x PhoneArena is looking for new authors! To view all available positions, click here.
  • Options
    Close




Nokia Lumia 925 Review

0. phoneArena 18 Jun 2013, 09:24 posted on

Ever since the introduction of the first Lumia phone, Nokia has been improving and refining its Windows Phone-powered line-up with each new model. Feature by feature and app by app, we've finally arrived at the Nokia Lumia 925 – an ambitious smartphone that attempts to offer a well-rounded experience to customers, for whom plastic just won't cut it...

This is a discussion for a review. To read the whole review, click here

posted on 18 Jun 2013, 09:29 3

1. _Bone_ (Posts: 2104; Member since: 29 Oct 2012)


3rd generation PureView sensor, just 8 million pixels, crystal clear conditions and Nokia still can't produce sharp images? Look at the bottom of this one, noise, blur, loss of details.

http://i-cdn.phonearena.com/images/reviews/133578-image/Nokia-Lumia-925.jpg

I guess we'll have to wait for the EOS to see real PureView images on a usable OS.

posted on 18 Jun 2013, 09:48 26

6. tashreef (Posts: 476; Member since: 24 Nov 2012)


Don't refer anything on PA which is about Nokia or its smartphone. They are always biased

posted on 18 Jun 2013, 15:44 7

66. Potato. (banned) (Posts: 607; Member since: 14 Jun 2013)


And yet PA is calling themselves unbiased. Pathetic.

posted on 19 Jun 2013, 08:23 4

82. skyguy7567 (Posts: 148; Member since: 17 Nov 2012)


Sony is the same thing. There's no help with samsungarena now.

posted on 18 Jun 2013, 10:05 4

13. raunak (Posts: 498; Member since: 12 Oct 2011)


I don't think this is phase 3. They just improved phase 2 a little.

And yes, you'll need to wait for EOS for THAT quality.

posted on 18 Jun 2013, 10:17 2

20. _Bone_ (Posts: 2104; Member since: 29 Oct 2012)


Can't fecken wait.

posted on 18 Jun 2013, 10:56 5

33. ArtSim98 (Posts: 2265; Member since: 21 Dec 2012)


That picture looks very good...

posted on 18 Jun 2013, 11:47 1

46. DontHateOnS60 (Posts: 825; Member since: 20 Apr 2009)


If you look at any photos from every great Nokia camera phone, you'll see that they all do the same thing. The image in the dead center is totally in focus and sharp, but degrades at the very outer edges of it. My N8 has done this since day 1, as did my N95, and I'm pretty sure my 808 does it too. Must be something to do with their lenses because you don't typically see it on Samsung's Galaxy.

posted on 19 Jun 2013, 08:26 2

83. skyguy7567 (Posts: 148; Member since: 17 Nov 2012)


Dude, everyone knows that samsung galaxy produces bad images. Samsungarena might not agree with this, but this is totally true. Strange shades with quite some blurs on photos, and colors are totally unrealistic. Sony and Nokia's photos are the closest to professional cameras. Last time I borrowed a samsung phone to shoot a scene with twilight lighting? Blur blur blur. And that was a note 2. Xperia and Lumia can do tons better than that.

posted on 18 Jun 2013, 17:25 1

70. Edmund (Posts: 654; Member since: 13 Jul 2012)


you know something is wrong when they (phone arena) hide exif data.

posted on 19 Jun 2013, 01:07 1

76. Crossblade (Posts: 187; Member since: 21 Apr 2005)


The linked photo has full EXIF data

posted on 18 Jun 2013, 18:28

73. RiseAgainst94 (Posts: 271; Member since: 03 Mar 2012)


The call quality on my Lumia 900 is absolutely garbage after a year...borderline unusable. A real shame Nokia can't get that right, such a beautiful device otherwise.

My bro's Lumia 920 sounds great though, I should add.

posted on 19 Jun 2013, 13:38 1

86. applesauce (banned) (Posts: 165; Member since: 26 Aug 2012)


My Lumia 900 (original US launch, got it first weekend it was available) still has great call quality, with and without speakerphone. Maybe you've damaged it?

posted on 22 Jun 2013, 04:33 1

94. ChiX017 (Posts: 308; Member since: 09 Nov 2011)


check wpcentral.com for their review

posted on 08 Jul 2013, 21:56

97. RiseAgainst94 (Posts: 271; Member since: 03 Mar 2012)


How are they bias when the do camera shootouts and the recent Nokia's (Minus the 808) do terribly? My brother and I both own Lumia's 920 and 900 respectfully, and the image quality is something to be desired.

