| Author |
Nokia Lumia 1020 |
Bonovox
Joined: Apr 13, 2008
Posts: > 500
PM |
@Sonysta,since when was the 920,925 and HTC some of the worst camera phones in the world?? Once again you talk out your backside. If you try the HTC One takes very good images
Phone?? What phone?? | |
|
TeeGee
Joined: Apr 10, 2012
Posts: 96
From: UK/NL
PM |
@Bonovox: that's only in his deluded mind 
Live and let live, how hard can it be ?
|
cu015170
Joined: Oct 26, 2010
Posts: > 500
PM |
^ well they are nothing special really... the usual mess coming from a tiny sensor.
On 2013-09-12 02:03:00, TeeGee wrote:
This may all be true, but don't you think it's pointless, to keep comparing this smartphone not with its competitors, but with a phone people can't even buy, because it's EOL and running on a dead OS? Even if Symbian phones had some qualities that modern smartphones are missing, people didn't want to buy them anymore.
Wouldn't it be better, for those of you, who think, the most important thing on a smartphone is the camera, to buy a cheap phone and a real camera, a DSLR with one or two good lenses? And when you want perfection, don't look for it in phones, or even DSLRs, get a Hasselblad.
And yes, I do know, what I'm talking about, I have an 808PV, a Nikon and an old Hasselblad, still with film  .
But my smartphone for daily use is the Nokia Lumia 925 and will soon be the Lumia 1020  .
[ This Message was edited by: TeeGee on 2013-09-12 01:07 ]
There is nothing else to compare it to in terms of imaging, and that is it's main selling point, just like the 808, so comps are only natural, especially for 808 owners looking to upgrade.
In this case.. its more of a downgrade rather than an upgrade.
Here, I knew this from the very beginning, but its nice to put it to the test..
http://allaboutwindowsphone.c[....]a_1020_and_its_oversamplin.php
The oversampling on the 808 is superior in every way.
On 2013-09-12 03:45:08, mlife wrote:
So..... went back to AT&T today and played with the 1020 for a bit... took some pictures and sent them to my phone. Got home and reviewed images but decided to not even expend the time or effort posting them as a comparison due to the fact that in my eyes there really is none.
In all fairness though, I must say that there are some very INTRIGUING things about the 1020. If I did not already own a 808pv, I would have purchased the 1020 today based on the camera interface, manual controllability, max/min shutter speeds and windows platform. Although the 808 images are clearly better while pixel peeping, I (as I bet 98% of the world) never print images from my phone and don't absolutely require the level of images produced by the 808. Having said that however, I can't justify taking a KNOW step backward in image quality while simultaneously increasing how much I pay monthly considering I don't even really use anything other than text, foursquare and my camera.
long story short, Ill hold out for a bit longer.... I think I just want something new.
Yup.. just hold out for another 8 months or so and there should be something that is either on par with the 808 or even better.
In our case (being on AT&T) .. its very hard to justify upgrading to anything else, at least as long as we can tap into that $15 unlimited data plan with Symbian. I use joikuspot every day.. if I had anything but the 808 I would be paying 30-40 dollars for the luxury.
In terms of imaging.. its pretty obvious that the 1020 is a downgrade
[ This Message was edited by: cu015170 on 2013-09-12 17:10 ] |
etaab
Joined: Jan 23, 2004
Posts: > 500
From: UK - South Yorkshire
PM |
On 2013-09-12 00:44:24, cu015170 wrote:
That's exactly the thing.. it doesn't. The 3 most important aspects are in fact inferior:
1. The sensor is smaller
2. The lens is not as precise, it blurs the image toward the edges.
3. Weaker Xenon flash
Yes, that could be true also. But to be honest does the difference in sensor size make that much difference at this level ? I don't really know since im not an expert, but I don't think it does. As for the lens, ive seen shots from the 1020 with blurred edges, and some with none. So its hard to judge until the phone is released.
As for the xenon flash, its not a deal breaker for me. Xenon flashes are for use in dark environments shooting up close - people, friends or your pets. The range isn't really an issue as long as its a proper flash and captures the scene like a proper camera does. I had the Satio and then my N8 and ive been happy with both phones flashes even though the N8's was slightly lesser than the Satio's.
I don't think i'll be getting a 1020 or 808 for that matter since ive had to shell out too much money this year on car repairs and other issues. I was going to buy myself one or the other as a luxury gift to myself but I think I also will wait to see if Nokia will release another version in 2014.
Oddly however, since ive been reading this and other threads about the Pureview phones ive come to the conclusion that really no camera is perfect. No camera takes a perfect shot and cannot be as accurate as the human eye. When I sold my SE K750i and got a Nokia N93 I was annoyed with its poorer camera. But now, in 2013 for most purposes my Galaxy S3 takes good shots for every day use which is enough. Only if I want to really pixel peep do I need more. I think the point im getting at is, no matter how brilliant a cameraphone is theres always room for improvement somewhere so theres no point in going totally anal about analysing each picture at pixel level just to know ive got the best camera available.
Check me out on Instagram ! search for etaab ! |
Marly
Joined: Jun 04, 2006
Posts: > 500
From: Netherlands
PM |
^ Agree. All modern high-end smartphones take pictures, which are good enough, to meet the needs of 99% of their owners. One phone may take pics, that are a bit sharper, another produce better colours and a third might have a better flash, but for a quick snap of that nice evening in the pub, that beautiful flower, or cute kitten, to show to your friends, on the phone, or post on Twitter, or Facebook, their picture quality is sufficient.
