Welcome to Esato.com


Pages:
12345  Next


Lumia 1020 vs 808 PV vs any potential rival.


Click to view updated thread with images




Posted by false_morel
Not to misuse the 1020's thread any further, I think among photography enthusiasts indulging in discussions about the best cameraphone will never end. Even it means that one camera is about an obsolete phone no one would ever get or keep for other than its camera capabilities..

I'll quote some comparison photos from the other thread, mid-day, mostly cloudy:











Originals shot by Steve and posted on AAWP and AAS websites..

While both phones tend to two opposite extremes, a bit ironic coming from the same company one year apart, the best result imo would be somewhere in the middle.
808 going with neutral saturation, low contrast, low sharpness, and keeping noise as minimal as possible, while the 1020 with punchy colors, high contrast, and extreme sharpening leaving no room for noise to be kept invisible..

Out of the two, based on the above photos, I would still go with the 1020 since the 808 delivers soft images in comparison..

As to night photography, with flash on the 808 has the bigger Xenon module and an advantage in this area, but with OIS the 1020 captures better night shots and even outdoor portraits when the background is to be highlighted as well..

To judge which camera renders better detail and noise levels is hard under such extreme different processing. One has eventually to choose between one of the extremes. But I think regardless of which has the slight advantage in this area, features like OIS, SS control, SmartCam, and ability to save both full res and oversampled version together on the 1020 are enough to give it the upper hand.

If anyone has any comparison photos please post them here.. And comments on the photos above are welcome..


Posted by Sonysta
----

Here the conclusion of who is actually the best camerafone:

http://pureviewclub.com/2013/17842

----

P.S: Since I'm already denouncing moderation to take action!
[ This Message was edited by: Sonysta on 2013-10-07 17:45 ]

[ This Message was edited by: hihihans on 2013-10-07 19:32 ]


Posted by Bonovox
---
[ This Message was edited by: hihihans on 2013-10-07 19:32 ]


Posted by cu015170
The 808 is in a league of it's own when it comes to raw IQ.. the only reason one would compare it to the 1020 is because the 1020 comes the closest out of any other smartphone.



Posted by wthc
“The image quality the 1020 is able to muster is pretty impressive. We used Imatest to check its performance at ISO 100, and found its sharpness results to be excellent. At 5-megapixels it manages a solid 2,121 lines per picture height, which is in excess of the 1,800 lines that we require of a sharp photo. At 38-megapixels its score is 2,218 lines.

The 1020 handles noise differently in 38-megapixel and 5-megapixel images. When shooting in the lower resolution, it only manages to keep noise below the 1.5 percent threshold at its base ISO of 100; it jumps to 1.7 percent at ISO 200 and hovers around there through ISO 800. At ISO 1600 the noise jumps to 2 percent, and it hits 2.6 percent at its top sensitivity of ISO 3200. Detail is crisp through ISO 800, and colors are accurate.

In 38-megapixel mode the noise results are a bit different. The 1020 keeps noise below 1.5 percent through ISO 200, and only records 1.6 percent at ISO 400. At higher ISOs, noise is higher than the downsampled photos—1.9 percent at ISO 800, 2.5 percent at 1600, and 3.1 percent at ISO 3200.”

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2422135,00.asp

“We put the N808's camera through our standard testing process, testing the sharpness of the lens at each available resolution using the Imatest software suite. In PureView mode the results were a little softer than we'd like—it scored 1,332 lines per picture height at 3 megapixels, 1,518 lines at 5 megapixels, and 1,681 lines at 8 megapixels. It was only in the full 38-megapixel format that it exceeded the 1,800 lines required for a sharp photo—it scored an impressive 2,088 lines there.

In full-resolution mode the camera is able to keep noise under 1.5 percent through ISO 200 and captures excellent detail at this setting. ISO 400 is a bit noisier at 1.8 percent, but detail remains very good. Noise creeps up to 1.9 percent at ISO 800

The automatic white balance is a little finicky. Shooting outside on a bright day, we framed a shot completely in the shadows and the blue construction barrier we were shooting ended up looking a bit green.”

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2406467,00.asp

1020 full resolution: 2,218 lines
808 full resolution: 2,088 lines

1020 at 5mpx: 2,121 lines
808 at 8mpx: 1,681 lines

1020 at 800 iso: noise below 1.5%
808 at 800 iso: noise at 1.9%


Posted by etaab
@ false_morel - well done for creating this thread.

Here is an interesting comparison, sadly its still coming soon, but should be a good comparison.

Just from the one example they have in that link, the 1020 is by far the best.

