mobile photography technology, culture and community
www.dpreview.com

Nokia sends National Geographic photog into the American West with a Lumia 1020

145
Stephen Alvarez used a Lumia 1020 to take photos from Utah to Arizona.

Sometimes, a PR stunt can be pretty cool. Nokia sent National Geographic photographer Stephen Alvarez into the American West to take photos with its latest flagship phone, the Lumia 1020. With a 41MP camera outputting maximum file sizes of 34MP to 38MP (depending on aspect ratio), the Lumia 1020 captured canyons in grand style.

Check out more of Alvarez's shots below and click on the photos to open them in their massive full-resolution.

Comments

Total comments: 145
12
John D89

Lots of passion in this discussion, but you can’t really compare a DSLR to a camera phone. Mr. Alvarez is a talented photographer, you can see it in his composition, but if you look at his work on the National Geographic site you can see what a difference the tool can make in the right hands. You should also see that, as good as they are, these pictures are not up to his normal standard.
The Nokia is no DSLR, but it sure is better than the camera in my pocket right now.

0 upvotes
RadioGnome

Beatiful landscape, boring pictures. To me they have the same problem I have with pictures from my compact. They look 'flat'.

Only the last one creates some feeling of depth, using nature (haze, rays of sunlight) and some composing tricks (ridge, person on edge).

Comment edited 6 minutes after posting
1 upvote
MarioV

sigh.
Do people press their noses against a painting and say, These brush strokes look terrible! - and therefore its a bad painting?

Do people get a magnifying glass and look at the skin cells of a woman's face and say, She's ugly!

Just because you can, doesnt mean you should.

Look at the PHOTO, not the PIXELS.

4 upvotes
ManuelVilardeMacedo

I did it. Still don't like any of them. Too ordinary to be compared to paintings and beautiful women. And the night shot is tilted. I'm sure Mr Alvarez could do better. Left to his own devices he'd certainly use a decent DSLR, but this is a paid job... oh well.

3 upvotes
vv50

but his exact words were “Since the Nokia Lumia 1020 is so small and light I can actually compose shots from some pretty crazy positions. I find myself being much more creative with this little phone than I might be with my DSLR.”

0 upvotes
Sordid

Nokia paid for this and they obviously wanted to show off the amazing picture quality of this camera.
In this respect, I think it's just fair to mention the poor image quality.

1 upvote
Jun2

41MP, just waste of memory card space. Photography aside, the files just don't have good resolution, need to down size to 10MP or smaller.

2 upvotes
cgarrard

Yep I agree. Pretty crappy IQ.

1 upvote
AndyHWC

Most users will use the 5Mp mode. I am not sure the benefit of pixel binning but the result is pretty good. Read the EXIF yourself, and check out DPR review comparing the 1020 to its competitors.

2 upvotes
nicolaiecostel

I don't get it, why are all the sites reporting on this, this is just a commercial ..

The guy could have said anything, he is being paid !

This only proves that you can do hollyday pictures that look good, with your camera phone.

1 upvote
REDred Photo

I think a lot of people missing the point here... Sure, pixel peeping can be something we get carried away with... sure, we can downsample these huge images to something smaller and they look great... sure we can accept some mediocre pixel level detail because it's a camera phone... And yes, these are beautiful images shot by a great photographer.

The real question... if we're not planning to look at the pixel level detail, and we're going to downsample the image to a smaller size for clean, viewing enjoyment, why bother capturing 38 million mediocre pixels that don't actually show more detail than 16 million pixels? It seems to me, the point of capturing so many pixels is to make bigger, more detailed prints... if we don't actually have that kind of quality at the pixel level, why not start with 16 million higher quality pixels on that large sensor and skip the downsampling stage? I wonder if Alvarez would have preferred fewer, higher quality pixels.

Sometimes more is just more.

Comment edited 5 minutes after posting
1 upvote
Tan68

I have mostly believed that fewer, larger, happier and prettier pixels are better. It does seem like so many pixels to only later downsize is a waste.

