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

A closer look at Pureview: Nokia's 808 and 1020 compared in our studio test scene

118

When Dpreview's Studio Manager Kelcey Smith finished reworking our new and improved studio test scene last month we were especially excited about what it meant for our reviews here on Connect.

The new and larger test scene is especially valuable for looking at the fixed wide-angle lens cameras of smartphones, which could not be as accurately examined using our former smaller test scene. Our newly established protocol for shooting the scene as well as processing the results offers us more accurate real world information about all cameras we test. We're pleased to be able share our results about new and upcoming devices, and, when applicable, to also re-examine some older mobile devices in our new test scene.

With Nokia's "Pureview" technology continuing to make headlines as it's announced for new devices like the Lumia 1520, we thought it might be worth another look at the device that debuted Pureview. We recently put the 2012-launched Nokia 808 through our new studio test scene and into our comparison tool. Now you can examine the first iteration of Pureview with the most recent model in production, this year's Lumia 1020

Each were tested in 38MP full-resolution mode for this scene.

Comments

Total comments: 118
CyberAngel
By CyberAngel (8 months ago)

I wish to see Lumia 1520 images compared

0 upvotes
stylinred
By stylinred (9 months ago)

wow look at all the detail the 808 picks up in the pencil drawing and the sponge and the plants etc etc

Gotta give thanks to DPReview for bringing out the 808 again, thanks!

4 upvotes
vlad0
By vlad0 (9 months ago)

Hm, I didn't notice how big the difference is in that pencil drawing.. I wonder why that is ? Is it just considered "fine detail" and the 808 does a better job with that or..

1 upvote
stylinred
By stylinred (9 months ago)

no clue im assuming the larger sensor has something to do with it? beyond me :D but 808 <3

1 upvote
ronniemac
By ronniemac (9 months ago)

Not wanting to stray too off topic, but needed a new phone, interested in Windows OS, looking for an alternative to point and shoot, needed to be shirt pocketable, got the 1020, then the battery grip (a must have for photographing), and am now a happy 59 year old boy. Excellent image quality for a phone or a point and shoot - superb controls. Still use the K-5 for when I have serious photographic intent, but for convenience and street photography, the 1020 is just the trick. I am not a lab pixel peeper, but let me repeat, for what it is (a mobile/cell phone with integral camera), the image quality is fantastic.

5 upvotes
vlad0
By vlad0 (9 months ago)

Its far better than anything else besides the 808 :) But, yes.. welcome to the club! Its really nice to have a decent camera in your pocket at all times...

3 upvotes
vlad0
By vlad0 (9 months ago)

We need the same comp done in "pureview" mode ..

Since the 1020 doesn't offer 8Mpix, you will have to settle for 5 .. but still, it will be very nice to see how they process images with oversampling.

I have a feeling that the 808 will pull even further ahead..

1 upvote
bigley Ling
By bigley Ling (9 months ago)

I think any more comparison is best left until Nokia Black is released for the 1020 to see if that can help pull the 1020 detail levels up and possibly beyond the 808s JPG limitation.

Sadly though, the update will only be released next year. Meanwhile all the 1020 users will be stuck capturing memories knowing their images could have been that much better if they could only stop time and tell all though great memories to wait till 2014!

1 upvote
vlad0
By vlad0 (9 months ago)

I am looking forward to the Nokia Black update as well... but a comp with the current software will be nice, just out of curiosity.

1 upvote
vlad0
By vlad0 (9 months ago)

We need the same comp done in "pureview" mode ..

Since the 1020 doesn't offer 8Mpix, you will have to settle for 5 .. but still, it will be very nice to see how they process images with oversampling.

I have a feeling that the 808 will pull even further ahead..

0 upvotes
Jim Evidon
By Jim Evidon (9 months ago)

I've seen better images from an old Box Brownie. Cell phones are best kept to making phone calls and playing with apps.
If you want to take photos and send them wireless, buy a cheapo camera with WiFi and knock yourself out.

1 upvote
bigley Ling
By bigley Ling (9 months ago)

good laugh that.

2 upvotes
vlad0
By vlad0 (9 months ago)

I don't think you've had the opportunity to use an N8 or an 808... those smartphones can produce some pretty good jpegs

2 upvotes
Zlik
By Zlik (9 months ago)

troll detected.

