Whitestone.
I tested Adhesives from 3 kits. Results were all the same. All the kits were ordered at different times as 2 were from Amazon and one was direct from you. I have identified this adhesive not long ago and this is typical for it. However if you want to play we only use the highest quality materials card then you can go ahead and send me a tube of it. It can be in the manufacturers tube or the tubes that come in the kits. I do not want another kit im only interested in testing this adhesive and i will give you one chance to test some prior and send it to me. I will then report my finding's on here and make a note of it here. If you would like to work together on finding a cost effective quality optical adhesive i have contacts with not only the distributes for these but also with the companies that make the highest quality optical grade UV adhesives in the industry. I do not want nothing in return i will work with you for free to fix this product so that future phones can benefit from it and i have the option to easily order a quality kit. I want a 100% coverage protector and working together this can be done. There is potential here and it is with the system developed for the install and that is what makes the product stand out. My work has a building in SoCal. I go out there a few times a year and i am more then willing to come visit your office why i am out there and we can talk.
Now i know i will get the "Mines perfect best ever" post. But those post mean nothing. You have not tested the adhesive. I have. You just have not had any issues with it yet and you may never have them. But i went ahead and i tested this. Same results every time and i know what adhesive they use now.
So, would you say this thing is a pass?
Thanks for the detailed review and focusing on everything, not JUST the adhesive.
I still got mine applied to my phone, and well.. it is there. The time it starts wearing off the edges, maybe I will apply the second spare one just because I already bought it. But yeah, a full, really full screen coverage one with perfect optical properties would be awesome to have!
felloffthetruck said:
So, would you say this thing is a pass?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I won't advise anyone to buy or not to buy this. Thats for you to decide. I'll answer any questions you have thought. I will say that I will not use this for reasons I posted. I won't buy another one until changes are made at the minimum in there selection of adheasive.
Could you point me in the direction of a good adhesive that you would recommend? (That I can buy online)
irieblue said:
Could you point me in the direction of a good adhesive that you would recommend? (That I can buy online)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Will post that when I finish testing the samples I have.
bignazpwns said:
-Full cover. errrr not really Notch cut for the camera and sensors. Odd because optical adhesive you can go full over and have zero impact on those.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Me a bit nitpicking here, but...
Weird, the part of optical physics that I learned back ... long ago.. taught quite clearly that if there are any surfaces with different optical properties on each side, it will have an impact. And I'm pretty sure the adhesives do not match (optically) exactly with either glass it touches (let alone both). Whether those effects will be significant enough to be visible in the photos depends on the whole optical path (and sensor's properties), though.
Since none of the surfaces have proper coatings aimed for optical performance (more for anti fingerprint etc.), and especially the protector glass (the internal material, not the coatings) not designed for optics, I'd expect ever so slightly more lens flaring and similar effects. (If there would be a flash LED for the front camera, it could get really messy, but Note 9 seems to use the whole display for front side "flashing", which reduces the spot brightness near the camera lens compared to a LED flash.)
The adhesive filling the space between the phone's glass and protector's glass does make the effect much lesser than with a protector that sits a tiny bit above with a tiny air gap. So in that sense, with these liquid adhesive type protectors, I'd expect the effects to be indeed mostly ignorable. But not zero, per se.
For the other sensors than camera, the effect can be considered zero, since they are measuring mostly (more or less) spatial averages to begin with. A bit of fuzziness doesn't change their results. Hmm. though I don't know how the iris-camera works.
All that said, I'd still say to choose a protector that covers the lens area(s). A single scratch on the phone's glass over the lens can make a worse effect than a protector does.
Also, (me partially countering the point of having an effect): I have currently a really bad example of a protector myself; a normal cheap protector with a typical dot grid on bottom surface, a normal (non-smooth) adhesive even on the area of the front camera lens, not a perfect fit by shape, etc. That is, I can see the non-smooth stuff between the glass layers (when display is black, and on the sensor spots). Yet, the photos come out ok, so things can obviously be pretty darn crappy and still be ok for the front camera needs. Though, I haven't zoomed in or done comparative tests in more challenging lighting situations. (I will do better tests once other protectors arrive; I need to keep this one on for now, for its main task of protecting.)
Nice review, but the whitestone still beats having nothing on the phone. I did the ghetto "whitestone" on my Note 8 using a generic glass protector and LOCA glue bought on Amazon. Served its purpose and protected my phone when I dropped it on a gravel surface. Phone looked brand new when I replaced the glass with a whitestone version because the ghetto glue method was too time consuming to ensure no bubbles. I have installed 4 more whitestone glass screens on mine and others phone with no issues and would not hesitate to recommend it. The issues you bring up have merit, but do not deter the protective elements of the tempered glass screen. I would like a better glue solution as well. But until then, my whitestone paired with a quality case will have to do. So far it does just fine.