There are some arguments that more pixels is not all bad, though. Say we got a 16MP image that is suitable to print 8x12 inches. A 24MP image looks rougher at 100% and needs to be sized down further... it also makes only a suitable 8x12" print. There are arguments that the 24MP image will make a better print. No larger, but better.. I don't really understand the details. Also, the better the light, the more pixels are useable. In good light, maybe the 24MP print could be bigger.

So, there is that argument as well as the digital zoom Nokia likes to trade some of the pixels for.

Even with the argument above between 16 & 24MP, I am not so sure the HTC (is it HTC?) 4MP cameras are a bad deal. File sizes should be smaller. Image quality is about as good? Easier to upload or whatever. Which is better for the cell cameras.. ??

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 4 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Chris Gooden

Gotta love the pixel peepers here. They spend so much time worrying about pixels that they miss out on all of the awesome images they should be taking. And to be honest, I could take a cell phone picture against your dslr image and beat the lot of you.

0 upvotes
Tan68

Chief native :^)

1 upvote
ManuelVilardeMacedo

Woah! One can't accuse you of being too modest.

1 upvote
88SAL

Taking exactly the same image, same photographer, same mounted position using a tripod and all that faff to ensure equal and fair test conditions; a dslr (or m4/3, pro larger sensor compact, or even god forbid a compact FILM camera like a canon QL17, scanned negs) should DESTROY a smart phone. Smart phone fanboys are living in a dream world.

3 upvotes
larrytusaz

(88SAL) is correct. The point is, if you're in the Grand-freaking-Canyon, why would you take ANYTHING but the best you have in your toolbox, vs using inferior equipment just to prove a point?

Obviously one can go crazy with this. What if you own a Nikon D800 & a Nikon D3200 and take the latter vs the former in because it's lighter? I can't imagine faulting someone for that, especially in a Grand Canyon scenario where you're hiking a lot. Heck I find I use my Sony NEX-C3 all the time so much I sold my D5100, but the thing is, their IQ is equal as they use the same sensor.

But yes I was in the Grand Canyon in late 2005, my best camera then was a Nikon D50 I paid $500 for at huge discount, which now is squashed by a Nikon D3100 kit I bought for $250 for my wife to use for snapshots, but at that time it was the best I had. I can't imagine consciously choosing something significantly inferior to that when I was in the scenic Grand Canyon just to prove a point.

0 upvotes
Nubooo

This article is totally relevant, and there are millions of dslr photos of the grand canyon so we dont really need any more, I think some of you have missed a very simple point, they wanted to try using the phone for pictures so they did, in no way are they trying to better a Nikon or Canon full frame sensor.

I know the Apple Iphone can do so much better,, thats why your all upset really,,,

0 upvotes
carlos2121

Video and Photos Lumia 1020 Beautiful Beautiful Beautiful :)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IBNWzX_J05o

0 upvotes
rocklobster

There's noise in them-there hills pardner!

Cheers

1 upvote
Tan68

Him sound of restless natives.

0 upvotes
DamianS

As usual, this thread is full of posts from camera snobs, gearheads, weenies and wannnabees who are jealous of Alvarez' technical skills.
These photos are fantastic and the 1020 is a great little camera.
The posters criticizing these photos are jealous because they know that National Geographic will never ever ask them to take photos.

4 upvotes
AndyHWC

I was at GCNP south rim a few years ago, it is hard to get a clear picture as there are always haze and smoke. Making things worst is I forgot to take my circular polarizer. FWIW, here is a similar shot, taken by a D90.

http://sdrv.ms/196sGus

Looking at the last pic, the exposure and dynamic range are impressive, but don't know why the aperture stuck at f/2.2.

Comment edited 5 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Tan68

Andy, I also thought it wasn't easy to get good pictures there!

I guess F2.2 is okay..? I didn't open the image to look closer, but I guess it works okay. Camera probably biased to use wide aperture to keep exposure bright. That's not a bad thing.