4 upvotes
Eric Hensel
By Eric Hensel (9 months ago)

I started with a Brownie Hawkeye...they were crap compared to this.

1 upvote
CyberAngel
By CyberAngel (9 months ago)

Does anyone remember that Nokia had to update the image processing for the 808, too!?

1 upvote
bigley Ling
By bigley Ling (9 months ago)

are you sure there was much difference between fp1 and fp2? From what I can tell camera wise, the gallry app was improved to show EXIF data, more reset button s for creative mode and live histogram for exposure compensation.

The lens output did not change, the corner sharpness did not change, nor the noise reduction. I suspect these may be hard programmed into the hardware image processor of the 808. Whatever it is, it cannot be improved further.

0 upvotes
vlad0
By vlad0 (9 months ago)

FP2 brought some functionality changes.. I don't recall any IQ improvements. The 808 was maxed out from the get go.

1 upvote
dm29
By dm29 (9 months ago)

Under Symbian was not needed as Nokia had the code very optimized for use with the very specific chipsets which worked with. In the N8 the GPU itself was programed at very low-level to handle the imaging. In the 808 there was an aditional chip on the camera module itself. I think Nokia has not been able to master this degree of control under Windows and its ISP. Just see the diference between the N9 (Meego) and the Lumia 800 (the same sensor/lenses, but diferent chipset) or the absence of that second ISP in the 1020. Not a single Lumia is trouble free reproducing color or (thus) resolving detail. At least until Lumia Black. That may represent the very first time Nokia is able to process the images under WP the way she had liked in first place.

1 upvote
keeponkeepingon
By keeponkeepingon (9 months ago)

While I like the 808 camera everything else about it is horrible.

Just doing a basic task can take me 5 times longer than on my iphone.

For example: Take a picture, resize it for email, enter contacts/enter a subject text then send.

OMG it is so slow on the 808. You can't specifiy a size in the email program so you have to enter the editor, resize, then save as a seperate file which takes 4evah. Then you go to send it but they give you 3 choices and the screen is so bad (or my fingers so big) 1/5th of the time it goes to SMS messaging, exit that, try again get into email, now your subject is like a 10 didget number, so you try to select and delete that, but the selection is wonky you finally give up and back space 10 or 20 times to delete the filename based nonsense subject enterr you contacts/text and "finally" hit send.

Sigh. End result is I rarely actually send pictures from the phone, which is sort of the whole point of having a camera in the dang phone.....

3 upvotes
Virvatulet
By Virvatulet (9 months ago)

While I can not reject your experience; what I do is, step by step:

1. Activate camera function by pressing the shutter button, long press will also take the first shot immediately
2. Camera is ready to take a new picture, therefore tap gallery icon (a thumbnail of the image just taken)
3. Tap menu symbol and select Edit
4. Tap Sizing tools and select Resize (I usually also Crop and Autolevel before resizing)
5. Move finger across the screen “Flick” to dynamically resize, when ready tap OK symbol
6. Tap Save symbol (or Back arrow, not to be confused with undo/redo symbols, and from the requester select OK for saving the changed image)
7. Tap menu symbol and select Send
8. From the requester select Email
9. The Email Subject will be the name of the attached file by default; you can swipe over the subject field to select the text and directly replace it as you wish.
10. Write body text
11. From the To field tap contacts symbol, select the contact(s) of interest
12. Tap Send email symbol

3 upvotes
Virvatulet
By Virvatulet (9 months ago)

There really is not much that could be done to reduce the steps without stripping functionality and choice, or creating a very crowded GUI.

What comes to my mind is that in the step 3 the Edit function could be made directly available without need going into the menu and that steps 7 and 8 could be merged to allow directly choose from Send SMS, Send Email and Send Bluetooth.

I for a one always prefer more options and control over the whole process despite of possibly complicating things; but obviously there are other needs and views too, as is evident from the success of iPhone and the like.

2 upvotes
Stevan G
By Stevan G (9 months ago)

well as you can see there is a workaround ;)

0 upvotes
Tonio Loewald
By Tonio Loewald (9 months ago)

You do realize that the iPhone allows you to resize at the point you attach the photo to the email and somehow doesn't have a crowded GUI.

