Is the camera a deal breaker for anyone?

[PhilR8]

I would never rely on a smartphone camera to capture "special moments", that's what a DSLR is for.

This argument is so tired. Give it a rest.

 

[PhilR8]

absolutely not. I knew what I was getting into as far as the camera goes before I got my Lumia so it's not a deal breaker.

Anyone thats disappointed, you simply didn't do your homework.

This is also a silly argument. It's not about "homework" - it's about a breach of trust between Nokia and its customers. Do you "Like" Nokia on Facebook? I do, and on a daily basis Nokia posts about how the camera on the 900 is awesome. They continue to advertise that the camera is a strength when clearly even you JD, a mean-spirited ******, knows that the camera is poor. And yet, you're so blinded by your love of Nokia that your reaction is to blame us, the customer, for trusting Nokia. "Read the reviews, you should've known the camera was crappy. Deal with it and buy a DSLR."

This is not how you attract customers. This is how you alienate them. Promise a new, exciting user experience that includes a great camera. This will surely attract iOS users, right? Then they buy the device, notice the camera is not as good as the camera on the 4S, and your response, JD, is to say, "your fault, you should've know the camera was bad." That customer is now going to return the 900, go back to the iPhone, and never look back.

 

[JPDVM2014]

The camera is more than adequate for me. Yes, it isn't the best, but it is better than my Trophy. I am no photographer by any means, so maybe my standards aren't that high. But the pics of the dog look fine to me. All I want is pics to put on facebook/twitter. I guess if I was printing them out it would be a different story.

 

[Alex Rodriguez Jr.]

I think the timing of the flash is off... It feels wrong. Also, I feel as though the camera doesn't focus properly. Both can be fixed with software updates - hopefully they come.

 

[N8ter]

I would never rely on a smartphone camera to capture "special moments", that's what a DSLR is for.

Makes 0 sense.

Yep, let's run around everywhere with a DSLR when a smartphone can get the job done. Nevermind that's 1 more device you have to carry around.

The issue is not that he's using a smartphone. The issue is that the smartphone he's using has a crappy camera. He's not the only one. Us HD7 and DVP users had to deal with the same issues, as did users on other platforms (remember the G2's crappy camera, Lulz).

A phone with a good camera is good enough. I'm suprised people are actually still fumbling with the "that's what a DSLR is for" retorts, though. Thought that died out in late 2010.

It's already been proven that good smartphone cameras (iPhone 4/4S, Nokia N8, etc.) can deliver fantastic results for prosumers without the need to carry around a [bulky in some cases] DSLR.

 

[N8ter]

Here are some examples of indoor pictures.

As you can see my dogs is pretty pissed that the camera sucks too..

Look at how much background noise there is. I am not in the dark, this is during the day and it comes out pretty bad..

They are running the Camera Beta Test commercials right now, i saw it a bunch of times and cant help myself from cringing when the guy goes "even in low light settings"...

Those some of the noisiest pictures I've ever seen come out of a highMP cell phone camera, especially one that was raved for having good camera hardware in the marketing (Carl Zeiss this and that, etc.). It's actually worse than the HD7 since that phone tends to produce less noisey images and both of them seem to have bad white balance.

My iPod Touch's 0.7MP camera doesn't even produce still images that noisey.

 

[Thuoudo]

A bigger sensor is simply better with regards to low noise. A bigger lens is simply better at gathering light. Pixel density and sensor efficiency matter.

As of right now, there is "no replacement for displacement." Even the PureView, at full size and using all 41 million interpolated pixels, shows noise in low light shots.

Now on the thread title: No, not to me. When I take pictures with my phones, I know they will be terrible and it's a "something is better than nothing" situation. Would a better camera be welcome? Absolutely. But I already have a real camera.

 

[jimmyjunk30]

This is honestly driving me nuts guys. Been killing myself trying to figure out what to do. If it wasnt for my daughter I wouldnt care as much, but really want to be able to snap good impromptu pictures of her.

At this point I think Im going to return the L900, as much as it pains me, and get a Titan II.

I wonder if I will be able to keep my 100 dollar discount if I return the L900?

 

[N8ter]

A bigger sensor is simply better with regards to low noise. A bigger lens is simply better at gathering light. Pixel density and sensor efficiency matter.

As of right now, there is "no replacement for displacement." Even the PureView, at full size and using all 41 million interpolated pixels, shows noise in low light shots.

Now on the thread title: No, not to me. When I take pictures with my phones, I know they will be terrible and it's a "something is better than nothing" situation. Would a better camera be welcome? Absolutely. But I already have a real camera.

I know this. But it's noticeably noisey than the pictures I get out of my HD7 at similar light levels in addition to havins some of the same (or what looks like the same) white balance issues (though the HD7 is a bit worse off there).

Additionally, no one should buy a smartphone knowing the pictures will be terrible. Terrible cameras on smartphones are quickly becoming a showstopper. There are a number of high-end Android phones with amazing Cameras, the iPhones have amazing cameras. Some Nokia Symbian phones have amazing cameras, and ofc most of Sony's devices have really good to amazing cameras. I've seen 3.2MP cameras from years ago that take better pictures, and they didn't have DSLR sensors on them, I know that for a fact...