The fast that this phone does not have wireless charging, in my opinion, puts it behind the Lumia 920. Bizarre

posted on 18 Jun 2013, 09:34 12

2. quyenqchau0813 (Posts: 78; Member since: 22 Mar 2013)


Even The Verge gave it a 8.1
PhoneArena gave it 7.8
...................................

posted on 18 Jun 2013, 10:02 25

9. raunak (Posts: 498; Member since: 12 Oct 2011)


Verge appreciates good design, simplicity and usability. They don't care about specs as long as the phone's working fine. PA appreciates phones that look good on spec sheet, but lag in real life because a certain theif company stuffed thousands of useless gimmics.

This is the reason iPhone 5 and HTC One got higher score on Verge than S3 and S4, and lower on PA.

posted on 18 Jun 2013, 12:03

51. SonyFindOneDroidple (Posts: 441; Member since: 11 May 2013)


Dont you know that the Verge rated Htc One higher than s4 just because of the design.. out of the 10 factors, htc one trumps s4 only in design.. mAny factors are in favor of gs4 some>equal

posted on 18 Jun 2013, 15:42 4

65. Potato. (banned) (Posts: 607; Member since: 14 Jun 2013)


1. In Design
2. In Boomsound (speaker quality)
3. In low-light (IOS)
4. Unibody
5. Beats audio

posted on 18 Jun 2013, 17:27 1

71. Paradox (Posts: 123; Member since: 08 Aug 2012)


It's not really unibody, it's just 2 pieces glued together.

posted on 18 Jun 2013, 20:52

74. panda123 (Posts: 27; Member since: 18 Jan 2013)


Did you just write "Design" and "Unibody" as 2 separate points? And also mentioned Beats audio? Which is particularly useless

posted on 19 Jun 2013, 03:34 1

78. Potato. (banned) (Posts: 607; Member since: 14 Jun 2013)


Beats audio is useless? Really?
And what about those gimmick gestures?

posted on 09 Jul 2013, 13:13

98. donfem (Posts: 515; Member since: 30 Mar 2011)


Did you also notice he has boomsound and beats separately?

posted on 18 Jun 2013, 09:37 21

3. tusshharish (Posts: 341; Member since: 23 Oct 2012)


are you serious about giving it 7.8/10 ?????? i think you gave this score only because of it runs on wp8...

posted on 18 Jun 2013, 10:09 18

17. PhansMuneeb (Posts: 345; Member since: 28 Jan 2012)


They hate WP.

posted on 18 Jun 2013, 13:28 1

60. Paradox (Posts: 123; Member since: 08 Aug 2012)


That is a good reason. Windows phone, at this moment in time, just isn't as good as other iOS and Android.

posted on 19 Jun 2013, 05:47 2

80. zuckerboy (Posts: 898; Member since: 22 Dec 2011)


they think wp8 is best OS. oh cmon get real dudes :D

posted on 18 Jun 2013, 09:39 17

4. rms.max (Posts: 73; Member since: 26 Sep 2012)


7.8 ? how Ray? Really? wasn't fair enough ...it deserves 8-8.5.

posted on 18 Jun 2013, 11:08 2

38. zuckerboy (Posts: 898; Member since: 22 Dec 2011)


so we r waiting for july 11th LOL

posted on 18 Jun 2013, 17:33 1

72. mottykels (Posts: 364; Member since: 15 May 2013)


Ray s always rate a low score except Samsung device :/

posted on 28 Jun 2013, 15:37

96. ZeroCide (Posts: 683; Member since: 09 Jan 2013)


He needs to check his math. maybe he missed a decimal point somewhere.

posted on 19 Jun 2013, 13:42

87. applesauce (banned) (Posts: 165; Member since: 26 Aug 2012)


I agree. He rated the 920 last year even higher, the 925 addresses all the issues he had with it (save the OS).
Also, no mention of the Amber updates?

posted on 18 Jun 2013, 09:40 24

5. Moodi (Posts: 38; Member since: 11 May 2013)


Go home PA , you're DRUNK

posted on 18 Jun 2013, 09:53 13

7. raunak (Posts: 498; Member since: 12 Oct 2011)


280 nits? i think there is something wrong with the unit you have. It is supposed to be around 500.

And the phone definitely deserves an 8.

posted on 18 Jun 2013, 10:01 9

8. Mokujin (Posts: 1; Member since: 18 Jun 2013)


are u kidding me???

Why a poor rating of 7.8 for Lumia 925?

