News Forum Phone database

> New Topic
> Reply
< Esato Forum Index > Manufacturer Discussion > Nokia > Lumia 1020 vs 808 PV vs any potential rival. Bookmark topic



Don't know about you guys but what an informative, fact filled comment !!

Having used and owned both handsets the 1020 is by far the better phone to use on a daily basis, and although I thought that the camera wasn't as good at first I have to say i now personally prefer the shots ive taken with the Lumia.

As ive said before i really miss Symbian (and ive owned them all from the awesome 7650 through to the N97 debacle and then the N8 and 808) but you cant continue to live in the past.......its gone and that's that.



--
Posted: 2013-10-09 19:33:24
Edit : Quote


Have you uploaded any in the photos section lemmy31?? How is the battery so far as it's not very large compared to some??
--
Posted: 2013-10-09 20:04:50
Edit : Quote


Here are some comparison photos from the latest GSMArena article staging the 1020, iP5s, and LG G2:







Just to show it's hard to come close to the 1020 at the moment from any of the modern smartphones at the market today..
--
Posted: 2013-10-09 20:20:03
Edit : Quote




As the title and the opening post of the thread suggest: Comparing the 1020 to any potential rival coming its way, as others aren't sitting still while Nokia pushes these imaging innovations.. And also compare it to its sibling the 808 to determine the differences as Nokia handled the same technology differently in a hope to reach one conclusion about the best approach we would like Nokia to implement.
--
Posted: 2013-10-09 20:24:07
Edit : Quote




Hi Sean

I have no problem with battery life but unlike most of the people on here I never use facebook or twitter, infact any social networking apps at all. I mainly use my phones for satnav, music calls, txts and the camera, along with some catch up TV on the move

I have only posted a couple of pictures in the photo section.
--
Posted: 2013-10-09 21:04:00
Edit : Quote


Ah ok I shall have a peep
--
Posted: 2013-10-09 21:27:30
Edit : Quote


They're nice images what you have uploaded. Peeking at the pixels, you can see a little processing going off which is a little off putting but overall they're very good quality.
--
Posted: 2013-10-09 23:06:51
Edit : Quote


This is what you get from Steve's test

85% jpeg compression





This is 95%





I will play with the sharpness when I get a chance today or tomorrow
--
Posted: 2013-10-10 18:31:47
Edit : Quote


I must say the difference between 95% and 85% compression doesn't correspond to what the file sizes are suggesting of a one stop compression between the two (halving the size).. At least compared to what I am used to from other tests..
Must note though that such rich detail landscapes are way more sensitive to showing compression artifacts..

Nonetheless, the point remains the same:









I cropped the two images you shot at two areas, one at the very middle where detail is at its highest, and another where the most transitions are.

A difference is be to seen clearly. More than I personally expected. However compare it directly to the difference with that of the 1020-808 comps and conclude for yourself..
--
Posted: 2013-10-10 20:54:27
Edit : Quote


the 10% difference might effect different cameras in different ways.. I wish the 1020 had to option to go down to 85%.

If you set the 808 to 95 and the sharpness to +5 you will get an image that just as sharp but with less grain/noise. Then if you want the colors you just set it to vivid and bump up the saturation a little bit.

I can always spot the difference b/w a 85 and 95 shot from the 808

Here is a close up

85



95



--
Posted: 2013-10-10 21:37:04
Edit : Quote

---

New Topic   Reply

Forum Index