[congusano]

Two factors are involved, none of which are the aperture, that I believe significantly contribute to having less detail than people wish.

1. Sensor size. It is tiny. Very tiny. It has to capture 8 million pixels. Up close, that translates to a very crisp, "sharp" shot. Far away, that doesn't. Test this out with your own eyes. Look at the text of anything written very small up close. It looks good. Now, stand back and look at it and it loses detail very quickly.
2. Jpeg compression/noise reduction. Every picture taken from any single digital camera is shot RAW. In camera, some fine tuning is almost always used to create jpegs (or TIFF's). This reduces the file size, inherently adds noise and attempts at cleaning up some of that noise. The level at which the Lumia does it is quite high.

Aperature being wide open is not the entire reason these pictures aren't sharp as a tack.

[TunaTank]

You're all looking at post processing... But the real reason is if you keep looking at the display as it focuses. You will see the camera try to auto focus, you'll see it go from blurry to sharp, and then to blurry, and never go back to the sharpest looking picture. If you hold down the button halfway you will see this time and time again. You have to be VERY picky about what you're focusing on, most of the time I have to focus on a completely different object, and then pan back to where I want to take the picture. Even still, this does not work. It never seems to grab the perfect focal point. Granted, even those rare times, in a close up shot, when it looks sharp in the display, when the picture is taken it still looks kind of blurry. However, looking at pictures I took yesterday, I'm noticing a LOT of noise in these pictures... I was using all default settings. It almost looks like a high ISO photo. I think that in general, the shutter is open for too long, or the AUTO ISO value is too high, and then they darken it with the post processing, which is not my point at the time. My point is it doesnt focus worth crap. I'll attach some images for comparison. The first one here took me about eight different attempts at focusing on something other than the center of the image. The second is just a touch of the screen image capture. The noise is VERY noticable though. None have been edited.
PoolGoodFocus.jpgPoolBadFocus.JPGMediumDistance.jpgNearDistance.jpg

[sanders2232]

http://nokiashots.tumblr.com/

Check out these Nokia shots. If you don't have portico update unfortunately your picture quality will not be up to par.

[greycounciller]

Interesting posts. At the end of the day, my L920 takes poor pictures. Always blurry and focus not sharp. This was a poor upgrade from an N8.

[1101x10]

If the same shot is producing randomly blurry/sharp pictures it could be a problem with the OIS.

[Jaripi]

Well, I have seen a case that a cam of Lumia 920 was bad (1st pic, on left side) ... and after Nokia repaired it, it was just great (3rd pic, on right side)

https://skydrive.live.com/?cid=ac953...A02sV0bicIsrMc

P.S. it is not my pic, I just bring it here for this thread ...

[ricbon]

Nokia UK Photography - What's your PureView?

Check out these Nokia shots. If you don't have portico update unfortunately your picture quality will not be up to par.

IDK about that I have portico on my 920 and i feel they are soft/blurry, and yes i keep my lense clean.

[vlad0]

Two factors are involved, none of which are the aperture, that I believe significantly contribute to having less detail than people wish.

1. Sensor size. It is tiny. Very tiny. It has to capture 8 million pixels. Up close, that translates to a very crisp, "sharp" shot. Far away, that doesn't. Test this out with your own eyes. Look at the text of anything written very small up close. It looks good. Now, stand back and look at it and it loses detail very quickly.
2. Jpeg compression/noise reduction. Every picture taken from any single digital camera is shot RAW. In camera, some fine tuning is almost always used to create jpegs (or TIFF's). This reduces the file size, inherently adds noise and attempts at cleaning up some of that noise. The level at which the Lumia does it is quite high.

Aperature being wide open is not the entire reason these pictures aren't sharp as a tack.

Spot on.

Can't expect anything exciting from 1.4 micron pixels.. just look at the new xperia Z, its shooting at 13Mpix for .. well.. marketing purposes, but its using 1.1 micron pixels.. so.. instead of improving the quality, its pretty much the same or worse:

Camera comparison: Sony Xperia Z vs Samsung Galaxy S III, Galaxy Note II, iPhone 5, Nokia Lumia 920

But most people think.. oh.. 13Mpix is more than 8Mpix, it should be much better! No. That is not how it goes. Just compare a 12Mpix pic from the Nokia N8 which shoots with 1.75 microns, and you will see the difference.

