7 ms·

They ruined the design of the old Lumia for the benefit of a better camera. Who's really clamoring for that? And who's willing to pay $299.99 with 2 year contra

by ebbv 13y ago

They ruined the design of the old Lumia for the benefit of a better camera. Who's really clamoring for that? And who's willing to pay $299.99 with 2 year contract for it? Nokia really doesn't know what they're doing.

mmanfrin 13y ago
It's not about the camera, it's about presenting Nokia as a producer of a premium phone, so that other versions of Nokia look better in comparison. No one cares about Windows Phone, but when Nokia makes headlines for 41-megapixels, the general populace that doesn't really get that they don't need 41-megapixels will nevertheless notice, and think 'wow, that is a lot, does my iPhone have that?'. 99.9% of people who will buy this phone will never have a need for 41 megapixels. But they'll buy it just the same.
- jcarney 13y ago
  >99.9% of people who will buy this phone will never have a need for 41 megapixels. But they'll buy it just the same. The tech does make normal pictures look better because of the oversampling. Not to mention optical image stabilization for reducing blur and shake in both image and video. http://i.imgur.com/fUe8rLC.png http://i.imgur.com/fUe8rLC.png
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
- slantyyz 13y ago
  >> 99.9% of people who will buy this phone will never have a need for 41 megapixels. Nokia's really screwing up the messaging on this, as people are fixating on the megapixel count -- they are missing the forest for the trees. The best images you will get out of this phone will actually be the oversampled images, which have significantly fewer megapixels.
  - meerita 13y ago
    41 megapixels can't be nice on a crappy sensor and lenses system. 41 megapixels would be interesting on a real camera unless someone wants to print oversampled stuff.
    - slantyyz 13y ago
      You don't need to print to see the improvements the oversampled images provide. You should see much cleaner images, especially in low light. These are noticeable even at Facebook level resolutions. Anyone who has used a real camera would know that.
      - drdaeman 13y ago
        There's completely no point in such sensor if lens are not providing equally high resolution image too. Unless you're into shooting Airy disks (though, I don't think the phone will provide raw sensor data). That is, the whole 41MP thing is, mostly, PR bullshit.
        slantyyz 13y ago
        Well, this camera's spiritual predecessor, the 808 seemed to shoot high megapixel images just fine. The Verge's 100% crops of the 34MP images look fine to me. http://www.theverge.com/2012/6/25/3113460/nokia-808-pureview-review http://www.theverge.com/2012/6/25/3113460/nokia-808-pureview... edit: DPReview gave the 808's camera and IQ a glowing review also. http://www.dpreview.com/articles/8083837371/review-nokia-808-pureview http://www.dpreview.com/articles/8083837371/review-nokia-808...
  - mmanfrin 13y ago
    Nokia's really screwing up the messaging on this, as people are fixating on the megapixel count HTC has been trying to push the message you suggest with the camera on the HTC One, and while the One is a great device and (I think) doing well for HTC, no one is really talking about their camera -- even though it is a superior camera to most other phones. Megapixels are like Clock Speed was a decade ago: there are more important stats to look at, but consumers just see the one number. I'm not making any judgement, I'm just saying the point of 41 megapixels isn't to give consumers a huge picture, it's to give them a reason to buy the phone.
revaaron 13y ago
If I could get this on an Android phone, I'd probably go for it. I'd really like a camera on my phone which wasn't next to useless.
- TylerE 13y ago
  The problem with phone cameras (mostly) ins't the sensor, it's the glass, or lack there-of.
  - slantyyz 13y ago
    >> The problem with phone cameras (mostly) ins't the sensor, it's the glass, or lack there-of. Is that a problem with the camera or the user's expectations of what that camera can do? You can only push the laws of physics (with respect to optics, especially) so far, and if you want a camera that can fit in the pocket of a pair of skinny jeans, compromises must be made.
    - TylerE 13y ago
      Sure. My point is this is the _worst_ kind of spec padding.
      - slantyyz 13y ago
        >> My point is this is the _worst_ kind of spec padding. How so? This is actually the first officially announced smartphone (I also have a keen interest in the upcoming Sony i1, but it's not a reality yet) that I'd consider buying just for the camera. Personally, I think Nokia has taken an interesting approach with the sensor, because the added resolution gives them leeway in overcoming the optics problem (from a focal length perspective, at least) in that the "digital zoom" will produce better results than any other phone.
