[Jazmac]

Not that I don't dig the phone but the pictures this phone shoots are worse than a store throwaway camera.

Exhibit A:



Same light conditions. Exhibit B:



Anyone other than me see a difference? If you look at the photos, you can determine which pic came from which camera. Then you see why I'm not happy. I know for data issues the phone is being swapped but what about those of us with a crappy Zeiss lens?

Anyone know of this issue and its resolution?

[Welve]

aside from my desire to clean your desk...

I see the difference, everything looks super illuminated, like the ISO is way off or something...Take it to an AT&T store, I am a big fan of taking things back if they don't work how I want them to.

[Blackwood504]

The camera is my only grip with the 900. However, I do love the video it takes and I think Macro shot are better than it's low light shots or shots in the conditions of which you took for this picture. These seems to be more noise in the pictures and details aren't sharp...but in macro mode it seems better for some reason (to me at least, I can't speak for everyone). On normal pictures it does seem to be an issue with the ISO or light detection.

[tekhna]

Wow, that's really really bad. But I do wonder if it's software.

[mihesq]

I thought my HD7 camera was bad, this is almost as bad. Very disappointed in this camera.

[raidel00]

The camera is my only grip with the 900. However, I do love the video it takes and I think Macro shot are better than it's low light shots or shots in the conditions of which you took for this picture. These seems to be more noise in the pictures and details aren't sharp...but in macro mode it seems better for some reason (to me at least, I can't speak for everyone). On normal pictures it does seem to be an issue with the ISO or light detection.

I agree with macro mode on the pictures are WAAAY better!

[Welve]

Wow, that's really really bad. But I do wonder if it's software.

Why would you wonder that? It looks like both of those are Windows Phones...

[cba191]

It may be my hopeless optimism with this phone, but the photos are framed differently. I'm wondering if the extra lighting in the top right combined with the bright monitor in the top left and the paper directly behind the phone threw it.

[sdreamer]

There's something definately up with how auto mode takes photos. I'm not sure if they did anything to tweak it to make up for the f2.2 apeture. I've been assuming that's what causes this blooming in well lit places, and I've seen it happen on mine a couple times. Sometimes I get really nice photos, other times it's a miss. Over all, it's been a hit-or-miss with the camera for me. Manually controlling it makes it a hit almost all the time, but that defeats the purpose of being able to yank out a Windows Phone to take a quick snap.

[Jazmac]

Both are Windows phones. The first shot was taken with the Titan I and the second was taken with the Nokia Lumia 900. I didn't spell out which phone did what to make it more "objective." (I pushed all that stuff into the camera frame to show depth as best I could.) But thanks for the offer. :)
Anyway, tomorrow I take it out for a spin then after work, a visit to the AT&T store. I'll update the thread in case this happens with someone else.

[tekhna]

Why would you wonder that? It looks like both of those are Windows Phones...

Firmware rather, not software.

[eastbayrae]

If you bought this phone only for the camera then you did yourself a great disservice.

[katamari201]

I know I'm beating a dead horse here, but from the N9 to the Lumia 800 and now the Lumia 900, all of which use the same camera, everyone who isn't caught up in the hype and Nokia fanboyism agree the camera is horrendous for an 8mp and even a 5 mp camera. There's no shortage of criticism. This is just pure fact. Whether you care about the camera is none of my business, but tons of people do, and Nokia sure likes to tout their lenses and photo-cred, but the result is more bottom of the barrel, 3mp featurephone quality.

The Titan has a very good camera. HTC is known for bad cameras, but they did good with the Titan at least. It's saying something when Nokia can't even compete with HTC on camera quality.

I'll have to give one for the Lumia 900 though, the video capture is 10x better than the Titan, or any HTC phone for that matter. It ain't Galaxy S II or iPhone 4S quality though.

So if you plan on getting the Lumia 900, you are NOT getting it for the camera, I hope. Otherwise you are making a poor buying decision.

[Laura Knotek]

I have no complaints about the camera. It is better than the camera on my previous smartphone, the BlackBerry 9700.

I am an amateur photographer. When I want extremely high-quality pictures, I use a real camera, not any smartphone.

[eastbayrae]

You have to look at these smartphone cameras for what they are. I can count on one hand all the pics I have shot with my HD7. The quality in any light is horrid at best.

[cckgz4]

I think people are upset because Nokia have made it a point to brag about how great their camera phones are and this one isn't apart of that mold

Oh and to the person that said the HD7 camera was bad, I would not have agreed until I got my MyTouch. My goodness, all my photos from the HD7 were SOOOO washed out in comparison

[Genetic]

What are the chances a simple update on the software can make this camera go from crap to amazing?

