[richv77]

Judging from reports I have read and from a friend who already has his 900, how could Nokia repeat the same mistake and release a camera with just average quality? 800 owners had to wait some time before a software update was released if memory serves me right.

Considering the cameras on both the 800 and 900 share the same hardware, this is puzzling...

-Rich

[cwmont13]

It's sad to see and read about the sub par camera issues with the 900 so far. Seeing as the CZ optics are advertised as being a big deal on the 900 one would think the software would use it to it's best advantage.

If Nokia and MS want this phone and OS platform to be successful, they need to address this issue ASAP!

I can see this being a major deal breaker for this device. Granted it's a phone but the ability to snap a quick pic with "decent " quality is a must have for any smartphone user these days. Especially when trying to compete with the iPhone.

[cp2_4eva]

The camera is not bad. Not the best though. Even if you have a great real camera its still possible to take nor so great pictures. Its a phone with a camera. Not a camera with a phone. Let it go.

Sent from my Lumia 900 using Board Express

[dkp23]

for me, it is bad..indoors, you can see a lot of background noise...

lower lighted areas, not good a tall. Outside decent to good, but you can still see some color fading qualities.

Camera is a let down IMO.

[cp2_4eva]

What I don't understand is what ppl plan on doing with pics from a camera on a phone. Post it in a magazine or something? Lol. Smartphone cameras are a fraction of the capabilities on the device. Why expect it to be superb? Buy a standalone camera.

Sent from my Lumia 900 using Board Express

[jimski]

I can see this being a major deal breaker for this device. Granted it's a phone but the ability to snap a quick pic with "decent " quality is a must have for any smartphone user these days. Especially when trying to compete with the iPhone.

My guess is of the current 104M US Smartphone users, and probably about 30-40M on AT&T (too lazy to check) about 5% might care enough to consider your concerns an issue. And feature phone upgrades would be tickled pink to get a phone with this caliber camera. It works for me.

Sent from my Lumia 900 using Board Express

[Siah1214]

From the picture comparisons I've seen vs the iPhone the quality is about the same. I'd like to see it blow away the iPhone, but you know, whatever.

Sent from my mwp6985 using Board Express

[KustomAU]

1000% agree with cp2!

Sent from my HTC 7 Trophy using Board Express

[richv77]

Nokia does not get a pass. They have plenty of experience and they should produce a camera as good as the iPhone 4/4S. I remember seeing the first camera pic from a Sprint cell phone almost 10 years or so ago. It was Horrible! If customers just accepted that quality, look at what we'd be missing out on today. I hate having to carry a separate camera. No one is expecting SLR quality.

Don't get me wrong, the 900 is still a great phone.

-Rich

What I don't understand is what ppl plan on doing with pics from a camera on a phone. Post it in a magazine or something? Lol. Smartphone cameras are a fraction of the capabilities on the device. Why expect it to be superb? Buy a standalone camera.

Sent from my Lumia 900 using Board Express

[ftap]

What I don't understand is what ppl plan on doing with pics from a camera on a phone. Post it in a magazine or something? Lol. Smartphone cameras are a fraction of the capabilities on the device. Why expect it to be superb? Buy a standalone camera.

Sent from my Lumia 900 using Board Express

People do care about cameras in smartphones.

Look. 720p/1080p video camera recording in smartphones basically cause the demise of flip video and Cisco discontinue it less than 2 years buying it.

Cameras function in smartphones will eventually replace point and shoot. It's not if. It's just a matter of when.

Saying that we all know Nokia history with their previous high end Symbian phones. We know nokia's camera history. Nokia's N series always produced excellent camera functions.

I know Nokia had to take some shortcuts/cost savings to get the price down on the lumia series.

But last year 2011. The Samsung S2, Apple iPhone 4s and HTC's 2011 8mp camera in various version of their android phones were considered top camera phones along with the N8 camera.

[7inchesNBPEL]

Smartphones cameras will rid of flip cams and point and shoot cameras.

There will still be a market for real cameras and camcorders though (not that 100 dollar crap)

[cwmont13]

What I don't understand is what ppl plan on doing with pics from a camera on a phone. Post it in a magazine or something? Lol. Smartphone cameras are a fraction of the capabilities on the device. Why expect it to be superb? Buy a standalone camera.

Sent from my Lumia 900 using Board Express

Maybe not in a magazine but almost every major news outlet has a way for viewers to submit "eye reports" or whatever they call their viewer submissions area. For that you need at least a camera that can take decent pics in different lighting conditions and able to shoot good quality video. I don't expect any camera in a phone to be superb as it's a phone first and has a camera added.

However that being said, Nokia is proudly advertising the fact that they have a camera with Carl Ziess (one of the foremost, if not the best lens maker in the world today) lenses in it and clearly implying that the camera is a "main" feature of the device. To have poor camera performance doesn't speak well for the 900.

Online reviews on the camera have been mixed and now we are seeing users affirming that the camera is not as good as it could be. IMO this IS an issue as Nokia and MS are trying to make a statement with this device and the future of WP could well be resting on the success of the Lumia 900.