I know theres a few on Esato who still want to the 808 to be number one, but its completely obsolete now. Google don't support it anymore, Nokia don't support it anymore and now other services are slowly shutting down for it, such as the BBC iPlayer.

The 808 is a collectors item, just like my N8.

Posted by Bonovox
Phone Arena did a recent blind test of 3 handsets and the 1020 won

http://www.phonearena.com/news/Lumia-1020-beats-the-iPhone-5s-and-Galaxy-S4-by-a-mile-in-our-blind-camera-comparison_id48050

Posted by cu015170
My 808 performs as a modern smartphone on a daily basis.. I really don't see what more (in terms of core essential functions) my iPhone 5 can do compared to my 808

Also, google maps works fine here in the USofA .. at least for now.


On 2013-10-07 13:00:42, false_morel wrote:
And where are these photos?
I opened a dedicated thread for comparing the two cameras.. Feel free to post the photos there..


They are somewhere here.. but.. too lazy to look

Auto ISO

1020



100% crop


808
[/url

100% crop


1020
[url=http://www.esato.com/phonephotos/cam/nokia/lumia_1020/20130730021366388I.jpg]



100% crop


808


100% crop



1020


100% crop


808


100% crop

[/quote]

ISO LOCKED AT 200

808
http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3737/9405394586_ae2de8458d_o.jpg/

100%


1020
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7319/9402635859_bef16eda3e_o.jpg

100%


808 (max zoom + flash)
http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5475/9402636413_b71a04d56e_o.jpg

100%


1020 (max zoom + flash)
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7429/9402634843_3973429aef_o.jpg



808
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7334/9402634359_f045b2b495_o.jpg

100%


1020
http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2838/9405391744_cbc6da2cbc_o.jpg

100%


808
http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5519/9402631691_462a894e30_o.jpg

100%


1020
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7287/9402632519_c42216af72_o.jpg

100%


808
http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3828/9405387750_cee0a7bbfa_o.jpg

100%


1020
http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5518/9405388146_ceaa86ec29_o.jpg

100%


808
http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3683/9405386944_4569aa12e3_o.jpg

100%


1020
http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3826/9405387076_d8c81d8e71_o.jpg

100%


808 (flash)
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7329/9402628601_1aea28e3e7_o.jpg

1020 (flash) ... seems to be out of focus, and you can see the difference in color reproduction
http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2894/9402633809_16b7e61564_o.jpg
[/quote]

808
http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3811/9566867778_3687264db2_o.jpg

100%


1020
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7290/9566867134_051aa89251_o.jpg

100%


This is maximum zoom, which is the same as full resolution. 1:1 PIXEL ratio. Also, the actual zooming is much smoother on the 808 for some reason..

808
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7435/9564075031_cb05371032_o.jpg

100%


1020
http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5548/9566866996_173fba05cb_o.jpg

100%


Here is the xenon shot.. the 808 is more powerful for sure

808
http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5519/9566867458_245eb94712_o.jpg

100%


1020
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7426/9566866612_d3d993d1f6_o.jpg

100%

[/quote]


Have you done any tests for yourself, or are you just expressing baseless opinions ?
[ This Message was edited by: cu015170 on 2013-10-07 22:16 ]


Posted by Sylwester
My 808 is excellent as a car navigation system helps me to work further inform me about speed cameras on the road and it's all free!

Posted by cu015170

On 2013-10-07 23:16:09, Sylwester wrote:
My 808 is excellent as a car navigation system helps me to work further inform me about speed cameras on the road and it's all free!


The 808 excels at a lot of things

Posted by etaab
But the 1020 does that also, since it uses the same maps.. for free !

They're both made by Nokia after all..

Posted by Sonysta

On 2013-10-07 23:07:46, cu015170 wrote:
My 808 performs as a modern smartphone on a daily basis.. I really don't see what more (in terms of core essential functions) my iPhone 5 can do compared to my 808

Also, google maps works fine here in the USofA .. at least for now.


On 2013-10-07 13:00:42, false_morel wrote:
And where are these photos?
I opened a dedicated thread for comparing the two cameras.. Feel free to post the photos there..


