| Author |
Nokia 808 PureView Thread And Discussion |
fbloise
Joined: Dec 14, 2002
Posts: > 500
From: London, UK
PM, WWW
|
Indeed, I think the article was crap. Since the sensor in the Z2 is the same as in the Z1, then we could say (by the review standards) that the Z1 is better than the 808, and of course it isn't.
"Haters are just confused Admirers" My WebsiteForo.DO Facebook Group at http://www.facebook.com/groups/esato/ BBM: 2B5E52DF |
|
|
aussieland1
Joined: Apr 11, 2013
Posts: > 500
PM |
actually in terms of still photo iq alone both nokia 808 and Sony z2 score the same 81 It is surprising that the flash for Sony gets more points than Nokia's xenon and Sony seems to score a lot better on autofocus and contrast. Is there a problem with the autofocus on Nokia?
Sony
Exposure and contrast 88
Color 74
Autofocus 84
Texture 83
Noise 84
Artifacts 68
Flash 85
Nokia
Exposure and contrast 78
Color 80
Autofocus 73
Texture 84
Noise 88
Artifacts 89
Flash 81
Even if Sony Z2 is not as good as Nokia 808 this still could mean that it has great IQ which is good news
[ This Message was edited by: aussieland1 on 2014-04-08 11:47 ] |
Bonovox
Joined: Apr 13, 2008
Posts: > 500
PM |
Speaking of auto focus and Sony. When I had the Z1 and the Xperia T both had persistent auto focus issues in all lighting
Phone?? What phone?? |
mlife
Joined: Jan 16, 2003
Posts: > 500
PM |
On 2014-04-08 12:45:31, aussieland1 wrote:
actually in terms of still photo iq alone both nokia 808 and Sony z2 score the same 81 It is surprising that the flash for Sony gets more points than Nokia's xenon and Sony seems to score a lot better on autofocus and contrast. Is there a problem with the autofocus on Nokia?
Sony
Exposure and contrast 88
Color 74
Autofocus 84
Texture 83
Noise 84
Artifacts 68
Flash 85
Nokia
Exposure and contrast 78
Color 80
Autofocus 73
Texture 84
Noise 88
Artifacts 89
Flash 81
Even if Sony Z2 is not as good as Nokia 808 this still could mean that it has great IQ which is good news
[ This Message was edited by: aussieland1 on 2014-04-08 11:47 ]
Good news yes, that the Z2 is producing good images... but LOTS of phones now are producing good images. I have to disagree a bit though based on the categories scored above. Looks pretty subjective to me as most of that list can either be compensated for or simply viewer preference.
Exposure and contrast - Most every phone allows this setting to be adjusted for your preference.
Color - 808 gets bashed for this all the time for being too flat... I and others out there don't care for the over saturated look from some devices.
Autofocus - could be a valid downfall of the 808 but does autofocus really show in the final image?? Its not backfocusing or anything we're talking about... this is just silly.
Texture - although can be preference of that painted look vs crisp well defined pixels (thus again subjective) but I am of the belief this is a clear advantage of using a larger sensor.
Noise - Can be adjusted in PP but is certainly related to image sensor size.
Artifacts - Again sensor... although could be impacted by optics
Flash 81 - I for one rarely use my flash but also realize Im not the only one that matters - But for people who do, you've got to admit this (if indeed the Z2s flash is better, more powerful, more accurate or better color balanced) is not directly related to PURE IQ.
In a true attempt to remove as few of their bogus categories as possible I will leave in Texture although I personally wouldn't include or even care that nokia scores higher here as I for one like the texture of Sony images better... but either way IMO, the score for those who really care about photography should look more like this;
Sony - 78
Texture 83
Noise 84
Artifacts 68
Nokia - 87
Texture 84
Noise 88
Artifacts 89
That (again IMO) more accurately represents the gap between these two devices relative to an actual review of camera/sensor output.
[ This Message was edited by: mlife on 2014-04-08 13:47 ] [addsig] |
emporium
Joined: Mar 24, 2009
Posts: 254
From: BiH
PM |
808 does not like macro shots, it difficulty focuses even at 20 cm from object |
fbloise
Joined: Dec 14, 2002
Posts: > 500
From: London, UK
PM, WWW
|
"Haters are just confused Admirers" My WebsiteForo.DO Facebook Group at http://www.facebook.com/groups/esato/ BBM: 2B5E52DF |
cu015170
Joined: Oct 26, 2010
Posts: > 500
PM |
On 2014-04-08 15:24:12, emporium wrote:
808 does not like macro shots, it difficulty focuses even at 20 cm from object
Yeah.. the optics/sensor combo is too big for real close up shots. The only way around it is using the zoom functionality or shooting in full res and then cropping but that makes the composition harder to achieve at time of capture.
