iBTimes says more megapixels is better when comparing Nokia Lumia 920 to Padfone 2. LOL.

I know the article I’m responding to is more link bait designed to troll responses,  but I’ve seen far too many posts by this author that makes me think that she is either: a) just not too clued up about what she talks about or b) that she is, unfortunately, an idiot.

I wrote and deleted a long response to the whole article as my attempt felt a little futile.

Let me focus on one part of which someone who writes for the “TECHNOLOGY” column on IBTimes should know. Even my non techy friends are aware of this: Megapixels don’t mean quality. More does not mean better. How you use them or make sure each one looks great is what matters. The actual photo at the end of the day matters. The ability to take great shots a lot of the time in various different condition matters. The ability to produce great video with great sound matters.

Pixels aren’t everything. Even though Nokia has the highest megapixel rating phone (808) and it is the best camera phone (808) it’s not simply because it has more pixels! It is what Nokia is doing to make sure those pixels come out great and that the final pictures look awesome. PureView version 1 does it with large sensors, great Carl Zeiss optics and oversampling. PureView version 2 also gets some Zeiss love but approaches improving image quality differently by using ‘floating lenses’ for optical image stabilisation.

The first doubters said about the 808 was that the MP count was ridiculous. What was the point? It was useless! Pixels aren’t everything, they said. And they’re right. Not the way other people had been focused on pixels anyway.

Well, they all ate their words when the 808 started eating their dedicated point and shoots – even several of the top models and even giving the DSLRs a run for their money. I can’t say the 920 will do the same to turn disbelievers, but I wouldn’t count out the 920 so haphazardly either as it is also actually attempts to deliver great images/video and not simply a marketing stunt.

In Kirstin’s attempt at gaining favour for the newly released Padfone 2 from ASUS, I was absolutely flabbergasted to read the following:

Camera – Nokia Lumia 920’s 8MP rear camera does not stand a chance with Asus PadFone 2 13MP shooter.

au.ibtimes.com/articles/395066/20121017/nokia-lumia-920-vs-asus-padfone-2

Sorry, Miss Kristin, but Ulol kaba? Seriously, ask yourself: are you an idiot?

What is this crap you spout? We can’t say for certain whether the Nokia Lumia 920 will take great pictures unless we’ve seen production/consumer grade samples from reviews. Do you have one, Kristin? What about from the PadFone? From the early samples we’ve seen, the Nokia Lumia 920 PureView with floating optical image stabilisation seems to offer something new and different in the mobile imaging scene – something that, well, according to tests from places like Engadget, seems to be besting the current grade of smartphones at least in the areas of low light and image stabilisation. How then can you say the 920 does not stand a chance?

As for the rest of the crap that was your article, way to go ‘comparing’. Let’s ignore features from one phone eh? That’s the way comparisons go. And of course, bigger numbers is better.

Other point:

• If you’re going to talk about a unique point in the Padfone tablet feature, then you’ll have to talk about Super Sensitive Screen, Wireless Charging, Optical Image stabilisation.
• Dual Core on WP8 vs QuadCore on Android.

It’s all fine and dandy if this was a random comment from a random publication. But IBTimes TECHNOLOGY section? Really? You disappoint.

Category: Nokia