They are somewhere here.. but.. too lazy to look

Auto ISO

1020



100% crop


808
[/url

100% crop


1020
[url=http://www.esato.com/phonephotos/cam/nokia/lumia_1020/20130730021366388I.jpg]



100% crop


808


100% crop



1020


100% crop


808


100% crop



ISO LOCKED AT 200

808
http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3737/9405394586_ae2de8458d_o.jpg/

100%


1020
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7319/9402635859_bef16eda3e_o.jpg

100%


808 (max zoom + flash)
http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5475/9402636413_b71a04d56e_o.jpg

100%


1020 (max zoom + flash)
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7429/9402634843_3973429aef_o.jpg



808
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7334/9402634359_f045b2b495_o.jpg

100%


1020
http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2838/9405391744_cbc6da2cbc_o.jpg

100%


808
http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5519/9402631691_462a894e30_o.jpg

100%


1020
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7287/9402632519_c42216af72_o.jpg

100%


808
http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3828/9405387750_cee0a7bbfa_o.jpg

100%


1020
http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5518/9405388146_ceaa86ec29_o.jpg

100%


808
http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3683/9405386944_4569aa12e3_o.jpg

100%


1020
http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3826/9405387076_d8c81d8e71_o.jpg

100%


808 (flash)
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7329/9402628601_1aea28e3e7_o.jpg

1020 (flash) ... seems to be out of focus, and you can see the difference in color reproduction
http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2894/9402633809_16b7e61564_o.jpg
[/quote]

808
http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3811/9566867778_3687264db2_o.jpg

100%


1020
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7290/9566867134_051aa89251_o.jpg

100%


This is maximum zoom, which is the same as full resolution. 1:1 PIXEL ratio. Also, the actual zooming is much smoother on the 808 for some reason..

808
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7435/9564075031_cb05371032_o.jpg

100%


1020
http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5548/9566866996_173fba05cb_o.jpg

100%


Here is the xenon shot.. the 808 is more powerful for sure

808
http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5519/9566867458_245eb94712_o.jpg

100%


1020
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7426/9566866612_d3d993d1f6_o.jpg

100%

[/quote]


Have you done any tests for yourself, or are you just expressing baseless opinions ?
[ This Message was edited by: cu015170 on 2013-10-07 22:16 ]

[/quote]

Thanks again for sharing !

It's always nice to see the opinion of someone who really knows what is photography... From someone who actually has had in hand 1020 and 808 !

For me and for those who have good vision and understand at least a bit of photography, no doubt... 808 is much better than 1020 !

Soon I'll post also a quick comparison between the Moto X, 1020, 808 and S4 Zoom !

Posted by cu015170
Relevant:

http://forums.wpcentral.com/n[....]-808-symbian-lumia-1020-a.html

Posted by wthc
cu015170, you have “randomly”compared the 808 at 160 iso and 1020 at 250 iso, 808 at 125 iso vs. 1020 at 320, 808 at 250 iso vs. 1020 at 500. Surely a fair shake!

From dpreview we can see how look like the 1020 at 200 iso:

Image Hosted by ImageShack.us

100% crop
Image Hosted by ImageShack.us

http://connect.dpreview.com/f[....]posts/5234892048/samplelo1.jpg

A “little” better than all your shot at 200 iso. Strange...shaky hands?
[ This Message was edited by: wthc on 2013-10-08 02:23 ]


Posted by Sonysta
Great credibility... Opinion from a guy who never had in hand the 808 and 1020... Please have one 808 and one 1020 and only after opine about something !
[ This Message was edited by: Sonysta on 2013-10-08 10:09 ]


Posted by cu015170
the first set of pictures should be at auto ISO, which would result in different ISO values, the 2nd and 3rd sets are with locked ISO.

Refer to my other thread for more information:

http://forum.pureviewclub.com/index.php/topic,538.0.html

Why waste my time making the 1020 look worse than it is ?

Posted by Bonovox
@Sonysta I am having my final say on this and I couldn't care less if I am banned. But I have been here a lot longer than you have but since you came along all we get it others being criticized and giggled at for having an opinion like your a baby. This is a forum where people discuss things not come here to be laughed at cos of their opinion. You have become the troll here who laughs at others for ever daring to challenge you against your 808. I couldn't care less what phone you have(and I don't have a £50 phone for the record) But you need to grow up and respect opinion that is against what you say otherwise you bring this forum down. Just because you have an 808 doesn't make you a great photographer and just because others have other handsets does that make them someone to laugh at?? No. You have a very narrow minded point of view. And you need to stop calling others insulting names. Hans if you delete this then I won't be back cos I have simply had enough now.

Posted by Del

On 2013-10-08 09:48:48, Bonovox wrote:
@Sonysta I am having my final say on this and I couldn't care less if I am banned. But I have been here a lot longer than you have but since you came along all we get it others being criticized and giggled at for having an opinion like your a baby. This is a forum where people discuss things not come here to be laughed at cos of their opinion. You have become the troll here who laughs at others for ever daring to challenge you against your 808. I couldn't care less what phone you have(and I don't have a £50 phone for the record) But you need to grow up and respect opinion that is against what you say otherwise you bring this forum down. Just because you have an 808 doesn't make you a great photographer and just because others have other handsets does that make them someone to laugh at?? No. You have a very narrow minded point of view. And you need to stop calling others insulting names. Hans if you delete this then I won't be back cos I have simply had enough now.