The pixel peepers may see huge differences, but tbh, I've never understood, why they bother with cameraphones, anyways. A "real" camera (DSLR, not compact) is sooo much better, not only their sensors, but their versatility, today you can use a high-quality zoom lens, tomorrow a near-perfect 50mm macro. And I'm not even talking about the medium format, like Tee Gee did, I wouldn't dare to use the words "phone camera" and "Hasselblad" in the same sentence 
But....... when you see something nice and you'd like to take a picture, your excellent camera might be at home and your phone is in your pocket! And exactly that is the strong point of the cameraphone: it's always with you, whereever you go, and your camera usually isn't.
It's as they say: The best camera, is the one you have with you
[ This Message was edited by: Marly on 2013-09-13 01:34 ] "America: please don’t be a Dumpfkopf" |
Bonovox
Joined: Apr 13, 2008
Posts: > 500
PM |
[ This Message was edited by: Bonovox on 2013-09-13 21:13 ] |
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 |
etaab
Joined: Jan 23, 2004
Posts: > 500
From: UK - South Yorkshire
PM |
My sister takes her point and shoot Nikon everywhere with her in her handbag, which ive always found a little strange.
Check me out on Instagram ! search for etaab ! |
TeeGee
Joined: Apr 10, 2012
Posts: 96
From: UK/NL
PM |
She probably doesn't want to miss one of those so-called "Kodak"-moments , my wife was the same, she didn't want to miss any cute moments with our two girls, so her compact was always with her, but now she trusts her phone to take good enough pictures, which it does.
Smartphones won't be able to replace DSLRs and medium format cameras for hobby- and professional photographers, but I'm sure, they'll soon replace the point-and-shoot compacts.
Live and let live, how hard can it be ?
|
davidsic
Joined: May 30, 2004
Posts: > 500
From: Belgium
PM |
Review of the camera (in french) : http://www.clubic.com/smartphone/windows-phone-8/article-584266-1-nokia-lumia-1020.html
 |
Sonysta
Joined: May 25, 2013
Posts: 198
PM |
Davidsic... Thanks for sharing !
But some information in this review are wrong !
For example:
The range of the xenon flash of 1020 is 3 meters and not 4 meters !
Forgetting this, in fact the 1020 Pureview is a good cameraphone and legitimate successor of Lumia 920/925/928 Pureview ! |
Sonysta
Joined: May 25, 2013
Posts: 198
PM |
Damian Dinning’s feedback on the Nokia Lumia 1020 PureView !!!
pureviewclub.com/2013/17346
[ This Message was edited by: Sonysta on 2013-09-17 09:10 ] |
false_morel
Joined: Feb 24, 2010
Posts: 375
PM |
On 2013-09-17 10:10:15, Sonysta wrote:
Damian Dinning’s feedback on the Nokia Lumia 1020 PureView !!!
pureviewclub.com/2013/17346
[ This Message was edited by: Sonysta on 2013-09-17 09:10 ]
I wonder what those stating that the 1020 is no competition to the 808 would say after reading this piece from Dinning..
The difference between the two phones is obvious: different philosophies used for processing.
Even on sharpening, I tend to agree with Nokia's approach over the request of using less sharpening..
The reasoning for this is all obvious as well. Cameraphones are all about the average Joe not the photography enthusiasts. I would never use a 1020 or an 808 to shoot a wedding, or a sports event, or a pro like portrait photography, or of course use it as primary camera even if my DSLR means more space and hassle carrying it around!
With the 808 Nokia knew it won't sell mainstream and mainly addressed at the loyal Nokia photography fans and those hardcore photographers who would use the 808 as a secondary compact camera. So they didn't want to disappoint them.
But with the 1020 they wanted to sell mainstream. And the mainstream wants an iPhone-like camera. Sharp, vibrant colors..
And it makes sense for a compact anyway.
I would never post-process an image from my phone. Come on! Will never waste time on that. Enough time spent on processing RAW content from my DSLR!
I want ready to share and occasionally print images. Either way in small sizes. So 5 MP makes perfect sense, as I would be sharing them online socially, or print them small.
So what's the need of pixel peeping to spot some noise and artifacts?! And what's the use of neutral coloring approach of I'm never be retouching them on PC?!
When I use neutral settings on DSLR in the rare cases I shoot in JPEG I know I will be readjusting the color slides afterwards. No serious photographer leaves an image in pale lifeless colors!
Think practically people not getting stuck in the abstract!
Of course there will always be room for optimizations and enhancements.. So Nokia have a job to bring in some new feature additions and optimize the camera output in some conditions where it skews the results..
But overall, the 1020 is the new benchmark. Live wit it! |
Marly
Joined: Jun 04, 2006
Posts: > 500
From: Netherlands
PM |
+1
"America: please don’t be a Dumpfkopf" |
cu015170
Joined: Oct 26, 2010
Posts: > 500
PM |
All you have to do is look at the images... the 1020 comes close to the 808, but it does not surpass it. To me its pretty obvious.. otherwise, if I felt like it was an upgrade, I would have a 1020 by now since imaging is the most important aspect of a smartphone for me.
Unfortunately it is indeed a downgrade from the 808 overall.. its a shame since I was really looking forward to this.
The other disappointment is the Sony Z1 .. I was expecting big sensor, big pixels, and a Xenon flash.. instead we got 20 million 1.4 micron pixels, weak flash, and questionable jpeg processing in the initial firmware.
| |
|
Access the forum with a mobile phone via esato.mobi
|
Posted: 2013-09-12 09:55
