Nope. The issue with HDR is it's an added step to get a better image. If the 920 has that feature automatically turned on, then it's still a fair comparison because you're still comparing point and click with no added changes. This is after all an advertisement. There's no incentive for Nokia to go out of their way of highlighting the iPhone's features. The reality is you have to either try them both in person to see the difference, or base it on professional reviewers. Based on a lot of head to head reviews,the Nokia cameras a slight edge on quality photos. A lot could be done to massage the photo by manipulating the data, but based purely on hardware, the Nokia one is better. 4-5 years ago, Apple didn't have the highest pixel camera on the market. The market emphasized bigger and bigger megapixel, but Apple understood that lens size was a much bigger factor in photo quality. Now the competition understands that principle, and they're perfecting their devices. The 920, and 1020 have better hardware.
Yes, the best cameras are the ones you have with you. With that said, if you're a professional photographer (as in you're paid to do it for a living), you'll have your best real camera on you. Unless you work for the Chicago Tribune. It's great that they're comparing cameras, but realistically people look at the whole package, and like what you did, see what type of compromise they could accept. The Olloclip 3 is a compromise. The 920, or 1020 will appeal to hobbyist and photo-enthuse individuals out there, but they're going to weight the cost and benefits of the whole phone.
