Yes, of course it's affecting the photo quality. That's what this whole thread is about. When a responsible company (one that doesn't sell out of a back alley) sells a product that has problems for regular, normally careful uses, they address that problem with a good solution. This is good business and good PR.

Yeah, let close this discussion. One last thing, though, you say that your Nokia N95 lens is scratched, i am pretty sure that it is effecting your photo quality. Yes / No ?

Also, why do say I have changed my username?

Avaneesh, I guess you changed your username? Confusing. ;)

Anyway, I could care less what Nokia does in the future, I want to know how they will address the product fault with the n95s that now have scratched lens covers.

Davidm,

First of all, let me clarify one thing, I am not supporting Nokia on their strategies or their design concepts and I am certainly not making excuses to justify the removal of the lens cover.

Now, that we have established, whose side i am NOT on. Let me proceed with what i have to say. You say nokia makes a lot of profit. Yes they do, in the phone segment and the smart-phone segment. For the discussion we will concern our selves with the smart-phone segment for obvious reasons.

The smart phone segment for nokia has been doing pretty well and they should considering they were the main stay in the segment anyways, however that has been changing slowly over the years. Also, most of their smart-phone sales were composed of lower end models not their flagship (N95 + N82 (owing to their higher costs, their sales are not what you would call volume sales)).

That brings me to my previously mentioned point, "product placement" and I wont beat a dead horse anymore.

Hence I arrive to the undeniable conclusion, that since, nokia N95 and N82 are competing against each other in their own respective flagship segments, i wont be keeping my fingers crossed in hopes of seeing nokia N95 with any of N82's special features and vice versa.

Avaneesh, why would Nokia care if a consumer buys an n95 or n82? It's a sale either way. They already have too many product lines, no wonder they can't provide good focus and consistency.

Compare Nokia to Apple, who has one mobile line that receives the same software updates and outstanding after sale service.

I had a 6 year old Panasonic camera that suffered from a known defect, Panasonic did a free $500 repair for me 5 years out of warranty. This is another good example of responsible companies building loyalty.

Honestly, why should we care about Nokia's product segments, considering the topic of this post is scratches on the n95 lens cover, not abstract marketing discussion from Nokia's point of view.

We don't need to make excuses for Nokia, they're making record profits, but their competitors are doing a much better job standing up for their customers. Lack of critical consumer attention, including blind loyalty for global companies, just leads to bad products and support. Right now the n95 camera quality is one of the outstanding feature of the n95 line, they should be making sure consumers can trust them to support important features.

I want to know how to fix this problem and if Nokia is going to be useful, for example, providing replacement lens covers for affected modules.

davidm, that is not what i meant at all. All, I am saying is that if nokia puts a lens cover on the N95 (which is a more sought after feature than the xenon flash..i presume)..

more people would buy the n95 and not the n82...

and that would totally kills the N82 segment...

this way..the customers have a choice of two models and not one.

And by the way, this is the way a company that is concerned about their customers:

http://support.apple.com/kb/TS1977

Free power supply replacement, even outside warranty, for all fraying Macbook power supplies.

Then again, Apple has a lot more clue when it comes to consistent, well supported products which builds up a incredible loyalty. Perhaps they deserve it.

Zaarch, that may make sense in some demented corporate universe. But do you think Nokia expects consumers to buy both an n95 (for the bigger screen) and an n82 (for the lens cover)? No. They simply decided the n95 wouldn't have a lens cover. It is not going to lead to more sales for them.

As mentioned, I babied my n95, always keeping it in a separate soft pocket, but now with a scratched up lens, one of the device's key features is near useless.

I wrote to Nokia about this issue and they came back with a very patronizing reply that blamed it all on me, with a corporate template answer about getting an expensive repair.

So I ordered a replacement lens cover. Unfortunately, despite my checking, it's the wrong size for my n95-3.

Anyone know where I can get a replacement n95-3 lens cover? At least I found out it's relatively easy to replace. If only Nokia would step up and treat their consumers with respect for this -fault-. Anyone want to start a class action suit?

Well if they did put a lens cover on the N95..then why would any one buy the N82 ( barring the xenon flash of course)..

i think nokia could have squeezed in a lens cover...but like i said..above they chose not to..

this way... nokia has two distinct flagship devices...

hence more scope to capture market....

apparently what is sometimes in the best interest of the company is not is the best interest of the consumer..


i somehow dont foresee an N95 or N96 or its successor with a lens cover...dont expect to see an N82 or successor with a bigger screen

I am about to order the blueunplugged replacement lens window.. actually, I will order 2 since shipping is likely to be the highest cost..

does anyone know if I could put some screen protector material over this lens window? Or would it have a bad effect on picture quality? if it would work, which screen protectors have you tried?

