Esato

Forum > Manufacturer Discussion > Nokia > Lumia 1020 vs 808 PV vs any potential rival.

Previous  123 ... 141516  Next
Author Lumia 1020 vs 808 PV vs any potential rival.
Sassho
T68 gold
Joined: Nov 03, 2007
Posts: > 500
PM
Posted: 2013-10-28 13:32
Reply with quoteEdit/Delete This PostPrint this post
^Hey - you'r very angry , relax mate. The life is fun and phones are joke

Good light is nesessary for big DSLR-s too if you want great detail. I shoot only on daylight , night I sleep , usually
The gadgets not matter for me, I shoot same things on same daylight - undrestand ? I'm not real photographer - shoot only for fun and pleasure.

Cheers mate , sorry for nice 808 quality compared with everything
false_morel
Nokia Lumia 920
Joined: Feb 24, 2010
Posts: 375
PM
Posted: 2013-10-28 15:16
Reply with quoteEdit/Delete This PostPrint this post

On 2013-10-28 13:32:05, Sassho wrote:
^Hey - you'r very angry , relax mate. The life is fun and phones are joke

Good light is nesessary for big DSLR-s too if you want great detail. I shoot only on daylight , night I sleep , usually
The gadgets not matter for me, I shoot same things on same daylight - undrestand ? I'm not real photographer - shoot only for fun and pleasure.

Cheers mate , sorry for nice 808 quality compared with everything


Don't worry, I won't get tensed or stressed over a photography discussion.. Was just starting to have enough of the same points repeated many times over in this same thread.

G1 is not a DSLR btw.. I won't compare a dedicated no-compromise product to general everyday have-it-all compromised product such as cameraphone.. Despite the low price of some entry level DSLRs, and relatively high price of some mirrorless cameras, I still consider the latter category as a compromise general user category and hence comparable to a cameraphone in a way. Mirrorless cameras are basically compacts with interchangeable lenses.
It makes sense to consider whether getting a compact or a mirrorless is worth it while smartphones nowadays are capable of some decent stuff on the camera side.

DSLRs on the other hand are bulky, heavy, and more about functionality than IQ btw. Things like fast AF with high reliable FPS, full manual controls with respective buttons for better handling, flash control, higher quality optics, optical TTL viewfinder, etc..

Mirrorless give the ability to use specialty lenses, but at a much smaller sizes, both body and glass, which is in other words a downsized package of the bigger DSLR, meant mainly for better mobility for those not interested in any pro like photography but just capturing that private moment on a quality device.

Well compacts and smartphones do fall basically in the same category.

We can only compare and discuss IQ though these different three categories. As for features, it's a user's choice what he needs or doesn't need.
And when it comes to IQ, there are certain basic standards to follow I think.
[ This Message was edited by: false_morel on 2013-10-28 14:18 ]
cu015170
Nokia 808 PureView
Joined: Oct 26, 2010
Posts: > 500
PM
Posted: 2013-10-28 23:41
Reply with quoteEdit/Delete This PostPrint this post
808





Canon G15


false_morel
Nokia Lumia 920
Joined: Feb 24, 2010
Posts: 375
PM
Posted: 2013-10-29 11:59
Reply with quoteEdit/Delete This PostPrint this post
Who is the genius who took the photos above with two full stops difference between the cameras?

And I asked you about the same studio test you bragged out at DPreview. Why dig some random photo which apart from the wrong settings, it could suffer some user errors in as well.

You claimed in that studio test that the 808's sensor positions it well ahead of any other smartphone and any smaller sensor camera. So go there, quote for us the comparison crops between the G15 and 808, especially at ISO 400 and 800, and explain to us again how the 808's bigger sensor puts it ahead.
cu015170
Nokia 808 PureView
Joined: Oct 26, 2010
Posts: > 500
PM
Posted: 2013-10-29 15:47
Reply with quoteEdit/Delete This PostPrint this post
Yes, for some strange reason the 808 is always given an unfair advantage

But either way the DPreview comp pretty much put an end to this debate, I am just waiting for them to test the oversampling algorithm which should put the 808 even further ahead.

