As long as I haven't seen any sample images from various really independent sources, those images have little informative value in my opinion.
After Nokia has been proven to have faked both Lumia 920 sample videos and sample images, I'm very sceptical.
I mean it's obvious that Nokia is so extremely keen about spreading the impression that the Lumia 920 has a revolutionary, superb-quality camera, that they are doing absolutely everything to reach that goal. So when, after being convicted of presenting fake sample videos and images, they were pretty much forced to let a seemingly indepedent source take photos, I think it's a safe bet to suppose that they were still trying to make the best out of the situation, doing everything to get what they considered the most favourable result:
They chose who would take sample photos (and who knows how they made up their decision?), and they dictated the conditions: Only shots at night, no permission to release full resolution shots, just extremely downscaled versions, no moving objects in the scene etc. etc. And some of the comparison shots are for some bizarre reason (consciously?) arranged to compare apples and oranges, comparing Lumia 920 shots without a flashlight to shots with other cameras using a flashlight.
And yet, even the quality of those extremely downscaled images isn't actually that impressive, apart from the fact that they were taken in low-light situations. Like most mobile phone cameras they are somewhat blurry, not sharp enough. The Lumia 920 probably really has the best camera of any smartphone on the market, but unfortunately that doesn't say much. The camera sensors in mobile phones are simply way too small to deliver really good image quality.
