The camera seems great, but the pedigree of some images is murky.

Microsoft and Nokia announced the flagship Windows Phone handset, the Nokia Lumia 920, at a press event in New York City on Wednesday. Just like the lack of grounding that plagued the end of the announcement (no pricing, dates, or availability information), the presenters on the show floor were extremely stingy when it came to letting us get our paws on the device. But we got a few touches in.

The yellow and red Lumia 920 both have glossy plastic bodies, while the black uses a matte finish (not quite as rubberized as the Lumia 900). The screens are curved glass, and the top and bottom edges don't have the same taper as the Lumia 900 did.

The Lumia 920 is a bit larger in both directions, to accommodate the slightly larger 4.5-inch screen. While none of the phones shown were final production models, the screen seemed to have poor viewing angles when rotated top to bottom; side-to-side, we saw very little dimming.

We only saw two demos on the show floor, one of which demonstrated the NFC capabilities of various charging and audio accessories for the Lumia 920. All worked as promised: touch the phone to the surface and it either starts charging or pairs automatically with the set of headphones or speaker for music playback.

A second demo for the camera exhibited the low-light capabilities of the camera, with photos taken with flash, without flash on the Lumia 920's PureView camera, and without flash on a competing smartphone camera. The PureView camera's low-light performance did make it much easier to see the subject of the photo as well as her surroundings.

However, with that feature turned on, it was impossible to tell that the photo was taken at night, which was a bit disorienting to us. It also created phantom light sources, as if there were a floodlight shining a few feet in front of the subject. Likewise, the sky was an apocalyptic white, yet seemed to cast no light on the subject.

(Update: the integrity of several of Nokia's demo photos for the Lumia 920 has been called into question. Youssef Sarhan has pointed out that certain photos purportedly taken with the Lumia 920 have some graphic impossibilities, and GSMArena has claimed the park photos above to be suspect, precisely because of the unusual lighting sources we noted. Nokia has already admitted to and apologized for using a simulated demo video for the Lumia 920's image stabilization, but has yet to address the images. We've reached out for comment on this matter.)

Enlarge/ These photos were taken of the same scenario; top, a Lumia 920, bottom, our iPhone 4S.

In a real-life demo, a presenter invited us to take a picture in a dark, enclosed space with our own iPhone 4S, to compare to a shot he took with the Lumia 920. The difference in results was very impressive.

Whatever positive notes the Lumia 920 may have, it still seems like little more than a pipe dream to us without pricing, concrete release dates, or availability info. Microsoft has promised to release this info in the fourth quarter of this year.

The first PureView camera in the Nokia PureView 808 clocked in at a whopping 41 megapixels. But Nokia has been insisting that PureView is not about specific camera hardware or megapixel count; it's about using hardware and software to produce the best possible photographs. The camera in the Lumia 920 may disappoint those who were hoping for another 41 megapixels to oversample, but the Lumia 920 arguably makes up for this with impressive low-light photography. As we are now a developed civilization and spend a good deal of our time indoors, a camera that excels at low light has enormous appeal, particularly for night owls, barflies, and party-goers. It may not grab the same headlines, but it could well be more useful.

Promoted Comments

it was impossible to tell that that photo was taken at night, which was a bit disorienting to us. It also created phantom light sources, like there was a floodlight shining a few feet in front of the subject. Likewise, the sky was an apolcalyptic white, yet seemed to cast no light on the subject.

What you're seeing is the light that's actually present in the scene, probably with some tone-mapping thrown in to even out the contrast. I suspect it's the tone-mapping (functionally similar to 'HDR') that's confusing you.

Quote:

Hopefully this means that trend in "megapixels == betterqualityomg" is finally dying?

I sincerely hope not. As Nokia have shown, there's a lot more you can do with lots of megapixels than creating ridiculously large photos. I still hold out hope that pixel density will reach the point needed for Lightfield cameras to take decent pictures.

Actually, you're both right (in a sense).

Pixel density can actually degrade image quality, if the sensor is tiny. Eventually you get to the point that while you have tons of pixels per inch, those pixels are little more than noise, rather than details. Higher amounts of megapixels become important only when your image sensor is correspondingly larger.

For a phone camera, a balance must be struck. If the size of the sensor is bound to a specific size (which they tend to be, especially in phone cameras), then it's better to cap off at a lower megapixel count and make sure everything else works phenominally. Which I think Nokia realized and is doing.

Think the whole point is that the light in the "lumia" tree in park scene wasn't present in the non lumia shot (this is not certain but seems likely).Reading the blog analysis (and the fact that they faked the videos without the 'simulated' rider) Someone in marketing needs to get fired...

