Andrew Orlowski has to be one of the most unreliable troll journalists and last person who's word I will take at face value.

I agree and I take things he says lightly, but he's right on this one.

They are as noted prototype devices – with no announced release date – so it's completely in the realm of possibility that the camera simply isn't ready yet. Of course that doesn't excuse the misleading video and pictures Nokia used to advertise it.

The one actually marked "taken on a prototype" looks legit - tonnes of ISO noise.

The comparisons do make you wonder if they fiddled with the lighting artificially though, some of the differences are surprisingly drastic.

I doubt it. The camera seems to have HDRI. That, a looong exposure time, and a tripod can do amazing things.

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.

I was actually wondering about this, maybe you can enlighten us. Could they not have used external ligthing for the Nokia shot, and none for the competitor shot? How do we know they used the same lighting conditions?

Not trying to feed the anti-Nokia, I've always been curious of these types of things.

Ah, yeah I guess HDR would do it, slanted comparison nonetheless.