TechCrunch blogger disses Nokia’s PureView because it isn’t Fat and Ugly like the Samsung Galaxy S4 ZOOM Brick
The gist I got from this article was because the S4 Zoom looks more like a camera than the Nokia PureView devices it’s instantly better.
Apparently, whilst Nokia PureView might perform better in low light, it doesn’t matter because the consumer will prefer thee thing that looks more like a camera.
Well, actually, I could see Android and a large(R) screen being reason amongst several others. You know, genuine reasons.
It seems that to Natasha, if you’re going to go and make a big camera based phone, make it super fat, and super ugly, like an ugly fat point and shoot so regular joe that knows nothing about cameras and camera phone will pick up your fat and ugly camera-phone hybrid.
Samsung’s relentless pursuit to cover all bases the competition is at is admirable. If you can, why not. Also, the push on camera makes camera as a feature even more important. It’s still one of Nokia’s strengths so all the better for Nokia that more people are in pursuit of good photography. I feel Samsung gave PureView a breather when it released the previous iteration of the Fat and Ugly S3/Camera just without the phone bit. Adapt/Copy/Evolve quickly and swarm the competition, like the Borg or virus, an impressive feat for those who can carry it off.
Quite rightly, Natasha says it may be down to performance but apparently, on design, the outside of the fat and ugly S4 zoom wins. Note, i think I’ve seen performance comparison in areas where the 808 beasts the previous SammyDroidCamera.
Nokia’s been working for 5 years on PureView Phase 1 as seen in the 808. It was meant to bring DSLR like performance in a POCKETABLE size (pocketable at least when they started it – though still much more compact than the fat and ugly S4 Zoom).
Come on Nokia, release the Kraken already! (As for looking more like a camera, I read some complaints in the Nokia EOS leaks that they didn’t like how it looked too much like a camera :p)
Cheers Jenjaman for the tip!
Apologies for the title. It was in the same jest as the one I’m responding to.