Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Nokia Launches Lumia 925 Advertisement Bashing iPhone Camera
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
That wasn't the point to my comment. The point to my comment was that when I want a smartphone I don't start by looking at the camera, and neither do most sane people. That's like buying a car based purely on the radio.
If the phone (more specifically the OS) wasn't a POS it would be another thing. I won't even get into the fact that I was burned on Nokia phones more than once back in the feature phone days, and I would never consider buying another.
And, BTW I have thousands of damn nice pics I've taken with my my iPhone's "crappy" camera.
Is this forum populated by twelve-year-olds?
This is such a huge problem on tech-related sites and forums: something that is perfectly great instantly becomes OMG TEH SUCKS when something even barely *incrementally* better comes out and all the tech kiddies go nuts about it.
It's a ridiculous statement to say "the iPhone camera sucks." The iPhone's camera has been pretty great for a couple of revisions now. It started getting solid with the 4, became pretty darn great with the 4S, and is that much better in the 5. Is it perfect? Of course not - none of these smartphone cameras are perfect. And it's likely that this Nokia has a camera that in at least some ways is better (and in some ways worse - and this commercial has several very suspect comparisons, but that doesn't mean there's not some merit to the Nokia camera). That's awesome, and good for Nokia, but that doesn't *invalidate* the quality of the iPhone's camera or make it "suck."
The iPhone 5's camera is absolutely one of the better smartphone cameras on the market. So are these new Nokias. The presence of one doesn't make the other SUCK SUCK SUCK OMG. The mere existence of the Nokia Whatever doesn't make the iPhone 5's camera terrible.
Grow up, tech nerds - they're both fine pieces of technology and perfectly valid on their own merits. They're all perfectly great smartphone cameras.
I guess a camera could be looked upon my some as the most important aspect of a modern phone, as long as it's "ok" in other respects.
You use the camera to record events in your life.
Next week, month, years, decades to come, the photo's will still be there to remind you of the event, but the phone will be long gone, and how many apps the phone had 10 years also means nothing.
The photo is the thing that will be with you forever, and cannot be recreated, the mobile will be long gone.
You use the camera to record events in your life.
Next week, month, years, decades to come, the photo's will still be there to remind you of the event, but the phone will be long gone, and how many apps the phone had 10 years also means nothing.
The photo is the thing that will be with you forever, and cannot be recreated, the mobile will be long gone.
First, that's not an old saying, it's by Chase Jarvis from 2009.
Second, as a photographer I completely disagree with that saying. It's one thing to be able to take photos at any time you want, but another to actually take good photos. That saying assumes that people have basic knowledge about composition, which they do not, since it's essentially saying that once you know how to compose a photograph then the type of camera you use will no longer matter.
Since most people don't know anything about composition, the question becomes which camera can take better photos without any effort at all. Between the PureView and the iPhone camera, the choice is clear for everything between lowlight to handheld video: Nokia currently has the best cameraphone out there.
Also, like you said, the best camera is the one you have with you. So why does it matter that more people own an iPhone over the Nokia? And how does that make an iPhone a better camera for a person who owns neither, or a person who owns an iPhone and recognizes the PureView camera to be leagues ahead of the iPhone camera?
The image comparison shows the Lumia version with more light absorption than the iPhone, but the colors look less natural. That's either due to a bad camera or due to Photoshop to light it up. The last time Nokia tried to slam Apple with their 'impressive' cameras they faked the whole thing. Let's wait what the reviewers will say about this attempt.
+1
Nikon's D800 is a 36 megapixel camera. Does that mean Nokia's 41 Megapixel camera captures more detail and information? Umm, I think not. The sensor plays a huge role. And, Nokia's or Apple's camera sensor pales in comparison to Nikon's full frame sensor. Only the gullible uninformed consumer would jump on the Nokia bandwagon.
iPhone's sensor size = 1/3.6. Nokia 1020 sensor size = 2/3.
Does Nokia's 1020 capture more detail and information? Umm.. yes.
The iPhone - an amazing phone with a pretty good camera
Nokia - an average (at best) phone with a damn good camera.
I think people woulds rather have the phone part doing a better job. If they want great photos they'll buy a camera. And the iPhone's camera is good enough for online posting of photos and the like and that's fine by me.
Nokia - an average (at best) phone with a damn good camera.
I think people woulds rather have the phone part doing a better job. If they want great photos they'll buy a camera. And the iPhone's camera is good enough for online posting of photos and the like and that's fine by me.
Blah, blah, blah. Have you taken your medication today?
What is that endless blather about, honestly? Nokia's ad was ridiculing Apple's claim that more people take photos with the iPhone than any other camera IN THE WORLD. Nokia somehow thinks that, just because they put an admittedly awesome camera on a crap phone it somehow nullifies Apple's point.
And it really makes no difference whether all of these people have the artistic bent that you seem to think you have (I'm a pretty damn good photographer myself, but I'm not quite so arrogant about it). They take more pictures with the iPhone because more people have the iPhone with them when picture opportunities come up. They have the iPhone with them because more people have the iPhone. More people have the iPhone because, all things balance they feel that it best suits their needs, overall.
Class dismissed.
Hehe, I think you mean mobile device, not phone. The iPhone phone part is the worst I've ever owned. But love the device!
See now that was a way better ad than the iPhone bashing. Still, I would rather invest in a DSL camera from Canon or Leica or any other reputable camera company. Yes this Nokia takes great pictures, but in the end you'll want to either upgrade it in about 2 or 3 years for the next great phone or keep it just for the camera and who knows what age will do to the camera function.
If that Nokia phone somehow ran with iOS I know for sure I would rather have that than the iphone5, iphone5c, etc...
I actually think this is a good ad. It's a good ad for Nokia cameras. For Windows Phone, not so much.
Since I plan on purchasing a new iPhone this round, I really would love to see a huge improvement in the iPhones low light and speed capabilities (slow mo 120fps for movies) over any jump in megapixels.
Then again, anything will be a huge leap from my 3GS.
Since I plan on purchasing a new iPhone this round, I really would love to see a huge improvement in the iPhones low light and speed capabilities (slow mo 120fps for movies) over any jump in megapixels.
Then again, anything will be a huge leap from my 3GS.
I agree 100%. What happens though is that other companies iterate quite often during the year with new models. Apple's single release per year creates the perception that the iPhone is old and stale. It's still a fantastic device. So are many other smartphones. But it's the ad firm's strategy to make it seem like what you have is outdated so you will want something new. That's their job.
The comparison photo is certainly nicer on the Nokia, however I am surprised the difference between f2.0 and f2.4, there shouldn't be that significant a difference in the lighting which suggests to me perhaps the Nokia one had some form of external lighting where the iPhone did not.