The pictures I replied to are worse quality than any smartphone I've owned in the past 2-3 years. It's bordering on unacceptable and only usable for someone who barely uses the camera on their phone (and that's a shrinking number as people continue to aggressively consolidate functionality into as few devices as possible).

You can walk into almost any carrier store and find at last 1 phone with an amazing camera these days, if that's a biggie for you. Those pictures are terribad. They're worse than the output from the Blackberry Bold 9780 5MP Camera that I used to use.

I heard the video quality wasn't anything to rave about either, and that's usually where showstoppers appear for me (since I use my smartphone to capture video for analysis on my PC, but I use my iTouch for that right now since the HD7 isn't good enough quality). That camera isn't acceptable for me, though, nor is the illogical suggestion that people should expect a terrible camera on a smartphone - in an era where amazing smartphone camers are popping up left and right and there is industry-wide emphasis on improving them.

That means while you're content with your terrible camera, other people are seeing that output and noticing 85% of the smartphone commercials raving about new camera technology/software/etc. It's very competitive and cameras is one area where companies are competing very hard right now. A lot of people buy iPhones because the camera is amazing, BTW.

 

[N8ter]

I've only heard good things about the Titan II camera, though, and last time I tried it in the AT&T store it performed well (emailed the pics to myself and looked at them on the PC screen) considering the light level in the mall store I went to wasn't perfect.

 

[Thuoudo]

But that's the thing--as of right now, there's only a handful of "really good" phone cameras. Innovation will continue, but the reality is you need a 4S, N8, Titan II, etc.

I'm not excusing the 900's camera. It should be better (that f/2.2 CZ lens alone...man...) though it's not a deal breaker to me. To go off-topic a bit, the 900's deal breakers are the QC issues, SIM tray fitment, and imprecise screen.

In all likelihood, I don't hold camera phones in a high regard because I am a photography enthusiast. I also spend hours a day fixing cell phone pictures and explaining to people why the pics look not very good...

 

[tekhna]

God, these photos are just noisy garbage. How did Nokia let this thing into the wild?

The apologist arguments are so tired. The iPhone 4 came out almost TWO full year ago, and Nokia can't release something even marginally competitive? Samsung's cameras have been awesome for a while now, even on WP7 (Focus S) HTC stepped up their game in the fall, and the new One series is even better.

http://www.engadget.com/photos/htc-one-x-sample-shots/#4932904

Soo.. yeah. That's a pretty brutal comparison if you look at the One X.

 

[freestaterocker]

They are running the Camera Beta Test commercials right now, i saw it a bunch of times and cant help myself from cringing when the guy goes "even in low light settings"...

Yeah... Imo they're just setting themselves up for failure with that one. Funny commercial.

 

[johnburkhard]

You're getting getting the phone for $99.. and the camera works fine, and can produce amazing shots if you learn how to adjust your settings and stop relying on auto everything like a sheep.

Sent from my Lumia 900 using Board Express

 

[feedmylittletroll]

God, these photos are just noisy garbage. How did Nokia let this thing into the wild?

The apologist arguments are so tired. The iPhone 4 came out almost TWO full year ago, and Nokia can't release something even marginally competitive? Samsung's cameras have been awesome for a while now, even on WP7 (Focus S) HTC stepped up their game in the fall, and the new One series is even better.

HTC One X sample shots - Engadget Galleries

Soo.. yeah. That's a pretty brutal comparison if you look at the One X.

Its pretty obvious a lot of those pictures are taken with HDR turned on. Not that I am discrediting the camera on the OneX/S but there not just low light pictures without any photo editing

 

[tekhna]

Its pretty obvious a lot of those pictures are taken with HDR turned on. Not that I am discrediting the camera on the OneX/S but there not just low light pictures without any photo editing

Look at the amount of noise in those low-light One X photos vs. 900 photos. That has nothing to do with HDR.

 

[joeaux]

LOL. This is great. It's a phone. You need a good camera, get a camera. Sheesh.
-joe-

 

[cp2_4eva]

Some people want it all. Lol. I wouldn't feel so bad if the commercial didn't specifically say it took good pics even in low light situations. I'm going to sue for false advertisement. Lol.

Sent from my Lumia 900 using Board Express

 

[Mister_RnB]

Here's a thought

its been stated that the lumia 900 has the exact same hardware as the lumia 800. if you look here in this thread http://forums.windowscentral.com/lumia-800/185412.htm . you will see that this hardware is capable of fantastic shots. i think theres hope

 

[tekhna]

LOL. This is great. It's a phone. You need a good camera, get a camera. Sheesh.
-joe-

I was at the Monterey Bay Aquarium the other day. Everybody was taking pictures, constantly. I saw maybe three non-phone cameras being used, and they were DSLRs. The fact is that high-end smartphones have rendered point and shoot cameras obsolete, just like they made the stand-alone GPS and PMP obsolete, and Nokia needs to be able compete.

And when you can take pictures like this with a phone (HTC Rezound), why do you need a camera? 99% of the time, your phone is good enough. Definitely some noise, definitely not a pro photo, but more than good enough for me to leave my camera at home, collecting dust.