| Author |
Lumia 1020 vs 808 PV vs any potential rival. |
Sonysta
Joined: May 25, 2013
Posts: 198
PM |
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 ] | |
|
mlife
Joined: Jan 16, 2003
Posts: > 500
PM |
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 ] [addsig] |
Bonovox
Joined: Apr 13, 2008
Posts: > 500
PM |
@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.
Phone?? What phone?? |
cu015170
Joined: Oct 26, 2010
Posts: > 500
PM |
^ 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 ] |
Sonysta
Joined: May 25, 2013
Posts: 198
PM |
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 ] |
Sonysta
Joined: May 25, 2013
Posts: 198
PM |
On 2013-10-13 23:44:42, mlife wrote:
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 ]
Really... What a coincidence ! |
Sonysta
Joined: May 25, 2013
Posts: 198
PM |
On 2013-10-14 00:22:59, cu015170 wrote:
^ 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 ]
At least you tested a 1020 and for more than one year has a 808... He never tested 1020 or 808, so anything he writes is no use !
P.S: Without more !!! |
Marly
Joined: Jun 04, 2006
Posts: > 500
From: Netherlands
PM |
This is getting nowhere 
@Bono: You know the phrase: "Don't argue with an idiot, he'll drag you down to his level and beat you with experience" ? Nuff said 
"America: please don’t be a Dumpfkopf" |
false_morel
Joined: Feb 24, 2010
Posts: 375
PM |
So now it's an agenda about proving Santa exists. Some of you guys here are really funny, I should give you that. A pity though that none can bring anything to the topic other than low level personal attacks..
Anyway, here's the twist. Unlike the vast majority of real photography enthusiasts who wouldn't give a damn about cameraphones, let alone arguing about them on online forums, I am trying to bring similar discussions to what usually go on photography forums to this emerging sector of mobile cameras..
When one comes across some antics such as DPI needing to be adjusted through an update by Nokia, or JPEG compression making an effective difference, or mistaking soft images for high quality, almost all would read, take a laugh, and move on.. I decided to stay and bring some of these issues into perspective.
It's not just Esato of course.. No matter where one goes over the blogosphere, over smartphone forums, smartphone and tech websites, most of the works and analyses are simply funny. Switching to photography sites, and photography forums, one notices immediately a world of difference. Even the PureView site which supposed to be all about photography based on the technology Nokia brought forward, is a joke compared to what one reads and learns from photography forums. Still a dedicated site for PureView is a welcome idea as such technology deservers such attention and fan base I think, and some pretty good photos are displayed there, but when it comes to photography whereabouts the guys there need to climb up pretty steeply still.
Even Steve Litchfield whom I mostly quote knows little about photography despite all his practice he gets with all these cameraphones and the tests and comparisons he performs. Sometimes he even comes to some funny conclusions not just skewed.
I myself started gaining all this enthusiasm about photography which turned into a major hobby of mine from the SE times and the basic cameraphones at the time. And the moment I switched to a true high-end prosumer camera, I knew immediately that all I knew about photography was a joke. Still I learnt much, invested more in the hobby, and still enjoying it all the way through. And still have to learn much. Specially if one jumps into a new type of photography where a professional at certain types would look novice at first. I even took professional photography courses and had an idea how profs practice and deal with their full time photography which is quite different to what one captures from the internet.
The bottom line is that photography is widely and mostly wrongly comprehended and "preached" on non-photography online platforms. And while smartphones and cameraphones were something almost no one cared about in the N-series and SE days, this sector is now gaining ever more traction and attention than before. And manufacturers are interested ever more into installing a capable camera into their smartphones. And people are realizing that smartphones could well replace a compact camera. And the whole talk and comparisons go on only that all is tackled by the wrong people..
An extreme example is the article Steve posted about the difference in oversampling between the 1020 and 808. Nokia never published any details no how they implemented this yet he goes on to differentiate between hardware-based oversampling on the 808 and software-based one on the 1020, a thought which doesn't only comes out of the blue but laughable at best! And also concluding that the 808 delivers less noise than the 1020 while the professional tests so far lead the other way around! And he based that conclusion on a flawed testing process where in the photo cu015170 posted above there were three stops difference in SS in 808's favor which was also mounted on a tripod while in another photo in that article which cu015170 ignored to quote both had same SS but higher ISO on the 1020. And again based on these exposure settings the 1020 should have delivered a brighter image while for some magical reason the 808 delivered the brighter outcome!
This happens when people try to look sophisticated and knowledgeable on something yet they know little in reality. They end up failing in a fashion.
I took Steve's day time images from the comparison he made because he had no room to f**k this up. Same framing, same handling. The two phones also went for same exposure.
His night photos though going in 1020's favor are not as well made. And his conclusions are way off btw although he tipped the 1020 as the better performer.
Same story going on here. CU stubbornly insisting that 808 delivers less noise with better detail than the 1020 while I showed him how detail is compromised for lower noise. It's beyond me how soft images could be somehow judged "pure" in the photography world.
Photographers throw extra of hundred bucks on a lens just for the extra sharpness it offers, and over here, soft is preferred to sharp.
Then we went over the funny picture control settings implemented in the 808 which better no one bothers to touch. Yet somehow some still believe that playing with these settings deliver photos in "1020 mode"!
The whole point is to show the real difference between the two 41 MP shooters from Nokia. While the 1020 is far from perfect, and is in dire need for certain updates addressing some WB issues, metering issues, and its aggressive processing, the points raised against it over here and by some cameraphone enthusiasts about IQ and noise are simply skewed.
When it comes to 808 and 1020 on IQ, I won't pick one over the other. Some professional measuring showed that the 1020's hardware could have more potential with the new sensor and optics, but still if any better in RAW terms it is really not worth it at all to stop at it. I simply wanted to show that some are wasting their time on the wrong differentiators.
If some insist on saying that the 808 suits them better, fine. But that would be for personal preferences on the different processing not because of RAW IQ or any of the sort. This is the whole purpose I was after with this comparison. |
Bonovox
Joined: Apr 13, 2008
Posts: > 500
PM |
Point taken Marly  I was in one of my don't argue with me moods  But one thing that I will say lastly is I don't like being laughed at in a forum by someone when you have an opinion like Sonysta does. And someone who judges and laughs at you because of the type of mobile phone someone has. You cannot judge someone by what they own or don't own that's one reason this forum has gone down a bit. Anyone who argues with me gets their fair share back but to be honest I'm bored now. And for anyone who wants to argue with me I know ALOT about photography learnt from my 2nd eldest brother who is professional. At first I was not so keen on what I seen with the 1020 but looking around the web I seen some stunning images made in full Pureview mode by this device. I for one prefer these images over the soft images of the 808(and please Sonysta instead of giggling have a proper discussion). I would love one of these but right now prefer Android for many reasons. Soon my family maybe coming into some money from a will,so might get one just for the camera And one more thing Sonysta STOP calling me gay to which I am not and even if someone is gay you seem to be prejudice against them. Am not arguing anymore but STOP this childish behavior of laughing at others for their opinion it's like being in the playground.
_________________
Don't be an iSheep,follow the exclusive sheep!![ This Message was edited by: Bonovox on 2013-10-14 03:06 ] |
cu015170
Joined: Oct 26, 2010
Posts: > 500
PM |
I think we are just trying to figure out why the 808 takes better pictures and there seems to be a number of factors at play.. its hard to pinpoint.
Here it is.. IQ supremacy
 |
cu015170
Joined: Oct 26, 2010
Posts: > 500
PM |
Very well put
bigley Ling wrote:
I cannot get over how DXO rates the S4 and 5s LED flash better performing than the xenon flashes on the 1020 and 808.
The 808 does have slightly better signal to noise than the 1020 though, as as I have said in other forums. The 1020's issues is a cumulative one. Firstly the smaller BSI sensor, that does not quite match the older FSI sensor for signal to noise. Next the extreme corners are consistently soft. There is a calibration error in the lens when focus is set to infinite causing overall softness on one side of landscape images captured with 1020. This is not case case if subjects are less than infinite! Excessive edge enhancements, can in some circumstances make closeup shots look cartoonish. Over saturation and colors, can destroy precious textural details.
So the combination of these issues adds up creating a much larger gap in my opinion. I hope Nokia at least can release a software fix for the edge enhancement if at all possible, and also give user ability to choose if they want "Nokia" colors or neutral colors.
To fix the softness on the sides of images when the 1020 is set to infinite for capturing landscapes, a possible hardware recall to adjust the moving focus mech to keep the lens parallel with the sensor at infinite.
from here:
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3559788#forum-post-52334417
|
false_morel
Joined: Feb 24, 2010
Posts: 375
PM |
On 2013-10-14 22:10:18, cu015170 wrote:
I think we are just trying to figure out why the 808 takes better pictures and there seems to be a number of factors at play.. its hard to pinpoint.
Here it is.. IQ supremacy
You keep pulling out one antic after the other..
The fact that you are able to recognize lack of contrast in this photo as well as soft edge detail transition can only mean that either you know little about photography or trying to play us for fools.
Either way, it's same story all over again. You will never comprehend what constitutes a great photo.
If I were you I would use some time learning about the arty side of photography, all about composition, framing, and syntax of a photo. Instead of wasting time on preaching nonsense about sensor sizes and microns.
As to the DXOmark results, I was going to make a whole post about them when they came out. But it is of no use over here.. I'd rather work on my Santa conspiracy theory.. |
cu015170
Joined: Oct 26, 2010
Posts: > 500
PM |
^ the DXO results are BS... the difference between the 808 and 1020 is much larger in real life |
false_morel
Joined: Feb 24, 2010
Posts: 375
PM |
On 2013-10-16 16:44:18, cu015170 wrote:
^ the DXO results are BS... the difference between the 808 and 1020 is much larger in real life
DXOmark one of the leading tests if not the benchmarks in the industry are BS, IMAtest is BS, Dinning saying BS because he wants to work at MS, Steve's photos are biased due to the JPEG compression, etc..
BTW DXOmark concluded that the 1020 is the new low noise champion in the cameraphone world, together with the 808 a close second far ahead of other smartphones. Goes along with what IMAtests showed..
DXOmark tests, same as IMAtest, have algorithms to decode the IQ beyond what the final JPEG shows to the human eye. That is regardless what picture control is used after the Bayer interpolation is done..
Anyway, it is of no use to expand on such stuff over here.
You still think that the 95 compression on 808 beats the 1020 for landscape photography same as you think its useless picture control settings can deliver "1020" mode images..
Some of you over here only proved to be some kids playing with their toys nothing more.. | |
|
Access the forum with a mobile phone via esato.mobi
|
Posted: 2013-10-13 23:42