[cwmont13]

Just wanted to add that for quite a few users, a good camera is a must in their smartphones.

If you have kids, you want that ability to take a picture or video and send it off to Dad, Mom, Grandma, friends or whatever, and post up to social networking sites. Manufactures make it a point to feature that stuff in their ads. Business users need it too sometimes.

I personally know 5 small business owners mostly in remodeling and landscape companies who rely on their employees to have the ability to send decent pictures from their devices.

They use the pictures to provide rough quotes to customers, to help guide employees in the field who need assistance on a job, or anytime it's a case of "I'm not sure what you mean, can you send me a pic"? Their companies consider this a must in their daily operations.

It's obvious that device manufactures are looking at cameras in phones as a MAJOR selling point. Every new device released has a better camera than the device it replaces. That trend isn't going to go backwards. Early on we had 1 megapixel cameras and now we see 8 megapixel being the norm with 16 megapixel just arriving as the next wave of smartphone camera.

I agree with ftap23 that "Cameras function in smartphones will eventually replace point and shoot. It's not if. It's just a matter of when. "

OK off my soapbox and back on topic.

Thanks :)

[hiko36]

I have a Canon Powershot that I bust out when I want to take pictures of my reptiles doing cute things with my other animals. I have a phone to bust out when something spontaneous happens. Do I expect my phone to be able to stand next to my Canon? Not at all. Do I expect to be able to see what the **** is going on in my picture, though? Absolutely. Regardless of what your opinion may be, a vast majority of people no longer have a dedicated imaging device. Nokia/MS/At&T are billing this as a flagship and with that title comes a certain expectation. Everything involving this camera does not live up to that expectation. Is that a deal breaker for me? Absolutely not, but what we need to understand is that if it's going to be the phone that puts WP7 on the map, it can't have problems like this. That's just the bottom line.

THAT is the other part of this situation that bothers me. I've had this phone barely 24 hours and the camera strip looks like utter ****.

[PhilR8]

cp2_4eva seems to be replying to every post that criticizes the camera and asking, why does everyone expect great things from a cell phone camera?

The first reason is: that's the way they're marketing it. Second reason is: because I love using my smartphone to take pictures and upload them immediately to facebook/etc. Great for sharing moments, illustrating an email, etc. I use mine all the time for these purposes.

I love my 900 - I think it's an awesome device, but the camera is pretty poor. It is what it is. I'll have to decide if it's so poor that I'll want to exchange it for the Titan II.

Sharing photos to facebook from your smartphone is a great way for your friends to become aware of Windows Phone... for good or bad. That's why the camera is a big deal. To say in 2012 to "get over" a poor smartphone camera is showing that you're out of touch.

[scottcraft]

Like others on here I have a small child, so a cell phone camera is very useful for sharing quick pictures on fb or through text messages. My next phone will have a high end camera. Hopefully Nokia will have their camera act together by then.

Sent from my Windows 7 phone using Board Express

[jjmurphy]

I personally miss the camera on my Titan:( Nokia will hopefully fix this with a software update, but I'm wondering if it is the actual sensor that is subpar.

[cp2_4eva]

I dunno, maybe some people's Nokia's have defective sensors or something, but the pics I take for the most part are pretty good. In low light situations maybe not as good, but anything other than that the pics have been pretty good. there are even other people on the forums that have posted some nice pics. You can't expect the camera to do it all for you. There are a few settings that you can configure that would make you pics turn out better, but then that would cause you to have to take your time and get a good pic.

I'm not trying to sound like a Lumia fanboy or to stir up the pot that much. But it's a forum. Debating is what forums are partly for. I've ran through my fair share of phones. Most of which have also taken some pretty good pictures. This camera on the Lumia is not that far behind. But again, it's a camera on a phone. There are other phones out there that will take better pics, but then you have to take the good with the bad. Battery life, phone burning up, different OS, etc. Oh and for the most part those other phone are about 100+ more bucks retail non contract. There's much more I could say, but I wont beat the dead horse anymore. Enjoy your devices people! They can do so much!

[jawesome]

Nokia does not get a pass. They have plenty of experience and they should produce a camera as good as the iPhone 4/4S.

This x 1,000,000.
I hate it when people fall for hype and this is exactly what Carl Zeiss optics is (in Nokia Windows Phones) at the moment. Someone in another thread related this to Beats audio and I think that is a perfect analogy. Many people argued that the 900 will have a better camera than the Titan, TII, etc with their opinion based solely on the Carl Zeiss name written on it, even though the other Lumias' cameras haven't been the best.

I personally miss the camera on my Titan:( Nokia will hopefully fix this with a software update, but I'm wondering if it is the actual sensor that is subpar.

So you have both devices and think the Titan's camera is better?

[cwmont13]

I think the Carl Zeiss "lens" isn't the issue as their products are good. It's the rest of the stuff attached behind that lens and the software running it that's the issue. You could buy the best tires and put them on a Yugo but the car would still be sub par.

