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
On 2013-10-18 19:44:39, false_morel wrote:
What do you mean with 808 RAW photos?
I say "RAW" not a RAW
My 808 photos are resized(oversampled
) from fullsized 41mp , 30mb shots. In fact on good light 808 = G1 or better. If there are small differences are theoretical.
[ This Message was edited by: Sassho on 2013-10-18 19:18 ]
--
Posted: 2013-10-18 20:17:58
Edit :
Quote
Which is a perfect example of how the 1020 surpasses what the 808 is capable of in many different ways. It might not beat it hands down, but as long as it does in areas which are every day uses coupled with the fact you can actually buy the phone, where as the 808 you cannot, make it the best cameraphone.
I suppose its a bit like boxing, or any other sports. People would say Muhammad Ali was the best boxer ever, but he doesn't box anymore, so you wouldn't say hes the best boxer in the world seeing he is long since retired. As is the 808.
--
Posted: 2013-10-18 20:39:50
Edit :
Quote
^
http://dsa.ebay.co.uk/sch/i.h[....]w=Nokia+808&_sacat=0&_from=R40
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Nokia[....]1739&sr=8-1&keywords=nokia+808
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=n[....]aps&field-keywords=Nokia%20808
http://www.amazon.de/s/ref=nb[....]aps&field-keywords=nokia%20808
http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.htm[....]RC1.A0&_nkw=nokia+808&_sacat=0
http://negrielectronics.com/catalogsearch/result/?q=808
Also, it works perfectly fine as a smartphone.. at least in my case
I have no problems at all.
On 2013-10-18 20:17:58, Sassho wrote:
In fact on good light 808 = G1 or better. If there are small differences are theoretical.
The 808 comes close to a lot of dedicated cameras.. the same can not be said about the 1020.
--
Posted: 2013-10-18 20:44:54
Edit :
Quote
The problem is, we're not all happy to buy second hand phones. I wouldn't.
Sadly the 808 is not manufactured anymore which therefore renders it unobtainable. Theres little to no point in even comparing them if you cannot actually buy one of them.
--
Posted: 2013-10-18 20:58:16
Edit :
Quote
Most of these are all brand new and currently FOR SALE
You can clearly see the grain in the 1020 photos in low light,
like here
http://www.allaboutsymbian.com/features/images/g2/beer-808.jpg
http://www.allaboutsymbian.com/features/images/g2/beer-1020.jpg
[ This Message was edited by: cu015170 on 2013-10-18 20:08 ]
--
Posted: 2013-10-18 21:08:02
Edit :
Quote
On 2013-10-18 20:01:37, cu015170 wrote:
The 1020 photos kind of lack texture as well.. not sure why that is, but I've noticed it in a few photographs.
Quote these photos. Because as far as I observed, and confirmed by professional testing, 1020 delivers better noise and texture quality.
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.
The Canon 400D is an ancient camera! Released mid 2006! Come on now!
You can go back few years still and compare the 808 to Nikon's professional camera the D1X and realize it does better. Only that no one uses a D1X anymore. Compare it to the D4 which is an evolution of the same series, and the difference is magnificent.
And again, a DSLR isn't just about IQ! It's about creativity and art.
I've also seen comps against the RX100, which is the best compact out there, and still.. the 808 holds it's own.
The RX100 is a respectful and quality camera..
One doesn't compare cameras in bright day on auto mode and close range Xenon flash photos. It's like taking the best of the 808 and putting it against the things the RX100 does at the least.
Put both the 808 and RX100 in portrait mode and the difference starts to get big enough to make it worth getting the RX100 over the 808 as a camera. And you'd still be at the bottom range of what the RX100 could do.
You could do more with a DSLR for sure.. but most people wouldn't be able to maximize the potential.
With comparing the 1020 to the 808 I thought we weren't talking about the average Joe. Because the 1020 would be a no brainer then.
We were talking about what an enthusiast photographer could do with each camera, and compare the IQ as well.
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.
This is an overstatement at the least.
808's IQ is closer to the compacts and the current high-end cameraphones than to any higher class camera.
--
Posted: 2013-10-18 21:12:47
Edit :
Quote
On 2013-10-18 20:17:58, Sassho wrote:
On 2013-10-18 19:44:39, false_morel wrote:
What do you mean with 808 RAW photos?
I say "RAW" not a RAW
My 808 photos are resized(oversampled
) from fullsized 41mp , 30mb shots. In fact on good light 808 = G1 or better. If there are small differences are theoretical.
[ This Message was edited by: Sassho on 2013-10-18 19:18 ]
Fine. Then upscale the G1's photo to 34 MP and compare it to the 808's original photo. Either that or you have to upscale the 5MP to 12 MP.
But as I told you, you picked an old camera and a first generation as well.
I would compare the 808 to a new mirrorless APS-C, or the Nikon 1 Series, or a G16, the former has a significantly smaller sensor than the G1, and the latter has half the sensor size of the 808.
--
Posted: 2013-10-18 21:19:42
Edit :
Quote
On 2013-10-18 21:08:02, cu015170 wrote:
You can clearly see the grain in the 1020 photos in low light,
That was a Xenon flash image. I thought we already established that the 808 delivers better Xenon flash images in general. It has the more powerful Xenon module.
Besides, you should have worked it by now, those are sharpening effects. Not natural sensor luminance noise.
That is these grains are added by the software to the RAW image.
Also as I explained above, it doesn't seem the 1020 recognized the face. And it went for a general flash photo applying maximum sharpness. The 1020 when recognizing faces it applies less sharpening since skin is preferred to be soft.
On the other hand, there is a noticeable softness in the 808's image btw.
And WB is bad on both phones. On the 1020 it is way off and catastrophic really. On the 808 it is too cold but still acceptable.
--
Posted: 2013-10-18 21:30:11
Edit :
Quote
On 2013-10-18 21:08:02, cu015170 wrote:
Most of these are all brand new and currently FOR SALE
But they're not. The UK one lists only one as far as I can see and it is ridiculously overpriced !!
Also, im not into buying products from overseas such as Germany or Hong Kong, as ive done that before with ebay and been burnt by products which don't work, are actually second hand and not new, or worse stolen and blocked.
Dude, as much as I love Symbian, the 808 and Nokia phones, you need to face the notion that the 808 is not an option for people like me. I'd buy the 1020 over the 808 any day now, regardless of any teething issues it might be having when we do compare it to Nokia's old camera centric leader.
--
Posted: 2013-10-18 21:32:14
Edit :
Quote
On 2013-10-18 21:08:02, cu015170 wrote:
You can clearly see the grain in the 1020 photos in low light,
This is not just a grain. This is terrible noise, sharpening and bad postprocess - very similar as postprocessing in SE/Sony cameraphones.
--
Posted: 2013-10-18 21:54:46
Edit :
Quote
New Topic
Reply
