>
New Topic
>
Reply<
Esato Forum Index
>
Manufacturer Discussion >
Nokia
> Nokia Lumia 1020
Bookmark topic
On 2013-09-11 22:12:45, etaab wrote:
The 1020 uses similar if not better hardware.
That's exactly the thing.. it doesn't. The 3 most important aspects are in fact inferior:
1. The sensor is smaller
2. The lens is not as precise, it blurs the image toward the edges.
3. Weaker Xenon flash
You are correct on the software side of things, it will only get better.. can't really get worse. But you can't compensate for all of that with just software.
[ This Message was edited by: cu015170 on 2013-09-12 08:30 ]
--
Posted: 2013-09-12 00:44:24
Edit :
Quote
This may all be true, but don't you think it's pointless, to keep comparing this smartphone not with its competitors, but with a phone people can't even buy, because it's EOL and running on a dead OS? Even if Symbian phones had some qualities that modern smartphones are missing, people didn't want to buy them anymore.
Wouldn't it be better, for those of you, who think, the most important thing on a smartphone is the camera, to buy a cheap phone and a real camera, a DSLR with one or two good lenses? And when you want perfection, don't look for it in phones, or even DSLRs, get a Hasselblad.
And yes, I do know, what I'm talking about, I have an 808PV, a Nikon and an old Hasselblad, still with film
.
But my smartphone for daily use is the Nokia Lumia 925 and will soon be the Lumia 1020
.
[ This Message was edited by: TeeGee on 2013-09-12 01:07 ]
--
Posted: 2013-09-12 02:03:00
Edit :
Quote
There is no software update that corrects hardware problems !
1020 has a lower lens... Absolutely all units tested, show bizarre distortions in the images !
Not to mention that if BSI sensor and OIS were vital for a superior image quality, Lumia 920, Lumia 925 and Htc One would be the best cameraphones in the world and in fact are among the worst !
The truth is one, 808 PureView is and will remain the best cameraphone in the world !
[ This Message was edited by: Sonysta on 2013-09-12 01:59 ]
--
Posted: 2013-09-12 02:56:25
Edit :
Quote
So..... went back to AT&T today and played with the 1020 for a bit... took some pictures and sent them to my phone. Got home and reviewed images but decided to not even expend the time or effort posting them as a comparison due to the fact that in my eyes there really is none.
In all fairness though, I must say that there are some very INTRIGUING things about the 1020. If I did not already own a 808pv, I would have purchased the 1020 today based on the camera interface, manual controllability, max/min shutter speeds and windows platform. Although the 808 images are clearly better while pixel peeping, I (as I bet 98% of the world) never print images from my phone and don't absolutely require the level of images produced by the 808. Having said that however, I can't justify taking a KNOW step backward in image quality while simultaneously increasing how much I pay monthly considering I don't even really use anything other than text, foursquare and my camera.
long story short, Ill hold out for a bit longer....
I think I just want something new.
--
Posted: 2013-09-12 03:45:08
Edit :
Quote
On 2013-09-12 03:45:08, mlife wrote:
I think I just want something new.
That's the "problem" with most of us here, I guess: even though our "old" phone is still working fine and does everything we need, we simply want a new "toy" once in a while
--
Posted: 2013-09-12 04:24:28
Edit :
Quote
@Sonysta,since when was the 920,925 and HTC some of the worst camera phones in the world?? Once again you talk out your backside. If you try the HTC One takes very good images
--
Posted: 2013-09-12 09:55:00
Edit :
Quote
@Bonovox: that's only in his deluded mind
--
Posted: 2013-09-12 14:28:13
Edit :
Quote
^ well they are nothing special really... the usual mess coming from a tiny sensor.
On 2013-09-12 02:03:00, TeeGee wrote:
This may all be true, but don't you think it's pointless, to keep comparing this smartphone not with its competitors, but with a phone people can't even buy, because it's EOL and running on a dead OS? Even if Symbian phones had some qualities that modern smartphones are missing, people didn't want to buy them anymore.
Wouldn't it be better, for those of you, who think, the most important thing on a smartphone is the camera, to buy a cheap phone and a real camera, a DSLR with one or two good lenses? And when you want perfection, don't look for it in phones, or even DSLRs, get a Hasselblad.
And yes, I do know, what I'm talking about, I have an 808PV, a Nikon and an old Hasselblad, still with film
.
But my smartphone for daily use is the Nokia Lumia 925 and will soon be the Lumia 1020
.
[ This Message was edited by: TeeGee on 2013-09-12 01:07 ]
There is nothing else to compare it to in terms of imaging, and that is it's main selling point, just like the 808, so comps are only natural, especially for 808 owners looking to upgrade.