    - reeses 13y ago
      There's still a lot of room to push the laws of physics, although I'm not sure glass is the answer. I think manufacturing tolerances will be the biggest limit for inexpensive handsets. If I play (hah!) stupid, I look at the flange distance and lens size for an SLR of any sort and compare it to a mirrorless camera such as the M9 or even NEX-7, I can get much higher quality on the same or smaller sensor with smaller lenses, especially in the normal field of view. This is purely based on that big empty space in the SLR. The main thing we'll have to give up is an expectation of a shallow depth of field, but "f/8 and be there" is why camera phones are useful anyway. I've been impressed with the sapphire lens on the iPhone 5, all things considered. It's not what I would call a good camera, but perhaps coupled with a high-density sensor with an alternative pixel structure[1] and microlenses, it would not be unreasonable to expect 2013 "full frame" image quality in a mobile device in 2-5 years. I don't want to burn my fingers trying to capture 4k raw video on my phone. Heat dissipation will become an issue, as it is on HDSLRs and MILCs. [1] For example, http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=it&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fegami.blog.so-net.ne.jp%2F2013-06-25 http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=n&pre...
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
dntrkv 13y ago
The camera is definitely the most used app on my phone. I would say it's the same for about 50-70% of my friends.
- moheeb 13y ago
  I find that hard to believe. Nearly everyone I see using a phone is txting.
  - ksk 13y ago
    I think he might be on to something. Instagram/Tweeting pictures of random stuff is quite big.
  - dntrkv 13y ago
    I don't text nearly as much as I used to. Most of my friends communicate using either Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, Vine, and our recent, biggest replacement for texting, Snapchat.
hosay123 13y ago
Hmm, there was a time when function was occasionally considered over form.. The phone is hardly ruined, it's just a high end handset for people in a particular niche, one I happen to belong to (long gave up carrying real cameras, don't give two heaps about Android/pointless OS wars or "mobile apps" or any of that crap, adore the notion of a reasonably high end camera that requires zero effort to bring with me). Design is often about trade-offs, and based on the parent comment, you seem to have entirely missed the point of this particular design.
vanderZwan 13y ago
I am clamoring for that. A smartphone that combines the best of the 808 pureview[1] sensor and the improvements of the Lumia 920 like image stabilization and better dynamic range[2]? Yes please. Also, I'm in Europe so don't need to worry about US contract woes. [1] http://www.dpreview.com/articles/8083837371/review-nokia-808-pureview http://www.dpreview.com/articles/8083837371/review-nokia-808... [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LbvhZ-Mq4aQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LbvhZ-Mq4aQ
- mtgx 13y ago
  In Europe you have to worry about this being close to 1000 euro, unlocked, which is what its price will be.
  - halviti 13y ago
    I paid this for the 920, huge disappointment.
  - vanderZwan 13y ago
    True. Worst part is that in the long run combined with the right contract, that's still a cheaper option. Phones tied to contracts are scams.
rgulati 13y ago
Err what? They're not discontinuing the old Lumias. The Lumia 920 will still be sold on AT&T, Lumia 928 on Verizon and Lumia 925 on Tmobile. Samsung and Motorola phones have been regularly selling for $299.99 with contract.
Recoil42 13y ago
The camera is without a doubt, the most important part of my phone. I use it at least a dozen times a day. I'd absolutely pay $300 for a phone with a good enough camera. Unfortunately, I'm not going to do that AND switch to Windows Phone. But given an Android or iOS device with this exact hardware? I'd 100% grab one of these.
- hbharadwaj 13y ago
  Without sounding like a fan boy, I would actually recommend you to go give WP a try. I am not going to say it's better than iOS for lacking quality apps but it's way better than my Nexus 4. Android to me is the poorest OS amidst the 3.
  - barista 13y ago
    second that. If you are saying that after using Windows Phone then I respect it but I won't write off windows phone without giving it a shot. Take this from someone who has tried iPhone for a year before moving to Windows Phone.
  - Recoil42 13y ago
    I've actually given it a shot. It's a fine OS, no debate there, but the app market is key for me.
smackfu 13y ago
> And who's willing to pay $299.99 with 2 year contract for it? It's got 32GB of storage, so it matches the iPhone 5 price at that size.
papsosouid 13y ago
>Who's really clamoring for that? Me. It is absolutely absurd that I have to carry around a separate phone and camera.

by ebbv 13y ago

mmanfrin 13y ago

It's not about the camera, it's about presenting Nokia as a producer of a premium phone, so that other versions of Nokia look better in comparison. No one cares about Windows Phone, but when Nokia makes headlines for 41-megapixels, the general populace that doesn't really get that they don't need 41-megapixels will nevertheless notice, and think 'wow, that is a lot, does my iPhone have that?'. 99.9% of people who will buy this phone will never have a need for 41 megapixels. But they'll buy it just the same.

jcarney 13y ago
>99.9% of people who will buy this phone will never have a need for 41 megapixels. But they'll buy it just the same. The tech does make normal pictures look better because of the oversampling. Not to mention optical image stabilization for reducing blur and shake in both image and video. http://i.imgur.com/fUe8rLC.png http://i.imgur.com/fUe8rLC.png
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
slantyyz 13y ago
>> 99.9% of people who will buy this phone will never have a need for 41 megapixels. Nokia's really screwing up the messaging on this, as people are fixating on the megapixel count -- they are missing the forest for the trees. The best images you will get out of this phone will actually be the oversampled images, which have significantly fewer megapixels.
- meerita 13y ago
  41 megapixels can't be nice on a crappy sensor and lenses system. 41 megapixels would be interesting on a real camera unless someone wants to print oversampled stuff.
  - slantyyz 13y ago
    You don't need to print to see the improvements the oversampled images provide. You should see much cleaner images, especially in low light. These are noticeable even at Facebook level resolutions. Anyone who has used a real camera would know that.
    - drdaeman 13y ago
      There's completely no point in such sensor if lens are not providing equally high resolution image too. Unless you're into shooting Airy disks (though, I don't think the phone will provide raw sensor data). That is, the whole 41MP thing is, mostly, PR bullshit.
      - slantyyz 13y ago
        Well, this camera's spiritual predecessor, the 808 seemed to shoot high megapixel images just fine. The Verge's 100% crops of the 34MP images look fine to me. http://www.theverge.com/2012/6/25/3113460/nokia-808-pureview-review http://www.theverge.com/2012/6/25/3113460/nokia-808-pureview... edit: DPReview gave the 808's camera and IQ a glowing review also. http://www.dpreview.com/articles/8083837371/review-nokia-808-pureview http://www.dpreview.com/articles/8083837371/review-nokia-808...
- mmanfrin 13y ago
  Nokia's really screwing up the messaging on this, as people are fixating on the megapixel count HTC has been trying to push the message you suggest with the camera on the HTC One, and while the One is a great device and (I think) doing well for HTC, no one is really talking about their camera -- even though it is a superior camera to most other phones. Megapixels are like Clock Speed was a decade ago: there are more important stats to look at, but consumers just see the one number. I'm not making any judgement, I'm just saying the point of 41 megapixels isn't to give consumers a huge picture, it's to give them a reason to buy the phone.

revaaron 13y ago

If I could get this on an Android phone, I'd probably go for it. I'd really like a camera on my phone which wasn't next to useless.

