Nokia Lumia 900 vs HTC Titan II
Finally, we have something concrete that differentiates these two when it comes to performance. As we stare at the exact shots captured by the Nokia Lumia 900’s 8-megapixel camera and HTC Titan II’s 16-megapixel snapper, we have to give the slight advantage to the latter. To tell you the truth, it’s almost indistinguishable to the eye as to which one is the superior with outdoor shots, as they produce the same average details and neutral color tones. However, the HTC Titan II handles low lighting and macro shots better – well, that’s because the Lumia 900’s low lighting shots tend to be noisier looking. Additionally, when you throw in the wealth of shooting modes and options available with the HTC Titan II, it’s undeniably the more photo-centric device.
video recording to be a bit more pleasing to the eye than its rival. Despite noticing a distinctive underexposed appearance with the Nokia Lumia 900’s results, we find more distractions with the HTC Titan II, as it exhibits softer details and some light evidence of artifacting when panning.
Nokia Lumia 900 Sample Video:
HTC Titan II Sample Video:
Hardly a surprise, we’re greeted with the Zune experience when it comes to playing music – so yeah, they boast the same level of presentation. However, the internal speaker of the HTC Titan II is more pleasing to the ear, since the Nokia Lumia 900 sounds rather strained at the loudest volume setting.
Aside from the size disparity, there’s nothing different with the video watching experience. More than able to play the same videos, it’s really a tossup as to which one is the more pleasing to use for watching videos. Certainly, we appreciate the spaciousness of the HTC Titan II, but the Nokia Lumia 900 has the iridescent color production to capture our attention.
1. bobfreking55 (Posts: 866; Member since: 15 Jul 2011)
the price is indeed the selling point of the lumia...
will wait for apollo before getting a wp.
11. nnaatthhaannx2 (Posts: 820; Member since: 19 Oct 2011)
oh i ment to thumb u up.
WP 8 will be amazing.
30. epdm2be (Posts: 487; Member since: 20 Apr 2012)
nnaatthhaannx2 : ...but require me to buy yet another phone again since "they" won't release it for the current range of lumia's.
3. snowgator (Posts: 3583; Member since: 19 Jan 2011)
Nokia is the company most likely to support it's WP. More apps, better color choice, better call quality, and the better price. Nokia does win.
But credit where credit is due. The T2 is a better camera, and a more solid device. The lens on the 900 scratches easy, and the hard edges on the device will annoy some people. Drop the price on the T2 to a more comparable 100.00 - 120.00, and this choice isn't as clear. It then becomes what do you use your phone for more. But at 100.00 more, it isn't even close.
12. nnaatthhaannx2 (Posts: 820; Member since: 19 Oct 2011)
Don't you think it would be so much better if PA just listed a winner under each subhedding in the article?
It's strange that in most of the comparisons, they don't take a side, they just show you what one has against another.
If any editor is reading this, please consider. It makes the articles more worthwhile.
14. Birds (Posts: 1156; Member since: 21 Nov 2011)
Why would they do that then? No one would read the review. The reveiw points out the advantages and disadvantages in each device and a simple sub header can't explain that at all. The point of this sight is to give in-depth reviews to consumers. Like if people went with the device with the most disadvantages in the comparison, they should know the flaws they would face right of the bat so your point is kinda...well??? I don't agree. lol
15. snowgator (Posts: 3583; Member since: 19 Jan 2011)
Actually, I kinda like the idea. Break it down to sections (screen performance, OS/UI, camera/recording, multimedia, ECT.), and let the readers see which device wins each section. They pretty much do that already, and truthfully the "overall" winner isn't as important as getting the devices strengths matched up with the users needs. The 900 may be a better device, but someone may want a smartphone for a reason the 900 is weak in, and be disappointed.
This would be very useful in Android devices, as their differences are so vast.
4. jackhammeR (Posts: 1548; Member since: 17 Oct 2011)
htc threw in it 16 mpx and there is no difference between titan and lumia with "just" 8 mpx.
Htc could use even 32 mpx and it would be a crap.
Lack of experience, lack of knowledge=dissapointment
7. ngo2dd (Posts: 896; Member since: 08 Jul 2011)
You know nothing, HTC don't make their camera. check the one on Cnet and you see a night a day different from the lumia and the Titan. The Titan was over all better.http://news.cnet.com/8301-1035_3-57411421-94/camera-phone-shootout-htc-titan-ii-versus-nokia-lumia-900/
8. jackhammeR (Posts: 1548; Member since: 17 Oct 2011)
Well..I do know more than you, sir htc-blindmaniac.
And I did say many times, HTC don't know how to make good cameras. And I don't give a crap who's making cameras for them. They use it in their phones. Period.
9. jackhammeR (Posts: 1548; Member since: 17 Oct 2011)
and...I'm so sorry..but even S II (which has "only" 8 mpx) makes a lot better pictures than your almighty titan the second.
10. -box- (Posts: 3991; Member since: 04 Jan 2012)
HTC's cameras are actually quite good. My HTC Sensation 4G shoots as well as (and sometimes better than) my Lumia 900, and.the Amaze, Vivid, and One series have had positive reviews for their cameras as well.
Also, megapixels aren't everything. A quality sensor, lens, and software make a huge impact. It's like a car: more cylinders or more power doesn't mean the car is.better, faster, or the best choice for the needs of the user.
13. quesoesgrande (Posts: 217; Member since: 03 Aug 2011)
my sensation's camera is great too! You cant judge a company by just one product. (Except McDonalds)
16. jackhammeR (Posts: 1548; Member since: 17 Oct 2011)
$g is an exception and he makes really good photos. I wonder why HTC hasn't utilizedthis technology in further models.