In this case.. its more of a downgrade rather than an upgrade.
Here, I knew this from the very beginning, but its nice to put it to the test..
http://allaboutwindowsphone.c[....]a_1020_and_its_oversamplin.php
The oversampling on the 808 is superior in every way.
On 2013-09-12 03:45:08, mlife wrote:
So..... went back to AT&T today and played with the 1020 for a bit... took some pictures and sent them to my phone. Got home and reviewed images but decided to not even expend the time or effort posting them as a comparison due to the fact that in my eyes there really is none.
In all fairness though, I must say that there are some very INTRIGUING things about the 1020. If I did not already own a 808pv, I would have purchased the 1020 today based on the camera interface, manual controllability, max/min shutter speeds and windows platform. Although the 808 images are clearly better while pixel peeping, I (as I bet 98% of the world) never print images from my phone and don't absolutely require the level of images produced by the 808. Having said that however, I can't justify taking a KNOW step backward in image quality while simultaneously increasing how much I pay monthly considering I don't even really use anything other than text, foursquare and my camera.
long story short, Ill hold out for a bit longer....
I think I just want something new.
Yup.. just hold out for another 8 months or so and there should be something that is either on par with the 808 or even better.
In our case (being on AT&T) .. its very hard to justify upgrading to anything else, at least as long as we can tap into that $15 unlimited data plan with Symbian. I use joikuspot every day.. if I had anything but the 808 I would be paying 30-40 dollars for the luxury.
In terms of imaging.. its pretty obvious that the 1020 is a downgrade
[ This Message was edited by: cu015170 on 2013-09-12 17:10 ]
--
Posted: 2013-09-12 18:07:16
Edit :
Quote
On 2013-09-12 00:44:24, cu015170 wrote:
That's exactly the thing.. it doesn't. The 3 most important aspects are in fact inferior:
1. The sensor is smaller
2. The lens is not as precise, it blurs the image toward the edges.
3. Weaker Xenon flash
Yes, that could be true also. But to be honest does the difference in sensor size make that much difference at this level ? I don't really know since im not an expert, but I don't think it does. As for the lens, ive seen shots from the 1020 with blurred edges, and some with none. So its hard to judge until the phone is released.
As for the xenon flash, its not a deal breaker for me. Xenon flashes are for use in dark environments shooting up close - people, friends or your pets. The range isn't really an issue as long as its a proper flash and captures the scene like a proper camera does. I had the Satio and then my N8 and ive been happy with both phones flashes even though the N8's was slightly lesser than the Satio's.
I don't think i'll be getting a 1020 or 808 for that matter since ive had to shell out too much money this year on car repairs and other issues. I was going to buy myself one or the other as a luxury gift to myself but I think I also will wait to see if Nokia will release another version in 2014.
Oddly however, since ive been reading this and other threads about the Pureview phones ive come to the conclusion that really no camera is perfect. No camera takes a perfect shot and cannot be as accurate as the human eye. When I sold my SE K750i and got a Nokia N93 I was annoyed with its poorer camera. But now, in 2013 for most purposes my Galaxy S3 takes good shots for every day use which is enough. Only if I want to really pixel peep do I need more. I think the point im getting at is, no matter how brilliant a cameraphone is theres always room for improvement somewhere so theres no point in going totally anal about analysing each picture at pixel level just to know ive got the best camera available.
--
Posted: 2013-09-12 23:36:49
Edit :
Quote
^ Agree. All modern high-end smartphones take pictures, which are good enough, to meet the needs of 99% of their owners. One phone may take pics, that are a bit sharper, another produce better colours and a third might have a better flash, but for a quick snap of that nice evening in the pub, that beautiful flower, or cute kitten, to show to your friends, on the phone, or post on Twitter, or Facebook, their picture quality is sufficient.
The pixel peepers may see huge differences, but tbh, I've never understood, why they bother with cameraphones, anyways. A "real" camera (DSLR, not compact) is sooo much better, not only their sensors, but their versatility, today you can use a high-quality zoom lens, tomorrow a near-perfect 50mm macro. And I'm not even talking about the medium format, like Tee Gee did, I wouldn't dare to use the words "phone camera" and "Hasselblad" in the same sentence
But....... when you see something nice and you'd like to take a picture, your excellent camera might be at home and your phone is in your pocket! And exactly that is the strong point of the cameraphone: it's always with you, whereever you go, and your camera usually isn't.
It's as they say: The best camera, is the one you have with you
[ This Message was edited by: Marly on 2013-09-13 01:34 ]
--
Posted: 2013-09-13 01:32:34
Edit :
Quote
New Topic
Reply