Someone in the comments mentioned that the difference is the pencil painting is quite big..

And you think that a difference of 50iso can account for this, but a difference of 10% in jpeg compression does not ?



Waiting for the Nokia Black update to see if it gets any better..
[ This Message was edited by: cu015170 on 2013-10-29 14:49 ]
Bonovox
LG G4
Joined: Apr 13, 2008
Posts: > 500
PM
Posted: 2013-10-29 20:10
Reply with quoteEdit/Delete This PostPrint this post
http://www.wpcentral.com/noki[....]lumia-1020-support-coming-soon

RAW support coming
[ This Message was edited by: Bonovox on 2013-10-29 19:11 ]
Phone?? What phone??
false_morel
Nokia Lumia 920
Joined: Feb 24, 2010
Posts: 375
PM
Posted: 2013-10-30 01:47
Reply with quoteEdit/Delete This PostPrint this post

On 2013-10-29 15:47:20, cu015170 wrote:
Yes, for some strange reason the 808 is always given an unfair advantage


We already saw some blurry 1020 shot made by you, and then from the same store you posted two photos where the 1020 pulled ahead in detail and you still failed to comment: (808 shot at 95 JPEG compression in both images shown below)





And also from other photos you posted:





You simply ran away hiding behind DP's studio test.
The same test which clearly shows the likes of the G15 superiority of the 808 with much smaller sensor and 5x zoom lens! The P7700 also beats the 808 with the same margin while this is with 7x zoom lens.

So you have to decide: We either take the studio test for granted and as the ultimate professional test as you claim (in reality far from it), or we ignore that and base our judgment on real life photos (also not the all reliable and conclusive test).
You can't nitpick whatever suits your preference. Practicing double standards is not a healthy hobby.

And you think that a difference of 50iso can account for this, but a difference of 10% in jpeg compression does not ?


From ISO 50 to ISO 100 it counts to one full stop in terms of EV! Do you understand what this means?
For instance ISO 400 to ISO 800 also counts for one full stop. Or from F/2 to F2.8 and F/8 to F/11 both jumps making one stop difference; or from 1 second SS to 2 seconds, and from 15 seconds to 30 seconds both making one stop difference! You really can't have hard time understanding this basic stuff.

Although the difference in that studio is not all due to difference in this one ISO stop (especially as ISO 50 is not even a native ISO on the 808 afaik; but it still affects the SS to go one full stop higher)!
Then, I already told you that 1020 at status quo isn't delivering better end results than the 808 under all conditions. Especially for general close range subjects. Indoors under artificial lighting the 1020 gets even weaker. Reasons for that are well explained in this thread so I won't repeat all these paragraphs again.

The thing I am debating with you and all 808 fanatics over here, is the reason why 808 and 1020 behave differently and exchange places for better imaging depending on the conditions. You along with the others positioning the 808 better than everything out there from cameraphones to compacts to mirrorless cameras, and on a league of its own even, all due to its sensor and PV technology are not only exaggerating, but even totally lost into a world of delusions.

Yes, under several conditions the 808 at the moment delivers best images, but not all due to its sensor size and PV technology. While under other several conditions it clearly doesn't.

As to JPEG compression, it does make a difference regarding detail by omitting certain pixels as the compression ratio increases. But it doesn't affect other qualities of the image, especially at low compression ratios such as 85 and 95!

And yes, if Nokia get rid of this ridiculous excessive sharpening plaguing the 1020, and adjust its color rendering, it should then be positioned to beat everything out there under all conditions. So better wait for this Black update before throwing these totally stubborn stances. The 808 had its share of updates as well and these did address the IQ too!