Bullitt3309 said:
Nice review, but the whitestone still beats having nothing on the phone. I did the ghetto "whitestone" on my Note 8 using a generic glass protector and LOCA glue bought on Amazon. Served its purpose and protected my phone when I dropped it on a gravel surface. Phone looked brand new when I replaced the glass with a whitestone version because the ghetto glue method was too time consuming to ensure no bubbles. I have installed 4 more whitestone glass screens on mine and others phone with no issues and would not hesitate to recommend it. The issues you bring up have merit, but do not deter the protective elements of the tempered glass screen. I would like a better glue solution as well. But until then, my whitestone paired with a quality case will have to do. So far it does just fine.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I can't get the same protection from a $12 protector. So how does it beat those in terms of protection? It offers no more protection then any other on the market. Infact the Zag elite offers more protection for the same price. The thicker gel adheasive offers significantly more impact protection. Much harder to put on and remove air bubbles but in terms of protection this is vastly superior. Where zag went wrong is not telling people how soft the adhesive is so they push down on it as hard as they can to get a bubble out and it cracks. And then they had to gimp it with some unnecessary bezzles that cover a bit of the display
Bottom line is the Dome is $20 over priced. The adhesive is trash and the olophobic coating is the worst I have ever seen. No excuses for this on something that sells it's self as premium. It's not. It's the same quality as the $12 Alibaba's and personally I would get one of those. Warranty is nothing since you could still get one on Alibaba shippped for the price you will pay for the warranty replacement. And it uses the same trash adheasive.
When you buy "Loca" it's trash from bad batches that they sell on places like Amazon or Alibaba or to places like Whitestone at a heavy discount because it's defective. So you are already useing a defective product from the start. These are facts. I tested these and posted those info. It's trash they pay $1 per 30ml of those stuff. And they call it Loca because it's not an optical adheasive. It makes it sound fancy because they can't call it a UV optical adheasive. Because it's not optical. But it's "optical cured" so Loca.
Facts are facts. I proven this adheasive is trash and defective from multiple kits. I'll test any of it. Got any left I'll test that Whitestone can send me some I'll test that because I know it's trash and it's from batches that were not mixed right. Multiple people have committed on this issues that's why I started testing this and looking into it because what they had in the prictures we seen before. Hell I can tell you exactly what is wrong with it. However working with a supplier when we had that issue I signed a NDA as part of them telling us every detail about it. Because we needed to know why it did that, when it started, how to test for it, how it will be fixed etc.
Like I said. If you use it and like it that's great. No problems with it that's even better. Get a case drop it face down. On a hard surface so it only hits the case then protector is unsupported and you will have delamination. I did this as part of the big testing video I'm doing for this. 2 drops it started.
Also I'm willing to work with them. All my test data as well as some samples I'll send to them or take to then when I'm in California. I love there install method and it will be a home run when the corners that we're cut are fixed. They pay $1 per 30ml of adheasive I can get them a bulk order that ends up being $1.75 per 30ml if they buy bulk lots. That's optical grade I'll send them the contract info and the sales rep I know for there. Use that and it's fixed. I tested that adheasive on this also and it works just like it should. I really want them to improve it.
As of right now now on my desk I have 35 different uv optical adheasives and more on the way. One manufacturer is even making a custom adheasive to test for this application. This all started as a simple test it and see what's wrong with it but due to all the people asking it's gotten much bigger. I hope Whitestone reaches out to me and I can get them the test information I have so they can improve the product.
Hi, I have been following your findings and it is an interesting matter for me at least.
Anyway, I wanted to write an update about my using the Gear VR with the default Whitedome / adhesive installation.
Previously I mentioned I got the "bubbles / webbing" permanently at the very bottom part of the protector, on a central area right above the USB connector (about 10mm wide, 1mm tal), after having the Whitedome applied and using the GearVR on the next day. Now it has been a couple of weeks maybe, and the bubbles part is still there (size unchanged apparently).
