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

Sample gallery: Nokia Lumia 1020

74
Nokia's Lumia 1020 can shoot in a maximum file output mode that produces a file size of 34MP to 38MP (depending on aspect ratio) ...
... along with a more readily shareable oversampled 5MP version of the same image.

After our hands-on look at the Nokia Lumia 1020 last week, we were excited to spend a few days really shooting with the device.

We've now had time to test out the Lumia 1020 in a wide array of lighting conditions and on an assortment of different subjects, and been able to more thoroughly explore the many settings available through the new Nokia Pro Cam capture app.

Our gallery offers a look at the Lumia 1020's abilities in low light, bright light and shade, and we used the manual controls in the Nokia Pro Cam app to adjust shutter speed, flash settings, white balance, focus, ISO and exposure compensation (from -3.0 to +3.0).

We used both of the Lumia 1020's capture modes: the mode which produces both a maximum file size of 34MP to 38MP (depending on aspect ratio) along with a 5MP version of the same image, and the mode that only outputs the file at 5MP. The aim of the technology here is to produce that high-quality but more practical and more shareable smaller file image by oversampling the image captured by the device's 41MP imaging sensor. Duplicated images in the gallery are those shot in the maximum file size plus 5MB size mode, we've included both images so you can examine the difference. You'll also see some single images that were only captured in the 5MP mode.

We primarily used the phone with the the handy Nokia Camera Grip, available for $79, which we found quite enjoyable. The additional battery life the accessory provides is a nice bonus, and so is the tripod socket on the bottom.

Our in-depth full review is in the works, but until we can share those results, here's a look at what the Lumia 1020 can do.

Nokia Lumia 1020 Sample Gallery
1 / 73
Image 1
Image 1
Image 2
Image 3
Image 4
Image 5
Image 6

Comments

Total comments: 74
JEROME NOLAS
By JEROME NOLAS (8 months ago)

5 Mpx shots are superb for a phone. Now I know why compact sales are almost dead...Simply impressive!!!

0 upvotes
20vanda12
By 20vanda12 (8 months ago)

Talking about the camera alone, I'm not giving up from my Nokia N8.

0 upvotes
Mschcsc
By Mschcsc (8 months ago)

Quite impressive for a camera of that size.
And remarkably clever Technology, I must say. I hope to see this technology in the near future in "real" Cameras as well...
There is certainly a weakness toward the borders/edges of the image - considering the relatively large Sensor and the relatively small lens, its not really surprising to me - and less worse than i've expected.
I guess, "oversampling" is basically really just "downsizing" in a "photoshopish"-manner. It does not (and is not meant to) provide any benefit in image quality over "proper" sampling with less but bigger pixels. It's just a way to counteract the increase of (per-pixel) noise and the stronger influence of optical flaws - especially towards the corner of the image - when the pixel density gets higher. You only get back what you just lost because of the high pixel-density.

0 upvotes
vv50
By vv50 (8 months ago)

oversampling is not the same as pixel binning

0 upvotes
Mschcsc
By Mschcsc (8 months ago)

Actually, I wasn't talking about binning at all.

Comment edited 30 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
vv50
By vv50 (8 months ago)

what do you mean by downsizing then?

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (8 months ago)

not very different though analog binning may give us lower image quality. oversampling or downsizing is a good way to go at the moment.

also digital zoom isn't a cheap alternative of optical zoom. it has sound base in physics that we don't have much to gain (if any) from an optical zoom at a certain aperture (lens size). it's not optical zoom but larger aperture that we really want.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 8 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
vv50
By vv50 (8 months ago)

again, oversampling is not downsizing.

0 upvotes
Mschcsc
By Mschcsc (8 months ago)

@vv50
"again, oversampling is not downsizing"

I agree, but still, that's not what I said. Well, In a way I did, but if you take note of how I used quotes, it should be quite clear that didn't want to express or postulate the equality of these two distinct technical terms.

Let me say it that way:
Even if Nokia claims to "make use" of oversampling (and even if that's even true), I guess it's nevertheless basically just about "downsizing" a relatively large image what happens (and what counts).
(Note again the quotes around "downsizing" - that's because it may not be technically exact - could also stand for e.g, binning or downsampling instead).