0 upvotes
GPW

NO, these are just not good photos. Grainy, blurry, out of focus. DamianS, if you can't see this than maybe you should take a few photography lessons

2 upvotes
AndyHWC

@Tan68, it could benefit from smaller aperture, perhaps the aperture of 1020 is fixed. But comparing to the one I took with D90. The 1020 only uses 1/20 (5%) of the exposure time and the result still contains lots of details and dynamic range (see the sun streaks and shadow details). The sensor definitely has potential. The noise maybe a step down from Pureview 808 but the IS and more portable size are a nice gain. Hopefully Nokia will add a true optical zoom next. Samsung and Sony are working on optical zoom on camera phones too. I like sony's approach (zoom adapter)as it will prove to be cheaper in the long run.

Comment edited 30 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Eric Hensel

I can feel the love....

1 upvote
GPW

GARBAGE!

0 upvotes
AndyHWC

lol, DPR just posted their 1020 review. It is quite obvious the IQ and detail are there.

Low Light
http://connect.dpreview.com/post/5234892048/nokia-lumia-1020-camera-review?page=10

Bright Light
http://connect.dpreview.com/post/5234892048/nokia-lumia-1020-camera-review?page=9

0 upvotes
Keith Sinrod

I want the proverbial Nikon D800E that can fit in a pants
pocket.

The 808 had the right form factor and its images were
sharper than my Sony A35 w/18-55mm kit lens set at
18mm and f/5.6 when shot outdoors at base ISO.

Unfortunately, the 808's unpredictable metering makes
this camera virtually unusable in dramatic outdoor lighting!

The Lumia 1020 appears to be "usable" when it comes
to setting exposure and metering, but the image quality
appears to have taken a step backwards from the 808.

The 808 camera app usually comes up quickly, and the shot
to shot time isn't unnaturally slow as the 1020's is. If the 808's
shutter speed could be adjusted manually, then I could work
around its unpredictable metering outdoors!

0 upvotes
bigley Ling

The software control feature set on the 1020 is indeed quite amazing. It has the ability to manual focus, manual expose by setting shutter and ISO manually, or you can set any one variable to auto, and use exposure compensation.

The 808 in comparison can only adjust shutter indirectly using the exposure meter, and ND filter , while fixing a set ISO.

As for the unpredictable metering, have you considered trying Camera Pro. it is a 3rd party app that allows for better auto ISO settings, where there is preference to keep the shutter. Also it supports adjustable metering modes like center weight, etc.

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
WACONimages

So..., what is the point...? What does it matter with whatever camera you take you pics? For fun, social media or professionally. I don't understand that this have to be on dPreviews front-page!

What happened to all those great reviews? I've been a reader/visitor of dPreview almost from start. The last two years more and more I find myself checked other photography website more and more and dPreview less. I'm not the only one who mention this. But I don't see much progress. I still do like to read the announcements and reviews. But something is missing, what wasn't a few years ago.

0 upvotes
SpencerPhoto

Because times are changing.

0 upvotes
Tan68

And because it is a PR stunt.

1 upvote
HawaiiVolcanoes

ohh STOP...the images are HORRRRRRIBLE. Anyone that thinks that these images can compete with (anything) is simply fooling themselves. DPREVIEW...this is a new low for you.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
7 upvotes
SDPharm

> DPREVIEW...this is a new low for you.

Uh, DPReview did not manufacture the equipment. It's an equipment reporting site. And it did its job letting you know the quality, good or bad, of the equipment. Why the hostility?

6 upvotes
klopus

Can you elaborate what is so "HORRRRRRIBLE"? When it comes to the composition I think that most images are simply stunning as one would expect from the NatGeo photog.

2 upvotes
MarioV

The basis of these types of negative posts is quite clear.
By exaggerating, huffing and puffing, some posters think it makes them look like they passionately know what they are talking about and possess knowledge and skill that is superior to actual professionals.

They simply are seeking attention and enjoy seeing their names "in lights".

These photos look great on my 24" IPS display. If you need to pp them in any way, then go ahead. They still look great.. even more impressive that they came from a multi-purpose pocket device.