To end, I really advise you to go with scientific testings (so far, DXOmark and IMAtest applied) whenever these are applied and not deny them due to one random photo making a joke out of yourself in the process!
cu015170
Nokia 808 PureView
Joined: Oct 26, 2010
Posts: > 500
PM
Posted: 2013-10-30 04:10
Reply with quoteEdit/Delete This PostPrint this post
Look, I am not the only one that sees the 1020 as the inferior camera..It really does not matter which test you look at, the general consensus is that the 1020 can't match the 808 in terms of IQ in most conditions. It does come close, and in some rare cases it might be a little better, but overall it is not an improvement over the 808.

This is important since it is supposed to be the "successor" of the 808, but it just doesn't seem like it can really do that.

We will wait and see what happens after the black update, but I doubt that it will be able to match or surpass the 808 in any meaningful way. The 1020 is handicapped to begin with. Even if we ignore everything else, the weaker xenon and the heavy side blur caused by the optics is enough for me to ignore it. Its just not as reliable..

The 808's IQ has not changes since it shipped.. all the improvements were around the gallery app and the camera UX, even if they change anything in terms of IQ it was subtle.

The 808 shoots at 64iso in auto mode.

You seem to be very knowledge, so maybe you can enlighten some of those ignorant people about how the 1020 has the better camera:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3566015

Here as well

http://connect.dpreview.com/p[....]08-lumia1020-studio-test-scene

and here

http://forums.wpcentral.com/n[....]20/246495-lumia-1020-hype.html

It will be nice for you to join the ongoing debate, I feel like you can contribute quite a bit to it..

Most people seems to be confused about the whole thing

When I see improvement, I would happily acknowledge.

Such as here.. I just opened one of the RAW images Nokia posted and worked on it for a few mins in lightroom, and I have to say that I am satisfied with the result. Of course, I made it to my liking.. nice and smooth

Also I exported it in what I believe to be the ultimate resolution .. 12Mpix/100% jpeg compression

Now I need a landscape to work with.

Just imagine if they had RAW output from the 808...




false_morel
Nokia Lumia 920
Joined: Feb 24, 2010
Posts: 375
PM
Posted: 2013-11-02 12:17
Reply with quoteEdit/Delete This PostPrint this post

On 2013-10-30 04:10:39, cu015170 wrote:
Look, I am not the only one that sees the 1020 as the inferior camera..It really does not matter which test you look at, the general consensus is that the 1020 can't match the 808 in terms of IQ in most conditions.


That's why I opened this thread and started the debate in the first place. Because I feel the 1020 is being misevaluated by the general online base at least.
1020 has its problems which need to be addressed. It is inferior in several areas. Only that the blame is being put on the wrong side of the camera! Its hardware has nothing wrong in it (apart from those faulty lenses in some batches; which every phone has btw). It's Nokia's crappy work on the software part that is making the 1020 lag behind in the areas it is doing poorly in!

And I think it is important to point out the real causes so that Nokia get what they did wrong!
And it seems they did. Or at least I hope so.


It does come close, and in some rare cases it might be a little better, but overall it is not an improvement over the 808.


Not in rare cases. Any landscape shot under any condition is not a rare case. For indoors, flash, and close range (not macro, but talking several or tens of meters only) the 808 does better.

In macro both the 808 and 1020 are poor.

If Nokia address all the crap they did in those algorithms, with that Black update, the 1020 may very well turn into a completely different camera.
I already experienced that with my 920. The Amber update made it a whole new camera!


We will wait and see what happens after the black update, but I doubt that it will be able to match or surpass the 808 in any meaningful way. The 1020 is handicapped to begin with. Even if we ignore everything else, the weaker xenon and the heavy side blur caused by the optics is enough for me to ignore it. Its just not as reliable..


This is the bias and nonsense I am trying to point out here. But will refrain from repeating the same points till the Black update is out.


The 808's IQ has not changes since it shipped.. all the improvements were around the gallery app and the camera UX, even if they change anything in terms of IQ it was subtle.


Yes it had. Unless you are denying the official change log Nokia released and before and afters.
And I am not talking about FP2 only, the 808 had several updates.

