The basic imaging principles that set the 808 apart are again at work in the Lumia 1020. The device uses a 41MP imaging sensor to output maximum file sizes of 34MP to 38MP (depending on aspect ratio). The real value of such high pixel density lies in oversampling for a higher quality image output at more manageable files sizes. The Lumia 1020 allows you to simultaneously shoot both a full-resolution capture and an oversampled, immediately shareable 5MP version of every image. (Nokia offers a white paper that further explains the science of oversampling if you want to know more.)
MNB RG: Nokia 1020 Still Image Quality – Any Good
The Lumia 1020 holds even further promise this time around with a more modern redesigned 41MP 1/1.5" back-side-illuminated sensor, a faster aperture at F2.2 versus the 808's F2.4, a six-element Zeiss lens with optical image stabilization and the new Nokia-developed Pro Cam app. And it's powered by the Windows Phone 8 operating system (the 808's Symbian system was already outdated when the device was released).
For this first impressions piece, we deliberately left the Lumia 1020 operating in auto settings using the new Pro Cam app. We'll wait to delve into its advanced capabilities our full review. As a first look, we thought it best to see what the camera's auto controls can do under some very common lighting conditions: when using flash, in low light, in shade and in bright sunlight. Click to see the high-resolution version of the image.
In lots of ways it's an amazing device and for those that mostly live in social media world and might do the occasional print it's ok.Probably even an overkill. Pixels quantity does not define picture quality . If picture quality is your goal and if you are buying because you think all those pixels add quality you are following the wrong path. Little cameras like the Sony RX100 knock any phone for six in quality and handling, it also fits into a shirt pocket.Nothing wrong with a phone that takes pictures, great for zapping to friends Facebook etc , No problem having a little camera with you as well. The Nokia is not a tool you would choose if photography is your goal and you don't mind making an effort to get great shots with something more capable.You can still make an effort and get great shots with this, but the ultimate quality is what limits it's usefulness, so why not make the effort with something better.Forget pixels numbers they mean very little in reality.
Exactly. As I've explained at, among others, -rg-nokia-1020-still-image-quality-any-good/ , it's only the outermost 10% on the both sides that suffer from reduced sharpness / CA. The inner 80% of the frame is tack sharp and absolutely devoid of CA.
I was ready to be impressed by all the people on other forums saying how these high mp phones have full-frame dslp-like quality. These are dreadful! The noise reduction is so harsh it's painterly, but not in a good way. The noise is horrible, even with the noise reduction in those "low light" shots. Outdoors in bright light it's not terrible, looks about the same as the iPhone5, but compared to a real camera, dslr or mirrorless these are abysmal.
Why would you even compare a smartphone image to DSLR or mirrorless? You wouldn't ever get a phone over a DSLR if photography is your passion. You'd get it as a secondary device. Gone through plenty of shots of this phone that have been uploaded to the web, and from these, this phone blows away any previous smartphone, and a good lot of Point and Shoots. Which is great news, there's no camera better than the one you have with you.We're reaching the limit of current technology for mobile cameras, and we can't expect it to surpass DSLR's using the same technology on a larger and more dedicated scale.
What do you call extreme ?I said extreme because the surface area is very low, and because you will not put important subjects in it (because of heavy perspective distortion).I, and I think most ost people, will happily trade off sharpness in 5% non important area against vastly improved picture quality on 95% image area, included the most important ones.
pixel peeping tells us pixel quality. but since there is 7.6 times difference in pixel count, we have to multiply pixel quality by 7.6 times (in terms of area or incoming light) before we can compare image quality.
Mostly True, but not many camera's have 41million pixels (34 really) to work with. Your average 16mp apc sensor is only going to give a 2mp image (stilll quite useable though). Also beleive it or not not all camera oversample properly for lower res images. Some line skip like they do for video and end up with similar aliasing effects. I imagine they do this for the increased speed of the smaller sampling size.
Nobody said the Nokia is better than the 5DmkIII. They just showed that in that particular test, in good light, the Nokia 808 resolves more than the 5DmkIII. Sharpness and resolution are only a fraction of what makes image quality. You'd have to be silly to think that a smartphone can compete with a Full Frame camera (5DmkIII, D800, etc). Those comparisons are just a way of showing the amazing details one can capture with those 41MP Nokia, and that is undeniable. The end point is that those Nokia cameraphones are much better than any other cameraphone on the market, and that's already amazing. I own a D800 and a nokia 808. I know which one to use for what. PS: the D800 doesn't fit in my pocket.
1) At wide angle very good IQ in good and in low light, comparable or better than all others smartphones (due to downsampling).2) (Moderate) zooming at good light is a great and extremly usefull feature and the IQ is still absolutely on par with all other smartphones3) Zoomed low light images have limited IQ. Period. Unfortunately.4) Video recording is better than all other smartphones because of the sound quality and zoomability.5) OIS is missing and would surely improve zoomed video.6) OIS would help at still images in many occasions at low light. Of course not when shooting (most) moving subjects.
sensors with large pixels tend to perform less as good. a fact we have been observing for many years (at least since 1980s). higher image quality (less noise) is a major driven factor behind high pixel count sensors.
horrible noisy images even in good light. It seems it must be difficult to hold the camera level so you would lose 10mp straightening and cropping. I think I got better results 12 years ago with my old kodak dc-280
The point is to use it as a great 5MP camera which surpasses everything else in smartphone territory (except the Nokia 808). I agree that the full sized images don't look that good, but downsampled to 5MP, they are excellent.
the IQ is impressive and way better than other smartphones but the biggest problem with the 1020 is that its a Windows phone... if it was Android, then wow! but still way too many compromises using Windows, Nokia missed an opportunity (should gone with Android).
I see a similar painterly/watercolor effect from recent Fuji cameras equipped with X-Trans sensors. Specially apparent in areas of foliage and other high frequency details. Even in good light images have an over-processed look with blocked up details, which seem to be from unrefined noise reduction (the Fuji images where this fault does not appear have a more refined/natural look though). Reducing the images down to 5mp masks these imperfections well, but cannot hide the so so dynamic range of the sensor (the cityscape shot is clipped on both ends, much more so in the shadows). If users shoot at 5mp only, this actually looks decent and very detailed compared to other camera phones out now. 2ff7e9595c
Comments