0 upvotes
YiannisPP
By YiannisPP (7 months ago)

That's right. In real terms, this "oversampling" gives very similar results to "downsizing and oversharpening"! Actually if you try comparing a 38MP original, downsized to 5MP and slightly (not overly) sharpened, to the 5MP outpout of the phone, you'll find the former being better than the latter.

0 upvotes
brdeveloper
By brdeveloper (8 months ago)

You can't make the pictures look good just putting good-looking models inside the frame.

2 upvotes
Rage Joe
By Rage Joe (8 months ago)

Negativity, that's all we need.

I just can't understand how anyone in their right mind, photographer or not, professional or not, would have something to complain about a phone that is capable of this:

http://connect.dpreview.com/files/p/cms_posts/8135699821/WP_20130726_20_40_48_Pro.jpg

( except Petrogel, who just doing his job)

3 upvotes
Rage Joe
By Rage Joe (8 months ago)

Come on, I want you to come out and tell how bad these optics are:

Check out the lamps (@100% @ 7712 x 4352 px ), that lens is just rubbish, isn't it!

http://3.static.img-dpreview.com/files/p/E~sample_galleries%2F1612474854%2F5234811797.jpg

http://1.static.img-dpreview.com/files/p/E~sample_galleries%2F1612474854%2F7957523692.jpg

yours truly
:rj

0 upvotes
Petrogel
By Petrogel (8 months ago)

Well !! listen this idea, you can crop the image by 20% so it will look sharper at the edges, even sharper than Samsung or iPhone.
It's not a bad idea, tell that to your boss.

0 upvotes
Petrogel
By Petrogel (8 months ago)

Dear, ;-)

0 upvotes
vv50
By vv50 (8 months ago)

don't quit your day job

0 upvotes
Petrogel
By Petrogel (8 months ago)

Why should i ? Did you quit yours ?

0 upvotes
vv50
By vv50 (8 months ago)

just friendly advice, you may not be where you are now

0 upvotes
Petrogel
By Petrogel (8 months ago)

Friendly advises are always welcome from friends something you are not (as i frankly do not care about your life and neither you do about mine ), but is impossible for you (even as a friend) to know where i am right now or where i might "would" have been.

Now listen what !! .. Why don't you and your likeminded colleagues, REINVENT crop in an app, rename it like -you'll find something to name it- and foist it as an extraordinary application that can sharpen the edges, apologize from the customers that the lens is not 28mm (equivalent ) but let's say 40mm and not 41mp but 24 and there was a misprint on the back of the phone and MAYBE you'll cover up that the lens was ......let's say a "poor choice".

Take that as a "Friendly advise" speaking of friendshipness

0 upvotes
Petrogel
By Petrogel (8 months ago)

Now if you want us to become friends we can start exchanging messages and who knows maybe you can help me with my english (as you mentioned something about it),

Comment edited 10 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
vv50
By vv50 (8 months ago)

you're welcome to stay with your "3 years old and 150€ phone (with its 3.15mp camera attached)" which i'm sure you make your sweet mother genuinely happy when you send her pictures with it.

0 upvotes
Petrogel
By Petrogel (8 months ago)

Thank you for letting stay with my "3 years old and 150€ phone (with its 3.15mp camera attached)" which is only for calling, for photos i use a nikon s9300 "among others"(D7000 and a D5100).
But !! i'm sure neither your "sweet mother " would have a problem, sending her photos from your 41mp cell phone (i'm sure she would be happy that her darling son is happy with his new gadget) .......... as long as you keep off the edges !!!! you get blurry at the edges,...... did you know that?

Comment edited 8 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
vv50
By vv50 (8 months ago)

you're just going to parrot everything i say? you really should see your therapist

0 upvotes
Petrogel
By Petrogel (8 months ago)

"The parrot complains of parroting"
As i don't have a therapist, why don't you pass me the phone number of yours .