On 2014-04-08 08:23:20, fbloise wrote:
Indeed, I think the article was crap. Since the sensor in the Z2 is the same as in the Z1, then we could say (by the review standards) that the Z1 is better than the 808, and of course it isn't.
Exactly, and bunch of other phones that have very similar outputs. I don't really care what they say, you can see the difference b/w the 808 and the smaller sensor devices in almost every shot. Its pretty obvious...
Check out the Galaxy S5
http://www.gsmarena.com/samsung_galaxy_s5-review-1064p9.php
Very good results.. on par with the 1520, but both are very far from what you can achieve with the 808. The Z2 is in that same gs5/1520/ip5s/g2pro category. |
Bonovox
Joined: Apr 13, 2008
Posts: > 500
PM |
@mlife that made me laugh what you just said in the Z2 thread  well said
Phone?? What phone?? |
mlife
Joined: Jan 16, 2003
Posts: > 500
PM |
On 2014-04-08 15:24:12, emporium wrote:
808 does not like macro shots, it difficulty focuses even at 20 cm from object
+ it is horrendous to deal with at night without a tripod.... but with a little extra effort (for those that really wish to maximize results) you can hold steady and use the autofocus light or bring a tripod... not simple or easy but then again those of us who are passionate about the 808 are that way because of the results not its ease of use. The 808 is for those knowledgeable enough to know how to exploit the UNMATCHED abilities of its 1/1.2" sensor not for the casual point and shooter - for which there are much better phones out there to satisfy.
On 2014-04-08 17:24:00, Bonovox wrote:
@mlife that made me laugh what you just said in the Z2 thread well said
Thanks... but I really wasn't trying to be funny... just so tired of the ignorance and pontification that takes place so often regarding how this phone or that phone beats the 808... I'll be the first to admit when the 808 has been topped (and will purchase that phone) but we are not there yet and I'm tired of all the "experts" trying to top it prematurely.
[ This Message was edited by: mlife on 2014-04-08 16:32 ] [addsig] |
Bonovox
Joined: Apr 13, 2008
Posts: > 500
PM |
On the discussion of comparison I have just seen GSM Arena's images from the Galaxy S5  Samsung's own new ISOCELL is awful the GS4 was alot better
Phone?? What phone?? |
northmonkey
Joined: Feb 09, 2009
Posts: > 500
PM |
On 2014-04-08 19:53:15, Bonovox wrote:
On the discussion of comparison I have just seen GSM Arena's images from the Galaxy S5 Samsung's own new ISOCELL is awful the GS4 was alot better
Thats because the S4 had a Sony sensor, they can't make sensors like Sony can. |
Bonovox
Joined: Apr 13, 2008
Posts: > 500
PM |
I know that 
Phone?? What phone?? |
davidsic
Joined: May 30, 2004
Posts: > 500
From: Belgium
PM |
A bit weird what you say bono because i find pics taken with the S5 close to S4 but better.
Same texture, colors a bit warm, a bit of over sharpening, contrast a bit high, sometimes over exposed...exactly like S3/S4 But it seems better in low light.
I don't see what you find so different from the S4.
[ This Message was edited by: davidsic on 2014-04-08 21:55 ] |
Bonovox
Joined: Apr 13, 2008
Posts: > 500
PM |
Up closer they look mushy
Phone?? What phone?? |
aussieland1
Joined: Apr 11, 2013
Posts: > 500
PM |
On 2014-04-08 22:54:49, davidsic wrote:
A bit weird what you say bono because i find pics taken with the S5 close to S4 but better.
Same texture, colors a bit warm, a bit of over sharpening, contrast a bit high, sometimes over exposed...exactly like S3/S4 But it seems better in low light.
I don't see what you find so different from the S4.
[ This Message was edited by: davidsic on 2014-04-08 21:55 ]
Totally agree - they seem better than on S4 to me as well |
|
|
Posted: 2014-04-08 08:23