3 upvotes
Nubooo

I bet you havnt been given any fun tasks like taking a phone for the day to picture one of the seven natural wonders of the earth, probably why you seem a little upset

0 upvotes
Tan68

I took the post to be a bit facetious. Someone complaining seriously would use fewer 'RRR' and more 'GRRR'.

When we can say the pictures look great without qualifying the statement with stuff like 'and especially from a pocketable device', then cell cameras have finally been accepted without prejudice :^)

0 upvotes
LukeLT63

I do not understand how these items may be of interest in DPR. If the purpose is to talk about every type of photography then why not post articles or reviews on webcam, tablet or any object that makes photos (maybe the clock 007 Agent). :-) As a lover of photography amateur and professional I can only consider articles about real cameras ..... to each his own field.
The pictures are the ones that are considering their quality. A snap remember a walk? .... No offense to Stephen Alvarez but if Nokia had called me for the service I would have refused. The gadgets let them packages of potatoes and snacks.
Please please please.....sorry sorry sorry

2 upvotes
DamianS

You don't understand how an article containing great photos is of no interest to DPR?
You think only photos taken with a DSLR or :real camera" should be considered?
Your post is one of the most stupid I have read in a long time.

1 upvote
SpencerPhoto

What exactly is a "real" camera?

1 upvote
Tan68

Mmm, it isn't an article about great pictures. It is an article about a cell phone that has great pictures.

There are plenty of articles about great pictures that are not written. These great pictures were taken with lots of different cameras, both real and imagined to be real.

This article is here precisely because it involves a cell phone.

0 upvotes
Ian

Alvarez's photos are great - but I wonder if he regrets not having shot these with a DSLR. Unless someone over-processed these shots all to hell, they look just terrible at a pixel level.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 1 minute after posting
4 upvotes
Mescalamba

Nope, it looks like this normal. If Im correct its not that "ok-ish" sensor which was in N808. That makes quite usable pics (1-inch sensor).

Tho if you think about it other way, downsized to 8 mpix, it looks usable. Not great tho, that would need way different way of thinking.

Otherwise, my 6 years old CCD based dSLR have better per-pixel detail, DR, SNR than this.. ..on ISO 1600.

1 upvote
Tan68

I don't figure the point of the Nokia is 100 or 66 percent view (pixel level detail)...

There is some point where the images are downsized and they are suitable. How much downsized varies by the person, I guess.

0 upvotes
AndyHWC

I am surprised to see these type of comments in DPR. I think users here are wiser not to focus on pixel peeping, am I wrong?

The pictures look decent to me but seems too much compression. geotag2.jpg was taken with 0.8sec exposure and probably on a steering wheel, so it is a automatic failure, still the IS seems to perform quite well. My question is why the camera not pick a higher ISO.

EXIF not available on geotag1.jpg.

0 upvotes
larrytusaz

I understand the desire for portability in such cases, heck I just sold my D5100 after YEARS of having DSLRs (since Nov 2004), sometimes more than one, because anymore I use mirrorless anyway. Anymore you can get great photos with cameras that aren't DSLRs, thanks to m4/3rds and Sony NEX etc.

But a PHONE? Come on now.

There are options such as the Sony NEX-C3 I use or the newer Sony NEX-3N. Mount the Sigma 19mm f/2.8 and you hardly even know it's there & yet it EQUALS the image quality of my prior D5100 or the well-regarded D7000. Heck there are options like the Panasonic GX7 or the Olympus OM-D/E-M5, all of which give you DSLR quality in a smaller package, & all still easily eclipse even the best smartphone cameras by a long shot. Cell phone shots are fine for teens doing "selfies" & the other snapshooting people, but serious photography--please.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 5 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
igruh

1) no colors
2) no resolution
3)huge artifacts
4)hugely fogged
5)noisy,noisy,noisy

Even being downsized to 2MP they look bad. Who does need this crap which will only waist the memory card?

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 2 minutes after posting
14 upvotes
frankmv

I note many here complain about the IQ. I liken this to the "dog that sings Opera"...yes, it sings Opera badly, but don't lose sight of the fact that the dog sings!