In the UK that OIS advert would almost certainly have fallen foul of our deceptive advertising laws.

Here's the 'competing phone' pic with some exposure boost and moderate tone-mapping:

There's nothing in the shadows except noise, but the areas that got above the noise-floor show the same light distribution as in the Nokia pic. So I think it's genuine.

2010 posts | registered Jun 21, 1999

Casey Johnston
Casey Johnston is the former Culture Editor at Ars Technica, and now does the occasional freelance story. She graduated from Columbia University with a degree in Applied Physics. Twitter@caseyjohnston

129 Reader Comments

They could have been the Samsung of Android, but they also could have failed in the Android space where people seem to place little value on build quality and instead project phones like the GS III to great sales.

As far as Nokia was concerned, the race to the bottom in Android was already pretty far along. People seemed to be perfectly fine buying phones that felt as solid as credit cards and creaked every time you touched the screen. Why would they enter a market which seemed to not care about their strengths as an OEM?

Must be a slow race since an unlocked android phone will run about $300-500 easily. We're not quite at the Packard Bell level when it comes to smartphones.

The Lumia 920 looks solid enough that I would be comfortable with just a screen protector.

I doubt you would want one. the Lumia 900 has a hell of a strong screen, and I haven't been able to scratch it. The 920 is supposed to have an even more robust screen, and that super-sensitive touch capability it has might be interfered with if you have a screen protector on it.

Think the whole point is that the light in the "lumia" tree in park scene wasn't present in the non lumia shot (this is not certain but seems likely).Reading the blog analysis (and the fact that they faked the videos without the 'simulated' rider) Someone in marketing needs to get fired...

In the UK that OIS advert would almost certainly have fallen foul of our deceptive advertising laws.

Here's the 'competing phone' pic with some exposure boost and moderate tone-mapping:

There's nothing in the shadows except noise, but the areas that got above the noise-floor show the same light distribution as in the Nokia pic. So I think it's genuine.

Microsoft has promised to release this info in the fourth quarter of this year.

MS gets it wrong again. You can't do that! Consumers are not going to wait for your device! You need to announce and then ship.

That's a bit infantile. Most people plan ahead, especially since most smartphone users are on a 2-year contract. I would like to know the exact date as early as possible, but I'd rather wait for a firm date than have an arbitrary date that gets pushed back multiple times.

Microsoft has promised to release this info in the fourth quarter of this year.

MS gets it wrong again. You can't do that! Consumers are not going to wait for your device! You need to announce and then ship.

Umm, I'll wait. If I never see another Android device again, I'll be happy and I can't stand iOS simply because I don't like the walled garden. iTunes put such a bad taste in my mouth over the past years; i.e. an AOL bad taste. Soo... As my EVO sits here getting older and older by the day, I'm treading water until a good Windows Phone comes out. The 920 might be it and it's the first time I've been excited about a phone in a long time.

Man the white balance in some of those shots with they yellow one is off. I was really thinking go yellow but with a glossy finish and my propensity to beat the ever loving shit out of stuff, maybe the more boring matte black might be the way to go.

Now then Nokia/Microsoft, where is the shop I can buy one!!!!

edit - mmm, but that yellow is so hot shit looking in some of those shots that practicality be damned, I might still go yellow. Hey, its easier to find in your back pack if its bright right?!

Oh god. Why did they gloss the damn things up? The matte finish of the current gen is a huge part of why they're so damn sexy. Match the finish of all the coloured models to either the current gen matte or whatever they've done to the black one pictured here. Gloss just makes things look plasticky, and in the "dollar store watergun" way, not the "fruits of advanced materials research" way, no matter what it's actually made of.

And the fingerprints! You've got to take into consideration how the phone will actually look in real life. There are no glossy phones that are not covered in prints unless they've just been wiped down. Therefore, there is no such thing as a glossy finish on a phone. There is only shiny-and-fingerprinty.

it was impossible to tell that that photo was taken at night, which was a bit disorienting to us. It also created phantom light sources, like there was a floodlight shining a few feet in front of the subject. Likewise, the sky was an apolcalyptic white, yet seemed to cast no light on the subject.

What you're seeing is the light that's actually present in the scene, probably with some tone-mapping thrown in to even out the contrast. I suspect it's the tone-mapping (functionally similar to 'HDR') that's confusing you.

Quote:

Hopefully this means that trend in "megapixels == betterqualityomg" is finally dying?

I sincerely hope not. As Nokia have shown, there's a lot more you can do with lots of megapixels than creating ridiculously large photos. I still hold out hope that pixel density will reach the point needed for Lightfield cameras to take decent pictures.

Actually, you're both right (in a sense).

Pixel density can actually degrade image quality, if the sensor is tiny. Eventually you get to the point that while you have tons of pixels per inch, those pixels are little more than noise, rather than details. Higher amounts of megapixels become important only when your image sensor is correspondingly larger.

For a phone camera, a balance must be struck. If the size of the sensor is bound to a specific size (which they tend to be, especially in phone cameras), then it's better to cap off at a lower megapixel count and make sure everything else works phenominally. Which I think Nokia realized and is doing.

The colored exteriors look great, but almost everyone slaps a cover on their phone, so whats the point?

the whole point is with this polycarbonate body you don't need a cover around your phone.

besides, the phone is already pretty big, with a cover around it, it's well beyond the range of comfort for most people to hold.

Indeed. I have a Lumia 900 and it truly has no problem with being outside of a case. My previous phone, an LG Quantum, was wrapped up completely with a screen protector and case because it just didn't hold up well to wear.

I don't have a screen protector because it uses Gorilla Glass, and I often forgo the phone case because the polycarbonate body is just that strong.

Really, the only reason I got a case for my phone is because my hands tend to be dry and my grip tends to be slippery on the phone itself. I have a TPU case for my phone which provides much better grip.

Huh. I'm constantly wanting to be able to buy things in not-black and not-red--but now that I see it, I'm not sure yellow is any improvement.

That little personal-preference quibble aside, I like the look of the phone, and so long as it turns out to actually take pictures as well as they've represented, that would be nice--most of my photos seem to be in dim environs. Oh, and the article says "curved glass" front--but it looks flat to me, including in the shots where it's face-down on the table. Is the curvature that subtle and, if so, what's the point? Or am I missing something?

On the downside, however:So, in 3+ months people somewhere (maybe here) will get access to this new phone at some price--and the camera may or may not be as awesome as the demos? I continue to be surprised that MS has done as well as it has for the last couple decades making vague promises about the future while competing against products that actually exist--especially since they have a very mixed record on delivering on those promises.

On the downside, however:So, in 3+ months people somewhere (maybe here) will get access to this new phone at some price--and the camera may or may not be as awesome as the demos? I continue to be surprised that MS has done as well as it has for the last couple decades making vague promises about the future while competing against products that actually exist--especially since they have a very mixed record on delivering on those promises.

Well they have done well because Windows OS just makes truckloads of money while all these other side boondoggles don't have to.

But yea, I really don't get announcing the latest and greatest product of your lineup...and then not even being able to order it (which would require a price at least). I mean heck, Ferrari comes out with a new California or whatever and its got this that and the next thing to make it great(er). Well, at least when they announce it, you can go and order the thing even if you won't get to drive it for months while it is being built. Here, we have the announcement and no price/date. As a consumer, its tremendously frustrating. I don't find it builds 'excitement' if that is what they are trying to do, its just annoying. And if anything, it costs you sales as people give up waiting.

Look at Canon - they announced the 1DX in November or so of last year. I was dying to buy one. I would have bought one when it was announced. But....nothing to buy. Then they announce a 'lesser' body a few months later (5d3) and it at least is available within a month or two but still no 1DX. So not wanting the lesser version and still no better version I wait. Heck, I don't think I can buy a 1DX even now almost a year later. Well I didn't want the 5d3 cause you waved the 1dx in my face but now, almost a year later, frankly, I have just gotten tired of it and am thinking Sony rx100 and call it a day. By the time I can buy a 1DX it will be 1 model year old ffs. You may have created the most awesome camera in the world Canon, but by announcing but not having anything to deliver, all you did is frustrate your customers and in this case, more than likely cost you a rather nice sale.

Nokia/MS, that is what is currently happening here for me. Great sounding product but no price and no idea when I can buy it. And once I give up and go xyz instead, you won't see anything out of me for years (my current mobile phone is a decade old). If you want to have your product get a buzz, announce it and have it available in a shop to buy...the next day. Heck, if its good enough, maybe you will get lines for it and some free press. If you announce an 'idea' (which at the moment the 920 might as well only be that), well, don't be surprised if you don't generate any buzz. Marketing failure 101.

What an unhelpful sentence. Why is Redmond the problem? Have you touched a Windows Phone first-hand to know that it doesn't do the hardware justice?

On topic, the PureView seems to be taking a bashing by people wishing to believe it's fake. Considering it's a new technology and is using things not seen in phones before, it's a bit arrogant to ramble on about how it's not real for reasons that might be irrelevant. The video was 'faked' yes, but even that was using prototype technology of what they were illustrating. It seems like everyone just wants to make Nokia out to be a presidential candidate or something.