Can you explain how u rated this phone?

posted on 18 Jun 2013, 10:20 1

22. PhansMuneeb (Posts: 345; Member since: 28 Jan 2012)


It has weak call quality so -1 for that and -0.2 for loudspeakers and the main one -1 for Windows Phone OS.

posted on 18 Jun 2013, 10:04 1

10. feres13 (Posts: 306; Member since: 23 Dec 2011)


I still don't understand why Nokia released this phone when in some ways it's a downgrade from the 920 (Half the storage, no wireless charging, downgrade in design IMO & software features that will come to the 920 anyway) especially when the EOS will be introduced two months after it.

posted on 18 Jun 2013, 10:07 11

15. tashreef (Posts: 476; Member since: 24 Nov 2012)


Downgrade in design? you must be blind or something.

posted on 18 Jun 2013, 10:30 1

25. feres13 (Posts: 306; Member since: 23 Dec 2011)


It's nice that it is thinner and lighter but it looses the unique design of the N9 that is Nokia's trademark, the back is ugly and i don't like the camera hump.
beauty is in the eye of the beholder

posted on 18 Jun 2013, 16:18

67. Pedro0x (Posts: 271; Member since: 19 Oct 2012)


He is not blind at all, lumia 920 is nicer than this. This new lumias are just more rectangular, which by my standards is uglier. Design is subjective.
I also think that this phone deserves more like 7.5.
- poor call quality(according to PA), it is a freaking phone, it is supposed to be made for calling
- video wasn´t very good
- it runs WP8(might be fine for someone)
- it doesn´t have slot for sd-card while having only 16GB storage, that is very little
- it does have a pretty big bezel, better than lumia 920 but it still.

But this phone does something very well and that is camera(pictures at least).

posted on 18 Jun 2013, 10:05 8

11. Diego! (Posts: 500; Member since: 15 Jun 2009)


WP 7.8 or WP8?
Oh no! It's the score it got! O_O

I think you were a little bit mean with this review. It shoulf have gotten an 8.5 at least!

posted on 18 Jun 2013, 10:09 1

16. mobi_user (Posts: 105; Member since: 18 Jun 2013)


Thanks for the review PA. I was really looking for this phone. But now I am giving it up.

At the end of the day, I need a phone to call. Not a phone to click pictures, for that I have my camera. If a expensive phone has such poor call quality, it is nothing better than a paper weight in daily use. The ranking needs to be much lower.

It will be nice, if you guys can provide a more numerical figure to the call quality.
A phone is meant for making calls, that is the first job.

posted on 18 Jun 2013, 10:16 3

19. PhansMuneeb (Posts: 345; Member since: 28 Jan 2012)


If you want it just go to nearest store and check the demo. I'm sure you will change your decision of not buying it.

posted on 18 Jun 2013, 10:23 5

23. raunak (Posts: 498; Member since: 12 Oct 2011)


Again, I think there's something wrong with the unit PA has. 280 nits? poor call quality?. Refer to Verge's review, they gave it 9 in reception/call quality.

Besides, you should go check the phone itself before buying or atleast read 3-4 websites' reviews and not rely on only one.

posted on 18 Jun 2013, 10:39

26. Paradox (Posts: 123; Member since: 08 Aug 2012)


There's nothing wrong with the review unit. I recall phonearena posting some low brightness specs for another phone, but I can't remember what one now. In this review when he says call quality the doesn't mean its reception, he simply means the earpiece speaker is poor in the sense that it lacks a range of frequencies, which is also mentioned in another review I read. They said that when you turn it up loud, it loses its quality.

posted on 18 Jun 2013, 10:44 2

28. raunak (Posts: 498; Member since: 12 Oct 2011)


I don't mean only reception. I said reception/call quality, which includes everything from reception to noise cancelling to earpeice quality and loudspeaker volume.

posted on 18 Jun 2013, 10:52

32. Paradox (Posts: 123; Member since: 08 Aug 2012)


You mean everything, but the review means earpiece speaker, are you not understanding my point?

posted on 18 Jun 2013, 10:59 1

36. raunak (Posts: 498; Member since: 12 Oct 2011)


I understand your point. I also understand what the review says. What I mean is that none of the other sites that have reviewed this phone has complained about the call quality or anything related to talking on the phone.

posted on 18 Jun 2013, 10:42 6

27. muhsen (Posts: 241; Member since: 07 Jun 2012)


there's no nokia phone that has poor call quality... i have the lumia 920 where in the review it says far from perfect while in reality...its magically perfect ...to tell u a truth i came to a conclusion that every nokia is perfect in call quality
Most phonearena call quality tests screw up where the phones being tested show a different scenario in real life...i had an iphone 5 and they complemented the call quality but in reality its worse than the lumia 920
the other problem is that test itself is very questionable and contains lots of variables that can't be contained to give accurate results like angle of holding the phone, the area where the phone is,the operator and lots of others not to mention that phonearena doesn't give any details about conducting the tests and we have to blindly trust their results(and mostly they give contradiciting results)
best test is to try it urself but then again through my life there's no nokia that disappoints in call quality (s40, symbian or windows phone )...no wonder since they r in the business b4 most companies
also giving the lumia 928 8/10 and 925 (which is supposedly better ) 7.8/10 makes the whole review very questionable...u should rely on another site to get a better idea about what to choose like gsmarena !