But yes, nothing major was done. Only some optimizations and little enhancements. The Black update is supposed to change everything! And I must say it is needed. And would be needed also in the 808 case btw. 808 also has an aggressive processing philosophy. Going standard is the way.

The 808 shoots at 64iso in auto mode.


Yes I know. Which is pretty weird in case ISO 100 is the base! And as far as I know, ISO 100 is the base on the 808. ISO 80, 64, and 50 are low ISO modes enabled through software manipulation, and not base ISOs of the sensor.

You seem to be very knowledge, so maybe you can enlighten some of those ignorant people about how the 1020 has the better camera:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3566015

Here as well

http://connect.dpreview.com/p[....]08-lumia1020-studio-test-scene

and here

http://forums.wpcentral.com/n[....]20/246495-lumia-1020-hype.html

It will be nice for you to join the ongoing debate, I feel like you can contribute quite a bit to it..

Most people seems to be confused about the whole thing


I don't take part in comment sections usually.
As to DP forums, I usually avoid going into debates there. Too many trolls, or ignorants coming in ruining otherwise good debates. I stick there to questions and feedbacks in the DSLR sections..

As to WPcentral, I should join eventually. Specially that the Nokia forum I am part of is dead now! Will have to join a Lumia or a WP forum.

When I see improvement, I would happily acknowledge.

Such as here.. I just opened one of the RAW images Nokia posted and worked on it for a few mins in lightroom, and I have to say that I am satisfied with the result. Of course, I made it to my liking.. nice and smooth

Also I exported it in what I believe to be the ultimate resolution .. 12Mpix/100% jpeg compression

Now I need a landscape to work with.


Where did you get the RAW image from? And it does seem impressive.
With RAW, we don't have to worry anymore about whether Nokia adjust their crappy processing or not.

Just imagine if they had RAW output from the 808...


I don't need to imagine it! Since I know the 1020's hardware is more capable.
[ This Message was edited by: false_morel on 2013-11-02 14:44 ]
Sassho
T68 gold
Joined: Nov 03, 2007
Posts: > 500
PM
Posted: 2013-11-03 14:40
Reply with quoteEdit/Delete This PostPrint this post
Not bad compare 808 / Canon , but 808 can more if use Camera Mod or "RAW" postprocess. Comments for 1020 - not bad as all , but bad lens and postprocess - strong noise reduction.
mlife
T68 grey
Joined: Jan 16, 2003
Posts: > 500
PM
Posted: 2013-11-10 17:52
Reply with quoteEdit/Delete This PostPrint this post
*** Edit of previous post ***

I have decided to edit the post that used to be here as my opinion of the 1020 vs 808 issue has dramatically changed and I don't think it correctly reflects my current feelings...

I've learned something new about my 1020 which really isn't probably new but something I've totally overlooked while primarily being an 808 user. As I stated previously, I'm not going to get technical but really talk more about my "everyday" opinion of the 1020 as I still maintain that the 808 image quality is far beyond (as of this writing / pre-black update) what the 1020 capable of.... but that's not to say there are not some advantages to the 1020 which the 808 will likely never have.

When I first got my 1020, I was doing little more than comparing the .jpg results and not spending much time considering the actual hardware and how it ALL comes together. The two images which prompted me to change this post are as follows (and I'll explain why);


-This photo was taken inside I market which I frequent... and it came out pretty darn amazing in my opinion... All-be-it not a spectacular photo, I was impressed by how effortless it was to capture it. I simply crouched over, turned on the camera and shot / something which I have done many times with my 808 in the same exact market.... what makes this photo different you ask? ... Ill tell you, the difference is this was ONE PHOTO. When shooting in that market with my 808, I would often have to shoot an image several times till I got one with little or no camera shake or worse manually start adjusting ISO till I got a shutter speed / ISO which worked well for the image.



-Here is a sushi place I often visit while in Charlotte, NC.... I have taken pictures of the front of this building many times but never kept any of my 808 images as they always come out blurry because I was walking up while shooting. Sure, the 808 COULD probably duplicate or exceed this result but it's not really about that... It's the fact that I only had to take one photo and didn't really require a bunch of thought as to HOW I wanted to shoot it, but instead just shoot.