1 upvote
rfsIII
By rfsIII (9 months ago)

Yes, Apple is better in that respect, but I've used Apple products since the 80s, so let me say that the problem with the iPhone is that you're tied into Apple's way which means endless hassles when you want to do something that's even a little bit out of their very narrow and rigid use case. Even little things like accessing files directly requires a separate app.
It's like marriage, a lot of compromise is required to keep Mama Apple happy.

4 upvotes
Menneisyys
By Menneisyys (9 months ago)

"Even little things like accessing files directly requires a separate app."

No such app exists. There is no way of accessing arbitrary files in any other third-party app on the device itself. (Not to be mistaken for iExplorer and the likes, all running on the desktop.)

This is one of the reasons jailbreaking is a must under iOS.

2 upvotes
vlad0
By vlad0 (9 months ago)

The 808 is fine with Feature Pack 2... perfectly usable as a modern smartphone.

2 upvotes
stylinred
By stylinred (9 months ago)

sounds like total bs to me...

1 upvote
CyberAngel
By CyberAngel (8 months ago)

The most time goes to the e-mail description anyway. I don't care what phone OS I use. They are all ok.
I love the details of these two. The cameras are so good that I don't mind of any OS flaws, Symbian or WP8. I'd take these cameras on an Android or Apple, Blackberry or Sailfish. Pick up a phone OS and I just want a bigger sensor! <3

0 upvotes
ManuelVilardeMacedo
By ManuelVilardeMacedo (9 months ago)

They both lack sharpness. I'm sorry for the people who think they'll make great shots with these expensive gadgets, but both of them are short on image quality. Yes, the 808 is better - at least if you can take your mind off the considerable levels of chromatic aberration -, but what's the point? For the price you'll be better off with an enthusiast compact camera like the Sony RX100.

2 upvotes
keeponkeepingon
By keeponkeepingon (9 months ago)

Yeah no one can make a great shot with these expensive gadgets. Just look at all these terrible pictures:

http://www.flickr.com/cameras/nokia/808_pureview/

Regarding price:

Unlocked 808 $390

RX100 $595 plus then I need a smart phone, so another ... $390ish for an unlocked phone. Twice the price and juggling two devices, go for it.....

Comment edited 11 minutes after posting
11 upvotes
ManuelVilardeMacedo
By ManuelVilardeMacedo (9 months ago)

Sorry, but all those images are overprocessed and, worst of all, most of them are meaningless and deeply uninteresting. As for the price, €779 for the Lumia 1020 isn't exactly cheap (the 808 is soon to be discontinued, hence the low-ish price). Re the two devices issue, the typical smartphone consumer has usually two or three of them and he can't be seen in public without a tablet. So what was your point again...?

1 upvote
Zlik
By Zlik (9 months ago)

"most of them are meaningless and deeply uninteresting" ? Are you suggesting that the camera is responsible for that ? Please, tell us which camera takes "meaningful and interesting" photos on its own, thanks !

8 upvotes
Zlik
By Zlik (9 months ago)

"they both lack sharpness"

Try to compare the 1020 and the 808 to all the other smartphones on this comparison tool, at "print" resolution (= all at the same size). The 1020 and the 808 are easily MUCH sharper than the competition, by a mile. And that's all that matters to me. 3mm more in thickness to get the best camera on a smartphone is absolutely worth it, to me. Your priorities might be different, though.

Comment edited 48 seconds after posting
7 upvotes
Zlik
By Zlik (9 months ago)

iphone 5s vs lumia 1020 at the same output size (print):
http://imgur.com/VjlQNaK

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 1 minute after posting
4 upvotes
mad marty
By mad marty (9 months ago)

@Manuel:
if you don't like the ooc, wait for 2014 when the 1020 gets raw support, then you can adjust everything to your likes.
It's the first popular phone I know that will have raw support. How great is that?

3 upvotes
CyberAngel
By CyberAngel (9 months ago)

RAW in a smartphone?

0 upvotes
Menneisyys
By Menneisyys (9 months ago)

"RAW in a smartphone?"

Well, the 1020 certainly deserves it. With RAW support, the built-in, pretty cr@ppy default settings (sharpening / NR / saturation boosting) can finally be circumvented and a decent image can be created. (It won't be of 808 quality, edge sharpness- and noise-wise, though.)

3 upvotes
Spunjji
By Spunjji (9 months ago)

Please, Manuel, tell me more about the "typical smartphone consumer". :D

1 upvote
Stevan G
By Stevan G (9 months ago)

I've heard those RX100 have bad reception quality.

