"The 920 took the cake, without question, but the iPhone didn't fare too poorly itself, snatching up nearly as much light as the Nokia device"

How can anybody take this article seriously? The difference between the Lumia and the IPhone 5 is night and day! Lumia looks very clear and bright, while the IPhone picture looks like a screenshot from Night of The Comet.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-unWVjA7__B0/Tpsek1bA9-I/AAAAAAAAGZ...

This one compares it to iPhone 4s, but the difference is day and night here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jFhhBJ1URCg

The difference is a lot smaller when Galaxy S3 and One X use "night mode", so they are both capable of doing much better in the night (sorry for the weird link - it's from Google).

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-iL605sRTn_Y/UEy2V15bD9I/AAAAAAAARm...

The question is why don't they do that automatically like the Lumia 920? Perhaps to save energy?

Can you link to the article you took this from? Looks like The Verge, but I couldn't find it.

The source is http://www.theverge.com/2012/9/7/3299784/nokia-lumia-920-pur...

Awesome, thanks.

I couldn't find it either. That's why I just took the Google image. But I remembered it from reading that article on TheVerge.

I think we are all pretty convinced by now that the Lumia has the best camera. Too bad it's also a phone.

On the bright side, it also has the best GPS. Too bad it is a smartphone.

and the best screen and the best OS too...

Does it? I mean, is WP really on par with Android or iOS? I haven't ever used it, so I can't really make a statement here, that's why I'm asking.

>is WP really on par with Android or iOS

Yes.

and... a wireless charger :)

..what is this reddit all of a sudden?

but since we're on it, yes it looks awesome. really looking forward to picking one up. everyone has opinions and preferences but i think it’s hard to argue against the fact that microsoft is showing some real innovation and creativity in development of windows phone, and nokia compliments that exceptionally well with their stellar hardware.

I almost wonder if the original article with the "faked video" wasn't a plant, and that they actually knew the results would be good, and this controversy would basically keep the Lumia 920 constantly in the press. Remember - this is a phone that has not yet been shipped yet.

The "faked" shots (apart from the image stabilization simulation -- which all of the major camera makers have done in ads at one time or another) were done with actual hardware/firmware prototypes, so although they weren't done with production samples (which didn't exist at the time), they were "real" in the sense that they used the same sensor, processing pipeline and optics as the production camera.

I thought the night time shots were also identified as being faked, and, in fact, the aperture of a smartphone camera wouldn't have the same sparkling effect as a SLR (which actually took the picture) - so the pictures were different as well.

Source?

I think he is referring to the photos that they displayed on the day it was revealed. The pictures are there on nokia site and are equaly impressive. http://www.nokia.com/global/products/pureview/

Still cannot believe they didn't foresee the PR shitstorm they would create by faking the original pictures. Especially since the actual camera is pretty damn decent.

That's the thing. If the camera is anything near what they were claiming, they didn't need to fake the pictures. The reason you fake pictures (or setup unrealistic test conditions) is to make your product look better than it actually is.

But the decided to, reportedly because the software wasn't ready. Not only was the camera actually that good, but they faked it to make a paper launch, where they didn't even announce a release date.

"If the camera is anything near what they were claiming, they didn't need to fake the pictures"

They need, at the end of the day, it is a phone stabilization. Nothing compared with a real $200 video camera from Sony yet.

The Iphone technology in the works could be better than that, don't forget that this camera is just a prototype in the lab. In fact they are telling the competition when their puck is going to be.

Supposedly, `There is no such thing as bad publicity' [1]. In case of Nokia's recent phones, I agree wholeheartedly -- we wouldn't have heard of Lumia 920 on HN if it wasn't for the faked ad and resulting chatter in the blogosphere.

[1] http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/there-is-no-such-thing-as...

Related discussion on the OIS performance earlier today: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4575816

Wow Nokia's stepping their game up.

The 920 actually performs really well here. Another strong point of this phone. I really wish Nokia a proper comeback in the smartphone market. Maybe I'm just nostalgic about what they used to be. However, the 920 seems to be the kind of phone that could manage just that, even though I'm a little skeptical about the choice of OS (have only read about it though).

> even though I'm a little skeptical about the choice of OS (have only read about it though).

I'm using WP7 as my primary phone - It's a really good OS. You can try it out in a nearby shop if you have time.

So this thing ships with Symbian? Didn't Nokia agree to only ship Windows Phones or something?

nope, all Lumias are Windows, and this is win8. The first pureview phone/camera with a huge sensor was with Symbian.

Ah, so Engadget's little infobox at the bottom is just wrong.

The infobox for the 808 says Symbian, the info box for the Lumia says Windows 8. Nothing wrong there.

The infobox shows symbian for the "Nokia 808 PureView", and Windows Phone (8) for the "Nokia Lumia 920".

The box isn't wrong, it is just confusing that the 808 info panel is expanded by default and the Lumia one is collapsed like the other phones.

do all these phones automatically vignette their pictures?

Pretty much, unless you use digital zoom (cropping) to get in tighter. It's not so much "automatic vignetting" as it is the result of using a lens that just barely covers the sensor with its image circle -- to avoid vignetting, they'd need to use either a much smaller aperture (and run into diffraction problems) or a much larger and more complex lens that wouldn't fit the phone form factor very well.

I'm still getting the iPhone.

Could could a company like Nokia have so bad marketing staff?

If you have a good camera on a phone, please don't show me Finland in Autumn weather!! It is f*cking depressing!!

Don't show me the streets in the night, don't show me the geek's house in the dark, don't show me a frigging cold calibration test.

Now it is Spring in Argentina or New Zealand!

Show me great places, show me light, show me flowers, show me colors, show me people, show me life!!

Apple gets it, Nokia does not.

Um... You do understand that Engadget isn't on the payroll of Nokia, right? These are not marketing photos. They're photos taken by tech journalists who were visiting Finland, and were given a chance to get some try the camera out. Which is something they'd clearly be delighted to do, since due to the earlier controversy this makes for easy to sell news.

What exactly did you expect Nokia to do? Pass on this opportunity to set the record straight on the controversy from a few weeks ago? Tell them that they're only allowed to publish pictures of something appropriately vibrant and photogenic?

And your complaint about is ridiculous on another level. If you've ever seen actual Nokia marketing photos, e.g. for the N8 or the 808, they tend to be exactly what you asked for. Dramatic, colorful, lively photos from awesome locations all around the world. But such shots from Nokia marketing aren't particularly relevant in this case. First, the authenticity of their photos is questionable right now. Second, such photos aren't a particularly good way of highlighting the unique selling point of low light performance.

> Apple gets it, Nokia does not.

If by "it" you mean customer devotion when faced by evidence that Apple's camera is not technically as good as Nokia's or Apple's maps are not as good as Google's, then I agree. They call it cognitive dissonance.

It's okay to buy or own a product that's not the best at everything. These are just an attempt to show where Nokia's product is strong. I agree with you that Apple's ads are some of the best done, but that is far down on my list of things to consider when buying a phone.

The point is to showcase the technical superiority of the camera. Even the worst camera hardware can generally produce good results with adequate light.

The point was a low light test. "Show me light" really kinda ruins the whole experiment. A drow night shot of a city is an accurate portrayal of most of the night shots that will be taken by their target audience, so it makes sense for them to use it here.