The Lumia 535: Microsoft’s first phone reviewed

It’s no secret that Windows Phone and the Lumia smartphone range have had the most success at the low end. The Lumia 520 sold like hot cakes thanks to aggressive pricing, and it’s still on the market today, with the Microsoft Store currently running a special offer where an AT&T-locked, off-contract phone can be picked up for less than $30.

The successor to the 520 was the Lumia 530, and it had big, if cheap, shoes to fill. Unfortunately, we don’t think it really pulled this off, with less storage, no auto-brightness sensor, and a markedly worse screen. The Lumia 630 and 635 were more compelling, with decent screens and more capable cameras. However, they still had only 512MB RAM and lacked the ambient light sensor, which felt a little substandard for their price point.

The Lumia 535 gives the low-end Lumias a much-needed kick in the pants. This is the first Lumia phone to ship with Microsoft—not Nokia—branding, and it’s a big step up from the 520 and 530.

The major upgrades are alluded to in Microsoft’s “5x5x5” branding for the handset: 5-inch screen, 5 megapixel rear camera, 5 megapixel front camera. Compared to the 530, the screen is an inch bigger and slightly higher resolution (at 960×540 vs. 854×480), though this gives it a lower dot resolution of 220 PPI instead of 244 PPI. The rear camera resolution is the same, but this time it’s an autofocus camera with an LED flash instead of fixed focus and no flash. And perhaps recognizing the cultural importance of selfies, the Lumia 535 includes a front-facing camera with a 5MP resolution—presumably the same unit as the front-facing camera found in the Lumia 735.

Placed alongside its peers, it’s fairly clear that the 535 is in most regards better than both the Lumia 530 and the Lumia 630/635. The Lumia 630/635’s Snapdragon 400 processor is on paper a little faster, and it provides access to the SensorCore motion-tracking coprocessor. The 635 does have LTE, but the 535’s screen size and resolution, cameras, and RAM are all better than those of the 630.

The styling of the 535 is extremely similar to that of the 635: a wraparound gloss plastic cover that can be peeled off to reveal a battery, twin SIM slots in the dual SIM review unit we had, and the microSD slot. The high-gloss finish and round sides feel good in the hand, and for my tastes, this 5-inch form factor is the upper limit of reasonable in a smartphone, as it’s a size that still offers some degree of single-handed usage.

From left to right, the Lumia 530, 535, and 630/635. The familial resemblance is pretty strong.

Credit: Peter Bright

As is now universal on low-end Windows Phones, the 535 depends on on-screen buttons and lacks a dedicated camera button. I still regard this as unfortunate. With the emphasis that Nokia and now Microsoft places on the cameras, the instant access and convenient focusing that the camera button affords is a perfect fit.

A screen you can look at

The most obvious issue with the Lumia 530 was its screen. It had very poor viewing angles, with pronounced color shift when viewed at anything other than head on. It also had a peculiar, almost grainy quality when viewed closely.

The 535’s screen is a substantial improvement. It’s an IPS LCD, so as expected, the viewing angles are much better. It doesn’t have the 530’s graininess, either. Outdoor visibility on the 535 is also superior to that of the 530, attributable to the 535’s much greater brightness.

From left to right, the Lumia 530, 535, 630/635. The ClearBlack screen of the 630/635 is noticeably blacker when compared to the regular LCDs of the 530 and 535.

Credit: Peter Bright

Unlike the 630 and better, this isn’t a “ClearBlack” screen. The ClearBlack screens are notable for their dark blacks and contrast. Side-by-side, the 535’s screen certainly isn’t as pretty; black parts have that slightly gray glow that is typical of LCDs. Animation and video still look good. It’s plainly not a high-end screen, but it’s not a bad screen.

The one sticking point I had was not with the image, but rather with touch. While it was generally fine, on a few occasions the screen was slow and imprecise when responding to touch inputs, requiring multiple stabs at the screen to make something happen. This wasn’t a consistent issue by any means, but I’ve seen similar reports from others testing the phone, so I don’t think it’s an issue unique to my test handset.

Competent cameras

The cameras perform much as we’ve come to expect from the Lumia 535’s siblings. The images from the front-facing camera seem essentially identical to those from the 735. I’m still not convinced of the value of such a high resolution on the front-facing camera, but I suppose it can’t really hurt.

The performance of the rear cameras on the 530, 535, and 630/635 seems very similar. The big difference is in the color; photos taken in the same conditions and with the same settings seem to have a different opinion on how saturated colors should be and where the white point is. I’m a little surprised at the variation, given the apparent similarity between the devices. In the close-up outdoor photo, it is the 530 that fared the best and the 630/635 the worst. For the more distant subject of the tree, however, the 535 and 635 both bested the 530.

Lumia 535.

Peter Bright

Lumia 535. Peter Bright

Lumia 530.

Peter Bright

Lumia 530. Peter Bright

Lumia 630/635.

Peter Bright

Lumia 630/635. Peter Bright

Lumia 530. Peter Bright

Lumia 630/635. Peter Bright

Lumia 535.

Peter Bright

Lumia 530.

Peter Bright

Lumia 630/635.

Peter Bright

Lumia 535.

Peter Bright

Lumia 530.

Peter Bright

Lumia 630/635.

Peter Bright

Indoor performance is creditable (the pictures make the window look very bright; really, it’s just pretty overexposed, to bring out the detail in the subject). While on-phone flashes are always limited in their ability to actually brighten scenes, the 535’s flash was certainly helpful in my test scene.

Lumia 535, indoors, no flash.

Peter Bright

Lumia 535, indoors, no flash. Peter Bright

Lumia 535, indoors, flash.

Peter Bright

Lumia 535, indoors, flash. Peter Bright

Lumia 530, indoors.

Peter Bright

Lumia 530, indoors. Peter Bright

Lumia 535, indoors, flash. Peter Bright

Lumia 530, indoors. Peter Bright

Lumia 635, indoors.

Peter Bright

The 535’s front-facing camera does its job.

Peter Bright

Overall, for the price class, I think the 535’s cameras are strong performers.

If there is any weakness, it’s battery life. On the one hand, the performance was about the same as the Lumia 530 in spite of having a bigger, better, brighter screen. Due to lack of configurability on these handsets, we tested at the medium brightness setting, and that setting appears brighter on the 535 than the 530. So the battery life wasn’t atrocious.

On the other hand, the battery capacity is much larger than that of the 530, and it’s a little larger than that of the 630/635. Getting just under six and a half hours, compared to just under 12, is disappointing.

On the processor front, the Snapdragon 200 puts in a surprisingly respectable performance. This is presumably due to the extra RAM compared to the 530 and 630; it lets the phone finish the Octane test (it fails on the 512MB units) and more or less match the Snapdragon 400s in SunSpider and Kraken. It’s not blistering fast, by any means, but navigating the operating system is generally snappy.