+1 Well said Bono, couldn't agree more

Posted by Sonysta

On 2013-10-08 04:16:51, cu015170 wrote:
the first set of pictures should be at auto ISO, which would result in different ISO values, the 2nd and 3rd sets are with locked ISO.

Refer to my other thread for more information:

http://forum.pureviewclub.com/index.php/topic,538.0.html

Why waste my time making the 1020 look worse than it is ?


Also do not see any reason for you to sabotage the 1020... The big problem is the insistence that some have to change your or my opinion ! Why this ? I do not know !

P.S: If you do not like an opinion, there is always the possibility you ignore it... In short, @Bonovox... Forget me, leave me alone, please !

Posted by Bonovox
Who said I was trying to change your opinion?? I didn't. It's YOU who laughs at other people's opinions when it isn't in favour of an 808. You bore the pants off me. As for forgetting you,gladly. This forum will go down now. I'm outta here........

Posted by hihihans
🎼 and the beat goes on 🎶 and the beat goes on 🎵

Posted by lemmy31

On 2013-10-08 11:45:00, hihihans wrote:
🎼 and the beat goes on 🎶 and the beat goes on 🎵





Posted by false_morel

On 2013-10-07 23:07:46, cu015170 wrote:
Have you done any tests for yourself, or are you just expressing baseless opinions ?


You don't have to be that full of yourself. Specially when you have little to show for it in all the photos you posted.
That was hardly a good homework.

1. All photos are of course shot at same environment (same scene). This is hardly a comparison. If one of the compared cameras performs better under these specific conditions then all the photos will lead to one outcome.
Specially when it's an environment that is not by any means a standard or a common one for cameraphone users. How many do you know go get the best cameraphone out there to go shoot random photos in a mall or a store? (I know you couldn't take the 1020 out of the store, and this barely makes you having a hands-on and not any sort of a comprehensible, rightly done, and thorough comparison)

2. In the motives you had, the extra sharpness of the 1020 comes at minimal effect. That's why you saw "pure" images out of the 808 versus grainy ones from the 1020.. Your subjects were at max few meters away, all of the photos shot at same narrow SS range under same lighting conditions..
Having said that, one could still see a benefit of the extra sharpening from 1020 in the few comparable photos out of the whole bunch you shot. Example image 3 under fixed ISO..
But overall, with flash off, the 808 approach did deliver better photos under these conditions, though it was on manual WB all the time for some reason..

3. Too much inconsistencies! How did you manage to shake-blur a 1020 photo at 1/30 SS?!
Then, that glass sphere from Nokia, with all those reflections, even a slight angle change would cause significant effects.
And in that before last image there, how at less than half a stop more the 808 managed to gather so much more light than the 1020? Only explanation is that the lights weren't the same in both scenarios!

4. As to Xenon flash, we already know the 808 delivers more on this front.
But you failed to test the OIS system of the 1020 where at many times it gives better pleasing results than using a flash or at some cases comes in handy whereas flash is of no use (shooting cityscapes at night, or a portrait at night with emphasis on the background, or generally shooting outdoors at night).
But if you managed to shake even at 1/30 sec I can imagine what would have happened at 1/3 sec!! Although we already saw steady shots at this SS from the 1020.

5. To sum up, the comparison you gave us tells nothing actually. You still fail to comment on the photos Steve shot where under cloudy conditions the 1020 delivered much better results than the 808 for landscape photography.
And I didn't bother to post the night shots since OIS made a significant different.

Extra sharpening has its benefits and also disadvantages depending on the motive. Shooting land - or cityscapes be it at night or at day, sharpening is a no brainer. Shooting close subjects indoors under artificial lights not so useful. For portraits it also depends on how close the subject is, how many are in the photo, and whether the background or some nearby subject (some touristic structure) is to be included..

Nokia definitely need to give the option for different processing within the camera.. And they might very well deliver this later on.

But as it stands now, I can't see the 808 a better shooter than the 1020 at every condition. If anything, for the motives that matter most, the 1020 delivers the better results.
[ This Message was edited by: false_morel on 2013-10-09 00:15 ]


Posted by false_morel

On 2013-10-07 21:48:49, wthc wrote:
1020 full resolution: 2,218 lines
808 full resolution: 2,088 lines

1020 at 5mpx: 2,121 lines
808 at 8mpx: 1,681 lines

1020 at 800 iso: noise below 1.5%
808 at 800 iso: noise at 1.9%



Ah now that is something to ponder about, isn't it?! Thanks for sharing. I never expected someone to perform such tests on cameraphones.. I rarely check PCmag as well..