Also, the jpeg processing in the 920 is.. very tricky because of the low light performance. I've said this before, if they can't figure out a way to switch between night mode and day mode automatically, they should give the user a way to switch between the two.

On the previous page I showed couple of shots from my Phase 1 phone.. wide open at F2.4 ... there is more detail then you will ever need. So aperture is not a problem if you have a good sensor, proper optics, and the required jpeg processing.

[R S]

There's a comparative review of smartphone cameras in Gizmodo today. They try to identify the best by considering performance under various conditions, and only pick the very best smartphones for the comparison. The Lumia 920 came out as the best performing. Interestingly, sailing in the face of the title for this thread, the Lumia won the round for best daylight pictures.

The Best Smartphone Camera

I don't really understand what point the OP was trying to make with the title to this thread. Perhaps they are comparing smartphone cameras to highend SLRs. It would be more accurate and helpful to general readers for the thread title to be changed to '... why smartphone cameras take such terrible pictures'. I don't think they do take terrible pictures, and it has been a long time since I would describe any picture I've taken with a smartphone in those terms.

[HeyCori]

While I appreciate all the thorough and well thought out explanations for the 920's camera, at some point you have to accept that you're using a smartphone and not a high end DSLR.

[perspicatio]

Perhaps the OP can clarify for me why the phone in my DSLR is crap.

[Torro Rosso]

Totally wrong my friend! Especially when you pretend not to be a noob, you should get your facts straight. First, there's no lens on a smartphone with an adjustable aperture...all are fixed. Nokia decided to go with the widest one (f2 ), which of course has the most naturally occuring lens blur. But their decision was justified by other user scenarios : macro photography and low light. As you mentioned, somewhat on the surface of the topic only, shallow depth of field gives you incredible close-up shots, also in lowlight it simply let's more light in without excessive and noisy ISO settings or shutter speeds. So of course there's some tradeoff - there aren't sharp AND wide lenses even in the DSLR space let alone ones that can be mounted on a smartphone. And still that tradeoff in my opinion is not that radical. Landscape photos after update are up there with other smartphones. Andyes, why so snobby when clearly you know close to nothing after asking if the aperture can be adjusted...

Nokia N86 has a variable aperture

[greycounciller]

Well, I have seen a case that a cam of Lumia 920 was bad (1st pic, on left side) ... and after Nokia repaired it, it was just great (3rd pic, on right side)

https://skydrive.live.com/?cid=ac953...A02sV0bicIsrMc

P.S. it is not my pic, I just bring it here for this thread ...

If this is true, I'm going to see if I can get my camera unit changed.

[vlad0]

The Lumia 920 came out as the best performing. .

They forgot the N8 and the 808 ..

Nokia N86 has a variable aperture

Yes, and so does the Samsung Pixon12. I think Nokia figured out that using a mechanical ND filter does the job just fine, instead of going with a much more complex arrangement required for variable aperture. Both the N8 and the 808 use similar ND filter system, the 808 uses a ND8 filter ( Neutral density filter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ) which is basically a 3 stop reduction..

Hopefully once they properly port phase 1 to the Lumia range it will have it as well.

Here is how it works on the N8

[omniusovermind]

WTF.... Its a cell phone... what do you expect... a DSLR replacement?

It's sad just how many people do. Personally I find the recent popularizing of cameras as a main selling feature for smartphones, over and above OS design and function frustrating.

[Great deal]

for gods sake...its a MOBILE PHONE...with a camera. its not a Canon 5D Mark III (amazing piece of kit btw) it IS the best camera on a smartphone aside from the nokia beast which was a camera first and a phone attached to it!

Your never ever ever EVER going to get results comparable to a DSLR, not even close...its PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE so worship it for what it is, the best camera on a smartphone today. Want something better? get a real camera.

[vlad0]

for gods sake...its a MOBILE PHONE...with a camera. its not a Canon 5D Mark III (amazing piece of kit btw) it IS the best camera on a smartphone aside from the nokia beast which was a camera first and a phone attached to it!

