Manufacturer Discussion : Nokia : Lumia 1020 vs 808 PV vs any potential rival.
>
New Topic
>
Reply<
Esato Forum Index
>
Manufacturer Discussion >
Nokia
> Lumia 1020 vs 808 PV vs any potential rival.
Bookmark topic
🎼 and the beat goes on 🎶 and the beat goes on 🎵
--
Posted: 2013-10-08 11:45:00
Edit :
Quote
On 2013-10-08 11:45:00, hihihans wrote:
🎼 and the beat goes on 🎶 and the beat goes on 🎵
--
Posted: 2013-10-08 11:55:00
Edit :
Quote
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: 2013-10-08 16:41:58
Edit :
Quote
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: 2013-10-08 16:52:45
Edit :
Quote
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: 2013-10-08 21:15:46
Edit :
Quote
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..
That's a heavily downsized image. What is to see there?
And you somehow forgot to comment on the Imatest results..
--
Posted: 2013-10-08 22:56:59
Edit :
Quote
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: 2013-10-08 23:36:01
Edit :
Quote
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: 2013-10-09 02:46:33
Edit :
Quote
Where exactly is this thread going.
808 is not exactly a current phone is it ??
--
Posted: 2013-10-09 15:27:20
Edit :
Quote
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: 2013-10-09 18:59:16
Edit :
Quote
New Topic
Reply