0 upvotes
vv50
By vv50 (8 months ago)

that explains it

0 upvotes
Petrogel
By Petrogel (8 months ago)

I don't know if it does explains it, but either way (giving me or not your therapists phone number) you are quite literally my inspiration.
Thank you for keep commenting, you really rock !!!!

0 upvotes
Petrogel
By Petrogel (8 months ago)

vv ?

0 upvotes
vetsmelter
By vetsmelter (8 months ago)

"Our first sample gallery using the 41-megapixel smartphone. "

Make that "a" 41-megapixel smartphone. What where you guys doing when the rest of the world was enjoying THE 41-megapixel smartphone since half 2012?

Worshipping iPhone 8mpix generic camera's + instagram techniques :D

0 upvotes
AstroStan
By AstroStan (8 months ago)

A DPR writer apparently does not understand the basics of sampling and has repeatedly mistakenly used the term "oversampled" when in fact the intended meaning is undersampled (or downsized).

Sampling is the act of breaking up a signal into discreet portions (in this case via pixels). If the inherent resolution of the signal is adequately sampled then virtually no resolution information is lost. If the sampling rate (pixel size) is even finer than that (more pixels) then it is oversampled. An oversampled image is LARGER (has more pixels) than a properly sampled image.

If the signal (virtual image) is inadequately sampled then resolution information is lost by the overly large (and less numerous) samples (pixels). So an *undersampled* image is SMALLER than a properly sampled image.

So in this case a 5PM down-sized image from a 32MP well-sampled image is *undersampled*.

0 upvotes
vv50
By vv50 (8 months ago)

you're wrong and you know it

0 upvotes
Wanchese
By Wanchese (9 months ago)

Is it just me? I prefer the 5mp versions!

0 upvotes
Menneisyys
By Menneisyys (9 months ago)

They use a pretty bad downsampling algorithm resulting in false detail and not-very-good demosaicing algorithm. Probably because of the hardware limitations - in this regard, the 1020 is certainly worse than the 808.

The solution is, fortunately, simple: shoot full-res and downsample on the desktop.

0 upvotes
mark power
By mark power (9 months ago)

I have to side with minority who are wondering what is the point? An in-phone camera is convenient for everyday tasks like remembering where you parked but it hardly needs to be high resolution. For any serious photography why would you want to use a slab even one with high resolution which will have serious limitations inherent in the telephone design not the least of which is that someone will call in the middle of a shot? Good cameras ( like my RX100MK2) are so small now I have no trouble carrying one along with a cellphone - who really needs an all-in-one?

2 upvotes
Menneisyys
By Menneisyys (9 months ago)

"who really needs an all-in-one?"

The same was asked when smartphones started to appear in the world of non-connected PDA's (Pocket PC's and Palm OS devices) and feature phones. The rest is history - where's Pocket PC / Palm OS now? Both dead, showing people do want and prefer convergence, even when the converged device is worse than you can have without convergence. (At first, around 2005, converged smartphones were clearly worse than the then-best PDA + featurephone combo.)

Not all of the people and definitely not photog's / enthusiasts who will always prefer the best IQ (incl. you) to convenience - just MOST of them. This is what convergence is all about. Now that I have an iPhone 5, I deem it "good enough" not to carry with my enthusiast camera (RX100) always around. Of course, I am not a pro photog, that is, one actually making money with photos, "just" someone who loves making shots. This is why I prefer convenience to IQ - as, again, most people.

Comment edited 10 minutes after posting
3 upvotes
vv50
By vv50 (9 months ago)

"who really needs an all-in-one?" - let's put this question in another way. would it be nice if your camera can take videos as well as pictures? good full-hd camcorders are so small now you have no trouble carrying one along with your camera.

0 upvotes
fotografer
By fotografer (9 months ago)

Amazing photos from a camera phone!

6 upvotes
Tjalpics
By Tjalpics (9 months ago)

Nokia Lumia 1020 camera's 3.5-seconds lag of death:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5-zEI5mSSA

Nokia Lumia 1020 vs Lumia 925 Camera Speed:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tnxGS_wayuM

Comment edited 54 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Menneisyys
By Menneisyys (9 months ago)

The two biggest problems (definitely NOT lethal problems as both can relatively easily be fixed) are border softness and the weakness of the downsampling algorithm.

