With Android 11 now available for the Nokia 7.2, I am hopeful that the Nokia 9 Pureview will receive it soon, though it is entirely possible that we will not be able to experience it anytime soon or at all. Without Light Co., I’m not sure if HMD Global’s team could stabilize the camera software on a new Android build. The Nokia 9 Pureview is a one-of-a-kind device that is more of a concept device that demonstrates what we can achieve if we push the boundaries of innovation.
In my series of reviews comparing Nokia devices to the Vivo X70 Pro +, it is clear that HMD Global’s device performs well, though further optimization, particularly on the software side, is required. The Nokia 9 Pureview is very similar to Vivo’s top-of-the-line offering in many ways. Both are flagship cameras designed to push the boundaries of photography.
By default, the Nokia 9 Pureview’s unique configuration allows it to capture more details, a wider dynamic range, and more raw data. However, a lack of software optimization had resulted in a less desirable user experience. Vivo, on the other hand, has more advanced software to complement its flagship grade hardware in order to maximize its performance.
The goat isn’t a good subject because it won’t stay still, but this is how both devices capture impromptu subjects. When it works properly, the primary sensor on the Nokia 9 Pureview has a good focal distance and quickly locks on to the subject. This results in a much cleaner shot. The wider sensor on the Vivo has a larger focal distance from the same distance, so subjects closer to us appear blurry. The Nokia 9 Pureview was able to capture a richer shot in the scene above, and while there is some sharpening, the images look natural.
A more appropriate HDR capability test. I’m astounded by what the Vivo has captured here. The dynamic range is good, and the colors appear more natural. A better processing algorithm would benefit the Nokia 9 Pureview by allowing the subjects to have less muted color. Both are generally good in this image, where the Sun is the subject of interest. The lack of Zeiss T* coating on the Nokia 9 Pureview does not appear to affect its performance, and I don’t see any benefit to the coating when compared to the output of the Nokia 9.
Another test that demonstrates Vivo’s flagship’s powerful processing algorithm. The light bouncing off the front hood of the car is well contained in the Vivo, whereas it is slightly blown out on the Nokia 9. Again, a better algorithm will benefit the Nokia 9 Pureview in this area. The vivo’s larger sensor allows it to capture subjects with natural bokeh by default. One of the advantages of the Nokia 9 Pureview is that all subjects are in focus and depth can be controlled later.
In terms of details, I am frequently surprised by the Nokia 9’s ability to capture a richer image. The Nokia 9 captures sharper images with less noise, despite the fact that color accuracy varies and is generally better on the Vivo.
One disadvantage of the Nokia 9 is that color accuracy varies depending on light availability. Under bright light, the image appears darker and muted. This is one area where I hope to see progress.
When it comes to depth, the Nokia 9 Pureview lacks the fancy modes found in Vivo and newer Nokia models. In theory, the 5 lenses and TOF sensor captured an unprecedented amount of depth map for a mobile device, but in practice, it is often less noticeable. Both devices can adjust depth after shooting, and while the Nokia 9 has more graduated depth, the edge detection isn’t always accurate.
The Nokia 9 Pureview suffers from a lack of a proper low light algorithm when it comes to night photography. When there is light, it produces images that are often blurry and noisy. When there is no light, it produces images that are often blurry and noisy. The ones on Vivo are simply taken in auto mode without the nightmode turned on.
4K Video capture
When it comes to video stabilization, the Vivo is head and shoulders above the competition. The Nokia 9 Pureview, on the other hand, lacks stabilization in 4K mode and occasionally experiences frame drop. However, when it works, particularly in static recording, it has one of the better, richer 4K recordings.