That said, this is a cell-phone. If you need to get the shot, you can do so in grand style with 41MP. Yes, the IQ isn't up to snuff compared to say a Nikon D800, or a Canon 5D Mark III...but it is quite good for what it is - a cell phone camera. It will only improve with time.

Will I go out and buy one? Probably not, since it is married to Windows Phone. If they market this for IOS, I would definitely consider it.

0 upvotes
ManuelVilardeMacedo

Well, I wouldn't pay to hear a dog singing 'Parsifal'...

1 upvote
Francis Carver

You are not buying a Nokia CAMERA phone because it is not an iPhone? Wow.... As long as you are no biased in favor of all things Apple -- cool.

1 upvote
Tan68

The dog sings, but can it hunt ?

0 upvotes
stevenkelby

Those pictures would not be acceptable to me in a $150 compact, but they are ok for a phone.

Still on the fence about getting a 1020, I hoped for cleaner shots here but when zooming in to the pics above they are not impressive. Disappointing that some of them are just plain bad photos, regardless of the camera.

5 upvotes
stylinred

The 808 pureview is much better...so why hasn't dpreview reviewed this device yet? Neither has gsmarena makes me think that Nokia is purposely keeping it out of your hands

Comment edited 19 seconds after posting
2 upvotes
Quirino2k

I think they are I bought my 808 in May.. And it took me a week to find it. Even the official Nokia stores didn't have them. And when asking for the phone a different stores, some said it don't exists lol, other never even know of it. But I found in a Nokia store in a different city. And I use it for snapshots, and when going to concerts :)

1 upvote
Hooman  Khosravi

Horrible Pixel Quality , I prefer the pixel quality of HTC 1 , although its just 4 megapixel , its much cleaner and more pleasant.

Comment edited 10 minutes after posting
9 upvotes
Samuli Pulkkinen

And the pixel quality is more important than the picture quality?

4 upvotes
Hooman  Khosravi

Picture quality is tied to pixel quality,
Aesthetic quality of a Photograph and Picture quality are two different matters.

Comment edited 11 minutes after posting
1 upvote
Langusta

Regardless what was used for taking a shot - (especially) last one is impressive.

0 upvotes
Sordid

Terribly noisy, very unsharp.

9 upvotes
jadot

Someone get that guy a tripod.

Well it's a fair bit of publicity, and the camera can be shown to compare with consumer P&S. I think the main attraction here is that it's essentially a 'one device really can do all' kind of thing. If you can live with the soft detail.

If I was backpacking/camping in the grand canyon then sure. Otherwise, personally, I prefer a dedicated camera.

And I can't see from these examples where all of that resolution is supposed to be? 18-20 MP might have been better, though I don't claim to understand the maths.

2 upvotes
madeinlisboa

That's a very bad set of photos. The artifacts are huge, the resolution bad and there is a strong halo around the person in the last one. What is that??? Absurd chromatic aberration?

4 upvotes
ManuelVilardeMacedo

Another publicity stunt. I don't like to see DPR subscribing this push for inferior quality.
Now let's see those guys at NatGeo photographing lions and leopards with mobile phones. (And I mean in wildlife, not at the zoo.)
And that night shot just made me laugh. What are they trying to prove with a picture that is blurred in every plane?

Comment edited 7 minutes after posting
7 upvotes
Tan68

Getting close enough to use a cell phone to take a picture of a zoo-lion can be just as dangerous!

The 'steering wheel' pic is just the type of thing that cameras like this (and some P/S) are good for. They are devices that are easy to have at hand.

I have some similar shots that mean something to me. I don't think the picture is intended to be ART, I think it is representative of Art as many users of the phone might consider.

0 upvotes
Dirtyharry71

I think that the oversampling function is better way
so take it at full res and then auto downsize to 8MP

0 upvotes
Stitzer23

what's the word again? Backfire?

4 upvotes
massimogori

And now we all want pictures taken with an Holga by a Pulitzer prize winner, standing on the left foot while his mother in law was barking at him on the right ear. Please please please.