Thanks!

If I got an N95 as a present I'd keep it for sure lol. Seems kind of weird making money off of something your own mom gave you haha.

I'll take it! :)

My mother gave me an N95-3 as a present, I would have never bought it because I don't like the design. Now that I discover the expensive cameraphone doesn't even have lens cover, there is no excuse, I'm just gonna sell it and wait for a phone with a decent, practical and logical design I can really use.

I will agree with you on that point, Ricky... it is certainly annoying- but there's gotta be a way to deal with that, software side. I assume it wasn't really addressed perhaps because there really wasn't many applications that utilized the camera at the time. Maybe the device just needs to know when another application is using the camera hardware and not attempt to override it with the default imaging app. I'm calling it shortsightedness on the prospect of applications being developed that use the camera hardware. Hopefully this is something that can get some attention if/when we see another device with proper lens protection now that we've got things like Panoman, Flixwagon and the rest. There's going to be more of these apps rolling out all the time- so I think it's deserving of a little attention from product design teams in the future. Ideally, I'd like to see a lens cover automatically operated by the OS when an imaging app is called up- 3rd party or otherwise. Of course, I assume whatever hardware this will require would make it even more difficult for designers to fit a lens cover on increasingly smaller devices.

So no flames for you from me, Ricky- but I think it's something that can be dealt with.

I'm going to get flamed for this, but I've had the N95-3 since December, and not only do I not have any scratches on mine, but I also find the lens covers somewhat inconvenient. There, I said it.

It happens if you use applications that use the camera (other than, obviously, the camera) such as Flixwagon, Qik, the barcode reader, etc. You activate these, and then have to flip the cover open (I also have an N82, so yes, I know what I'm talking about.), and when you do, the camera activates, and you have to exit the camera, blah blah blah.

Just my personal opinion, flame away.

LMAO- thanks for the support, mate. :)

PseudoFinn for world president! Seriously.

lol- sorry, mate. You're right- it did kinda get away from me there, but I was just really bumfuzzled by a couple of the comments and had to offer my retort. :)

offtopic: Lol @ Pseudofinn
I like reading these discussions but your reply is just to long to read ;). Looks nice and structured though!

Mark J - "And the idea that just because the latest N95-series may not have lens protection, you shouldn’t get one is rediculous. That’s like saying someone is offering you a $1,000,000,000 house for free and you don’t want it just because one of the stones in the pathway leading up to the front door is crooked."

This has got to be the most _ludicrous analogy I've EVER heard. Think about what you are saying, man. It is in fact *nothing* like someone offering you a 1,000,000,000 dollar home for free and deciding not to take them up on the offer for some minor aesthetic problem. Nokia is not giving the N95 away for free- I paid a pretty premium price for the thing... I don't have subsidies from any wireless provider, the value of the dollar is in the toilet- so no, while the N95 doesn't cost a billion dollars, it's certainly not given away for free. Again- think about what you are saying. I like that analogy of your tires falling off your new car because you didn't cover it as per the instructions hidden in the manual- though it still misses. Does the manual provide instruction on how to care for the lens cover? Is there a sheath provided like the new Eseries devices? Does it go so far as to say how I should pocket my device? Since I DO NOT put anything else in my pocket with my N95, I think your argument is full of hot air- and frankly... complete BS. Doesn't hold water.

"He’s right. Of course Nokia designed the non-covered lenses so as to keep them from being scratched under normal use, and that design works well."

He's not right. I think the usage of my N95 constitutes "normal use". I don't do anything extreme with the device, it resides in my pocket by itself (as I and others have mentioned SEVERAL times now- you seem to disregard that point). The design is flawed, critically and obviously- though no one wants to admit it. It's strange that you are taking the argument against. I honestly don't understand what your motivation would be for that. There is a problem. Countless thousands of consumers agree that there is a problem- though you are adamantly opposed to their opinion- why is that? Hmmm....

"For example, if you were to lay the camera side down on a table and somehow measure the distance between the lens and the table surface, there’s a small distance. This is what keeps the lens from being scratched every time it’s put down on a solid surface."

Fantastic- one circumstance out of many that would again constitute 'normal usage' has been tackled. Bravo. Again- we're talking about a very expensive piece of technology that has been fitted with proper protection for one of the main features of the device- further iterations of this device have carelessly omitted this protection. In fact, as an admission of guilt, newer devices are even FURTHER recessed into the case- seemingly admitting that the simple effort that you've outlined above was in no way adequate.