[elmopio]

What are the chances a simple update on the software can make this camera go from crap to amazing?

I am curious on this also. But the hardware has to be a factor also. I personally have some good shots and some terrible ones. Why doesn't Nokia mention something about this now.


Sent from my Lumia 900 using Board Express

[Big Supes]

Nokia seem to be struggling with the drivers for their hardware. Without a doubt, the L900 will receive a camera improvement.

[Seketh]

Nokia seem to be struggling with the drivers for their hardware. Without a doubt, the L900 will receive a camera improvement.

Yeah, same as the Lumia 800/710, both are getting a camera update.

[ramrac]

Backside-Illuminated Sensor on the Titan - Regular Sensor on the Lumia 900.
There's your difference.

The BSI Sensor has a higher light sensitivity, thus less noise in bad light conditions as the ISO doesn't have to be cranked up as much. Plus they use really small sensors (bad low-light performance), that's why a BSI sensor comes in handy in a phone with such a small sensor because it compensates it a little.

BSI>Regular - in bad light conditions.

But, the sensor has nothing to do with the lens. And the overall photo quality is not exclusively tied to the sensor, altough a BSI sensor in general tends to take "better looking" pictures than a camera with a regular sensor, it doesn't mean that the pictures of the camera with the BSI will necessarily always be better than that of the camera with the regular sensor. The lens also plays a part, especially when you get out of your dark room and start taking pictures outside in regular and sunny daylight, of buildings and people and scenery etc. Not saying that the Lumia will then necessarily be better, but that your Titan/BSI-Sensored-Camera will not necessarily take better pictures of these things just because its pictures in a dark room are less noisy or better. ;)

Go out and test it, stand at the same place and take pictures of the same things.

[jd914]

If you bought this phone only for the camera then you did yourself a great disservice.

exactly! People don't seem to do thier research before buying their device. Its not news that the Lumia 900 camera is not the brst. We that know, knew this way before we purchased our device. Those who didn't write threads abot this problem and complain as to why the camera isn't that great. I personally wish the camera was better but it's not a deal breaker by any means. To the OP: next time do your homework, you'll be less disappointed.

[theefman]

exactly! People don't seem to do thier research before buying their device. Its not news that the Lumia 900 camera is not the brst. We that know, knew this way before we purchased our device. Those who didn't write threads abot this problem and complain as to why the camera isn't that great. I personally wish the camera was better but it's not a deal breaker by any means. To the OP: next time do your homework, you'll be less disappointed.

Sorry, but there is nothing wrong with expecting a company that touts its camera prowess to actually deliver on that promise. One of the main reasons Nokia was so welcomed as a WP device maker was the quality of their cameras, a feature they themselves talk up. This would not turn me away from the device but if the camera is bad, in isolation and more importantly among its peers as well then it's a legitimate issue for some and not something they should accept if they choose not to, prior research or not. And I am interested to know how anyone could know the camera would not be up to par prior to its release as recent as last Friday to preorder customers to use this info in their buying decision.

[eastbayrae]

Sorry, but there is nothing wrong with expecting a company that touts its camera prowess to actually deliver on that promise. One of the main reasons Nokia was so welcomed as a WP device maker was the quality of their cameras, a feature they themselves talk up. This would not turn me away from the device but if the camera is bad, in isolation and more importantly among its peers as well then it's a legitimate issue for some and not something they should accept if they choose not to, prior research or not. And I am interested to know how anyone could know the camera would not be up to par prior to its release as recent as last Friday to preorder customers to use this info in their buying decision.

There is numerous pre-release reviews of that camera, err phone, and it's faults. Can you show me where Nokia stated the Lumia series has class beating cameras? If you want a great camera buy the Titan II and deal with the crappy screen or the Nokia PureView. It's all in what you're prepared to bleed for. I would rather have the Nokia quality over the half-assed attempt that is the Titan II. That phone is an incremental upgrade, over the Titan, at best. Add to the fact it is twice the price of the L900. I don't see you're getting twice the value versus the 900.

Judging buy what I see most people posting on facebook, most cell cameras are rubbish anyway. My friend has an iPhone 4s and she posts pics all day long that look like utter garbage shot on an 5 mega-pixel camera.

[sting7k]

Yes the camera is pretty weak. Nokia needs to move to the BSI sensors like everyone else is using now. IMO my iPhone 4 takes better photos and videos. However it doesn't bother me as I use my nicer dedicated digicam anyway.