Well this should settle it then in terms of hardware. 1020's optics + Sony's 1/1.5" BSI sensor are superior to 808's optics + Toshiba's 1/1.2" sensor...

Any comment on this cu? It seems the 0.3 microns advantage wasn't decisive after all!

Posted by cu015170
yes, I was shaking it a like a salt shaker just to make sure the image came out blurry at 1/30th so that I can convince myself that the 808 is better ...

Steve's photos are at different jpeg compression.. if you downgrade the 1020 photos to 85% jpeg compression, which is where the 808's photos are at, I might consider it. That's why I had to do my own, that way I can set the 808 to 95% jpeg compression.

In the RX100 vs. 808 comp posted here:

http://www.esato.com/board/viewtopic.php?topic=204179&start=810

You could see the difference in the palm tree photo.. its the only one where the 808 was set to 85% jpeg compression, and it clearly shows. The rest of the photos are at 95%..

Posted by false_morel

On 2013-10-08 21:15:46, cu015170 wrote:
yes, I was shaking it a like a salt shaker just to make sure the image came out blurry at 1/30th so that I can convince myself that the 808 is better ...


You still have to explain that blurriness. This is no escape.
And also address the other inconsistencies especially about lighting conditions.

Steve's photos are at different jpeg compression.. if you downgrade the 1020 photos to 85% jpeg compression, which is where the 808's photos are at, I might consider it. That's why I had to do my own, that way I can set the 808 to 95% jpeg compression.


95% to 85% compression difference doesn't lead to soft images from perfectly sharp ones!

Then, these compression ratios are usually relevant when one needs to print a photo beyond its maximum printable size.. Stretching it that is..

But why not upload two landscape photos, one at 85% and the other at 95% and we shall compare them?
Make sure to use same angle, frame, and exposure.

And by the way, although the file size of 1-1.5 MB is hinting at 85% the EXIF is somehow saying otherwise.. I will investigate this though..

In the RX100 vs. 808 comp posted here:

http://www.esato.com/board/viewtopic.php?topic=204179&start=810

You could see the difference in the palm tree photo.. its the only one where the 808 was set to 85% jpeg compression, and it clearly shows. The rest of the photos are at 95%..


That's a heavily downsized image. What is to see there?

And you somehow forgot to comment on the Imatest results..


Posted by cu015170
You can adjust the level of sharpness on the 808.. from -5 to +5 ... but either way this isn't the issue with 85 vs 95 , there is visible loss of detail @ 85 compared to 95. There is absolutely not reason to shoot the 808 at 85% jpeg compression, unless you want to save memory, which isn't a problem on the 808 since you can put a 64gb sd card in it.. unlike the 1020.

The difference in file size is about 1-2mb .. a 85% 5Mpix file will be around 1mb, and if you go up to 95 it goes to 2mb+


On 2013-10-08 22:56:59, false_morel wrote:
And also address the other inconsistencies especially about lighting conditions.


It was kind of cloudy inside the store, so.. I really couldn't get the same lighting conditions for every shot.


On 2013-10-08 22:56:59, false_morel wrote:
And you somehow forgot to comment on the Imatest results..


Very scientific, but it doesn't seem to correspond to the actual image quality.

Posted by false_morel

On 2013-10-08 23:36:01, cu015170 wrote:
You can adjust the level of sharpness on the 808.. from -5 to +5 ... but either way this isn't the issue with 85 vs 95 , there is visible loss of detail @ 85 compared to 95. There is absolutely not reason to shoot the 808 at 85% jpeg compression, unless you want to save memory, which isn't a problem on the 808 since you can put a 64gb sd card in it.. unlike the 1020.

The difference in file size is about 1-2mb .. a 85% 5Mpix file will be around 1mb, and if you go up to 95 it goes to 2mb+


Instead of getting lost in words, you can easily show us.
Tomorrow, you can shoot four shots for which we would be thankful:

1.1. Landscape at 85% compression
1.2. Same motive at 95% compression (a reminder: please use the grid to get the same frame and angle.. and it could be anything.. Just make sure you can capture a big scene if possible like from high floor or in a park; also make sure the exposure is exactly the same: ISO + SS)

2.1. Any motive (but a macro) outdoors with sharpness left at 0
2.2. Same motive and exposure value with sharpness set to +5

And the deal will be done.. We could all then examine the photos and come to a clear conclusion.