So it comes down to ease of use. I decided to change my stance based on the phone and not my preferences. While I prefer to set up a tripod and use multiple remote fired strobes, I realize that MOST phone users won't/don't do that. So, for the 1020 to even be close in image quality without "correctly" processed .jpg files I have to wonder what benefit the 808 will have once nokia & microsoft make this BSI finally put out a good file as opposed to the over-processed trash it dumps out currently. Stack on top of that the built in post-processing ability of the 1020 and I would have to really start considering the 808 an R&D tool more than the over engineered phone of the century.

Don't get me wrong... I still think the 808 puts out a better image but after playing with both devices I think the 808 (other than manual control) is maxed out where as we are just getting started with the 1020 and it holds by far more potential. I've been wrong before so I'm not above saying that I could be wrong here but I'm thinking the lens element choice, BSI sensor and platforms choices are results of what nokia learned in the previous year from the 808. Unlike my previous post, I'm really curious to hear what false and CU think??? Please do chime in.
[ This Message was edited by: mlife on 2013-11-24 18:19 ]
mlife
T68 grey
Joined: Jan 16, 2003
Posts: > 500
PM
Posted: 2013-11-24 19:20
Reply with quoteEdit/Delete This PostPrint this post
edited previous post...
cu015170
Nokia 808 PureView
Joined: Oct 26, 2010
Posts: > 500
PM
Posted: 2013-11-25 22:43
Reply with quoteEdit/Delete This PostPrint this post
Thanks again for all the info mlife, very informative!

And yes, I agree with you.. the 1020 allows for low light handheld shots that are pretty much impossible on the 808. Most 808 owners know that anything under 1/40s and you will get a blurry image.

The 1020 is an 808 for the masses.. its a simplified and more accessible version of that same idea/technology, and from that perspective one might say that it is in fact a better implementation of it overall.

At this point that mostly applies to low light/handheld photography.. during the day you should be able to point and shoot with the 808 without having to re-take the shot.. in most cases.. sometimes the autofocus doesn't work as well so a second shot is required.

But to back up your point further, even during the day you will have to mess with the settings on the 808.. if you want maximum quality you will have to go into manual mode and switch the jpeg compression to 95%, you don't have to do anything on the 1020...

So to the question:

ease of use > IQ

IQ > ease of use

Its all relative, but for most people the first option would be preferable, and then you have to consider that the difference in IQ will only get smaller after the RAW/black update. Where as for "ease of use" I don't expect any updates to the camera UX on the 808, and there is also no way to fix the low light blur issues.. so..

I still retain my position that the 808 produces better pixels, but if that difference gets small enough.. it won't matter anymore.

fbloise congrats on your purchase! I feel like I am being left behind Still.. I think I am going to wait it out until MWC next year and see what they come out with.
[ This Message was edited by: cu015170 on 2013-11-25 21:46 ]
mlife
T68 grey
Joined: Jan 16, 2003
Posts: > 500
PM
Posted: 2013-12-21 16:25
Reply with quoteEdit/Delete This PostPrint this post
Not posted in the 1020 thread... I figured I would put the 1020 w/ black up against the 808... I will be shooting some outdoor stuff later in the day but for now....

Shot from tripod (1020)

Original

Same tripod shot w/808

Original


here is a crop from each;
1020

808

[ This Message was edited by: mlife on 2013-12-21 16:06 ]
cu015170
Nokia 808 PureView
Joined: Oct 26, 2010
Posts: > 500
PM
Posted: 2013-12-21 17:57
Reply with quoteEdit/Delete This PostPrint this post
^ still a little bit noisier, but much better ... what do you think ?

I wish they added a 8Mpix mode to the 1020 so it can go head to head with the 808 in that department as well.
Access the forum with a mobile phone via esato.mobi
Previous  123 ... 141516  Next
Goto page:
Lock this Topic Move this Topic Delete this Topic