I back a Nokia against an iPhone in some sort of physical stress test absolutely any day of the week.
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
I back a Nokia against an iPhone in some sort of physical stress test absolutely any day of the week.
no instagram on windows phone still...
hipsters won't buy it
----------
i have had recent experience that would not go your way
hipsters won't buy it
----------
i have had recent experience that would not go your way
I'm a professional photographer as well and along with being a professional comes knowledge. I know that Zeiss is not a cheap branch making poor lenses. In fact, Zeiss is well known for making high-end lenses and well known their expertise. Zeiss helped building camera's for NASA for the first moon landing and world famous director Stanley Kunrick used Zeiss lenses for shooting the first candlelights on celluloid without the use of artificial lighting in Barry Lyndon. The list goes on, knowing that Zeiss started two centuries ago it's a rhetorical question when one ask him or herself if Zeiss would be the right choice for collaboration making new good quality lenses for a mobile device.
But I'm sure you knew that being a professional photographer yourself.
You state the lenses are made of $10,- of plastic. Besides the slightly hysterical aspect of that statement namely to so insinuate that the lens used in the Nokia is pure 'crap' (plastic and cheap) one should be able to give some kind of evidence to such bold statement, so far I've not seen any on this forum.
No this new lens is no high-end DSLR lens worth 2000 dollars. But it's sure is a good quality camera measured in terms of what mobile devices can deliver all together. You might call it crap, I call it just another step forward in improving picture quality until a point where cellphone camera's might be able to compete with high end DSLR camera's. One thing is certain, it doesn't requires much expertise knowing that any cellphone out there can't compete, yet, with high end DSLR camera's, therefore any compensation could be put in the category labeled 'silly'.
I made the switch from Apple to Nokia, and have now switched to a Samsung Galaxy S4
While Nokia may have a great camera lens in their products, people just don't buy a phone for the camera capabilities. Apart from build quality, It's the sum of it's features and abilities that make a great phone.
Nokia falls short in the latter.
While Nokia may have a great camera lens in their products, people just don't buy a phone for the camera capabilities. Apart from build quality, It's the sum of it's features and abilities that make a great phone.
Nokia falls short in the latter.
You tested an iPhone under the same circumstances for comparative reasons and it survived?
----------
Well if that's true congratulations on your serious ethical breach and probable NDA breach.
Now you'll have to excuse me as me and my footlong penis have to go drive one of my 10 Ferraris (because people couldn't possibly make up stuff under the anonymity of the Internet, could they?).
rule #1 learned in business school: never bash your competitors to promote your own product
Nokia doesn't know how to sell its products other than comparing it to the iphone 5, what a bunch of amateurs
Do you remember the first keynote of launch of first iphone where Steve Jobs bashed competitors phones with physical keyboards?
Then, do you remember the keynote when Steve Jobs bashed competitors for iphone 4's antennagate?
Do you remember several keynotes where always Apple shows comparison plots of Apple products vs competitors and make fun of competitors?
I guess business school rules don't apply to Apple?
Well here you're just confusing quantity with quality.
Nokia is making that point. Yes, people take photos with the iPhone more than any other camera in the world, but that does not mean the iPhone makes a good camera. It is not making the case that the phone is good; it is clearly stating that the camera is superior. Nokia is obviously not ridiculing the statistical advantage that Apple holds, but rather highlighting the sacrifices in optical design Apple had to make to make the iPhone wildly popular and profitable.
Nowhere did I say that the Lumia 925 is better than the iPhone 5; I said it had a better camera. I also pointed out that the quote by Chase Jarvis was completely misused and misunderstood. I went on to explain the actual context of the quote, and why even if the quote meant that whatever camera you have with you is the best camera you can have the Lumia 925 would still make a better camera than the iPhone.
I also stated that yes, more people have iPhones, and how that is completely irrelevant to your ownership of a decent cameraphone. How does other people owning an iPhone even relate to your experience with another phone? Let me highlight the most ridiculous part of your reply:
Even the greatest Apple fanboys will agree that people buy iPhones not because others do too but rather because they think the iPhone is better than others. How that even justifies a comparison of the phones' cameras I do not even know. And you'll probably reply with me "misquoting" what you said, so let me go ahead and reply for you:
I wholly agree. The iPhone is more well-rounded of a device than the Nokia 925. People prefer it over other phones because it suits their needs. Still doesn't mean the iPhone has a better camera than the Nokia 925. That's just comparing apples to oranges. In a comparison as cameras, the fact that an iPhone has a higher resolution screen, runs iOS, and has better speakers will never compensate for the fact that the iPhone has a smaller sensor size, inferior optical design and lagging camera performance.
You really don't have an argument at all.
I earn money from my photography. I'm proud of my work. Arrogant people who dismiss this profession as something as petty as an "artistic bent" just piss me off.
it's not the same thing.
the apple ads were classy and funny.
What nokia/samsung/m$ are doing is just lame...
I'm not sure how you figure that pointing out the correct and indeed varying pronounciation of 'Nokia' is an ethical breach, or indeed stating that none of the pictures were faked or retouched is somehow at odds with this mythical NDA you mention.
And whilst we're on the subject on anonymity, Sickboy (if that's your real name...), this forum is filled with opinions presented as fact by people with assumed names who have never used a Lumia 925.
Good luck with the penis ferrari thing.
