Nokia 5.4 Review: Doesn't disappoint, but doesn't wow either

By Anula Wiwatowska

Last updated 22 April 2021

Nokia 5.4 review: The Verdict

If you’re looking for a cheap phone with a known, and nostalgic name then the Nokia 5.4 is worth considering. While it doesn’t leap off the page or demand attention, the device offers day-long battery life, and quality camera performance in a nondescript package.

What we love

Pretty good portrait mode
Full-day battery
Interesting design

What could be improved

Lag in basic functions
Macro lens isn't up to scratch

The essentials

Performance: Consistent delays when swapping between apps.
Battery: Around four hours of screen time, should get through a full day for most people.
Screen: No complaints.
Camera: A mixed bag. Portrait mode performs well, especially considering the price, the primary lens and wide angle lenses create vibrant shots, but the macro lens is a let down.

65/100

$289

Nokia phones have a reputation for reliability. It's hard to think of Nokia and not conjure up images of the 3310 or 5110. I wouldn't be surprised to find mine still boasting 20% battery after sitting in a drawer for over a decade.

The Nokia 5.4 continues the expectation that Nokia put forward - it is a reliable handset. While I would have loved to have seen better battery life, and a sharper macro lens neither of these are essentials on phones. Even now when multiple cameras are in - there is resounding proof that they're not neccesary. The latest iPhone SE showed that you can do a lot with one camera provided that it's actually good.

If you're looking for a dependable handset, and maybe want a dose of brand-induced nostalgia then the Nokia 5.4 is worth taking a look at.

Design

Ombre, reflective, glass, and fake glass backings are all the rage on phones right now, so it's always novel to see something a bit different popping out. Nokia has taken a slight step to the left on this one, still maintaining a glasstic back, but with a close-knit, waved, holographic pattern atop a purple base. The design sure is striking, but its a shame that it is so prone to fingerprints. Just handling the phone makes it look like a dog’s nose has been pressed against the glass.

Everything else about the device is perfectly pleasant. No complaints about the display, or size. There is a more substantial bezel than you would find on a flagship but that is to be expected with a phone at this price point. It’s nothing worth noting in further detail.

Battery and performance

More affordable phones generally come with lower screen refresh rates, duller screens, and of course Gs lower than 5, all which contribute to a more efficient battery life. For these reasons smaller battery capacities tend to last longer on cheaper phones, but unfortunately the Nokia 5.4 doesn’t follow this trend.

Despite the specs noting a two-day battery life, it’s actually more like one day. A full day of charge is perfectly acceptable for a handset, as long as you’re not reaching for your charger at lunch then that’s a win. With the Nokia, I generally got around four to five hours of screen time per charge which took me right through the day. Once again, it’s acceptable and amicable but it’s a far cry from the two-day battery claim.

Performance itself can lag at times. I found a consistent delay in opening and switching between apps, and this continued to translate into aspects like photography. Nokia has the option to switch on Live photos, which is similar to the Apple feature of the same name. However when this was on, the screen would have such a big delay that it was difficult to even see what you were shooting. It’s like staring into a time glitch. Let’s delve a bit deeper into the cameras.

Photography and camera samples

A lot of cheaper phones tend to use shooting modes with higher saturation and contrast to compensate for lacklustre lenses. While the Nokia doesn’t have a best-in-class camera, I'm happy with the colour balance you’ll get from the primary and wide lenses. While there are slightly darker shadows, and brighter highlights, the shots pop without looking like a MySpace picture circa 2003.

Portrait modes, like night modes on affordable handsets can be hit and miss but the Nokia’s portrait mode performs above my expectations. Shooting animals in this mode is a pain point. Unsurprisingly animal faces are different to humans so the computational photography software can have difficulty defining fluffy edges. You even see these blurs around people’s hair at times. The Nokia however did a great job at isolating my pup Billie’s face in a range of shots, even some from a long distance.

Portrait mode

Portrait mode cropped

It does just as well on human faces (excuse the selfie, and the abrupt look in to what working from home looks like). You can see here that it captures the outlines of my face and body clearly, the only exception being the tuft of hair at the back of my head. Even though the bokeh isn’t perfect, the Nokia does a great job of differentiating the back and foregrounds to create that depth within the shot.

On the other hand, the macro lens is a bit of a let down. Using this lens requires a steady hand, and a steady object. I tried several objects to try and get a sharp, detail orientated photo - but to no avail. Even under perfect conditions I couldn’t capture a crisp image showcasing the finer details of the subject. While the shots below are more than passable at this size, if you zoom in or open them in another window at full size you'll see what I mean. There is almost a radial blue near the points that should be sharp.

Detailed, close up shots are the point of a macro lens and unfortunately this one just missed the mark.

Macro lens

Depending on what you want to use the lens to shoot, you may just be better off using the primary lens. For close ups where you want a sharper colour contrast and more vivid edges then the primary lens will do, however if you really want to get up close and personal than the macro lens is the only way to do it. You’ll just have to settle for a less clear shot. I’d even consider using the wide angle lens as a make-shift macro, over the actual macro lens. It’s more forgiving in hand and subject motion, and creates a clearer overall effect.

Macro lens

Primary lens

Wide angle lens

Night Mode isn’t the best performer, but the primary lens doesn’t suck in lowlight as it is. Take these shots for example taken in lowlight, but not complete darkness.

Night mode off

Night mode on

Night mode off

Night mode on

Using the primary lens you retain a lot of detail in the picture, it actually looks like it was taken with purpose rather than just shooting blindly into the night. On the other hand, looking at night mode the image is just brightened. It looks washed out and all-out poorer quality.

You’ll see a similar trend here when shooting in absolute pitch darkness. While the primary lens doesn’t hold up as well in this shot, night mode uses the same trick by just increasing the brightness. It becomes difficult to see the difference on desktop, but if you're reading this on your phone you should be able to make out some general outlines on a bookshelf where night mode has been enabled.

Night mode off

Night mode on

It's obviously not a great outcome when you have to describe the picture rather than look at it, but across each of these examples we see the same thing. The image simply looks like you've put it in photoshop and upped the brightness. Ideally night mode should retain the shadows and highlights within a picture and allow for depth, and the image to not look like an impressionist painting.

Nokia 5.4 - Final thoughts

Let’s get one thing straight. There is nothing wrong with average. Average, for all intents and purposes is actually a good thing - or at the very least it’s a neutral thing. The Nokia 5.4 is average, and there is nothing wrong with that. It’s perfectly fine. It’s worth looking into. It just won’t blow you out of the water.

Get the best telco deals first