DTM on 15 May 2008:

A cover is required for a camera lens absolutely and without question! Scratches (and dust) show up when a bright light (or flash) is used, small round sparkles appear in front of the subject, and scratches on the surface make the photos less sharp and slightly gray. What’s more, I object to having to clean the fluff out of the lens every time I use the camera. It should be ready to shoot as soon as I am.

All cameras, SLRs and point-and-shoots have covers and they don’t (usually) live in your pocket. For this exact reason I’m getting an N82 (cover) instead of the N95 to replace my N73 (cover).

Please Nokia, if you’re going to give us half decent cameras, at least put covers on some of them and let us decide whether to buy them

David on 15 May 2008:

*Ouch* That’s nasty. For a phone that expensive, one would think there would be a lens cover.

On the other hand, for a phone that expensive, what on earth happened for it to get scratches like that on it? For the life of me I dont know why people just put these high priced phones in their pockets.

Yes. Scratches like this can be avoided by not putting the phone in ones pocket and by purchasing a proper cell phone case to carry the phone around in.

Apostol Apostolov on 16 May 2008:

I am extremely happy to have bought N82 with flippable plastic lens cover. It is extremely good protection for the camera lens and I would not choose a phone from Nokia that does not provide such protection.

Ratkat on 16 May 2008:

Unlike older devices the N95 8GB features a coating on the lense which appears to delaminate. On mine the scratches appeared to be under top coating, whilst the top surface was as smooth as when it was new.
Nokia made a big mistake dropping the lense cover, even unscratched pictures are poorer than the original N95.

More worrying is the fact that they choose to not fit a lense cover to the forthcoming N96, huge mistake.

THETRUTH on 16 May 2008:

I have mentioned this when i won the n95-3 prototype from s60 ambassador program. Mark i baby my phones never have it in pocket and always have it in a case, but it still developed scratches, now with the n95-4 i have a piece of screen protector over the lens and so far pic quality doesnt seem affected.I cant imagine people saying we dont want a lens cover, then why put one on the n82, i just think it was a mistake on there part and now they need someone to take the fall which is us the consumers.

PseudoFin on 17 May 2008:

Obviously, I agree with you, Mark.

That poll running at N95users is now only about 5% in favor of the removal of proper lens protection after a couple hundred votes. I honestly don’t buy this “popular demand” bit.

Here’s a picture of my N95-3 lens shield about three weeks after I got it- http://www.flickr.com/photos/pseudofinn/2059261101/

Here’s a shot from last week- about six months later- http://www.flickr.com/photos/pseudofinn/2461600901/

That coating has been all but completely worn off at this point. I baby my N95. It lives in my pocket, and it’s ALWAYS alone. It’s never accompanied by anything else in my left pocket. The only thing I can assume has worn off the coating is the mandatory wipe with some sort of fabric, which generally ends up being a corner of my shirt. What else would Nokia suggest I use. I mean, I’ve got 5mpixel Carl Zeiss optics on my very expensive mobile phone. Obviously I don’t want to leave whatever fingerprint grease, dust and smudges from whatever else on that already added bit of perspex that light has to pass through to get to the sensor- I’m going to want to wipe it with something each and every single time I pull it out of my pocket- just to be sure I’m not going to get home, look at this image I’ve taken and realize it’s smudged. Night pictures are near impossible if there is any sort of high level light source anywhere near my subject. No special fabric wipe is supplied- so what is recommended not to trash this horrible excuse for lens protection?

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. :-/

davidm on 25 June 2008:

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.

davidm on 25 June 2008:

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.

davidm on 25 June 2008:

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.

PseudoFinn on 25 June 2008:

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.

PseudoFinn on 25 June 2008:

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.

PseudoFinn on 26 June 2008:

LMAO- thanks for the support, mate.

PseudoFinn on 26 June 2008:

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.

MaRKz on 3 July 2008:

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!

Planetfrank » lens cover on 6 August 2008:

[...] del N95 terminan cambiando la tapa posterior entera para poder sustituir el protector despues de muchos rayones. aqui me paro ante una gran duda. N95: con o sin protector? cualquiera me gritaria en principio que [...]

davidm on 24 August 2008:

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?

Avaneesh on 25 August 2008:

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.

Avaneesh on 25 August 2008:

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 on 25 August 2008:

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?

Discount Bedding Sets on 26 May 2010:

I agree with the article. No cover on the lens can only damage your lens.

Discount Bedding Sets on 26 May 2010:

I agree with the article. No cover on the lens can only damage your lens.