A friend of mine shot this in Helsinki. Low lighting conditions, Nokia style.
For true pros, the 16-35L would be more common than the 17-40L, since it is an f/2.8 instead of f/4.0 lens. It's almost a given that anyone shooting Canon owns the 24-105L, so when opting for a wider angle lens the 17-40 and 16-35 are your two most common choices. The 16-35 gives you the wide-angle, PLUS lower f/stop (The 24-105L is f/4.0 also)
I don't think you can tell with any degree of certainly which specific lens was used for these shots.
Now it's perfectly normal to slightly alter promotional collateral as long as there's some YMMV caveat. But with such a flagrant abuse of consumer trust as presented here, it calls into question just how desperate Nokia is that they need to misrepresent a core feature of their savior product.
So i fully agree with the article saying it was a fake.
i agree that the spikes (in astronomy images) don't come from blade edges in a diaphragm aperture, but they are still diffraction spikes (from the secondary support) and "everyone" (as far as i know / remember) refers to them as such.
you can see the secondary support in the top right image at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflecting_telescope - the four radial "things" that hold the cylinder in the "end" of the telescope (on the right).
so what are you referring to with "internal back reflections" and how does that give spikes (rather than ghosts)?
[above from (past) personal experience as an optical astronomer on research telescopes - i am not sure if you are confused, or if there's some kind of problem i never understood. perhaps you work on a system where this is an issue?]
Cripes, I asked a simple question.
I wonder if Nokia cross-licensed Apple's patent.
Lets think of these in terms of food. Its not the same to show a "perfect Big Mac" in and ad than it is to show a Big Mac thats made with completely different ingredients of the ones you'll find when you order one.
In the case of the iPad watching feature films is probably about equivalent to using the camera on a smartphone. On the other hand, browsing the web is a primary function of the device, and there was no way the iPad was getting Flash.
The unfortunate thing for Nokia is that unless their product actually can perform like this they are going to have many disappointed customers.
For all we know, the new Nokia phone is actually a potato.
"Screen image is simulated."
"Product enlarged to show detail."
Yes, yes, we like "truth" and all. Especially when they're selling a camera after all, but getting a great cameraphone image and getting an image that will work on tv are two different things. No real surprise. Maybe disappointment, but no suprise.
I know there are rules for food advertising, but don't know about other types of products... There's not a safety liability issue like with cars, but.
Here are videos (OIS off and on) shot with a Lumia 920: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=6...
Here is the video shown at the press conference shot using a Lumia 920. On the right is a Lumia 920 prototype with OIS. On the left is a smartphone without OIS. The difference is apparent.
When will they be able to deliver?
OIS in Lumia 920 can not be turned off, it's different phone. In presentation they showed photo of special device holding both phones for producing comparation videos.
EDIT: The HN submission
Also, terrible that their response is simply that they should have "posted a disclaimer."
A search on Google News (anecdotal, yes) https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&gl=us&tbm=nws...
None of the articles have anything related to this in the title, and the first three articles do not mention any faking.
It feels like a big issue in tech-savvy circles on the internet. But I doubt most consumers know or care.
This is also standard launch procedure for Canon and Nikon (don't know about the others).
I hope the tech blogs that review this phone use their camera testing procedures on this phone.
Fake advertisements, it's nothing new, EVERYBODY does that. Think real
"Alas, the Minders leapt into Red Alert mode to prevent me transmitting the results, you'll have to take my word for it."
Plus, it's compared to a photo they took with "a competitor's phone". Even I can take an amazingly crap photo with my camera-phone, it's not hard.
Not trying to feed the anti-Nokia, I've always been curious of these types of things.
They made a gorgeous and great device. It probably has one of the best smartphone cameras ever. Because of what they did, now everyone is talking about how they faked the photos instead of talking about the phone. A friend of mine even emailed Nokia and asked "Will the Lumia 920 also have the built-in CIV (cameraman in van) feature?"
Apologizing isn't going to change anything. People are going to keep making fun of Nokia for a long time about this.
Do they simply not have enough confidence in their own flagship smartphone, with an apparently world-beating camera, to show an actual unretouched shot? A great way to crap all over the launch.
Nokia camera's have been good in the past and I have no doubt this is probably a good one.
One ad campaign is short lived, the photos taken by consumers who buy the phone on the other hand will continue to trickle in. It doesn't make too much sense for them to rely on this fact.
What the whole brouhaha is that they probably thought 'It's just an ad, everyone does it, every knows how ice cream in ice cream ads is not real ice cream. And the delicious burger never looks the same in real life either.'
Here's an interesting video from McDonalds on how they make their burgers look great. They admit the shortcomings of a real burger in the looks department and how they make it look so good.
Is post-processing allowed, for example? If yes, everything including light spikes could be claimed to be artificially added, not resulting from using different equipment. If pictures are required to be straight from the camera—well, there still are inevitable pre-production and (more importantly) RAW conversion steps.
There's a need for more complex regulations here.
I'm not sure about that. The general "don't be a dickhead" rule and the resulting public stink for those who don't follow seem to work ok in this case.
> Well, there still are inevitable pre-production and (more importantly) RAW conversion steps.
Sure, but there is a standard procedure to get a photo out of your camera and onto your Facebook page, and that's pretty much the standard amount of processing necessary. I'm more interested to see what the photo would look like if I made it with their camera, than what a professional photographer with a DSLR and a Photoshop license can do with it.
You can say what you want about Apple, but they did it right. Unretouched photos. Full-res available for download.
That fur looks pretty sharp to me.
 http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d3/h3d-1.htm: “For those of us in the press (Ken), we laughed when we looked at the EXIF data of Nikon's PR photos of the D3. They were shot in a studio, so of course Nikon had them shot with an appropriate camera: a $30,000 Phase One P45 back.” Anecdotal evidence, but I'm unable to find another source, so take it with a grain of salt.
If on the other hand the pictures are about showing what kind of results the camera can produce then I very much doubt they'd risk faking it by using a different camera.
Though will we consider a deceit if the camera used is the same P&S model, but lighting is set up? And then there's extensive post-processing, which is possible and may alter shots significantly.
A friend of mine loved his Nokia's phones. He always bought Nokia for 10 years during his teenage years because they were very good phones. He had good memories of those times.
He wished he could buy Nokia again, get super enthusiastic with the videos and now he discovers that he has been fooled. F*ck them!!
Or else why would the actual announcement articles get only around 30-40 points(which were later flagged off the front page anyway!) but this one is already close to 200 points. Winsupersite.com is hell banned on HN from even being submitted because of the haters flagging articles to death. Go figure.
Because it looks really good. They didn't need to have faked anything.