I reserve judgement on the PureView until I can see it first hand, and until then I'm going to take Nokia at their word. I would also appreciate definitive evidence instead of pure speculation.

The teaser photo's without an explicit 'Shot with Lumia 920 prototype' notice are probably not made with an 920. They were meant to tease the OIS feature, not to show the 920's capability in general. Though that was clearly not a very smart idea.

The colored exteriors look great, but almost everyone slaps a cover on their phone, so whats the point?

Because almost everyone doesn't. Cases are popular, but they're not even close to universal. I don't use one with my Lumia 900, and I don't feel like I need one. Robust phone and all that.

I like seeing iPhones in the giant otterbox defender cases, makes them look so stupid. I put a thin silicon case on my RAZR when I first bought it, now it roams the world naked in it's glorious thin splendor. I understand cases for the clumsy, or for particularly breakable phones, but the phones look so nice it's a shame to hide them away.

I've only ever had a thin GelaSkin on the back of my iPhone 4. I've had the phone for over two years. I've gone through three (2001: ASO themed GelaSkins) during that time. [shrug]

actually, I can believe those low light shots are real. Even on my Nex and Canon cameras shooting low light, it produces what looks like phantom light sources but actually if you observe the scene, you actually see that it's capturing the scene correctly. The exposure settings are picking up the light sources correctly.

In low light, our eyes simply aren't sensitive enough to pick up on these very subtle light sources unless you're looking for it - and even then, it's still going to be orders of magnitude more dark than what the cameras will pick up.

If you do a lot of low light shooting, which I do, this is pretty common.

It's impressive. While not really that telling (we need to actually see the picture taken from the camera rather than a shot of a shot in a screen), you can clearly see that the iphone produces large clumpy blobs of uneven noise. The pureview noise seems to not be present on that screen. The noise of the pureview in that photo follows the noise levels of the Rebel that shot that picture.

I'm reservibg judgement on final quality, but even showing a shot of a shot in a camera screen, we see the noise level is pretty well controlled and more importantly, actually is capturing detail.

Nice, so we'll find out latter how it does as a ...phone. Is it's reception better than the others? How about range? Call quality? The phone book?

A lot of that is going to be location-specific, but I can say that the Phone Book is easily the best out of all the mobile OSs. It unifies all of your contacts into a single location and then merges the duplicates across services. So when you want to get someone, you can call them, text them, Facebook them, Tweet them, etc. all from their contact. So however that person prefers to be contacted, you can do them all equally easily.

Actually, I just checked, and you can do all of that from the contacts/address book with iOS 5. Well, if you click on someone's Facebook link, it takes you to their page, rather than creating a message directly. I'm really not sure which is better, because I almost never use direct messages via Facebook, so I'm not sure I'm a good test case. Though maybe WP8 makes it easier to get all those contacts into the address book in the first place? Somehow, previous reviews had left me with the impression that the WP8 address book was much more useful than the iOS one, but this doesn't sound that groundbreaking.

Because almost everyone doesn't. Cases are popular, but they're not even close to universal. I don't use one with my Lumia 900, and I don't feel like I need one. Robust phone and all that.

This. The iPhone is the first phone I've had where I use a case. The Trophy and DInc I had before it got along just fine w/o one.

I never used one with my Desire. Although I am using one with my GS3 for two reasons: It's friggin expensive if you don't get it "subsidized" and it's so thin.

These are Nokia phones. I expect they'll be rugged, and they look kind of thick (by today's Samsung and Motorola RAZR driven standards).

Funnily enough, my iPhone is the first phone I've ever had where I *didn't* put a case on it the day I bought it--though I always just got a leather case to provide protection against scratches and just a smidge of padding for drops. And to provide something to clip into a belt clip. The combo of glass (not as easily scratched as plastic) and the fact that the iPhone was the first phone I had that was thin enough to realistically put in a pants pocket, is why I didn't get a case, instead just putting InvisibleShield on it.

And, yeah, if Nokia still makes 'em like they used to, these don't need a case.

This is the nice part... WP8 shares a codebase with Windows 8 (Windows RT) and since the ecosystem of Windows is a huge one to get "onto" (far bigger than the iPhone/iPad ecosystem in terms of installed counts), you'll get all the benefits very quickly.