I could do it with my D7000 in case you somehow lack the time or the will, but it makes much more sense to do it with an 808..

AFAIK the sharpness option in the 808 leads to negligible results..
And as to the compression ratio, here's a hint of what I usually do with my own photos: I shoot almost all the time in RAW, and I export in JPEGs directly to the cloud. I'm a Smugmug subscriber so I have unlimited online space. And still, I export them at 90% compression for the sake of the upload time, and then download time and bandwidth as some people I share the photos with are concerned by this, and also due to size since some people who wanna save these photos would find 10 MB for an image to be too much! And at the end, I see no difference between 100% and 90% even if one is to print a poster!

It was kind of cloudy inside the store, so.. I really couldn't get the same lighting conditions for every shot.


Why are you taking this in such a mockery attitude?

No one is accusing you of any fraud. But there must be reasons behind blurring a 1/30s photo. It could be that the 1020 itself is inconsistent or the specific unit if faulty making inconsistent photos.. It could be many things really.. Like someone hit you by accident when taking that photo and you thought at the moment that didn't affect the photo..

And then, as to these two photos:

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7435/9564075031_cb05371032_o.jpg
http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5548/9566866996_173fba05cb_o.jpg

You really need to explain how the 808 captured so much more light than the 1020 at less than a half stop advantage. It breaks the rules of physics. Something must have been different with the lights.

Very scientific, but it doesn't seem to correspond to the actual image quality.


I'll get to this point after we examine the coming photos.. As this is the core point anyway..

Posted by fluke9
Where exactly is this thread going.

808 is not exactly a current phone is it ??



Posted by fbloise
dont know you guys but to me, the 1020 is shit compared to the 808...

plus it will probably be EOL in a couple of months, knowing Microsoft is taking over.

Posted by lemmy31

On 2013-10-09 18:59:16, fbloise wrote:
dont know you guys but to me, the 1020 is shit compared to the 808...

plus it will probably be EOL in a couple of months, knowing Microsoft is taking over.



Don't know about you guys but what an informative, fact filled comment !!

Having used and owned both handsets the 1020 is by far the better phone to use on a daily basis, and although I thought that the camera wasn't as good at first I have to say i now personally prefer the shots ive taken with the Lumia.

As ive said before i really miss Symbian (and ive owned them all from the awesome 7650 through to the N97 debacle and then the N8 and 808) but you cant continue to live in the past.......its gone and that's that.




Posted by Bonovox
Have you uploaded any in the photos section lemmy31?? How is the battery so far as it's not very large compared to some??

Posted by false_morel
Here are some comparison photos from the latest GSMArena article staging the 1020, iP5s, and LG G2:







Just to show it's hard to come close to the 1020 at the moment from any of the modern smartphones at the market today..

Posted by false_morel

On 2013-10-09 15:27:20, fluke9 wrote:
Where exactly is this thread going.

808 is not exactly a current phone is it ??




As the title and the opening post of the thread suggest: Comparing the 1020 to any potential rival coming its way, as others aren't sitting still while Nokia pushes these imaging innovations.. And also compare it to its sibling the 808 to determine the differences as Nokia handled the same technology differently in a hope to reach one conclusion about the best approach we would like Nokia to implement.

Posted by lemmy31

On 2013-10-09 20:04:50, Bonovox wrote:
Have you uploaded any in the photos section lemmy31?? How is the battery so far as it's not very large compared to some??



Hi Sean

I have no problem with battery life but unlike most of the people on here I never use facebook or twitter, infact any social networking apps at all. I mainly use my phones for satnav, music calls, txts and the camera, along with some catch up TV on the move

I have only posted a couple of pictures in the photo section.

Posted by Bonovox
Ah ok I shall have a peep

Posted by etaab
They're nice images what you have uploaded. Peeking at the pixels, you can see a little processing going off which is a little off putting but overall they're very good quality.

Posted by cu015170
This is what you get from Steve's test

85% jpeg compression





This is 95%





I will play with the sharpness when I get a chance today or tomorrow

Posted by false_morel
I must say the difference between 95% and 85% compression doesn't correspond to what the file sizes are suggesting of a one stop compression between the two (halving the size).. At least compared to what I am used to from other tests..
Must note though that such rich detail landscapes are way more sensitive to showing compression artifacts..

Nonetheless, the point remains the same:









I cropped the two images you shot at two areas, one at the very middle where detail is at its highest, and another where the most transitions are.

A difference is be to seen clearly. More than I personally expected. However compare it directly to the difference with that of the 1020-808 comps and conclude for yourself..

Posted by cu015170
the 10% difference might effect different cameras in different ways.. I wish the 1020 had to option to go down to 85%.

