What are you trying to say ? That Nokia cameras are praised for no reason.. I am just curious.It was the Nokia of pictures. Average in it's nature but praised for no reason.
^ the difference b/w the 920 and 8x can't be huge .. they are both shooting at 1.4 micron pixels, so therefore the difference it quality won't be that big.. considering that most of the other components are "good enough" in both phones.
Where the 920 will excel compared to the 8x is in low light(longer exposures), and in video (OIS)/sound recording.. both by a pretty good margin.
Low light and Video are both functions of a camera. So they are both very much so included in the discussion of the quality of a camera.
So the 920 camera is FAR better.
This picture is taken with the 920? If so why are people complaining about day light photo this looks great
Overall.. yes, I would say its better than the 8x/ativ.. but I am not so sure if its better in daylight still photography, we will find out soon I guess. Even if it isn't the difference will be very small.So the 920 camera is FAR better.
Actually.. that apples to all smartphones, except one.. so, I am not surprised at all.It's exactly like the Lumia 900. Nice color and looks good from a distance, but at regular viewing or computer viewing, there's a morbid lack of detail. It looks like a very high quality 3MP camera instead of an 8MP.
Nope, its not edited. You can read the EXIF info on both the skydrive and flikr links to see that its not; both were done with default settings.Is that edited in anyway? I am really starting to worry about the quality of the camera on the L920. However, those two shots taken from the L920 on your Flickr look great.
I'm still waiting for more examples before I jump from my iPhone 5.
That would be a combination between the optics and the auto focus.. my guess. Some of their Nokia N8s had the same issue.also, i am noting a slight blur in the left region of the pictures.