What I want to add is, something a bit unexpected (for me) happened: I used the Gear VR again yesterday (several days after the Whitedome installation) for around one hour, and and after taking the phone off, there were MORE bubbles / webbing in a different area, almost horizontally oval in shape, around 1.5cm wide by 0.8cm high. It was positioned about 2cm ABOVE the early thin stripe of bubbles, completely separate from it (not a continuation). I was pissed off because THIS was on top of the screen and obstructiong the image, really annoying. As it was late I decided to just go to sleep and deal with it when I had some free time. But to my surprise it was COMPLETELY GONE this morning. The previous thin mark at the bottom remains. But I can see no trace whatsoever of the "new" affected region..
gamekill said:
Hi, I have been following your findings and it is an interesting matter for me at least.
Anyway, I wanted to write an update about my using the Gear VR with the default Whitedome / adhesive installation.
Previously I mentioned I got the "bubbles / webbing" permanently at the very bottom part of the protector, on a central area right above the USB connector (about 10mm wide, 1mm tal), after having the Whitedome applied and using the GearVR on the next day. Now it has been a couple of weeks maybe, and the bubbles part is still there (size unchanged apparently).
What I want to add is, something a bit unexpected (for me) happened: I used the Gear VR again yesterday (several days after the Whitedome installation) for around one hour, and and after taking the phone off, there were MORE bubbles / webbing in a different area, almost horizontally oval in shape, around 1.5cm wide by 0.8cm high. It was positioned about 2cm ABOVE the early thin stripe of bubbles, completely separate from it (not a continuation). I was pissed off because THIS was on top of the screen and obstructiong the image, really annoying. As it was late I decided to just go to sleep and deal with it when I had some free time. But to my surprise it was COMPLETELY GONE this morning. The previous thin mark at the bottom remains. But I can see no trace
whatsoever of the "new" affected region..
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That's delamination from defective uv adheasive. As in my video you can see it cures about 50% and then still leaves some wet uncureable adheasive behind and is in some cases acting as an indexing gel. The delamination is still there you will need a microscope to see but masked by that adheasive that's wet acting as an indexing gel.
I got a gear VR on the way. It's on loan from a user to test it with another adheasive. I'll test this and see how it holds up. Run the phone hot and do multiple install and removals then do a few battery drains why it's in the vr. Glad this is a work phone and not my personal phone.
I actually find the oleophobic coating of the whitestone to be very good.
Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
harlenm said:
I actually find the oleophobic coating of the whitestone to be very good.
Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah same here.
sefrcoko said:
Yeah same here.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Then it's more product inconsistency. Friend said his is holding up ok. I know mine had scraches in it after a few hours. And one of them out of the box had a burn in the coating as well as a deep scrach deeper then the olophobic.
Any product recommendation or where we can get the good loca glue?
I personally would be interested in a tube of high quality adhesive if anyone is able to source some. Perhaps the OP would be able to point us to a supplier?
bignazpwns said:
Then it's more product inconsistency. Friend said his is holding up ok. I know mine had scraches in it after a few hours. And one of them out of the box had a burn in the coating as well as a deep scrach deeper then the olophobic.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Ouch that looks rough. Never had those issues on multiple protectors but inconsistency does happen of course with all products. If they don't provide adequate service or replacement though, well then that's a different issue
sefrcoko said:
Ouch that looks rough. Never had those issues on multiple protectors but inconsistency does happen of course with all products. If they don't provide adequate service or replacement though, well then that's a different issue
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I posted this before. I will say Whitestone sent out a replacement kit for it for free and we're very easy to deal with and gave me very fast responses. So the service is great even though people say it's bad my experience was great. I reached out to them on Facebook and not via website so maybe Facebook is the way to go. And I noted all that when I made that post.
I would do the same for the adhesive but I know they can send out 1,000 kits they will all have this issue because the Adheasive used is from defective batches that had issues with the mixing process. I mean it works...but you will never get a full cure and will have issues under the right conditions and those are relatively common. But some people may never experience this.
But all of them so far have had pretty bad olophobic coating's. One is like it had none at all. One had the coating burned "pic in the previous post" and 2 just meh. Nothing great. But that's fine because I use the leftover ceramic coating I used for my car on my screens since it's better and thicker so I usually get over a year and 1/2 before I see any decrease in preformance. But this Stull is around $400 for a small bottle for a car and after not much is left. But Walmart sells a few kits. One is a great kit and only $12. If people wanna know what kit I'll let you know. Around here only one a almao had this kit in stock. "gerogia" the rest had other brands.
I'm one of the 'lucky' ones who has had no problems whatsoever. Going on three months and still getting compliments on how nice my screen looks. It's like I don't have a screen protector on at all.
I'm completely dissapointed from Whitestone.
I have been using it for weeks and yesterday, (all of a sudden) the tempered glass started to have a small line in the left edge of the phone and it seems like it is kinda lifted.