posted on 18 Jun 2013, 10:57 1

34. Paradox (Posts: 123; Member since: 08 Aug 2012)


Well, phonearena isn't the only reviewer who has stated that the earpiece speaker is poor. Believe what you want, but being loyal to a company will get you nowhere at the end of the day. It will just waste your money because you will buy any of their products, even when they turn out bad. I'm not saying nokia is bad, I know they make plenty of solid hardware, such as the lumia 920, but the 925 just isn't as good as the 920 was. It has come a year later, and has very similar specs. How is it supposed to beat the 9/10 that the lumia 920 got when it was released last year, even though it's barely a step up?

posted on 18 Jun 2013, 11:09 1

39. raunak (Posts: 498; Member since: 12 Oct 2011)


It has not been a year since 920. Also, no one saying it deserves equal score to 920, which got 9, they're just saying 7.8 isa bit too low, even after taking in account the time factor.

posted on 20 Jun 2013, 03:32 1

91. jackhammeR (Posts: 1548; Member since: 17 Oct 2011)


give me the source to other reviews that claim the same. As far as I know, most known and recognizable sites don't have any complains about its sound quality. Stop spreading bull&^*(. Samsung, htc and lg phones suffer the same. Just read recent reviews.

posted on 18 Jun 2013, 23:48

75. Wyn66 (Posts: 7; Member since: 09 Aug 2011)


What's funny is, other reviews are the complete opposite of this. They say the phone is a great design, and has excellent call quality. Maybe PA received a bad unit?

posted on 19 Jun 2013, 08:42

84. skyguy7567 (Posts: 148; Member since: 17 Nov 2012)


No. The problem is SAMSUNGARENA. Samsung phones receive an extraordinary high rating and better review than other sites, which just says it sucks in many ways and the features don't work properly. Of course, the recent GS4 other sites did agree with PA (SA) that the phone has solid specs, but just a laggy UI. PA 'Very smooth UI' seems to do the opposite. For the Xperia Z 'A laggy UI' seems to go completely opposite. Recently went into a store and compared the two phones. Samsung's UI is especially laggy. Note that I was trying out the octa core version. PA GS4 rating is 9.2 or 9.5 (Forgot) And GSMarena? 6.5. PA Xperia Z is 8.5, GSMarena 8.8 (High for GSMarena, phones over 8.5 are considered great) PA Lumia 925 7.4 WTF and GSMarena 8.5. See the difference?

posted on 18 Jun 2013, 10:25 1

24. mobi_user (Posts: 105; Member since: 18 Jun 2013)


I can go to the nearby store and check it. It is not going to be any different than other Lumia phones. The OS is just the same. But none of them are loaded with a SIM. You get to check the call quality only when you buy it. And it is late by then.

I depend upon this review, because I have Lumia 710 before it had Nokia X6, and PA review on that was spot on.

posted on 18 Jun 2013, 10:50

31. muhsen (Posts: 241; Member since: 07 Jun 2012)


hmmm,windows phone 8 is veryyyyyy different from windows phone 7...wp8 is open like android (bluetooth, usb mass storage ..etc)....wp7 is closed like ios
also most symbian techs from nokia like dobly headphone ,pureview and lots of others came with wp8 to lumia while there was nothing came to wp7 lumia again due to restrictive wp7...so current wp8 lumias r totally different than ur lumia 710
also giving 7.8/10 to lumia 925 (which is better than lumia 928) and giving the lumia 928 8/10 makes the review very questionable...u should rely on another site

posted on 24 Jun 2013, 15:27

95. ILuvWindowsImAlsoSuicidal (Posts: 1; Member since: 24 Jun 2013)


Please explain how windows phone 8 is open!!!!! Like android???? and hopefully you did not mean open source.... Coz if you did then I must have slept through 200 years and ended up in an open MS era!!!!

posted on 18 Jun 2013, 10:45 8

29. ArtSim98 (Posts: 2265; Member since: 21 Dec 2012)


This review is a joke....

posted on 18 Jun 2013, 10:46 1

30. flynfree (Posts: 374; Member since: 09 Jun 2013)


I thought this is upgraded version of lumia 920, not downgraded.
Are they moving backward? Poor nokia!

posted on 18 Jun 2013, 10:58 1

35. ArtSim98 (Posts: 2265; Member since: 21 Dec 2012)


It is an upgrade...

* Some comments have been hidden, because they don't meet the discussions rules.

Want to comment? Please login or register.

Latest stories