News Forum Phone database

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



You are joking, aren't you?
If not, I really must pity you, only people with literally no life of their own could think, that anybody would cry about a phone (or any other device)
--
Posted: 2013-10-18 16:08:10
Edit : Quote


I just bought a new 350€ lens for my DSLR. I would have easily got instead an 808 and saved myself all the weeping.

I know this will probably sound cocky, but I think I have to say it.
When it comes to photography as a field of art and expression of creativity, a DSLR becomes a must.

Even these new and trendy mirrorless ILC cameras, even the expensive new ones with full format sensors, would still be limited in several aspects. These are again a compromise between portability and functionality. These are meant to replace DSLRs for vacations mainly where average people would rather carry small and light cameras while still getting same quality of a DSLR. Only that they will be limited to general use.. And also handling and ergonomics would be compromised.

Cameraphones are great all in one devices. But with many compromises especially when it comes to photography.
These are meant to capture those moments where one usually doesn't carry a camera along.

Dining evenings with some friends, hitting a party or the club, at home where something spontaneous happens, especially with kids and pets, and some general activities where nothing is planned worth getting a stand-alone camera to document or capture that certain event..
And certainly not for photography enthusiasts and hobbyists who indulge themselves in the arty side of photography.. Going for photography trips, spending some afternoon or evening, or a one day weekend photography sessions.. Spending time developing the RAWs and printing big or sharing on a dedicated platform..

I never use my cameraphone to spend time thinking about framing and composition, and some creative artistic motive. It's useless to waste such energy and time on such a limited device.

Almost all of the photos I end capturing with my phone are private. Capturing one private spontaneous moment to share online or keep as a memory.. Sometimes one comes across a certain happening on the streets or in a park for instance, some funny or special worth capturing and saving.. And could be publicly shared as well.. But that's it..

And judging from most of the photos I see on smartphone forums and mobile platforms, these lack the story and the context. Poor framing, or poor composition. No meaning to convey, or could have conveyed in a much better way.
Creativity is limited by the equipment of course, but also there are some cool stuff that could be achieved. Rarely seen however.

I think instead of focusing on some the quality a smartphone nowadays achieves of a bright sunny day scene, one ought to learn and practice the art of capturing a good motive.



I totally disagree on this point.

A reminder to all of us maybe, Nokia developed this PV technology not in order to scale those 38 and 34 MP photos back to 5 MP! It would be like pointing to one's left ear with one's right hand.
The purpose and the aim were the lossless zoom.

The PV mode appeals only to photography enthusiasts and it's of a lesser priority compared to the zoom feature which is a game changer for average smartphone users (vast majority of the user base) who can now zoom without losing any quality; with those zoomed in images being on par in quality to what other high-end smartphones deliver.

If it were only about quality of the original photos, using the same sensor technology and size, manufactured directly at 5 MP or 8 MP would have lead to better quality.

And speaking of these 5MP oversampled photos, they do make a difference in low light where noise becomes a decisive factor to the image's quality, and especially detail.
Otherwise, quality-wise, true, at a bright day for instance it's nothing to talk about given the use cases of the resulted images.

And here's where the camera features come in. SmartCam in the 1020 for instance enables one to take photos otherwise not possible without. Removing moving objects at the instance, great for group portraits, and the action feature.. Other high-end Androids have these features now, but the 808 doesn't. And I think this is a bigger and much more significant difference to that of a difference in quality.

Also the SS manual mode allows great creativity whereas the 808 is very limited in this sense.

Same goes to Xenon flash allowing photos otherwise not possible with LED. Not just about IQ here.

I think what the Lumia 1020 stands out for is not its superior noise and detail quality which was proven superior to any other cameraphone, nor its overall IQ which was proven on par with other current high-end smartphones, but it's the lossless zoom, low light photography, Xenon flash, manual SS, SmartCam, ability to zoom later as the phone saves the original full res photo.. These are the factors that make the 1020 the cameraphone to beat. Not the IQ.
--
Posted: 2013-10-18 17:13:59
Edit : Quote


Very true about photography. As for crying over a phone,well now I cannot go living my life now knowing the 808 exists What can I do?? Maybe I need counseling
--
Posted: 2013-10-18 17:36:00
Edit : Quote



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?
--
Posted: 2013-10-18 17:40:25
Edit : Quote



Ok but what's the ok but what is the difference between image quality and picture pleasant to look with your eyes?

When I view the test allaboutwindowsphones ... I don't understand how is it possible to still doubt that 1020 is better than the 808 !? For some the 808 is better but for me is more on paper/technically. What is better? What your eyes see or data sheet?

Although the 1020 produces more noise, white balance is sometimes bad, sometimes a too strong yellow tint but apart from that? Is there someone finds that the 808's pics are better than 1020'ones in this comparison ? seriously?

As said by 1020 is not a true dslr, it's more mainstream than 808 what is the problem?

Is it normal to be so called the best camera phone have a screen in such a low resolution? For me since the release of 808 I always thought it was a joke.

I had the 808 two times and I'll never understand that some may find it better than 1020 !
--
Posted: 2013-10-18 18:21:20
Edit : Quote




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.

--
Posted: 2013-10-18 18:28:46
Edit : Quote




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.



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.



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).



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!

--
Posted: 2013-10-18 18:51:58
Edit : Quote




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

--
Posted: 2013-10-18 19:12:05
Edit : Quote




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.
--
Posted: 2013-10-18 19:44:39
Edit : Quote


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.



--
Posted: 2013-10-18 20:01:37
Edit : Quote

---

New Topic   Reply

Forum Index