IM not talking about phone cameras. The Lumia 1020 and the z1 are real camera technology put into phones. You can draw up conspiracies and fanboyisms all day. Sony has been making public pleasing cameras for a very long time. Now its subjective whether you like the Z1's to the Nokia's camera. I like the Nokia's but more than likely I will be in the minority. Nokia has and probably always will put great camera technology into their products.
A camera's a camera. When Sony releases the Xperia Z, especially with a tagline like "the best of Sony", it puts its reputation on the line. No point arguing whether the Xperia Z is a "phone camera" or Xperia Z1 is a "real camera". Both are Sony's flagship smartphones (of which Z1 is the successor). When the Xperia Z's camera is worst-in-class, it damages Sony's brand.
My point in bringing up the Z is to provide a counter-example to the mantra that "Sony makes great cameras" that its fanboys like to bring up no matter what the situation.
Latest example: When GSMArena quotes some unknown website (tbreak), showing blurry photos from 1020 and much better quality from Z. It doesn't matter if there was smudge on the 1020's lens, rather than expressing cautious skepticism, Sony-sheeple swamped the forums, nearly all saying the same thing:"move aside Nokia, Sony KNOWS HOW TO MAKE GREAT CAMERAS". Of course we now know the opposite is true after that website published an updated comparison done by a professional photographer. Too bad GSMArena conveniently closed the forum to spare these sheeple the embarrassment.
When Sony released that suspicious "paid-for independent study" showing 1020's image to be totally under-exposed, while the Z1 was the only one correctly exposed, again the Sony-sheeple came out in full force with that tired old mantra "Sony makes great cameras".
Nevermind that the 1020's images are strangely at odds with what is generally known about the device. Come on, with max ISO up to 4000, OIS, max shutter speed at 4 seconds (reasonably hand-holdable up to 0.5 - 1 second), aperture at f2.2, and that black image is all this "independent reviewer" can do? There are so many ways that such studies can be manipulated. Especially if financial motives are involved, after all, that so-called independent company must be aware that if their study shows 1020 being the best and Z1 being the worst, that study will (obviously) never be published, right? Heck, even I can make a DSLR look bad if I wanted to. Oh darn, my fingers just stained my DSLR lens! If you think that company won't risk its reputation, just bing that company's name, apparently they've been involved in some controversies before. And there is no consequence for dishonesty in the Age of Sheep, where emotional buying takes precedence over rationality, where lies if repeated many times get accepted as the truth, and when that dishonesty is eventually exposed it doesn't matter anymore because everybody is distracted by the next new exciting tech news.
Sony's sheeple mentality is nearly as entrenched as those from Apple's. It makes a broad assumption that Sony used to make good cameras therefore every camera made by Sony must be good. Sony supplies sensors to many camera manufacturers therefore it must have the best camera.
The obvious problem is, if Sony supplies sensors to Apple, Samsung, HTC, Nokia, then why was Xperia Z's camera worse than all of them? Was it because Sony sold the best sensors to competitors and reserved the worst ones for its own cameras? Hmm maybe that makes perfect sense considering its fanbase mentality.....
I'm not saying Sony doesn't make good cameras. I'm only objecting to the hype-to-quality ratio which is disproportionately high for Sony which results in fanboys making broad statements (variations of "Sony makes good cameras/sensors") without applying critical thinking. If a study is flawed, it is flawed period, don't cover it up by saying "Sony does make good cameras". I have a less charitable view of Sony's "paid-for independent study" - to me, that study, cloaked by semblance of independence and analytical seriousness, is potentially downright dishonest, borderline fraudulent, and it makes me question Sony's integrity.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram