| Author |
Lumia 1020 vs 808 PV vs any potential rival. |
false_morel
Joined: Feb 24, 2010
Posts: 375
PM |
On 2013-10-18 17:40:25, Sassho wrote:
On 2013-10-18 17:13:59, false_morel wrote:
I just bought a new 350€ lens for my DSLR.
How, how do you put your DSLR in your pocket and take a picture every day? Lens and DSLR is not to improve your photographic skills if you do not practice often. No job to walk every day with DSLR in "pocket", right?
Obviously I don't put the DSLR in my pocket. Actually, I haven't given it a thought even. 
The point is, one needs a DSLR and the different lenses to capture certain motives. If limited by the equipment, no matter how creative one would be, one would never overcome this limitation.
I carry my DSLR in a bag. Doesn't need to fit in the pocket. And yes I don't carry this bag everyday, on way to work, when going shopping, taking a walk in the park with somebody, or while dining with someone at some evening. Or even if invited to certain parties or events.
When using a camera at these moments, during these routinely activities, under such conditions, it's not when one enjoys spending time dedicated for a shooting. Using a mobile camera then would be just of need to capture a certain moment or activity. No time even to think and compose and frame. And no time to enjoy the act of photography itself. And no time to get artistic. The purpose would be just the capturing that moment to share it and archive it.
If I wanna go into a dedicated photo session (could general street photography in any city nearby, or visiting a certain park, or simply hiking shooting some landscapes, or doing portraits with some friends, etc..), I would carry my bag, and all the necessary equipment I need for such a shooting.
If I am to attend or have an event and wanna document it, I will have my equipment set up and ready even it means carrying a big bag and a tripod.
If I go into a vacation, my DSLR is with me almost all the time. At least during the important moments, visits, and activities I wanna capture and archive.
If I wanna shoot in a wedding or a party of a friend, I take my DSLR with me.
If I wanna shoot a sports event, I take the necessary equipment as well.
And almost all the time I shoot in RAW and develop my photos through Lightroom and occasionally port it to Photoshop as well for some additional touching. Lightroom is a digital dark room. One goes through the same process photographers used to go through when processing films.
No way to do all that with a cameraphone. Certain motives can't be achieved at all. Quality is way compromised of course. And no RAW.
| |
|
false_morel
Joined: Feb 24, 2010
Posts: 375
PM |
On 2013-10-18 18:21:20, davidsic wrote:
Although the 1020 produces more noise,
Actually it doesn't. Those grains under good light and sharpening effects.
The low light comparisons show the 1020's true capability in limiting noise and retaining detail.
And more than one professional test has been made so far confirming this.
white balance is sometimes bad, sometimes a too strong yellow tint but apart from that?
Yes these are the 1020's major weaknesses and flaws. Must and expected to be addressed by Nokia. But shouldn't have done such a poor job at metering in the first place.
Is there someone finds that the 808's pics are better than 1020'ones in this comparison ? seriously?
For certain scenarios the 808 delivers better results than the 1020.
In Steve's comparisons, as he focuses on landscape, the 1020 is obviously much better suited with its extra sharpness for this type of photography.
But when it comes to general motives (neither of the two extremes: portrait nor landscape), especially close range objects, even if it means shooting a house with fine bricked red roof, the extra sharpness would be too much. An overkill.
This should be addressed by the metering of the camera. When put on auto it should not deliver such sharpened images. Only when put in landscape mode for instance or if the camera were capable of recognizing a landscape scene by itself.
The problem with Camera Pro, it doesn't have scene settings, nor does it have manual and effective settings for picture control. Only for exposure, WB, and focus.
The 1020 when recognizing faces it doesn't apply extra sharpening anymore. But it's tricky. If the focus falls on an object the person holding for instance, it will sharpen the image all way up. That's why Steve's face in the Xenon image holding the beer is grainy. It's clear that the camera focused on the beer can. And one notices how sharp and detailed the can is compared to the 808 image.
If Nokia deliver manual settings for picture control, or at least give scene options, then the 1020 would beat the 808 and any other camera easily under any condition. (Not on full auto, but at least it would be able to do better when the auto doesn't hit it right).
Is it normal to be so called the best camera phone have a screen in such a low resolution?
You just highlighted a big point that I totally overlooked so far. The resolution on the 808 is a joke. For viewing images on the go and to check the photos just captured out, it is seriously inferior to what current smartphones offer. And it does make a difference!
[ This Message was edited by: false_morel on 2013-10-18 17:54 ] |
Sassho
Joined: Nov 03, 2007
Posts: > 500
PM |
On 2013-10-18 18:28:46, false_morel wrote:
And no RAW.
All my 808 photos are from "RAW" , compare 808 "RAW" quality and mirrorless "compact" Panasonic G1 same in RAW
http://www.esato.com/phonepho[....]/dmc_g1/201209280643MQX41D.jpg
and here
http://www.esato.com/phonepho[....]ureview/20130913063309Aw4N.jpg
I find no differences , I don't know who is who if don't look in EXIF data
Yep , DSLR/mirrorless camera have more expanded features, but to use them you have to very advanced. No problem - the question who is better 1020 or 808 needs no comment 
[ This Message was edited by: Sassho on 2013-10-18 18:13 ] |
false_morel
Joined: Feb 24, 2010
Posts: 375
PM |
What do you mean with 808 RAW photos?
With RAW I means shooting in RAW and JPEG. The image format.
Anyway, differences are to be seen between those two photos: Optics quality (edges on 808 are funny), low contrast on 808, detail seems equally fine on both cameras but don't forget the G1 shoots at 12 MP, try and up the oversampled image of the 808 to 12 MP and see the difference. Of course difference season and different lighting conditions, so it's hard to compare the two truly based on those two photos.
And of course the G1 was released back in 2008, there are two generations after it, the last one released at the same with the 808, and it was the first third micro mirrorless ILC camera brought to the market as well. Technology has moved on from then. Sensors keep getting better.
Also this G-series from Panasonic isn't necessarily the best.
And the most important point, even if you take a compact camera at 1/1.7" sensor, you would get same result. Actually new compacts like G16 would do better I assume. Maybe even a whole step better not just slightly.
Take a look: http://www.dpreview.com/galle[....]-powershot-g16-samples-gallery
But at the end, shooting landscapes at such bright light is not what puts cameras apart. |
cu015170
Joined: Oct 26, 2010
Posts: > 500
PM |
The 1020 photos kind of lack texture as well.. not sure why that is, but I've noticed it in a few photographs.
I've done comps myself against my Canon XTi
http://sdrv.ms/19RvMAx
and yes... the difference in IQ is insignificant for me to bother with a bulky DSLR. I've also seen comps against the RX100, which is the best compact out there, and still.. the 808 holds it's own.
You could do more with a DSLR for sure.. but most people wouldn't be able to maximize the potential.
In fact I agree with mlife that the 808 is an overkill in terms of capabilities.. I am barely maxing it out after 1 years of solid practice.
|
Sassho
Joined: Nov 03, 2007
Posts: > 500
PM |
On 2013-10-18 19:44:39, false_morel wrote:
What do you mean with 808 RAW photos?
I say "RAW" not a RAW My 808 photos are resized(oversampled ) from fullsized 41mp , 30mb shots. In fact on good light 808 = G1 or better. If there are small differences are theoretical.
[ This Message was edited by: Sassho on 2013-10-18 19:18 ] |
etaab
Joined: Jan 23, 2004
Posts: > 500
From: UK - South Yorkshire
PM |
Which is a perfect example of how the 1020 surpasses what the 808 is capable of in many different ways. It might not beat it hands down, but as long as it does in areas which are every day uses coupled with the fact you can actually buy the phone, where as the 808 you cannot, make it the best cameraphone.
I suppose its a bit like boxing, or any other sports. People would say Muhammad Ali was the best boxer ever, but he doesn't box anymore, so you wouldn't say hes the best boxer in the world seeing he is long since retired. As is the 808.
Check me out on Instagram ! search for etaab ! |
cu015170
Joined: Oct 26, 2010
Posts: > 500
PM |
^
http://dsa.ebay.co.uk/sch/i.h[....]w=Nokia+808&_sacat=0&_from=R40
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Nokia[....]1739&sr=8-1&keywords=nokia+808
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=n[....]aps&field-keywords=Nokia%20808
http://www.amazon.de/s/ref=nb[....]aps&field-keywords=nokia%20808
http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.htm[....]RC1.A0&_nkw=nokia+808&_sacat=0
http://negrielectronics.com/catalogsearch/result/?q=808
Also, it works perfectly fine as a smartphone.. at least in my case  I have no problems at all.
On 2013-10-18 20:17:58, Sassho wrote:
In fact on good light 808 = G1 or better. If there are small differences are theoretical.
The 808 comes close to a lot of dedicated cameras.. the same can not be said about the 1020. |
etaab
Joined: Jan 23, 2004
Posts: > 500
From: UK - South Yorkshire
PM |
The problem is, we're not all happy to buy second hand phones. I wouldn't.
Sadly the 808 is not manufactured anymore which therefore renders it unobtainable. Theres little to no point in even comparing them if you cannot actually buy one of them.
Check me out on Instagram ! search for etaab ! |
cu015170
Joined: Oct 26, 2010
Posts: > 500
PM |
Most of these are all brand new and currently FOR SALE
You can clearly see the grain in the 1020 photos in low light,
like here
http://www.allaboutsymbian.com/features/images/g2/beer-808.jpg
http://www.allaboutsymbian.com/features/images/g2/beer-1020.jpg
[ This Message was edited by: cu015170 on 2013-10-18 20:08 ] |
false_morel
Joined: Feb 24, 2010
Posts: 375
PM |
On 2013-10-18 20:01:37, cu015170 wrote:
The 1020 photos kind of lack texture as well.. not sure why that is, but I've noticed it in a few photographs.
Quote these photos. Because as far as I observed, and confirmed by professional testing, 1020 delivers better noise and texture quality.
I've done comps myself against my Canon XTi
http://sdrv.ms/19RvMAx
and yes... the difference in IQ is insignificant for me to bother with a bulky DSLR.
The Canon 400D is an ancient camera! Released mid 2006! Come on now!
You can go back few years still and compare the 808 to Nikon's professional camera the D1X and realize it does better. Only that no one uses a D1X anymore. Compare it to the D4 which is an evolution of the same series, and the difference is magnificent.
And again, a DSLR isn't just about IQ! It's about creativity and art.
I've also seen comps against the RX100, which is the best compact out there, and still.. the 808 holds it's own.
The RX100 is a respectful and quality camera..
One doesn't compare cameras in bright day on auto mode and close range Xenon flash photos. It's like taking the best of the 808 and putting it against the things the RX100 does at the least.
Put both the 808 and RX100 in portrait mode and the difference starts to get big enough to make it worth getting the RX100 over the 808 as a camera. And you'd still be at the bottom range of what the RX100 could do.
You could do more with a DSLR for sure.. but most people wouldn't be able to maximize the potential.
With comparing the 1020 to the 808 I thought we weren't talking about the average Joe. Because the 1020 would be a no brainer then.
We were talking about what an enthusiast photographer could do with each camera, and compare the IQ as well.
In fact I agree with mlife that the 808 is an overkill in terms of capabilities.. I am barely maxing it out after 1 years of solid practice.
This is an overstatement at the least.
808's IQ is closer to the compacts and the current high-end cameraphones than to any higher class camera. |
false_morel
Joined: Feb 24, 2010
Posts: 375
PM |
On 2013-10-18 20:17:58, Sassho wrote:
On 2013-10-18 19:44:39, false_morel wrote:
What do you mean with 808 RAW photos?
I say "RAW" not a RAW My 808 photos are resized(oversampled ) from fullsized 41mp , 30mb shots. In fact on good light 808 = G1 or better. If there are small differences are theoretical.
[ This Message was edited by: Sassho on 2013-10-18 19:18 ]
Fine. Then upscale the G1's photo to 34 MP and compare it to the 808's original photo. Either that or you have to upscale the 5MP to 12 MP.
But as I told you, you picked an old camera and a first generation as well.
I would compare the 808 to a new mirrorless APS-C, or the Nikon 1 Series, or a G16, the former has a significantly smaller sensor than the G1, and the latter has half the sensor size of the 808. |
false_morel
Joined: Feb 24, 2010
Posts: 375
PM |
On 2013-10-18 21:08:02, cu015170 wrote:
You can clearly see the grain in the 1020 photos in low light,
That was a Xenon flash image. I thought we already established that the 808 delivers better Xenon flash images in general. It has the more powerful Xenon module.
Besides, you should have worked it by now, those are sharpening effects. Not natural sensor luminance noise.
That is these grains are added by the software to the RAW image.
Also as I explained above, it doesn't seem the 1020 recognized the face. And it went for a general flash photo applying maximum sharpness. The 1020 when recognizing faces it applies less sharpening since skin is preferred to be soft.
On the other hand, there is a noticeable softness in the 808's image btw.
And WB is bad on both phones. On the 1020 it is way off and catastrophic really. On the 808 it is too cold but still acceptable. |
etaab
Joined: Jan 23, 2004
Posts: > 500
From: UK - South Yorkshire
PM |
On 2013-10-18 21:08:02, cu015170 wrote:
Most of these are all brand new and currently FOR SALE
But they're not. The UK one lists only one as far as I can see and it is ridiculously overpriced !!
Also, im not into buying products from overseas such as Germany or Hong Kong, as ive done that before with ebay and been burnt by products which don't work, are actually second hand and not new, or worse stolen and blocked.
Dude, as much as I love Symbian, the 808 and Nokia phones, you need to face the notion that the 808 is not an option for people like me. I'd buy the 1020 over the 808 any day now, regardless of any teething issues it might be having when we do compare it to Nokia's old camera centric leader.
Check me out on Instagram ! search for etaab ! |
Sassho
Joined: Nov 03, 2007
Posts: > 500
PM |
On 2013-10-18 21:08:02, cu015170 wrote:
You can clearly see the grain in the 1020 photos in low light,
This is not just a grain. This is terrible noise, sharpening and bad postprocess - very similar as postprocessing in SE/Sony cameraphones. | |
|
Access the forum with a mobile phone via esato.mobi
|
Posted: 2013-10-18 18:28