If you set the 808 to 95 and the sharpness to +5 you will get an image that just as sharp but with less grain/noise. Then if you want the colors you just set it to vivid and bump up the saturation a little bit.

I can always spot the difference b/w a 85 and 95 shot from the 808

Here is a close up

85



95




Posted by false_morel
Have to note that with the above crops of the two compressions, I have the higher compression at the right side in one and the on the left in the other. Should have paid more attention to align them.

Anyway, to restate the goal of all this: Showing that the difference between 1020 and 808 lies only in the processing. And not in the potential of the hardware. If anything, testing has showed that the 1020 is capable of better resolution and noise levels.

To me, the way I see it, under same conditions (no flash, same WB, same exposure parameters with fast enough SS for the 808 to handle), in some scenes the 808 would give more pleasing results while in others the 1020.

That's why Nokia's next to-do task is implementing effective picture control settings on the Lumias..

And I would like to see still effective these settings are on the 808.


On 2013-10-10 21:37:04, cu015170 wrote:
the 10% difference might effect different cameras in different ways.. I wish the 1020 had to option to go down to 85%.


Well the compression topic is actually more complicated than it seems.

There are different scales to begin with. And I don't know what scale Nokia uses.
And while most scales go from 0/1 to 99/100 each scales refers to different compression values and never to percentages of anything btw..

It is a wrong conception that these numbers are percentages. The difference between 85 and 95 compression ratios on the 808 is not a 10% difference in compression.

Adobe use a scale of their own. There is a standard scale but not used by everyone. And there are other scales.

Adobe themselves even use different graphical scales on different applications of their while referring to same set of values!
Photoshop uses a scale of 12 steps while Lightroom (which I use to export JPEGs out of RAW) uses a scale from 0 to 100. But both are the same! Adobe use 98, 94, 91, 87, 83 down to around 50... And when I choose 90 on Lightroom for instance, it actually means 94. 85 means 91.
And a real value of 94 means different ratio to another 94 from other application.

What is remains the same is of course the ratio itself. 2:1 means halving the RAW data in size. 8:1 (mostly used) means dividing by 8.. A 24 MB RAW photo would become 3 MB.. 16:1 means 1.5 MB..

Obviously from the files sizes of the 808, it is one stop. Most probably going from 8:1 to 16:1.. But I find it weird that the differences between these two ratios is that apparent in the quality. Usually it shouldn't.

However, the content does play a significant difference. A landscape full of detail is a much different thing to a blue sky with one bird in the middle! Even the size of the JPEG at same compression would vastly differ..

If you set the 808 to 95 and the sharpness to +5 you will get an image that just as sharp but with less grain/noise. Then if you want the colors you just set it to vivid and bump up the saturation a little bit.


You have to show us this.
Same exact scene with same exposure, first with all slides set to zero, then with sharpness set +5, then with only saturation set to +5, and one with only contrast set to +5, and one with all and choosing the vivid colors..
Five photos would do. Or six with one setting the saturation to +5 and vivid colors while keeping sharpness and contrast untouched.

This would be one hell of a show.

Posted by cu015170
All @ 95%, normal color mode

-5 sharpness



0 sharpness


+5 sharpness



vivid color mode


+5 saturation aka 1020 color mode


Posted by false_morel








So these are four crops, a couple at each area. First two for sharpness with the -5 at the right, 0 at the middle. And two for color, with a standard one at the right, vivid at the middle, and the +5 saturation at the right.

Regarding sharpness, the difference is subtle at best! One has to look at the two extremes to notice a difference. And still at +5, nothing like the sharpness the 1020 delivers.

As to color, the vivid version is still dead. Not even standard still in the neutral domain. Setting the saturation to plus 5 obviously boosts the saturation but does nothing to the hue, luminance, tint, or vibrance which is manipulated saturation at select parts of image.

No way to get anywhere close what the Lumia 1020 outputs. And vice-versa from the 1020 to 808 as well.

I had these settings before on the N8, and it seems Nokia did little to adjust the effectiveness of these settings on the 808.. They stand there almost useless. Even the WB settings on both the Lumias and 808 are not that useful. Nokia could also deliver here manual control over image temperature in Kelvin same as any decent stand-alone camera does.

With Post-processing using some decent PC apps one could achieve some effective changes. But still, offering internal processing varieties is different. Or of course offer the option to shoot in RAW.

Meanwhile, as far the comparison between 808 and 1020 goes, I stand by my position. I see no phone performing better than the other in terms of IQ in all situations. And with certain updates the 1020 has more potential to be better at everything.

