What evidence do we have that this camera is "remarkable"? Can any company just take photos with an SLR, claim it's their phone's camera, and get the press to call the camera "remarkable" from that point on? I'd say if a company get's caught in a fraud like this, the responsible action is to assume the camera is crap until proven otherwise.

Did you read the article? There are head-to-head photos taken between an iPhone and a Lumia 920, live during journalist hands-on time (i.e., not doctored), and the difference is indeed impressive.

The real standout here is low-light performance, and it does in fact look a great deal better than just about any phone on the market now.

Which begs the question, why the hell did Nokia feel like it needed to lie on their commercial? These live demo results speak for themselves.

I read the article. Out of 4 images shown, one was of the live demo and 3 were suspected doctored photos from Nokia's promotional materials. The article doesn't clarify whether the live image taken with the Nokia phone was taken in front of the reporter or if it was taken ahead of time. Without that knowing that, it's difficult to gauge whether the conditions were truly similar and if this was a fair apples to apples comparison.

I wonder what percentage of the smartphone market microsoft can capture using their usual tactic of integrating everything into their business offerings. I.T departments like service contracts and the ability set policies for end devices, windows mobile will probably never displace iphone/android with consumers but in business it might...

Look interesting. I will definitely buy one to try out and pass around the office. Let's hope the battery life makes sense.

Holy cow, those things are ginormous!