- 12-03-2012, 10:10 AM #26
I'm starting to think the camera has better abilities than it is getting credit for. I took a few shots last night that I thought looked soft. I then retook them using the flash and they were really sharp, sharper than I had seen the camera take before. Also, the flash exposures looked really good. I tend to not like flash so I usually have it turned off.
I examined the exif data and noticed a faster shutter speed was used and ISO 100. I'm thinking the camera is favoring longer exposures since it has optical IS and applying aggressive noise reduction at higher ISOs. I think that can be tweaked in firmware and also through careful choice of composition and camera settings.
All in all, this phone will pull off a shot in conditions most would have a throw away (or no shot). This may be in part some of the phone is getting bad press.
Anyway, there is a reason I have an slr camera with lenses that cost more than the full price of this phone :).
- 12-03-2012, 02:08 PM #28
I'm really happy with the camera, not just for low-light but in capturing things that other cell phone cameras have had trouble with. For example I have a dark tortoiseshell cat that my previous cell phone cameras have had trouble capturing facial detail for, but when I just used all auto settings, no post-processing or flash or anything, my 920 was able to capture lots of detail in a close-up of her. Photos from previous cameras may have been a touch sharper, but her face always appeared darker and muddier, so I'll take that trade-off any day.
Full photo on Skydrive
- 12-03-2012, 11:47 PM #29
This is still a 1/3" sensor, (significantly) smaller than even the el-cheapo point and shoot cameras out there (1/2.3", generally). That, and by all accounts, Nokia hopelessly crippled the camera controls. Low light shooting is tricky enough with a proper camera, even something like a Panasonic LX7 is going to give grainy photos unless the person behind the controls knows what they are doing.
That being said, these pictures don't look bad...for what they are - cell phone pictures. Expecting miracles with a sensor as small as my infant son's fingernail and nearly 9 million pixels stuffed on it isn't terribly realistic. The very best of this generation's point and shoot cameras (Oly XZ-2, Panny LX7, Canon G15, Fuji X10), with ultra fast lenses and sensors five or six times larger than the Nokia 920's start breaking down above ISO 800.
12-04-2012, 12:38 AM #31
- 1,067 Posts
I actually think that the camera industry has been misleading people with the megapixel war for years now. They should have started advertising sensor sizes or pixels sizes instead of megapixel count. I feel like once we reached 5-6Mpix range, there was really no reason to go further up in megapixels, but rather enlarge the sensors. What they did was keep raising the megapixels count, but kept the sensor sizes pretty much the same...
As soon as they published the white paper on PV phase 2 I knew that we shouldn't expect anything above average .. considering the sensor size, there is only so much you can do, and for that.. Nokia did an amazing job in low light, at least in terms of exposure control.. the quality is still not very good, but that is to be expected.
As far as point&shoots.. I would take Nokia's phase 1 device over any of them. The only one that I would even consider is the Sony RX100, but that is still $650 and its only a.. camera.. with phase 1 you are paying $500 for a proper smartphone and a proper camera. The P&S industry is done.. at least at their current price points.. it reminds of the current state of the PC industry.
- 12-04-2012, 08:48 AM #34
No cell phone shooter outside of a Nokia 808 should have anything above 4MP. Even that is probably too high. People have no real understanding why their pictures are so flat. Well, when you have pixel size so ridiculously small, you pay a real penalty - as in, either you have a blue(ish) sky and shadow areas that look black, or shadow areas that can be seen (albeit as a noisy mess), and a blown out, all white sky.
I loved the cell phone pundits who declared the Titan II at 16MP had "the best camera" due to the increased pixel count. I laughed, and then I cringed when I read what they had to say. 16MP on a 1/3" sensor?!? Oh my...Then I got sad when I realized the masses bought that tripe.
I am hopeful Nokia combines the 920 body with the 808 shooter (I'll live with the bulge), and I think I'm going to hold out for the second generation of WP8 phones. I'm happy enough with my Focus S for now.
- 12-04-2012, 09:49 AM #37
It just seemed like far too many people thought they were carrying around a Canon 1DX in their pockets, instead of a cell phone with a couple of new tricks in its body.
- 12-04-2012, 09:58 AM #38
I wouldn't go so far as to say expectations are too high. There are obvious firmware flaws that are severely degrading the rendered jpegs in many conditions. You can see the difference in the live viewfinder and then watch the captured image turn bad.
I'd also personally prefer the camera software didn't try so hard to overexpose dark images and shadows. I think this tendency to overexpose kicks in when it shouldn't. But I wouldn't mind having it as an option to toggle.
- 12-04-2012, 10:09 AM #39
I would say that anybody who understands the basic tenets of photography knows what they are getting into. However, the masses who don't probably have some unrealistic expectations. This thread was built around images, which, while technically weren't that spectacular, still looked pretty darn good coming from a cell phone. Even with version 1 firmware.
Pulling shadows up on such a small sensor is going to be problematic at best. You are correct, the ability to turn off HDR will help.
You know what bothers me? The naming system. The fact that this model is "920", and not "1000" tells me that the phone we all *really* want is the next generation version. I have this sneaking suspicion that a Numia 1000 is just around the corner, with the real Pureview camera and a smoothed out and mature WP8 system behind it. I know, I know, you can always wait for the next, better model, but I'm still convinced that the next model in *this* case is going to be the one worth waiting for.
12-04-2012, 03:11 PM #40
- 91 Posts
I find it makes a huge difference if you take the picture by tapping the screen rather than using the camera button. Also, you need to hold the phone very lightly in your hand to let the OIS do the work. This is especially true in low light. In my experimentation with low light I got results just like yours until I got the hang of how to make it focus.
Also, keep in mind what you are focusing on. Images not in the focal plane will blur. You have to be especially careful when tapping the screen to capture as it will focus on what you tap.
That being said, I am blown away with the results of the camera compared to my iPhone 4 and my departmental Cannon Powershot camera at work. In close up mode I am able to dramatically outperform both devices. The comparison with the full Canon camera is especially pathetic.
- 12-04-2012, 04:09 PM #44
I for one have had MANY phones (Android, iOS and Blackberry), many of them top of the line and I can tell you that this Lumia has one of the best cameras around. The settings are a little lacking compared to others but nothing that future software updates can't handle but other than that, I was totally amazed by the pictures. It was one of the first things that made me sit up and take notice.
- 12-04-2012, 04:40 PM #46
People need to stop sugar coating the fact that the camera isn't as good in day light as the iPhone and that's what we want. At night its great but due to the sharpness issue the phone is handicapped
12-04-2012, 05:10 PM #48
- 3 Posts
I've owned ever version of the iPhone accept for the iPhone 5 and without question this camera blows the iPhone 4s away. The optical image stabilization is awesome. I've taken pics of my kids running that are nice and clear. Could never get that with my 4s. There isn't one person that I know even with a high end dslr camera, that doesn't make adjustments after they shoot in light room. Your smoking crack if u think a iPhone 5 doesn't need correcting after the fact.
- 12-05-2012, 01:20 AM #50
Edit: I exaggerate a looooot. Maybe 2 years?
- By sirwannabe in forum Phone WarsReplies: 5Last Post: 11-24-2012, 09:09 PM
- By herdofem in forum Samsung Focus 2Replies: 3Last Post: 08-03-2012, 04:26 PM
- By homegeek in forum The "Off Topic" LoungeReplies: 8Last Post: 12-23-2011, 06:25 PM