I want to love my 920...but I am just not that satisfied with its camera. Anyone else?

Davidkoh

New member
Oct 3, 2012
135
0
0
Visit site
What settings do u usually use for low lights? Like during the christmas tree lightings in night

In low light I usually snap a picture at ISO 400, Exposure 1/3 and leave mode at Auto (unless im doing a close up) and see the result. Depending on how that looks I might change some settings. Basically I try to walk on the line between noise due to higher ISO and overexposure. I suck at taking photos but I can get them to turn out decently by not just relying on auto for everything.
 

Emcee

New member
Nov 10, 2012
43
0
0
Visit site
i find the AF is a fail and all pictures come out blurry. hope nokia fixes this asap

Try only taking pictures by tapping the screen. I've had my best results that way.

In low light I usually snap a picture at ISO 400, Exposure 1/3 and leave mode at Auto (unless im doing a close up) and see the result. Depending on how that looks I might change some settings. Basically I try to walk on the line between noise due to higher ISO and overexposure. I suck at taking photos but I can get them to turn out decently by not just relying on auto for everything.

Also, if there's movement try a negative exposure. I found the lights at a concert more than adequate, but the movement was blurring the shot on 0.
 

Jmaxim

Banned
Nov 13, 2012
32
0
0
Visit site
I just got my Lumia 920 last week. So far, I really like the device. I chose it over the 8X because of the PureView camera (after MUCH research), but I'm just not that satisfied with the photos it takes. Does anyone else agree, or do I have a defective device? Here are some test shots.

https://skydrive.live.com/redir?resid=171F5289DE6422C5!446&authkey=!ALlx7vr51lyKEyw
(Under incandescent kitchen lighting. Complete loss of sharpness/detail).

https://skydrive.live.com/redir?resid=171F5289DE6422C5!477&authkey=!ADi2p5y-wS1kIyE
(Fluorescent lighting. Loss of sharpness, detail, and color saturation.)

https://skydrive.live.com/redir?resid=171F5289DE6422C5!444&authkey=!AH63oo5bxvSZTyE
(Testing out the low light. I took this shot several times with different settings. This was the best of the bunch (a small lamp lit the room).

So....what do you think. Anyone else agree? I had an iPhone 4 before this. The camera was 5.0 megapixels. It did not do that well in low light, but it took photos that were generally much higher quality than this, in my opinion (more detail, sharpness, and color accuracy).

I'm having the same problem with the camera, matter of fact I have no confidence in it. I believe my BB Storm 9550 took much better pictures. The majority of the pics that are posted on here taken by the camera are washed out and or hazy. And if there are lights involved for example, Xmas lights, forget it, the camera gets very confused. These are the same pics some describe as amazing. With that said, I will be keeping my 920 because I like it that much. Will just not continue to be the photographer I once was. :smile: I certainly understand what you are going through.
 

michail71

New member
Nov 29, 2012
1,822
0
0
Visit site
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 :).
 

justsimpleinfo

New member
Dec 2, 2012
22
0
0
Visit site
Great Video. I am debating on if I want to get the 920.... Dev version. So I can use it on T Mo, that video is great, it means I will be able to take some great Videos of my kids.
 

karmamule

New member
Jun 24, 2012
190
0
0
Visit site
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.


Spiffy.jpg


Full photo on Skydrive
 

sarlo100

New member
Nov 9, 2012
7
0
0
Visit site
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.
 

anon(5370748)

New member
Nov 12, 2012
562
0
0
Visit site
I love the camera in the 920. I think it's great for a cellie, and the low-light capabilities allow me to capture things I haven't been able to with other phones in situations where I can't have or don't want to have any of my "real" cameras.
 

vlad0

New member
Oct 9, 2012
1,069
0
0
Visit site
This is still a 1/3" sensor, (significantly) smaller than even the el-cheapo point and shoot cameras out there (1/2.3", generally).
Spot on.. with the current imaging tech, the most important factor is the sensor size, which is directly related to pixel size.. the bigger the sensor, the bigger the pixels, more photons collected.. better image quality. Of course, that is very roughly put.. but generally that is the way.

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.
 

sarlo100

New member
Nov 9, 2012
7
0
0
Visit site
.
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...

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.

The megapixel war was outright destructive, not merely a disservice. You are absolutely right, the pixel count for any P&S should have been capped at 6MP, and each generation should have worked on a cleaner, larger sensor and/or a faster lens - which is the current "in vogue" thing. At least the faster lenses are useful, as opposed to what they were doing - stuffing 16MP onto a sensor the size of half a postage stamp. The Fuji F31 was as good as it got for (P&S) high ISO shooting (which, in reality, wasn't all that good), and it still took the industry years before they even matched the F31 at anything above ISO 400 because of the insane MP war.

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.
 

contributorM

New member
Nov 20, 2012
41
0
0
Visit site
I'm more than satisfied. My only gripe is that I can't manually adjust the aperture settings. But with all my low light tests, the Lumia has done incredibly well.
 

sarlo100

New member
Nov 9, 2012
7
0
0
Visit site
This is not a DSLR.

Other than an 808, what phone has a better camera?

That's pretty much the point. It's not even a P&S, either. Expectations need to be managed. The 920 does excel against its direct competition in low light, and will even more so when Nokia adds back some control over settings in the next firmware update. Daylight shooting was always going to be problematic due to the limits of the sensor. 8 or more million pixels on this size sensor was always going to yield mediocre results.

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.
 

michail71

New member
Nov 29, 2012
1,822
0
0
Visit site
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.
 

sarlo100

New member
Nov 9, 2012
7
0
0
Visit site
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.
 

Ben Lehtovaara

New member
Nov 15, 2012
91
0
0
Visit site
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.
 

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
322,916
Messages
2,242,890
Members
428,005
Latest member
rogertewarte