Originally Posted by Lukeskymac
I've noticed you understand a great deal more of photography than me, but... isn't this the whole point of this particular camera? More time to gather more light?
I'm not sure what that means—more time. If an iPhone, as an example, would take a photo that's several stops underexposed, as the video showed, then how could this take one that was overexposed? Going from f:2.4 to f:2 isn't going to do it. That's less than one stop. But there looked to me to be a good four stops difference between the photo's, maybe more, hard to tell from the video.
EDIT: I don't mean that overexposure is good, just that it could be a logical side-effect of this camera's method for low-light pictures.
That's always possible. I assume they are doing a lot of processing to get an image, and possibly that destroys the proper contrast. I saw that effect with pictures of a woman leaning against a tree that they showed. So if that's part of their technology, it will make a usable, but bad photo under very low light. But if that photo's blown up, it will look terrible.
A problem here is that there's absolutely no point in delivering a high Rez image if it only looks acceptable on the phone screen. And with all that contrast, and all the highlights blown out, it doesn't look good to me. I would have preferred they used something better than what they were shooting. But maybe that's why they chose that rather than to have something with more detail and a full range of colors, such as a bowl of fruit and a background of something detailed. If that got blown out, people would have thought it looked like garbage.
Really? Do tell how.
I'm not saying it is, or it isn't. But a number of articles about in the financial press were saying that investors (who mostly held Nokia stock) were bailing because they didn't think the phones offered more than the competition. That's in addition to the lack of substantial information as to when they were available (one assumption is Nov. 2, my birthday!). How much they would cost, and which carriers had signed on. They also didn't like the fact that as with Microsoft's Surface, they weren't allowed to do anything with the phones, indicating that they were far from ready. There was a concern that the time scale wouldn't give developers enough time to get their apps out. And any wp7 apps that use 3D in any way need that portion to be completely rewritten, such as games. They also told people they couldn't use the phones because they weren't yet FCC approved. That seems to be nuts. So late in the game for that. So the assumption is that the OS isn't yet ready, with Microsoft claiming to have the RDK only out by Oct. 26.
The problem Microsoft and it's ODM's have is that breaking into the smartphone market now, with Android and iOS having a very large, and growing stranglehold on the market is that unless competing products can offer substantially MORE, there isn't a reason for others to go to them. Wp7 wasn't great, just passable. Wp8 MIGHT be great, but we have to get the phones to know. If its just as good, it won't do very well. That's just the way it works.
With the latest JD Power ratings, the iPhone again, for the 8th year, ended on top of the ratings, well ahead. Nokia was well down. They have to make that up. Can they do it with these phones! That's a real question.
I think there's a very real possibility that people just don't like Win Phone. If that's true, then nothing they do will help much.