Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 28th Apr 2012 17:19 UTC
Windows I wish more people who work or have worked for large technology companies were as open, honest, and excited as Steve Wozniak still gets over new technology and gadgets. He recently bought a Nokia Lumia 900 - and he's loving it. So much so, in fact, that he claims it's better than Android and iOS in many respects.
Thread beginning with comment 516403
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Comment by Radio
by Jaktar on Mon 30th Apr 2012 21:12 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Radio"
Jaktar
Member since:
2011-06-03

I just did a quick search and all the WP7 models that came up were either 5MP or 8MP. This is similar to what my wife has been getting in all of her Android phones.

As for the 'specs' that you keep referring to, Woz already talked about that. Even with the lower specs of the WP7, it is (in Woz's opinion) more fluid than higher spec'd Android and iOS phones.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[4]: Comment by Radio
by No it isnt on Tue 1st May 2012 01:21 in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by Radio"
No it isnt Member since:
2005-11-14

Megapixels isn't much of an indication of camera quality. The Lumias are among the best WP7 cameras, but they are even worse than the Nokia N9, and I'm not happy with its camera. Samsung's better Android phones are far superior. As are Sony's, and the iPhone 4S (but not the previous ones, which are all remarkably bad).

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by Radio
by Neolander on Tue 1st May 2012 13:55 in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by Radio"
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

Megapixels are not an accurate measurements of camera quality. They are just a measurement of image resolution, that is, how large of a print you can make from an image and how much you can tweak it because things start to become really ugly.

Digital pictures have been high-res enough to make decent A4 prints ever since 3 MP cameras have been out. For casual photographers, there is no need for higher-resolution pictures.

Now, stuff that actually matter to phone camera users, such as color fidelity or noise, may actually be harmed by an uncontrolled push for more megapixels. More pixels means smaller photodetectors, so a lower sensitivity and more defects.

Edited 2012-05-01 13:56 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[5]: Comment by Radio
by zima on Thu 3rd May 2012 21:03 in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by Radio"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

Megapixels are not an accurate measurements of camera quality. They are just a measurement of image resolution, that is, how large of a print you can make from an image and how much you can tweak it because things start to become really ugly.

Not even that: a technically high MP file from, say, a phone camera and its very small sensor & poor optics (poor "optical resolution" of sorts) ...will tend to give worse large prints than a proper DSLR with, say, nominally only half MP.

Digital pictures have been high-res enough to make decent A4 prints ever since 3 MP cameras have been out. For casual photographers, there is no need for higher-resolution pictures.

Probably more than A4 - I remember one informal experiment with three poster-sized prints of the same photograph, in 15, 10 and 5 MP versions (and A4 to poster increase is proportionally larger than 3 to 5 MP). IIRC, out of dozens of people, only one could pinpoint the difference ...probably due to being a pro in the field.
(I'd have to search for it myself, and I'm afraid ATM of wiki/google effect ;) - if you care, it was IIRC some NYTimes blog post dealing specifically with the megapixel myth, test done in some shopping center or some such)

PS. Kinda like megahertz myth of old days...

Edited 2012-05-03 21:04 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2