1, Fortunately, it's "only" the left/rightmost 10% of the frame that has serious softness / CA problems. The 10% applies to 16:9 shots; with 4:3 ones, as the phone uses a true multi-aspect sensor (as does some Pana cameras like the GH1), this area is 1.333 times smaller.

If you compose your shot by keeping this in mind and just crop away this area (the outermost 10 / 6.66% on both edges), the resulting image will be tack sharp and absolutely devoid of CA.

Actually, the resulting image is MUCH sharper than that of the 808 - in full-res mode.

2, The full res -> 5Mp downsampling algorithm seems to be pretty weak, producing e.g. false detail. Therefore, I'd stick with full-res shooting and desktop PP.

3 upvotes
Menneisyys
By Menneisyys (9 months ago)

Otherwise, this phone produces REALLY nice images for the sensor / photodiode size. I'll definitely purchase one.

2 upvotes
Stu 5
By Stu 5 (9 months ago)

It's a lot more than 10%. Crop away 10% and the sides will still not be tack sharp.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
Menneisyys
By Menneisyys (9 months ago)

"It's a lot more than 10%. Crop away 10% and the sides will still not be tack sharp."

Could you show me any shot in the above article that has a blurry region much wider than 10% on both sides? That is, with 16:9 full-res shots, much wirder than 770 pixels from the left/right border?

Preferably full-res ones - again, I don't find the downsampling algorithm as good as that of the 808 as it introduces false detail, at least under good lightning. In addition, it has a pretty bad demosaicing algorithm.

I've checked out some of the shots above and they all behaved like the A&T test shots I've elaborated some 13 days ago at MyNokiaBlog: http://mynokiablog.com/2013/07/18/mnb-rg-nokia-1020-still-image-quality-any-good/ . That is, unlike Nokia's pre-production shots, the blurry area is "only" the outermost 2*10% / 2*6.66% (16:9 / 4:3 aspect ratio, respectively) of the image.

2 upvotes
xlynx9
By xlynx9 (9 months ago)

Anyone know what city these are taken in?

1 upvote
BaristaW
By BaristaW (9 months ago)

So sunny! Must be seattle ;)

3 upvotes
babola
By babola (9 months ago)

You're funny guy...

1 upvote
kriztian
By kriztian (9 months ago)

Seems like the best camera out there. I hope that you will do some zooming in and show how good "macro" performance you can get from this camera. Also the fact that 3xzoom with 2.2 aperature Nikon lens will cost 1000+ dollars. And last but not least Nokia 1020 is a fantastic audio and video recording device. ( I seen a lot of writers try to thrash Nokia 1020 and I can´t help wonder if they are angry because Nokia isn´t throwing money at them ) Cheers :)

5 upvotes
Juck
By Juck (9 months ago)

lol,, it's still a toy.

1 upvote
kriztian
By kriztian (9 months ago)

All smartphone cameras is a toy but Lumia is the best one. :)

4 upvotes
krassphoto
By krassphoto (9 months ago)

Maybe I don't get something, but who needs 41 MP on a phone camera, squeezed in a tiny sensor?

0 upvotes
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (9 months ago)

It's a larger sensor than most other phones (actually a bit bigger than the ones in most enthusiast compacts).

Those extra pixels either allow you to oversample the scene (resulting in a higher quality 5MP image than a native 5MP camera would produce), or letting you 'zoom' in to a useful degree without having to upscale.

9 upvotes
eglasper
By eglasper (8 months ago)

Are you kidding? A camera like this available ALL THE TIME (or almost) is going to capture billions of memories and moments simply by being available. I love my DSLR but it's only useful if it's with me when a photo opportunity presents itself. My phone on the other hand is always with me. The best camera in the world is useless if it's sitting at home in a camera bag.

0 upvotes
Lan
By Lan (9 months ago)

Thank you for sorting out the problem Barney!