So here's a "for example" for you, Mark J- I spent an assload of money on a phone because it has an absolutely brilliant camera in it. Carl Zeiss optics, a fantastic sensor for a cameraphone, autofocus- a great closeup mode as well as a myriad of other great features that rival some really decent dedicated point-and-shoot cameras. I want to take a picture with said device- but wait... there's a nasty smudge of some bodily grease of some sort, most likely from my fingers- and there's some dust or pocket lint adhering to this grease. Fantastic- I'll wipe it away. Since there is no special supplied cloth for this purpose, nor instructions of care in the manual, I assume I should be okay to wipe it with the corner of my shirt or some other seemingly acceptable soft fabric of some sort- right? Well, after a couple months and the buggering of one 700 dollar phone later, I'm realizing that this is not a good idea, night shots are nearly impossible, anything with an off frame light source that hits the lens creates a piss-poor image and longer focal points are hard to focus on. Apparently the coating on the 'lens cover' is soft as butter and I've now literally wiped it away. Can you tell me this is not "normal usage" to wipe grease from the miserably, paltry excuse for proper lens protection? What should I do? Should I purchase some sort of third party cleaning kit for the stupid little piece of optical interference that light has to further pass through to reach the actual lens and sensor? I should carry some tissue and a little spray can of cleaning solution with me wherever I go? Clearly they can't go in the pocket with my N95- so should I then reserve another pocket for these cleaning materials?

Hey- I know! I remember hearing about some guy that makes fine clothing with extra oversized pockets. I might look into that for all the accessories I'll carry for my ultra-converged device. Hmmm, Great Pockets... I think that was it. Anyone heard of them? /sarcasm

"I highly doubt Nokia was so stupid so as to design a non-covered lens setup that could intentionally get scratched under completely normal use."

1. I think you mean, unintentional- right? If I were the sort of chap to intentionally damage my N95, I don't think I'd be concerned.

2. 'Completely' normal use? I think you need to outline what you and Nokia mean by 'completely' normal use.

davidm, I'm not saying it was a good idea removing the cover completely. Well, I never said that.

So maybe we should all ditch our N95-2 - N95-6s and grab some N95-1s!

No.

I guess non-N95-1 onwers will have to live with the fact that there is no cover or downgrade to an N95-1. Or at least wait until Nokia DO something about it.

MarkJ, one of the main features of the n95 is the 5MP camera with Zeiss lens. It's like saying it's ok for a car's wheels to fall off if you don't cover them every night (didn't you read page 19232 of your owner's manual?) Nokia has to address this.

Well obviously there are many ways the lens can get scratched or damaged.

Just putting it down on your bed sheets and pushing it around could possibly scratch it.

So no, ditching the lens cover may have improved the looks of the N95 a little bit but it definitely was not a physically "safe" idea.

I must say though that, aesthetically, I would prefer an N95 without the lens cover, but yea one with a cover would be a bit safer.

MarkJ: But I highly doubt Nokia was so stupid so as to design a non-covered lens setup that could intentionally get scratched under completely normal use

I highly doubt it too. And I highly doubt any of the many, many, many other product defects that emerge over time are intentional either. Those product defects are resolved.

I have never placed my n95 in a pocket with object that may scratch it. People should not buy the n95 or any other Nokia device until this issue is properly resolved.

"PseudoFinn on 20 May 2008:

That’s not the design, the design allows for proper lens protection- the re-design has omitted such reasonable measures to protect the image quality.

The whole “if you didn’t like it you shouldn’t have bought it” mentality is certainly an interesting point of view. :-/"

He's right. Of course Nokia designed the non-covered lenses so as to keep them from being scratched under normal use, and that design works well.

For example, if you were to lay the camera side down on a table and somehow measure the distance between the lens and the table surface, there's a small distance. This is what keeps the lens from being scratched every time it's put down on a solid surface.

But if you put the phone in your pocket with, say, keys, of course the lens will probably come in contact with them and scratch.

Yes, if there were a proper cover, scratches could be deflected altogether. But I highly doubt Nokia was so stupid so as to design a non-covered lens setup that could intentionally get scratched under completely normal use.

And the idea that just because the latest N95-series may not have lens protection, you shouldn't get one is rediculous. That's like saying someone is offering you a $1,000,000,000 house for free and you don't want it just because one of the stones in the pathway leading up to the front door is crooked.

It really makes me sad to read people apologizing on behalf of Nokia's mistake. Consumer products (those products intended for casual use) develop unexpected problems all the time, manufacturers deal with it or get class action lawsuits. When it affects many people, without any way for a normal person to anticipate the problem, it is a design defect. My n95-3 has developed micro scratches, despite me carrying it in a separate, soft pocket no different than a dedicated case. It now has trouble with distance focusing. You can bet I will be following up with this, and I suggest we organize to make sure Nokia cannot ignore this issue. They should at the least provide an inexpensive way to have the lens replaced.