Unfortunately, the company wont help me, because I didnt bought it from their authorised stores
https://ibb.co/9s7jcV7
These are the image taken with the main lens, but it doesn't happen with macro or wide angle, this better not be a hardware issue. The same black spot keeps appearing in the glares or streeks.
Only at certain angles I get this but still!
The camera lens has no marks on it at all
kevinireland11 said:
These are the image taken with the main lens, but it doesn't happen with macro or wide angle, this better not be a hardware issue. The same black spot keeps appearing in the glares or streeks.
Only at certain angles I get this but still!
The camera lens has no marks on it at all
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's a plastic lense, so it could be a lense issue.
GermanPunisher said:
It's a plastic lense, so it could be a lense issue.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Source?, Almost certain the lens isn't plastic from the JerryRigEverything durability test
TheInfiniteAndroid said:
Source?, Almost certain the lens isn't plastic from the JerryRigEverything durability test
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah a plastic lens on a £1200 phone , or even on any phone these days I don't think so, quality wouldn't be good, IV seen other people with this same issue as mines, making me think it's a defect somewhere in the lens itself rather than software.
TheInfiniteAndroid said:
Source?, Almost certain the lens isn't plastic from the JerryRigEverything durability test
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It was another breakdown video from someone who just doesn't destroy everything and made it professionally. Also quality hasn't to do something with the price of a resource. A plastic lense is way more durable than a glass lense, so a glass lense in reality is more crap than a plastic one. It's like the used case: aluminium destroys everything because the power of the force won't get really stopped - displays will break and the inlife... glass will get destroyed and soaks more force before the force gets to to chips etc. and plastic soaks the force the most and is more durable than glass.
GermanPunisher said:
It was another breakdown video from someone who just doesn't destroy everything and made it professionally.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
JerryRigEverything is a very reputable phone durability channel, the camera lens is glass not plastic, please do further research before spreading misinformation, thank you.
TheInfiniteAndroid said:
JerryRigEverything is a very reputable phone durability channel, the camera lens is glass not plastic, please do further research before spreading misinformation, thank you.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
So you are relying on someone and a video who's not even saying in a single sentence (minute 3:38+), that the camera lense is made of glass, so you are lying and I'm relying on another video where someone 'really' said it's made of plastic, but you want to lecture me? It seems you are just a narcisst that thinks he's right, even if all you tell is a lie and don't even know it yourself. So I lecture you now to go to a psychologist and please hold yourself away from social people.
Even when I would search this one video of thousands wouldn't make it real or an unbearable fact, because we only could know if we test it for ourselves, but that wouldn't make any sense to me, because why should I show you the video if you already stated that you depend on your lie. It wouldn't change the reality, that the camera is really good, but it would make the fact that some people have black dots, corona shining etc. more explainable. The lense could have even made of transparent aluminium and it wouldn't make sense to argue about it or defend someone who said in a video it's made of plastic, glass or whatever. The fact is that some people have problems with it and it's a quality failure, if it came out of the box and discussing prematurely about who is right or wrong doesn't fix the problem for someone with a problem.
Good bye
GermanPunisher said:
So you are relying on someone and a video who's not even saying in a single sentence (minute 3:38+), that the camera lense is made of glass, so you are lying and I'm relying on another video where someone 'really' said it's made of plastic, but you want to lecture me? It seems you are just a narcisst that thinks he's right, even if all you tell is a lie and don't even know it yourself. So I lecture you now to go to a psychologist and please hold yourself away from social people.
Even when I would search this one video of thousands wouldn't make it real or an unbearable fact, because we only could know if we test it for ourselves, but that wouldn't make any sense to me, because why should I show you the video if you already stated that you depend on your lie. It wouldn't change the reality, that the camera is really good, but it would make the fact that some people have black dots, corona shining etc. more explainable. The lense could have even made of transparent aluminium and it wouldn't make sense to argue about it or defend someone who said in a video it's made of plastic, glass or whatever. The fact is that some people have problems with it and it's a quality failure, if it came out of the box and discussing prematurely about who is right or wrong doesn't fix the problem for someone with a problem.
Good bye
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
less words, more proof
GermanPunisher said:
So you are relying on someone and a video who's not even saying in a single sentence (minute 3:38+), that the camera lense is made of glass, so you are lying and I'm relying on another video where someone 'really' said it's made of plastic, but you want to lecture me?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Last reply as I don't usual entertain people like you, here's 2 images, 1 of the plastic lens on the Priv, the other 1 of the glass lens on the Find X2 Pro, there's no shame in admitting you're incorrect, cheers.