Posted by cu015170
^ we can agree to disagree.. maybe when you get a 1020 you can show us some actual shots that are better than the 808

Here is an interesting article on the oversampling differences between the two

http://allaboutwindowsphone.c[....]a_1020_and_its_oversamplin.php

808 is the cleaner image, as always



The 808 is on the bottom

Posted by mlife
@cu015170

I honestly can't believe you're still playing along... IMO its quite clear false either just likes to argue for no good reason or has no idea what he is talking about. Or maybe a bit of both. Either way, there is no point in going back and forth as EVER picture you post, he will down-play in one way or another. Im not saying 1020 doesn't produce good images, Im just saying it's possible there's an agenda of sorts at work here. And I'm also not disputing the fact that there may even be some people out there that simply like the "look" of 1020 images better and thats fine too... But it seems to me it's like trying to convince a 3 year old that Santa isn't real (sooner or later, they get it).

Just my .02

Posted by Sonysta
Cu015170... If I were you not lost more of your time with this guy !

You can show on the "theory" that the 808 PureView is better (best lenses, bigger and better image sensor, bigger and better flash and better postprocessing)... You can show on the "practice" that the 808 PureView is better (more detailed images, with colors more real and lower noise)... He will continue to say that Lumia 1020 is better

My friend let him continue with his crazy theories and his fanciful view, we and most people know that the 808 is and will remain the world's best cameraphone !

P.S: The funny thing is that he never put his hands on a 808 and not even in a 1020
[ This Message was edited by: Sonysta on 2013-10-13 22:45 ]


Posted by mlife

Sonysta, you and I were basically typing the same thing at the same time!!!
*mine just happen to post 1st! hahaha
[ This Message was edited by: mlife on 2013-10-13 22:45 ]


Posted by Bonovox
@Sonysta think you need to get out more and get a life. Jesus the 808 ain't that amazing and it doesn't matter if someone hasn't used one it's down to people using their eyes and seeing the difference.

Posted by cu015170
^ err... its pretty amazing actually


On 2013-10-13 23:41:54, mlife wrote:
@cu015170
I honestly can't believe you're still playing along... IMO its quite clear false either just likes to argue for no good reason or has no idea what he is talking about. Or maybe a bit of both. Either way, there is no point in going back and forth as EVER picture you post, he will down-play in one way or another. Im not saying 1020 doesn't produce good images, Im just saying it's possible there's an agenda of sorts at work here. And I'm also not disputing the fact that there may even be some people out there that simply like the "look" of 1020 images better and thats fine too...
Just my .02


hah... well I tried to present my case as best as I could, and I generally enjoy a good/constructive discussion, but you are right, this doesn't seem to be what we have going on here.

Regardless, its always nice to have a reference point for different settings on the 808 and how much effect they have on the actual image quality, so.. not a complete waste of time I suppose


On 2013-10-13 23:41:54, mlife wrote:
But it seems to me it's like trying to convince a 3 year old that Santa isn't real (sooner or later, they get it).





On 2013-10-13 23:42:35, Sonysta wrote:
P.S: The funny thing is that he never put his hands on a 808 and not even in a 1020


To be fair, I don't have a 1020 either.. but I did go to the store 3 times and took at least 30 pictures so that I can compare, and like I stated over a month ago, the 808 has the better camera based on what I've seen.

Now, with updates, personal experience with the camera, etc,. you might be able to get close to the 808, but I don't that they can make up for the inferior imaging hardware. We will have to wait and see, but I wouldn't recommend investing into a 1020 at this point.

And like mlife mentioned in his post, its perfectly normal for people to actually like the images from the 1020 better than the ones from the 808. They are more lively overall.. they have a bit more punch to them, which could be pleasing to the eye in many cases.

What I love about the 808 is the fact that it produces such a clean/neutral image, which gives you a chance to do whatever you want with it, if you so desire. I believe that the 808 really is geared towards photographers, where the 1020 is more of a mass market type of deal.
[ This Message was edited by: cu015170 on 2013-10-13 23:23 ]


Posted by Sonysta

On 2013-10-14 00:18:00, Bonovox wrote:
@Sonysta think you need to get out more and get a life. Jesus the 808 ain't that amazing and it doesn't matter if someone hasn't used one it's down to people using their eyes and seeing the difference.


And you could look and stay with a woman and stop living your life according of my comments, photos and thoughts !

P.S: First of all I'm sorry, but I like women... Second, I said ... Me forget... I do not want no conversation with you !
[ This Message was edited by: Sonysta on 2013-10-13 23:31 ]



Pages:
12345  Next
Click to view updated thread with images


© Esato.com - From the Esato mobile phone discussion forum