I didn’t leave home base today, so I just gave the Nokia Lumia 925’s camera another quick try-out. I continue to be impressed.
It was an overcast winter’s day here at Wentworth Falls, but everything was looking nice and crisp after some early rain. I figured that a few snapshots around Bunjaree Cottages would be in order.
So, for Day 2 of my Nokia Lumia 925 / Windows Phone 8 trial, here’s 24 photos. All of them have been uploaded to Flickr exactly as they came out of the camera.
The image at the top of the post is a good example of the close-up capability — and I’m pleased that Nokia calls it “close-up” and not “macro”. The image certainly holds up when you zoom in and tweak the contrast.
And here’s that same photo a third time, zoomed all the way in but with no other modifications.
The rest of my bullet-point observations? Only one today.
- I’ve definitely got the feeling that handling the phone while it’s acting as a Wi-Fi hotspot causes the client devices to drop out — but that’s still not a proper check.
There’ll be much more to report tomorrow. I’m heading into Sydney, so I’ll be able to check its 3G and 4G reception on the moving train. I’ll shoot some video, and I’ll see how the battery life goes on a busy day out. You can follow it live on Twitter, where I’m using the hashtag #LumiaWP8trial.
Read all posts tagged #LumiaWP8trial (RSS feed).
[Photo: Katoomba railway station, photographed yesterday using the Nokia Lumia 925 on default settings. Download full-sized image (2.5MB).]
Macro does have a specific meaning in analogue photography: The size of the subject on the film is the at least the same size than the subject in real life.
I’m unsure how/if that translates to pixel-based sensors.
@PeteDotAscian: I seem to remember that in the earlier days of digital photography and the “desktop publishing revolution”, macro translated into the size of the image created on the camera’s photo sensor, when translated onto a computer screen at the then-standard 72 pixels per inch — or was it the print resolution of 300 dots per inch? — then the image was larger than reality.
In the age of dozen-megapixel cameras and more, and 2400dpi printing and more, it probably doesn’t translate at all.
Or maybe my memory is totally wrong…
That depth of field from a camera phone is very impressive! And yes I’m with you on not using ‘macro’.