>
New Topic
>
Reply<
Esato Forum Index
>
Manufacturer Discussion >
Nokia
> Nokia 808 PureView Thread And Discussion
Bookmark topic
got myself an iphone 5 ..
The 808 destroys it in low light. Not to mention.. the thing won't focus in the dark.. it doesn't have a focus light.
http://www.esato.com/phonepho[....]ureview/201209290450jWr6Yx.jpg
http://www.esato.com/phonepho[....]phone_5/201209290450xS7OGD.jpg
--
Posted: 2012-09-29 04:55:13
Edit :
Quote
Great Comparative Cu015170... Congratulations !!!
Concerning The Images, No Surprise By Victory Indisputable Of 808 PUREVIEW PRO !
Because He Tells With a Better Optical Assembly (
Carl Zeiss Vario Tessar Vs Largan Precision), More And Better Image Sensor (
Toshiba Vs Sony) And Better Post Processing (
PureView Pro Imaging Technology) !!!
P.S: Independent Of Dispute Be Against IPhone 5, IPhone 4S, Galaxy SIII, Galaxy SII, Galaxy Note, Sony Xperia S Or Sony Xperia T...
808 PUREVIEW PRO Always Will Better independent Of Scene Or Of Luminosity In Question !!!
--
Posted: 2012-09-29 05:25:40
Edit :
Quote
This comparison is cheated... Nokia 808 PureView is on tripod, ISO 800 and exposure time 0,5s. iPhone 4S might be on tripod too, but it doesn't matter since exposure time is 0,067s. and ISO 2500. To get a fair results, set both phones to ISO 800.
--
Posted: 2012-09-29 10:32:19
Edit :
Quote
Admad...
Cue Of Be Ass !
Before Of Write Shit And Accuse The Others, Go Research And Study Technology !
The Apple IPhone 5 Can Not Any Adjustment Regarding Exposure Time, Exposure Comp And Sensibility Iso !
Everything In
APPLE IPHONE 5 IS AUTOMATIC !!!
P.S (1): Therefore Do Not Criticize Something You Not Has Money And Capacity For Do Better !
P.S (2): Again... Congratulations Cu015170... Great Comparative !!!
[ This Message was edited by: Guarulhos on 2012-09-29 09:59 ]
--
Posted: 2012-09-29 10:58:11
Edit :
Quote
Well I just guessed that by now Apple has "invented" setting for camera app. Seems like I was wrong, but it doesn't matter, since there's no point comparing compact cameraphone like 808 to iPhone 5 in which You can't even set ISO settings. Comparing photos that have different exposure time is kind of pointless.
P.S I have a group of professionals that are trying to figure out what did You just wrote.
[ This Message was edited by: admad on 2012-09-29 12:41 ]
--
Posted: 2012-09-29 13:40:46
Edit :
Quote
there were both on a tripod .. you can't really cheat with the iphone, it does what it does, and that is all. Even if you could set the ISO speed lower, it will be a mess.. you really can't expect more from 1.4 micron pixels.
Here are two images from a little earlier, this time both phones in auto mode:
If you think I am "cheating" go test them yourself
[ This Message was edited by: cu015170 on 2012-09-29 18:52 ]
--
Posted: 2012-09-29 19:50:59
Edit :
Quote
@cu015170 I meant cheated as not fair
Now these new samples are much more fair as both are ISO 800. 808 really is a very capable shooter, I wonder how other Android phones and Lumia 920 would fare against it in thoose light conditions.
--
Posted: 2012-09-29 21:07:24
Edit :
Quote
Changed - If The Angle Of Image Capture And The Luminosity, However The Result Is The Same, In Other Words, Victory Of
808 PUREVIEW PRO !!!
--
Posted: 2012-09-29 21:33:08
Edit :
Quote
I understand.. but, I can't change anything on the iPhone.. so its as fair as it can be, if it offered manual settings, I would do the same on both, but because it doesn't offer it, it doesn't mean you can't use it on the 808
I guess the same goes for their data connection, the other way around, what.. should i turn of LTE to be fair to the 808 ? Hell no
the 808 gets smoked!
I didn't even look at the iso, the fact that they are both @ 800 is pure luck, since they were both set on auto. But this is interesting, because I also set the 808 to 800 when it got darker, and it did ok, but the iphone freaked out and went all the way up to 2000+ ...
On 2012-09-29 21:07:24, admad wrote:
wonder how other Android phones and Lumia 920 would fare against it in thoose light conditions.
same crap.. look at the lumia 920 results here:
http://www.flickr.com/groups/nokia_lumia_920/
like I've said before, what nokia did with the 808 is a significant achievement in imaging and photography, you are not supposed to be getting that kind of quality, out of 1.4 micron pixels.. it plays outside the "rules". Its just that most people haven't really realized how important the 808 is, from that perspective.
[ This Message was edited by: cu015170 on 2012-09-29 20:50 ]
--
Posted: 2012-09-29 21:44:39
Edit :
Quote
On 2012-09-29 21:44:39, cu015170 wrote:
same crap.. look at the lumia 920 results here:
http://www.flickr.com/groups/nokia_lumia_920/
like I've said before, what nokia did with the 808 is a significant achievement in imaging and photography, you are not supposed to be getting that kind of quality, out of 1.4 micron pixels.. it plays outside the "rules". Its just that most people haven't really realized how important the 808 is, from that perspective.
[ This Message was edited by: cu015170 on 2012-09-29 20:50 ]
What Nokia did with the 808 is definitely a huge milestone in the compact camera world, and still there are many who didn't realise what the 808 is truly capable of!!
However, comparing it to the 920 in low, I'd still go with the 920. For the simple fact that oversampling can't beat longer exposure speeds!
Soon we'll have the 920 to test to know for sure.. But on paper and from the samples and the comparions made so far, 920 has the upper hand in low light scenarios..
The samples you quoted above were about extremely dim scapes!! Nowhere close the photo you shot above..
--
Posted: 2012-09-29 23:16:27
Edit :
Quote
New Topic
Reply