And maybe diamond many years ago (it has 3,2 or 5 mpx? don't remember). My point is that HTC tends to make a big BANG about their phones. Titan II has been announced for many months. N8 killer, better than 4s, blablabla marketing gibberlish.
Smaller sensor, lack of xenon, 16 mpx...and what? Titan II makes photos which are often on par with Lumia 900 (whioch is not superb in this ascept) and for sure not better than for example, S II. HTC stopped.
Apple made a progress with camera in 4s. Huge progress, And it is visible.
HTC is always trying (vide dr dre bass)...and nothing more. I have a feeling that they are focused too much on their so called unibody cases than on the rest of the phone.
19. ngo2dd (Posts: 896; Member since: 08 Jul 2011)
Have you check the cnet one I guess not because you would not say it is on par. And for the last time HTC don't make their camera they buy it from other company. You know nothing. Not many phone company make their camera. The one on the 4s is from sony,
21. jackhammeR (Posts: 1548; Member since: 17 Oct 2011)
I don't care about cnet. have you checked uewrrewuy? N? So shut up. I've had either. Nokias, HTC's, Moto and even samsung. I make a statement based on my own experience. You use internet. Be my guest.
The only phones which make good pictures are mytouch 4g and old diamond. I don't say Titan II is a mess but it is not as good as it was announced. It produces quite good pictures, but worse than 4s or SII. Taking into account it was supposue to be a "N8 killer" and something no one never seen before, it's a joke. HTC just bumped up specs to higher resolution so no one should spot weak points. But it's not a proper way. They just don't know how to do it properly. HTC was close to a really good camera. It was 4g. Period. They can put in it even 24 mpx and yet they will be beaten by apple, samsung, let alone Nokia.
22. jackhammeR (Posts: 1548; Member since: 17 Oct 2011)
...sorry, but if Cnet is your source of information...good luck!
5. kshell1 (Posts: 1143; Member since: 05 Oct 2011)
The only real difference in any windows device is occasionally clock speed, screen size and camera
17. Altair (Posts: 367; Member since: 02 Feb 2012)
When I buy a PHONE, the most important factor in it, is a CALLING QUALITY. Nokia wins almost every phone in that aspect.
Clock speed is important factor only for laggy androids
The best screen size for handsets is 4" - 4.3". That size has the best usage enjoyment. Imagine how you look while holding some 4.5"-4.7" brick on your ear while walking in the street. No thanks!
Last but not least, the design. I don't want any of those androidlooklike clones.
20. kshell1 (Posts: 1143; Member since: 05 Oct 2011)
I don't call lol dude im 15 i facebook and text. and in my spare time dismantle broken computers for the good parts or reset the hard drive to resell it. I dont care for calling quality.
29. epdm2be (Posts: 487; Member since: 20 Apr 2012)
kshell1 Wasn't a small, cheap Wifi-tablet then a better choice instead of a cellPHONE?
6. -box- (Posts: 3991; Member since: 04 Jan 2012)
@John V.: the internal storage may not be expandable, but Windows Phones come with 25 GB free storage via Microsoft SkyDrive, bringing the total to 41 GB, or 38 for user-accessible data. A person would have to get the 32 GB iPhone with icloud to get that close (still 1 GB short). Granted I strongly prefer expandable memory (especially in the era of capped data plans for data syncing) but one must give credit where credit is due. Plus side of SkyDrive (and cloud services like DropBox, which I also use) is that if the phone is lost or stolen, the online data is safe.
25. epdm2be (Posts: 487; Member since: 20 Apr 2012)
The problem is this:
1) on Windows Phone cloud-usage (Live!) is obligatory and therefore require punters to fork out for these data-plans. Even the most trivial things (like e.g. transfering a ringtone or photo to another phone)
2) target audience for many smartphones are people whom don't have the income to spend on expensive data-plans. Proof is XBox-Live integration (which only works through the cloud) and is directly geared toward a younger audience.
The removal/restriction of expandable storage is a bad one. And this will only get worse when you take into account apps like offline-navigation, HD video-recording, high MPixels photo's etc...
18. bbblader (Posts: 590; Member since: 24 Oct 2011)
if it's the camera you want go buy a SGSII,iPhone 4S,N8 or wait for the almighty 808PW
but if it's a good WP buy the L900 because in my opinion the sweetspot 4-4,3'' screens
and for me I would like a 4'' screen
and I'm going to wait for the 808PW to come out because I need a good phonecamera
to shoot my freerun vids and pics on
23. deadhead (Posts: 17; Member since: 13 Apr 2012)
I held them both in the store today, the Lumia wins hands down. Its just a better device overall, and its cheaper.. that combination is kind of rear these days.
24. epdm2be (Posts: 487; Member since: 20 Apr 2012)
I see all these comments on the video and mpixels on both HTC and Lumia but hasn't anybody heard how horrible the AUDIO-recording was on the Titan?
Strange how vendors keep neglecting the sound-departement. Only Nokia seems to divert some efforts in that.
26. fenixsama (Posts: 32; Member since: 26 Oct 2011)
Sometimes I wonder if the lumia 900 would have been great if it were meego. -sent from my N9
27. Dadler22 (Posts: 161; Member since: 11 Dec 2008)
and the winner is.... NO ONE because you bought a Windows Phone.
28. mruppel2 (Posts: 3; Member since: 29 Apr 2012)
HTC makes great Windows Phones, but Nokia has better experience with call quality and antennas, I can notice because I have a Lumia 710 and the voice quality is far superior than my old HTC HD7