An interesting and useful selection of samples; particularly the 5MP/full-res pairs, I look forward to reading the full review.

As a matter of interest, why were the smaller images of the pair taken at 5MP? I'd have thought that the 8MP mode would have made more sense, it being a 50% reduction?

Comment edited 22 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Pixel Peter
By Pixel Peter (9 months ago)

It's obvious Nokia had to compromise between good IQ and size of the camera. Yhe question is wether the artifacts we see on the screen are visible on large prints. Perhaps the print quality will be
ok. I think from a marketing point of view and an engineering point of view Nokia took the right decisions.

1 upvote
Markol
By Markol (9 months ago)

These show- again- a hell of a lot NR artifacts.
As a happy 808 shooter I'm glad to see that the 808 is still king of the hill, but I'd have loved to see at least the same IQ as I was hoping to leave Symbian for good.
The way I see it Nokia has opted to go with the smaller sensor to keep the phone thin and please the crowd. The thing is, people who don't care that much about the highest IQ will buy a 920, iPhone or Android device and still get quite good photos, people who care and who got a 808 will be put off by the compromises.
OIS is cool, I'm sure, but if I can't look at a ISO100 shot taken in good light... the downsampling does help of course, but still. And the whole zoom in marketing relies on the full res, so no downsampling there. Just look at the sky!
I think the 1020 won't sell very good. Also the colors have been boosted and sharpness too. May this be the reason Mr. Dinning left Nokia? His decisions on the 808 were spot on for enthusiasts. This is neither fish nor fowl.

6 upvotes
brdeveloper
By brdeveloper (9 months ago)

Yep. I don't want another average-good phone camera. Otherwise I'll be better buying a S4 or an iPhone 5. Lumia 1020's IQ is ok comparing to average compact cameras, but it doesn't look as an impressive step over S4, for example.

I'm still waiting for an 808 replacement which can perform like a premium compact camera (e.g. Pana LX3) in a smaller package.

1 upvote
Stu 5
By Stu 5 (9 months ago)

Out of interest do you think your 808 has a better lens? Just looking at these some have the same issue as the other day. Even before you download the full res versions you can see the problems. The bike is very soft right and left hand side. Daytime cityscape is dreadful on the building on the left hand side. It starts to go soft early on and then gets worse the further to the left you look. Again very noticeable without even looking at the full res file.

Comment edited 49 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
This The Cam
By This The Cam (9 months ago)

I suspect the same too. It's been clear to me after viewing numerous sample images on this and some other sites that the 1020's lens has poor edge-to-edge sharpness. The drop-off is also steep once you go off-center. I think it's a price to pay for positioning the lens so close to a relatively large sensor, keeping the aperture too large or the sensor itself having low tolerance for incident light coming in at too steep an angle, or all of them. The 808's optics and sensor system is much more forgiving, if not better.

1 upvote
Menneisyys
By Menneisyys (9 months ago)

"The bike is very soft right and left hand side. Daytime cityscape is dreadful on the building on the left hand side. It starts to go soft early on and then gets worse the further to the left you look. Again very noticeable without even looking at the full res file."

Well, actually, it's "only" the left/rightmost 10% of the frame that has serious softness / CA problems. The 10% applies to 16:9 shots; with 4:3 ones, as the phone uses a true multi-aspect sensor (as does some Pana cameras like the GH1), this area is 1.333 times smaller.

If you compose your shot by keeping this in mind and just crop away this area (the outermost 10 / 6.66% on both edges), the resulting image will be tack sharp and absolutely devoid of CA.

Actually, the resulting image is MUCH sharper than that of the 808 - in full-res mode.

BTW, the full res -> 5Mp downsampling algorithm seems to be pretty weak, producing e.g. false detail. Therefore, I'd stick with full-res shooting and desktop PP.

2 upvotes
Stu 5
By Stu 5 (9 months ago)

No it is not. It is more than 10%. Crop only 10% and your photos will still be soft on the edges and it will be noticeable as it is now without even going anywhere near 100% view.

