Nokia mobile phone based photography web site

<p><a href="http://www.nokia.com/global/experience/photography/">http://www.nokia.com/global/experience/photography/</a></p>

<p> </p>

<p>Judging by the adverts I see on film trailers, they are spending a lot of money on their phones having good cameras. How do they compare to other phone manufacturers offering similar handsets?</p>

<p>I've seen side-by-side comparisons with the Nokia Lumia 920, the Samsung Galaxy 4, and the iphone 5. The Nokia with it's built-in image stabilization does very well for itself.</p>

<p>Nokia seems to have made the decision to differentiate itself from the rest of the pack by including quality optics in its high end phones. With Windows Phone 8, there are a bunch of 'lens' apps for special effects.</p>

<p>My phone is the Lumia 822 and my camera is a D300 with fast lenses, so I really don't use my phone for photography.</p>

<p>Mark, thanks very much for your comment. I always value such opinion more than what is written in the average online review. I did a fair bit of street shooting with my meagre 5MP Sony Xperia camera combined with a vintage effects app. The shutter lag was noticeable but when it worked I enjoyed the experience. As the phone has got older and burdened with more tasks it really struggles. I am in the process of getting a slughtly higher up model and looking forward to carrying on with this venture. The Nokia Lumia 920 seems rather lovely but out of my budget.</p>

<p>Starvy,</p>

<p>Nokia is due to announce their 41 MP Windows Phone, the Lumia 1020 on AT&T, any day now. It will be interesting to see how well this phone/camera performs in the real world. The Lumia 925 is the latest variant of the 920 and I believe is available in the UK.</p>

<p>I certainly would not purchase a high-priced smart phone because of its camera. My L822 is free on Verizon (with contract) and happens to include a camera. For real pictures, I like a real camera. I bet I've taken less than 30 photos with my phone since I got it in November. During that same time frame I've probably taken 1 - 2 thousand photos with my D300.</p>

<p>I'm sure I'll look back on this in 5 years and think: how quaint.</p>

<p>Mark</p>

<p>Most of the current Nokia smartphones do really quite well with regards to the camera; I have the older Lumia 800, and frankly in a lot of scenarios it simply outperforms my cheap P&S camera. As many Nokia's it has the 'Carl Zeiss optics' but well, there is a good deal of marketing to that. However, most higher-end models do have relatively fast apertures, making low-light photography a bit more doable.<br>

The 41MP sensor is a nice niche-thing, I think - most of the time they will use it to downsize (to 5 to 8 MP) and hence increase detail, reduce noise etc. Its predecessor (the Symbian-based 808 PureView) was tested by several sites, and it did work. But, it's got a bulky large lens - as Mark, I would not buy a phone for its camera, I've got a camera for that. However, I find myself using the phone more and more for casual quick snaps - it's always with me.</p>

<p>That's not to say some of the other brands have inferior cameras (iPhones sure perform well), but on average, the Nokias perform really quite nice. I've got some photos from my Lumia <a href="/photodb/folder?folder_id=1050482">here</a>. Most of them edited in Fhotoroom, a free editor for Windows Phone that delivers a surprising lot of fuctionality.</p>

<p>I agree with Wouter. I use my phone for casual quick snaps. The last time I used my phone was June 19th during an online discussion with another IT guy. I was describing how I had set up my Surface Pro tablet as my every day workstation. He wanted to see a pic of my setup. Having a Windows Phone 8 and a Windows 8 tablet it is so convenient to take a quick snapshot with my phone and have the photo end up on my tablet via SkyDrive. The D300 would have produced a much higher quality pic, but the smartphone was good enough.</p><div></div>