Your never ever ever EVER going to get results comparable to a DSLR, not even close...its PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE so worship it for what it is, the best camera on a smartphone today. Want something better? get a real camera.

I like how the term "DSLR" is used.. very broad.. I have a DSLR from 2010 I think, and my 808 holds its own against it during the day, see for yourself:

http://sdrv.ms/135sTcG

So are we talking D400 with a 2000 dollar lens, or a Canon XTi from couple of years ago with a 400 dollar lens ? Both are.. DSLRs. And I am not saying that a phone can replace a DSLR for a professional, but for an amateur ? Absolutely.

and no... the 808 is smartphone with an amazing camera as a bonus.

[hamzie11]

LOL
OP has run away after some sound counter arguments

[supereddzz]

Tell me again about how you know so much about photography.

Regards,

Eddy
-Photographer

[Saint Michael]

There's a comparative review of smartphone cameras in Gizmodo today. They try to identify the best by considering performance under various conditions, and only pick the very best smartphones for the comparison. The Lumia 920 came out as the best performing. Interestingly, sailing in the face of the title for this thread, the Lumia won the round for best daylight pictures.

The Best Smartphone Camera

but how serious can you take those guys when they dont even have the 808 in there =P?
I mean, the 808 eats the other Phones for breakfest, I have a friend With a GS3 and I have the lumia 920, both Phones are top of class known for great cameras - it's not even a fight. the 5mp shots from the 808 destorys them. makes the GS3 look foolish in all light. But the lumia can compete in low light, where handheld - it wins(ois ftw). but tripod mounted, the 808 still can't be beat (mecanical(long) shutter(speeds) ftw).

[Keith Wallace]

but how serious can you take those guys when they dont even have the 808 in there =P?
I mean, the 808 eats the other Phones for breakfest, I have a friend With a GS3 and I have the lumia 920, both Phones are top of class known for great cameras - it's not even a fight. the 5mp shots from the 808 destorys them. makes the GS3 look foolish in all light. But the lumia can compete in low light, where handheld - it wins(ois ftw). but tripod mounted, the 808 still can't be beat (mecanical(long) shutter(speeds) ftw).

The S III really isn't on-par, though. Compared to the 920, iPhone 5, and One X, the S III lagged behind them all, in low-light conditions, and was CLEARLY the worst in those cases.

[iamtim]

The op spent time to write out an informative post which makes a lot of sense to me, and is followed up with junior high style bullying.

Bill Gates himself could come here and write the most informative and well thought-out post covering any WP topic, but if he said things like "I'm here to give an explanation to all the noobs" and "anyone with half a brain is free to chime in", he's going to get accused of rampant douchebaggery... just like the OP of this topic.

An informative post does not excuse acting like a tool

[Saint Michael]

The S III really isn't on-par, though. Compared to the 920, iPhone 5, and One X, the S III lagged behind them all, in low-light conditions, and was CLEARLY the worst in those cases.

The S3 has always been regarded as a top contender in the camera Department, but yes, it suffers in low light in auto mode (but being a android Device, there are many settings to play With), simply turning the scenes to night makes a world of difference.

but my point still stands, how serious can you take the artical? I mean you compare the s3 to the one x. and conclude the one x is better (I also read the test), but and I quote "HTC's flagships come with rubbish cameras. So we didn't bother with those this time around."(- the gizmodo artical), so Obviously, they dont agree (and as I said, how serious can you take these guys?) as the S3 is in there.

so I would say it's a bitt of a stretch to say the S3 isn't on par With the others =)

[Idiocracy_izruts]

Yes, and a great acheivement from them, but still form factor is unacceptable for a modern smartphone. It's going to be "software photography" all the way for smartphones. Let's wait and see where nokia takes it next.

[Jazmac]

Yeah this thing was advertised as the best camera hands down, despite the botched marketing scheme. And I'm locked into a two year contract with it. That's what happens.

In spite of your vast photography and camera knowledge and / or experience, you got the 920 for 2 years anyway. Awesome.