TylerE 13y ago
The problem with phone cameras (mostly) ins't the sensor, it's the glass, or lack there-of.
- slantyyz 13y ago
  >> The problem with phone cameras (mostly) ins't the sensor, it's the glass, or lack there-of. Is that a problem with the camera or the user's expectations of what that camera can do? You can only push the laws of physics (with respect to optics, especially) so far, and if you want a camera that can fit in the pocket of a pair of skinny jeans, compromises must be made.
  - TylerE 13y ago
    Sure. My point is this is the _worst_ kind of spec padding.
    - slantyyz 13y ago
      >> My point is this is the _worst_ kind of spec padding. How so? This is actually the first officially announced smartphone (I also have a keen interest in the upcoming Sony i1, but it's not a reality yet) that I'd consider buying just for the camera. Personally, I think Nokia has taken an interesting approach with the sensor, because the added resolution gives them leeway in overcoming the optics problem (from a focal length perspective, at least) in that the "digital zoom" will produce better results than any other phone.
  - reeses 13y ago
    There's still a lot of room to push the laws of physics, although I'm not sure glass is the answer. I think manufacturing tolerances will be the biggest limit for inexpensive handsets. If I play (hah!) stupid, I look at the flange distance and lens size for an SLR of any sort and compare it to a mirrorless camera such as the M9 or even NEX-7, I can get much higher quality on the same or smaller sensor with smaller lenses, especially in the normal field of view. This is purely based on that big empty space in the SLR. The main thing we'll have to give up is an expectation of a shallow depth of field, but "f/8 and be there" is why camera phones are useful anyway. I've been impressed with the sapphire lens on the iPhone 5, all things considered. It's not what I would call a good camera, but perhaps coupled with a high-density sensor with an alternative pixel structure[1] and microlenses, it would not be unreasonable to expect 2013 "full frame" image quality in a mobile device in 2-5 years. I don't want to burn my fingers trying to capture 4k raw video on my phone. Heat dissipation will become an issue, as it is on HDSLRs and MILCs. [1] For example, http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=it&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fegami.blog.so-net.ne.jp%2F2013-06-25 http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=n&pre...

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

dntrkv 13y ago

The camera is definitely the most used app on my phone. I would say it's the same for about 50-70% of my friends.

moheeb 13y ago
I find that hard to believe. Nearly everyone I see using a phone is txting.
- ksk 13y ago
  I think he might be on to something. Instagram/Tweeting pictures of random stuff is quite big.
- dntrkv 13y ago
  I don't text nearly as much as I used to. Most of my friends communicate using either Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, Vine, and our recent, biggest replacement for texting, Snapchat.

hosay123 13y ago

Hmm, there was a time when function was occasionally considered over form.. The phone is hardly ruined, it's just a high end handset for people in a particular niche, one I happen to belong to (long gave up carrying real cameras, don't give two heaps about Android/pointless OS wars or "mobile apps" or any of that crap, adore the notion of a reasonably high end camera that requires zero effort to bring with me). Design is often about trade-offs, and based on the parent comment, you seem to have entirely missed the point of this particular design.

vanderZwan 13y ago

I am clamoring for that. A smartphone that combines the best of the 808 pureview[1] sensor and the improvements of the Lumia 920 like image stabilization and better dynamic range[2]? Yes please. Also, I'm in Europe so don't need to worry about US contract woes. [1] http://www.dpreview.com/articles/8083837371/review-nokia-808-pureview http://www.dpreview.com/articles/8083837371/review-nokia-808... [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LbvhZ-Mq4aQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LbvhZ-Mq4aQ

mtgx 13y ago
In Europe you have to worry about this being close to 1000 euro, unlocked, which is what its price will be.
- halviti 13y ago
  I paid this for the 920, huge disappointment.
- vanderZwan 13y ago
  True. Worst part is that in the long run combined with the right contract, that's still a cheaper option. Phones tied to contracts are scams.

rgulati 13y ago

Err what? They're not discontinuing the old Lumias. The Lumia 920 will still be sold on AT&T, Lumia 928 on Verizon and Lumia 925 on Tmobile. Samsung and Motorola phones have been regularly selling for $299.99 with contract.

Recoil42 13y ago

The camera is without a doubt, the most important part of my phone. I use it at least a dozen times a day. I'd absolutely pay $300 for a phone with a good enough camera. Unfortunately, I'm not going to do that AND switch to Windows Phone. But given an Android or iOS device with this exact hardware? I'd 100% grab one of these.

hbharadwaj 13y ago
Without sounding like a fan boy, I would actually recommend you to go give WP a try. I am not going to say it's better than iOS for lacking quality apps but it's way better than my Nexus 4. Android to me is the poorest OS amidst the 3.
- barista 13y ago
  second that. If you are saying that after using Windows Phone then I respect it but I won't write off windows phone without giving it a shot. Take this from someone who has tried iPhone for a year before moving to Windows Phone.
- Recoil42 13y ago
  I've actually given it a shot. It's a fine OS, no debate there, but the app market is key for me.

smackfu 13y ago

> And who's willing to pay $299.99 with 2 year contract for it? It's got 32GB of storage, so it matches the iPhone 5 price at that size.

papsosouid 13y ago

>Who's really clamoring for that? Me. It is absolutely absurd that I have to carry around a separate phone and camera.