[jawesome]

I think the Carl Zeiss "lens" isn't the issue as their products are good. It's the rest of the stuff attached behind that lens and the software running it that's the issue. You could buy the best tires and put them on a Yugo but the car would still be sub par.

So no Windows Phones can have a high quality camera because the software isn't good enough? Simply not true. Nokia chose not to include a BSI on their camera and low light images suffer because of it.

Again... people making excuses because they fell for the hype.

[cwmont13]

So no Windows Phones can have a high quality camera because the software isn't good enough? Simply not true.

Trying to see where I stated in my post that WP phones can't have a high quality cameras due to software issues. I was referring to the 900's issues. The Titan, Samsung Focus/Focus S, have good cameras in them and the pictures are better quality than what I've seen so far from the 900 in what's been posted here on WPCentral and in reviews.

Nokia chose not to include a BSI on their camera and low light images suffer because of it.

That validates my statement that it's what's behind the Carl Zeiss lens that causes the 900's camera performance to be below expectations. Nokia was probably doing some cost cutting to get to the magic $99.00 price point. Some stuff gets left out BSI being one of them. I agree with you that low light images suffer because of it.

Again... people making excuses because they fell for the hype.

I'm not offering excuses. Nokia has been making a big deal out of the CZ camera in the 900 and advertising the device heavily as a premier WP7 device. Agree there is a lot of hype surrounding the Lumia 900 and WP7. Now the time has come for Nokia to put up or shut up. We have to wait and see what pans out but so far the camera is being reported as below average.

I was awaiting the release of the 900 because I want to make the switch to WP as I'm tired of the Android experience but I can't see moving to a device that has camera performance below what I currently have on my Samsung Infuse. Due to my job I need a phone that will allow me to take decent quality indoor and some low light pictures and send them to others. Which the Infuse does easily as long as I carry around spare batteries cause the battery life sucks big time.

I was thinking about moving right away to the 900 but I think the camera performance is going to be a deal breaker for me. Probably wait a bit and see what shakes out regarding the camera, or possibly have a look at the Titan II. Decisions, decisions.......

[peestandingup]

In trying to get to some magic number of $99 (instead of say $150-$200), they've ultimately gimped their "flagship" device. That price would have likely came down soon anyway, just like we're seeing the 900 going for free for new customers to $20 for upgrades right now (at Target), not even a day after release.

Point being, they're not going to win using camera guts & other internals that barely even rival my 1st gen Focus. Thats crazy to me. Aside from the design (which don't get me wrong, its very good), I can't think of a single reason why anyone would get this phone over any other high to mid range Windows Phone, and that includes the last gen models.

This is why most people who are in the market for a phone are gonna pass up the 900.

-Does it have a better camera than an iPhone (even last gen's) or a mid to high range Android device that you can all get for free to $100? NO

-A better screen? NO

-A better ecosystem? NO

-Internals? NO

Design? More of a personal taste. But yes, the design is pretty great.

OK, so this device is going to sell based solely on design? Probably not. It'll appeal to people who are already in the WP ecosystem (not many of us) & a few who just love the design & will take it because its different. But thats not exactly what they needed this thing to do.

Both Nokia & MS are failing in their own way IMO. MS isn't doing enough to attract developers, push updates & get caught up in general from being asleep at the wheel for years. They're stagnating any way you look at it (app numbers don't mean squat if most of them are garbage & the big names aren't there). And Nokia by trying to push mediocre last gen tech into the ecosystem, calling it new, & acting like it actually rivals what's currently on the market.

And I hate saying all this, I truly do. But I honestly don't think this is going to be a good thing for either company. Which is a shame because I really want something that overall rivals the iPhone experience & I really do think WP is a more thought out OS at its core. And I can't stand Android.

[freestaterocker]

People do care about cameras in smartphones.

Look. 720p/1080p video camera recording in smartphones basically cause the demise of flip video and Cisco discontinue it less than 2 years buying it.

Cameras function in smartphones will eventually replace point and shoot. It's not if. It's just a matter of when.

Saying that we all know Nokia history with their previous high end Symbian phones. We know nokia's camera history. Nokia's N series always produced excellent camera functions.

I know Nokia had to take some shortcuts/cost savings to get the price down on the lumia series.

But last year 2011. The Samsung S2, Apple iPhone 4s and HTC's 2011 8mp camera in various version of their android phones were considered top camera phones along with the N8 camera.

Honestly all they'd need to do is throw in a BSI sensor and they would've really had something... Is it a huge cost difference?

[mz89]

Just a heads up though people, the lens may be great but the camera can't be "skinned" by OEMs much. So like the Titan 2 has great pictures because of its BSI sensor and separate imaging component, but its a 100 bucks more. Nokia has their CZ optics and their algorithms, which can be fixed, but in the end they are working with MS hardware restrictions & limitations...an issue which wont be addressed fully until WP8 is released.