When comparing the 920 and iPhone 5, though, the 920 clearly has a lot more detail, and handles the extreme contrast considerably better. It also has a much more shallow depth of field due to the combination of larger aperture and much larger sensor... this makes comparing details away from the focus point difficult if not impossible, as there will be more natural blurring in the 920 that isn't present/available on the iPhone.
I don't own a Galaxy S 4 or 1020. I'll never own an S 4 -- I really don't care for Android. And the likelihood that I break my AT&T contract to upgrade from a 920 to 1020 is extremely slim. Essentially only the camera is different, and I'm pretty satisfied with the 920 as it is. It handles "normal" conditions very well.
That's debatable. The I'm a Mac ads tended to exaggerate heavily. They were insulting to PC users and in some cases just purely wrong. I agree that they were better than what Samsung has been doing, but MS and Nokia are pointing out genuine shortcomings of Apple products. Nothing wrong with that in my books.
You've been misinformed on a few points.
The screens on the 920/925/928 are higher resolution than the iPhone 5... 35% more pixels, in fact. 768x1280 vs. 640x1136. Dot pitch is also slightly higher. And the Nokia screens have considerably higher contrast, especially the models featuring OLED screens. But one thing that also gets overlooked is that the Nokias have a special mode where it puts the screen into an overdrive mode when in direct sunlight that makes them extremely bright and very visible. Holding a 900-series Lumia next to an iPhone in the sun is startlingly different -- the Lumias screen is not just visible but vibrant, whereas the screen on the iPhone 5 is barely visible.
The speaker on the iPhone 5 can get considerably louder, but it isn't better. The Lumias have a flatter response, especially on the lower end of the audio spectrum. The iPhone, by comparison, sounds quite tinny and thin. Both models have their speakers on the bottom instead of the back, though I would very much prefer to see them moved to the front like on the HTC One, where it makes so much more sense. (Incidentally, the audio quality on the HTC One lags behind the Lumias. Still too tinny for me.)
my scientific method included accidentally dropping an iphone 5 out of a second floor window onto concrete footpath which resulted in a large dent and nothing more in comparison to my son dropping his new nokia windows phone from his hand to a carpeted floor on the same night, in the apartment from which i dropped my phone about an hour before he arrived, which left a small side crack in the screen and bizarrely killed the touch-sensitivity of the entire screen...
anecdotal, but compelling!
----------
to be fair, this is true
Well, that just goes to show that I consider Nokia smartphones with a PureView camera more as cameras than phones.
And again, in a strict comparison of cameras, the speaker is completely irrelevant unless you want a very hi-fi click of the shutter...
The display is a little more relevant but what I emphasized was the pixel pitch, where both the Nokia and the iPhone outresolve the human eye. The color, contrast and visibility of the screens do however affect the usability as cameras, I'll accept that.
The iPhones tend to do quite well against most other smartphones in drop tests. They're amazingly hardy for such delicate technology. Of course, it's all relative. I don't know if there are any smartphones of any make and model that are truly stellar in resisting damage the way devices like the old BlackBerrys could.
You do see a lot of people carrying around cracked iPhones though, but that's actually a good sign. It means the phone survived and still works. People don't carry around devices that are damaged beyond repair so you never see the models that don't survive drops.
You could have waited another 10 mins for the sun to come out as the difference in light is massive which doesn't make a fair comparison. I understand though it's advertising and you have to do these things as your on team Nokia. In your defence, advertising by nature isn't fair
We had limited time in the location and the weather was really changeable even in the space of a single take, and it just closed in on us. The 925 picture was actually taken during the 'hero' video take so we did that a few times to get it right (combination of fast changing light, timing of camera move and skater getting the trick right!) and when we got the iPhone out the clouds just moved in. The comparison is actually to show the fact that with the iPhone you get one shot, but with the Lumia you get a bunch of them and you can choose the best plus the action shot feature etc. In an ideal world the shots would be like for like in terms of weather, but the features comparison is still a valid one.
They did indeed, they were caught out by a reflection of a full camera crew in a van, when it was meant to be a guy shooting video whilst riding a bike.
rule #1 learned in business school: never bash your competitors to promote your own product
Nokia doesn't know how to sell its products other than comparing it to the iphone 5, what a bunch of amateurs
yes and it's only true when others diss apple.
this rule doesnt apply when apple bash others.
wow u must have missed all the pc-vs-mac ads. every apple presentation starts by taking cheap shots at competitors.
google it.
Imagine if they did? However for my uses, the camera is nice to have, but not a deal breaker. I'm starting to get into using DSL cameras and fiddling with different lenses (something you can't do with a point and shoot). The one apprehension I do have with these super camera phones is with all these bells and whistles, what happens if you drop the phone? That's a lot more parts that could get damaged.
Good for you, but what is your point. Other than Army Rangers, campers, etc. who eats dinner regularly with a Swiss Army Knife?
Same goes for cameras. I don't carry my dSLR around with me everywhere I go, but when I go to a big event or a leisurely photoshoot, no pocket cam I have, including the one in my phone, competes w/ my dSLR.
Interesting post, thanks for sharing into some insight to how the Ad was made.
I saw your original edit - you should have kept that IMO. Wasn't much longer than this ( edited for brevity)
I saw your original edit - you should have kept that IMO. Wasn't much longer than this ( edited for brevity)
Last edited: