Is anybody excited about the supposedly leaked photos of Lumia 1030?

• 

  SpaceNinja on 01/12/2014 - 08:19

  No

• 

  p1 ama on 01/12/2014 - 10:05

  I don't get the hype with better quality cameras in phones.

  Phone cameras are fine. If you want better quality, actually go and buy a camera.

  • 

    adumb on 01/12/2014 - 12:26

    +2

    Exactly, why would anyone want better quality cameras in their phone? This whole camera smartphone thingy is overrated. If you want to take pictures buy a camera, if you want email and internet browsing capabilities buy a laptop, if you want to listen to music buy a Sony walkman, if you want to get street directions buy a street directory!

    And a big bag to lug them all in too.

    • 

      p1 ama on 01/12/2014 - 13:22

      I'm fine if the improved camera doesn't increase the size and cost of the smartphone.

      But there's a reason why "camera smartphones" have never traditionally sold well. There are heaps of "camera smartphones" on the market, e.g. the Galaxy Zoom from Samsung. Have any of them been a genuine commercial success? No.

      I wonder why? Because the cameras available on phones is fine for most people. Those who need better cameras will buy better cameras. Why bother putting a "less crap" camera on a smartphone that still won't hold a candle to a cheap point and shoot.

      • 

        iridiumstem on 01/12/2014 - 14:20

        I personally think using Galaxy Zoom is a bad idea, since Galaxy Zoom was, at least from my perspective, something that failed both as a phone and a camera. It was too clunky to be considered a phone and the quality of the photos were lacklustre for its clunky-ness. The pixel on it is around 20 megapixel as far as I remember, and that is half as much as Lumia 1020 (41 megapixel). I personally thought Galaxy Zoom was a camera that Samsung released that has wifi capability until somebody pointed out that it was actually meant to be a phone.

        Lumia 1020 was fairly thin too for its camera, I think it was actually lighter than Lumia 920 or at least around the same size.

        Since camera is not exactly my forte, I will have to refer to people's review on it. But as far as I read, even the camera people are impressed by the quality of Lumia 1020 camera. I am not saying that it is for everyone nor people should ditch their camera for Lumia 1020, but I don't think it should be considered as "less crap", but rather a decent camera.

        http://connect.dpreview.com/post/5533410947/smartphones-vers…

        I personally see it as a gimmicky phone as well. It has a specific market, a niche market too. Though, it does exist if you look at how well Nokia 808 and Lumia 1020 sold. As far as I am concerned, I think it was interesting one to share with people.

      • 

        p1 ama on 01/12/2014 - 15:58

        @AznMitch:

        The pixel on it is around 20 megapixel as far as I remember, and that is half as much as Lumia 1020 (41 megapixel).

        At this sensor size and quality, MP is simply just a marketing tactic and nothing more. Guess how many MP Nikon's pro news and sports bodies have? 16MP (Nikon D4). Gues how many MP Canon's pro news and sports bodies have? 18MP (Canon 1DX). So yes, you don't need 41MP.

        In fact, 41MP is meaningless unless the lens can actually resolve that level of detail, which I highly doubt, which just means that pixels next to each other are the same because that level of detail cannot be achieved.

        Since camera is not exactly my forte, I will have to refer to people's review on it. But as far as I read, even the camera people are impressed by the quality of Lumia 1020 camera. I am not saying that it is for everyone nor people should ditch their camera for Lumia 1020, but I don't think it should be considered as "less crap", but rather a decent camera.

        It's certainly better than other cameras on phones that are available, but it's by no means decent. It won't be superior to a mid-range point and shoot, which are really cheap these days. Your basic $200 camera, such as the Canon S200 will be far superior.

        I personally see it as a gimmicky phone as well. It has a specific market, a niche market too. Though, it does exist if you look at how well Nokia 808 and Lumia 1020 sold. As far as I am concerned, I think it was interesting one to share with people.

        I completely agree, it does have a very specific market which is very niche. You see, this is the problem with this market. Who would want a Lumia 1020. The way I see it, is there are two kinds of people:

        1) People who don't really care about image quality - for which the camera on the iPhone or other similar high-end phone is more than enough for them. They won't be interested in the Lumia 1020.

        2) People who actually care about image quality - they will always carry a point and shoot with them anywhere anyway. So it's a moot point for them.

        That's the problem I see, that there's no target for a phone like this because that market doesn't exist. This isn't exactly new, Nokia have been trying to break through with a camera oriented phone for a while and others have tried as well. But even though they've sold okay, hardly commercial successes.

      • 

        iridiumstem on 01/12/2014 - 16:42

        I personally still think my argument stands. You have used arguments about how it is non-existent market because Galaxy Zoom didn't sell. I don't think it is the case because of what I said before. Galaxy Zoom was neither compact like a phone nor at a level comparable to a camera, where is the merit in buying that crap?

        Also, Lumia 1020 uses Carl Zeiss optics along with other stuff. Basically that was where all the hype was when 808 came along. Though, I am not arguing with you on MP representing quality, because you clearly know better than me, but rather, Galaxy Zoom was a crap phone since it was bulkier than 1020 and it had less of a sales point than 1020.

        I think you need to bear in mind that Lumia 1020 was no more expensive than the Galaxy series as well. Or at least, it is at a price level where people can consider it to be an option as their next smartphone.

        I think their commercials successes were almost impossible to begin with. Nokia 808 had symbian, Lumia 1020 have Windows OS. Nobody buys phone with just hardware specs in their mind, they think about apps, user experience etc etc.

        Nokia failed in smartphone market because they started too late on a market that they couldn't have competed well when they tried to enter. They didn't have the hardwares like Samsung nor strong fan base along with the market starter's advantage/software like Apple.

        I personally think Nokia did what it could do best, trying to differentiate itself from the others in a way that it could do best in. They were trying to set their image as the phone that has decent camera and alright hardware at decent price. I think most of their mid to high range phones are equipped with Carl Zeiss lenses for that reason. To some extent, I think that is why they have decided to go into WP, not Android. They wanted to differentiate themselves from Samsung or Apple.

        Also on your argument that it has no market, I still think there is. There are people who do not want to carry around their camera who wants a reasonable phone camera, I think that was its target. Look how MP3 market got reduced to almost nothing because you can have iPhone to listen to music. Also, I think camera-phone market is not the only market 1020 was going for, but rather it was one of the markets that it wanted to target. It still was the best windows phone at the time.

      • 

        p1 ama on 01/12/2014 - 18:16

        @AznMitch: I agree with most of the things you have said, but this is where I think you're misunderstanding my argument a little.

        I think that was its target. Look how MP3 market got reduced to almost nothing because you can have iPhone to listen to music.

        That's because a phone is as good as a dedicated MP3 player for listening to music, in other words, it made MP3 players redundant.

        A good camera phone still doesn't make a camera redundant.

      • 

        iridiumstem on 02/12/2014 - 02:20

        A good camera phone doesn't make a camera redundant yet, but same thing applies to phones and MP3 players. Phones were taking over MP3 player market even before they became reasonably OK. In terms of THD-N, battery life, storage space and other things, dedicated MP3s were better than phones till recently. I'd argue that phones became around the same level as low quality MP3 players, but even that is arguable for audiophiles. I can give you examples such as Fiio X1 and Sony NWZ-A10 series which are around $100~200 mark, and if you want examples from past, iPod classic, Sansa Clip Zip and many of the Sony's Walkman line. You might argue with me on how audiophiles make up small population, but some of the things I've mentioned would effect normal people as well. Like camera industry, I argue that MP3 player market have downsized and started focussing on audiophiles.

        I personally think that the reason would've lied within the fact that people were too lazy to carry around an MP3 player. It was clogging up their bag. At least the music played on the phone is decent enough. I think same argument would apply to cameraphones as well. Though, I'd think that cameraphones still have a long way to go in terms of its quality against dedicated cameras.

        I do think that smartphones are taking over the camera market little bit by little bit too since I know for a fact that many people have stopped buying a camera because they have a decent smartphone. I've heard how camera industry have changed its structure because of smartphones, just like how MP3 players, GPS and all those other things have gone down the hill. Number of point-and-click models that are being released are reduced from an article I've read on the net. So the cameraphones would market those people who are looking for better cameras on a phone who doesn't want to spend money on cameras. It's a niche market as I said though. That was one reason why I was interested in these because I wanted to see how far they would actually push this concept.

• 

  Cheeper on 01/12/2014 - 11:30

  -2

  Windows phone… pass :-(

• 

  blitz on 01/12/2014 - 11:43

  -1

  Why bother with Windows Phone when Android is clearly better?

  • 

    iridiumstem on 01/12/2014 - 13:53

    Kudos, for using my words against me.

    • 

      blitz on 01/12/2014 - 20:41

      It was a joke but oh well.

• 

  IIGnomeII on 01/12/2014 - 13:29

  As someone that spent the last 4 years on WP and just moved to android I really miss the lumia camera so yes this news is good.

  The only reason that I left WP was because the specific apps that I was after were not on the platform but the adoption rate appears to be increasing so hopefully I can come back to the platform in the future.

• 

  plmko on 01/12/2014 - 13:51

  This has been cancelled, just a leak of a prototype that never will be much more than that.

  • 

    iridiumstem on 01/12/2014 - 13:54

    Really? The prototype leak was just few hours ago…
    It would be disappointing if they cancelled it. :(

    • 

      plmko on 01/12/2014 - 14:20

      Yes, prototype photos leaked today, but the information of the "McLaren" (1030) was released months before.