Comment edited 53 seconds after posting
7 upvotes
electrophoto

that at least would be highly entertaining ;)

2 upvotes
Tan68

And nothing but net.

0 upvotes
Quirino2k

hm I feel the old 808 is still better image quality, way less smearing effect then 1020.

5 upvotes
Hobbit13

yeah, Nokia said the quality would be equal to the 808, but that's only true if the IS is usefull (to keep ISO low). In bright daylight, the 808 produces much more detail. The 1020 shots are only really sharp at roughly 1/3rd of the resolution, whereas 2/3rd size is perfectly sharp on the 808. Wondering whether the 1020 even wins it from the S4 in bright daylight. At low ISO that phone also takes very good pictures.

2 upvotes
electrophoto

The night shot - way to go ... yeah... a blurry, shaken, badly tilted, long exposure...

I don't get those PR Stunts..... well under optimal conditions the quality is cool, but it quickly shows it's limitations.

3 upvotes
M Jesper

I like that shot, but that's really irrelevant to the camera inbetween.

0 upvotes
itsastickup

Doing a few resizes I estimate the ISO100 image with the guy on the cliff has between 3 and 4 MP of image. Well, that's more than enough although obviously the digital zoom is a zombie feature.

The upside does seem to be DR. Looking at the reflection of the water and the silhouette I believe I'm seeing quite decent DR. To my mind it's DR that makes all the difference, all else being acceptable (CA, sharpness etc).

0 upvotes
itsastickup

Seems the dpreview site is suddenly capturing ctrl-click. To power browser users this is exceedingly irritating. Ctrl-click opens a link in a new background tab for later perusal.

Please don't interfere with interface standards, dpreview.

4 upvotes
Jerodequin

100% agree, it's annoying and unnecessary, whenever I ctrl-click to open a 'connect' article from the main page, it ignores it and opens in the current tab - this is not what any of the non 'connect' articles do. DPreview - is this intentional or just a mistake? Either way please fix it!

4 upvotes
Sviz

I totally agree with that, it is very annoying.

2 upvotes
bizi clop

Suddenly? It always did this on  Mac Safari.

0 upvotes
graybalanced

I keep running into this, it is very annoying. At least I can force it by right-clicking to Open Link in New Tab, but why should I have to behave differently than on other standard web sites?

Comment edited 41 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Tan68

Maybe fixed? CTRL-Click works on my FF.

0 upvotes
RoelHendrickx

While visiting the SW I shot with my regular camera.
I recognize most of the places here.
However, I also used my Iphone to shoot, process and upload first sample images while on the road (think: "look, family, we are now here...").
Those images are numbers 26-65 in this gallery:
http://roelh.zenfolio.com/p402011222
Real final photos elsewhere on my pages.

1 upvote
Stu 5

Well your landscapes have more detail in them Roel don't they. There is no smearing in parts or all of each photo, which can be seen in the Nokia 1020 photos. I like the B&W conversions as well.

0 upvotes
RoelHendrickx

Thank you Stu

0 upvotes
Greg Henry

People whine too much.

Reduce the photos to around 6 megapixels. Adjust the levels a bit. Poof - they're better than any other phone camera on the market today.

Their biggest problem? They're taken with a camera that's attached to a Window's phone, and one that's exclusive only to AT&T at that.

4 upvotes
austin design

Hooray for Windows phones, and any other ones that compete against the dull monopolies of Apple and Android.

3 upvotes
Stu 5

Reduce them to 6mp and the landscapes still look smeared.

4 upvotes
Larry Buck

Actually have you ever used a Windows 8 phone? I have and I really like the system. TMobile and Nokia phone -I know totally not cool.

0 upvotes
Dazzer8888

Great photographer, cheesy subject matter, horrible camera.....

1 upvote
austin design

Conventional to the point it may seem overdone? Sure, but that doesn't = "cheesy". Cheesy means bad, whereas this stuff is so good that it's obvious/boring to you. Hey, this scenery is amazing, and it's not its fault it's highly photographed. I can't tell if it's your analysis that's off or just your vocabulary. Either way, the comments in this section seem like an exercise of one-upsmanship in perfunctory negativity.