The problem is, even though I personally love it, there's a lot of hate for Metro (or whatever it's called now). If it gets a lot of bad rep similar to Vista (which was fine IMO), there won't be that kind of installed base you're talking about. It may just dwindle into obsolescence before it even gets the chance (again just like Vista). To get an idea, just see "OMG. NO START MENU. IT JUST SUCKS NO MATTER WHAT IMPROVEMENTS IT JUST MADE" comments that get posted every time there's an article about Windows 8, regardless of the flavour (RT, x86 etc).

Hercules wrote:

Windows 8 launches in a month, and after that you'll start to see a deluge of apps pouring into the Windows Phone App Store as well as the Windows App Store.

I know, at a technical level, it's just a flick of a switch, so to speak. So my concern is, even if Windows 8 on desktop is a success despite all the Metro hate and Windows 8 gets all the apps, Win Phone has such a small install base, would developers be arsed to change the UI to fit the phone displays?

Nice, so we'll find out latter how it does as a ...phone. Is it's reception better than the others? How about range? Call quality? The phone book?

A lot of that is going to be location-specific, but I can say that the Phone Book is easily the best out of all the mobile OSs. It unifies all of your contacts into a single location and then merges the duplicates across services. So when you want to get someone, you can call them, text them, Facebook them, Tweet them, etc. all from their contact. So however that person prefers to be contacted, you can do them all equally easily.

Actually, I just checked, and you can do all of that from the contacts/address book with iOS 5. Well, if you click on someone's Facebook link, it takes you to their page, rather than creating a message directly. I'm really not sure which is better, because I almost never use direct messages via Facebook, so I'm not sure I'm a good test case. Though maybe WP8 makes it easier to get all those contacts into the address book in the first place? Somehow, previous reviews had left me with the impression that the WP8 address book was much more useful than the iOS one, but this doesn't sound that groundbreaking.

I'm not sure what the WP8 contacts list adds over the WP7 one. As for ground breaking, Windows Phone 7 released that feature on launch almost two years ago. And since then they've added things like LinkedIn support (for those of us that care) and more seamless updates. On top of that, the Contact list features a "Recent" section which gathers all communication they've done on any platform. So if you want to see what a specific person has been up to before you call them, you have their aggregated most recent activity right there. Nothing from iOS or Android is that comprehensive.

This with Android would have wiped HTC off the market and give Samsung a real run for their money.It would not be inconceivable to have sold 20 million in 100 days.

That's not how it works. Nokia is simply off the radar for most consumers and salespeople in the smartphone era. Samsung has been building on their Galaxy line for years and pumped zillions in marketing. And now, with a large install base, friends will also tell their friends how happy they are with their Galaxy, boosting new sales. You can't beat that by just releasing yet another Android phone. The HTC One X is a phone too, but sells nowhere near the S3.

Actually, I just checked, and you can do all of that from the contacts/address book with iOS 5. Well, if you click on someone's Facebook link, it takes you to their page, rather than creating a message directly. I'm really not sure which is better, because I almost never use direct messages via Facebook, so I'm not sure I'm a good test case. Though maybe WP8 makes it easier to get all those contacts into the address book in the first place? Somehow, previous reviews had left me with the impression that the WP8 address book was much more useful than the iOS one, but this doesn't sound that groundbreaking.

I'm not sure what the WP8 contacts list adds over the WP7 one. As for ground breaking, Windows Phone 7 released that feature on launch almost two years ago. And since then they've added things like LinkedIn support (for those of us that care) and more seamless updates. On top of that, the Contact list features a "Recent" section which gathers all communication they've done on any platform. So if you want to see what a specific person has been up to before you call them, you have their aggregated most recent activity right there. Nothing from iOS or Android is that comprehensive.

It's one of the places where Windows Phone is not playing catch-up.

Oh, right, *that's* why it's awesome. Yes, that *does* sound really cool. In general WP7/8's orientation around central nodes of activities, rather than platforms or apps, sounds really great, and exactly what I loved so much about OpenDoc. (Right now, I'd be happy just to have one app that posted something simultaneously to FaceBook and Google+, but that's another whole issue.) I am genuinely jealous of that ability of WP8. I wish that someone else would hurry up and clone that functionality, because I simply don't trust MS--not on a functionality level, or on a political level. (I've been burned too many times on the former front, and seen far too much of what they've done to the tech sector and society on the latter front. It's gonna take several more years of good behavior in each area before I'm willing to give them another shot (other than at work, where I don't get to decide).)

^^ Fair enough, but I would point out that from a good governance perspective, MS has been a very good boy for a decade now. Though it took two major government interventions and a new CEO, they finally realized they were the big kid on the block and couldn't roughhouse like they used to.

I'm frankly more concerned about Apple and Google, both of which have been moving retrograde, IMO.