0 upvotes
Menneisyys
By Menneisyys (9 months ago)

"No it is not. It is more than 10%. Crop only 10% and your photos will still be soft on the edges and it will be noticeable as it is now without even going anywhere near 100% view."

Could you show me any shot in the above article that has a blurry region much wider than 10% on both sides? That is, with 16:9 full-res shots, much wirder than 770 pixels from the left/right border?

Preferably full-res ones - again, I don't find the downsampling algorithm as good as that of the 808 as it introduces false detail, at least under good lightning. In addition, it has a pretty bad demosaicing algorithm.

I've checked out some of the shots above and they all behaved like the A&T test shots I've elaborated some 13 days ago at MyNokiaBlog: http://mynokiablog.com/2013/07/18/mnb-rg-nokia-1020-still-image-quality-any-good/ . That is, unlike Nokia's pre-production shots, the blurry area is "only" the outermost 2*10% / 2*6.66% (16:9 / 4:3 aspect ratio, respectively) of the image.

Comment edited 17 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Barney Britton
By Barney Britton (9 months ago)

It's fixed now, sorry about that. It was mistakenly left 'hidden' but visible to site admins (hence Erin's earlier comments).

0 upvotes
Lan
By Lan (9 months ago)

I'm another person not seeing a gallery here. Interestingly it's not showing on your gallery page either:
http://connect.dpreview.com/sample-galleries

Firefox 22, Win7HP/64.

Not visible with Javascript on or off. Not visible with CSS on or off. Not visible with images on or off. Nor Java, Flash or Silverlight.

Tried with IE10, nothing there; and Opera 12.16 similarly shows nothing.

I'm UK based if that makes a difference...

Either the samples gallery hasn't replicated into the real world, or someone hasn't clicked "publish" ;)

1 upvote
Sonyshine
By Sonyshine (9 months ago)

What gallery?

1 upvote
chromnd
By chromnd (9 months ago)

The sample gallery of the Lumia 1020 as indicated in the title.

0 upvotes
brdeveloper
By brdeveloper (9 months ago)

Not seeing any gallery. Chrome 28, OSX 10.6.8.

2 upvotes
MinceyFresh
By MinceyFresh (9 months ago)

I'm not seeing the gallery, either. I'm using Chrome on a Mac.

Comment edited 16 seconds after posting
1 upvote
chromnd
By chromnd (9 months ago)

Is it just me or did you forget to put the link to the gallery in the article?

1 upvote
Erin Lodi
By Erin Lodi (9 months ago)

We can see it, we'll do some checking to see why you might be having problems.

0 upvotes
Erin Lodi
By Erin Lodi (9 months ago)

what browser are you using?

0 upvotes
Crazythinker SeventyFour
By Crazythinker SeventyFour (9 months ago)

Where's the link?

0 upvotes
chromnd
By chromnd (9 months ago)

I use Firefox 22 and also tried IE10 with the same result.
Should I see the gallery after "here's a look at what the Lumia 1020 can do."?
That's how it looks for me: http://i.imgur.com/c9zGT0g.png

Comment edited 9 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
fstops
By fstops (9 months ago)

I am pretty sure my Nokia N95 can do all that too.

0 upvotes
Almeida
By Almeida (9 months ago)

You mean the Nokia N95 takes photos too!?

Comment edited 7 seconds after posting
1 upvote
Menneisyys
By Menneisyys (9 months ago)

"You mean the Nokia N95 takes photos too!?"

The N95 had far better a camera than any other smartphone (incl. the "revolutionary" iPhone 2G) at the time. It still takes passable images even by today's standards (if you can live with the shutter lag).

Of course, fstops' remark could be interpreted as "the N95 is equally good as the 1020", which is, of course, not true in any respect.

0 upvotes
quiquae
By quiquae (8 months ago)

The first iPhone was revolutionary about a lot of things, but the 2MP fixed-focus camera (blech) was not one of them. Heck, I knew nothing about photography at the time, and even I could tell instantly that it sucked.

The only reason that camera got any sort of positive attention was because a large number of photo processing apps could be used around it, which was completely unheard of at the time.

0 upvotes
Total comments: 74
About us
Sitemap
Connect