1 upvote
Stu 5

Well I don't agree with cheesy but for a mobile phone they don't look great. The DR is good but detail is poor due to smearing.

0 upvotes
austin design

By "cheesy", Dazzer8888 was referring to the subject matter, not the phone, and my comments followed accordingly.

1 upvote
Jim Radcliffe

I'm not a huge fan of using camera phones for photography but I think most of the negatives here are really missing the point.. Consider what was used to take these photos.. don't try to compare to a DSLR or high-end point and shoot.. just remember what was used.. and then it's pretty damn good.

I took one of these photos and ran a little noise suppression on it and it cleaned up very well.

Just remember.. it was taken with a camera phone and don't take it as a threat to your beloved _____________ (fill in the blank)!

Pretty amazing technology... and that is not to discount the skill of the photographer.. it just shows what can be done with a minimum of equipment.

15 upvotes
lylejk

Agree with you Jim; the technology is only going to get better too. :)

1 upvote
hajime93

finally someone who makes sense!

1 upvote
Stu 5

Considering what they are taken with they are not good. There is far to much smearing which is very noticeable even at small sizes. Smearing which you don't see on a Samsung s4 or iPhone 5 or 4s. Yes the DR is good but far to much detail is being lost to NR and not a great lens for a mobile phone.

6 upvotes
Juhaz

Why shouldn't one compare them to high-end point and shoot? That's exactly what Nokia is trying to compete with with this device.

3 upvotes
Tan68

Pretty reasonable comments.

Thing is many of the proponents insist on comparing them to high end P/S and etc. Personally, I agree with your point of view.

0 upvotes
nikonsniper

Impressive? I can get nighttime shots on my dslr with high iso with about the same amount of noise as these shots in the middle of the day with Probably low iso. Just shows why smart photogs use real cameras!

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
4 upvotes
Dirtyharry71

that's not the point here,
it's about what you can do with your smartphone
if you don't have your DSLR on you !

2 upvotes
Ferling

This issue always comes up, the one of being that you're only as good as the tools you use. When you also consider that skills matter, and where do they fit? It's really not a blurry line.

How many of you have shot a great image on a DSLR, only to hear others comment along the lines of "Well, yeah. That's a big camera, of course."? But shoot something great with a pocket cam or phone and it's "Man. He's got the skills."

Let me tell you something, it was always about the skills. You see, I could do a lot of things with an iPhone, but I have to admit that there are much better tools that accomplish those same goals, and then some.

So, while vendors would like you read these kinds of articles and think about the phone, the real hero is Stephen and his skillful application. Bravo to you, Sir.

-Keep Shooting

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
4 upvotes
CyberAngel

I like the natgeo4 (which dpreview left out) the most!

0 upvotes
GPW

They look very grainy, not impressed

3 upvotes
whtchocla7e

Nice photos. The question is why?
Just because he can? Is that a noble motivation?

2 upvotes
Rad Encarnacion

"Because it's there." - Sir George Mallory, mountaineering pioneer, when asked why he wanted to climb Mount Everest in 1923

Imagine how much of human advancement would not exist today if people always needed a noble goal before they tried something.

2 upvotes
nathantw

The pictures look really good. It reminds me of the quality on my Canon Powershot SD950 which I'm very happy with.

As for the subject matter, why must people stand or sit near the edge of cliffs?

0 upvotes
Tan68

It may not be as dangerous as it seems.

Often, people are not as close to the edge as it appears. Things can look quite treacherous from one angle yet be quite benign from the model's location.

1 upvote
Suave

So, how long before they fire their photographers?

1 upvote
Daniel Lee Taylor

Remarkable for a camera phone. But there's not 34-38 MP of real information there. Maybe 12 MP worth?

I would rather have a realistic MP count with better DR / noise.

6 upvotes
Total comments: 145
12
About us
Sitemap
Connect