2 upvotes
YiannisPP
By YiannisPP (9 months ago)

Does anyone care about reception quality nowadays?
Seems like all people care is that it "runs Android" lol

2 upvotes
rfsIII
By rfsIII (9 months ago)

Manny, don't forget the first rule of usability engineering: "Everything you know is wrong."

1 upvote
Menneisyys
By Menneisyys (9 months ago)

"Does anyone care about reception quality nowadays?
Seems like all people care is that it "runs Android" lol"

What's wrong with Android? Currently, it's the most powerful and flexible mobile OS.

0 upvotes
YiannisPP
By YiannisPP (9 months ago)

Nothing's wrong with it per se. It's wrong when it becomes a geeky religion and people just won't touch (or mock) anything else that's not on Android:)

1 upvote
bigley Ling
By bigley Ling (9 months ago)

Both the 808 and the 1020, was never officially designed to be used at full 38MP. The 808 was designed for pureview 8mp, with a 5mp option to get more zoom and closeup shots. The 1020 was designed for 5mp pureview only.

check out

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sony-cybershot-dsc-rx100/12

and select Nokia 808 pureview in the comparison. It is pretty clear the Nokia 808 resolved easily more detail than the RX100 at low ISO 100. This is especially so if you show the rear of the blur volkswagon beetle image. The 808 clearly is able to resolve the ink printing moasic interlacing, whereas it is all a blur on the RX100. Next look at the fabric or the martini label just below the cap. The 808 easily out resolving the RX100.

Does the 808 look not sharp enough to you there?

3 upvotes
YiannisPP
By YiannisPP (9 months ago)

It's true that the 808 might resolve a bit more detail over the RX100 (it does have 40MP after all in a 1/1.2' sensor), but that studio shot of the RX100 was not properly set up. You just have to look at the Queen of Hearts which is clearly out of focus and there is no telling what is in properly good focus on that shot.

0 upvotes
bigley Ling
By bigley Ling (9 months ago)

you can change the Sony RX100 to render a ACR RAW image, the Queen of hearts seems sharper there. But still focusing on the VW beetle, and textures, does not help the RX100 render more than the 808 JPG.

Not saying the RX100 is not good. The AF alone is enough to put the RX100 way past the 808 and 1020. Also the RX100 has amazing performance at high ISO. This is where the 808's smaller sensor pales in comparison. Just only in the right situations, will the 808 achieve higher performance over the RX100

1 upvote
YiannisPP
By YiannisPP (9 months ago)

Just because it looks a bit better with RAW it doesn't mean you can now proceed and compare. RAW has nothing to do with this, that test was just not shot properly I'm afraid. There is no reason that the Queen should look that blurry in jpeg, this had been discussed at length at the time, it was plain out of focus. Yes the beatle might be more in focus, but still no way to know.
Again, I ain't saying that the 808 doesn't resolve more . Logic says it should as it has a comparable size sensor and double the pixels. so it should really resolve more (assuming its lens was as good as the RX100's of course). I'm just saying I wouldn't use that RX100 test shot to prove it. There were people at the time looking at it and saying: "what, a 650$ camera and it's so blurry?! No way I'm buying this thing!" :)

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 14 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
bigley Ling
By bigley Ling (9 months ago)

@YiannisPP

How about looking at the RX100 RAW result though. It seems more in focus than the JPG one..

0 upvotes
YiannisPP
By YiannisPP (9 months ago)

I'm not sure what you mean. I did and the queen still looks terribly soft. The rest is better but still can't be sure that is as good as it could.

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
CyberAngel
By CyberAngel (8 months ago)

Trolling is what trolling does.

0 upvotes
3DSimmon
By 3DSimmon (9 months ago)

I'd like to see what the upcoming raw support will do for the 1020's images. Maybe that will give 1020 the upper hand.

2 upvotes
Stevan G
By Stevan G (9 months ago)

pretty much nothing, RAW can't fix bad optics

1 upvote
Menneisyys
By Menneisyys (9 months ago)

"pretty much nothing, RAW can't fix bad optics"

Exactly. Hope Nokia release a true photo enthusiast-centric camera phone without silly "form over functionality" restrictions - like the 808.

1 upvote
vlad0
By vlad0 (9 months ago)

I blame the carriers for the compromised 1020.. they pushed Nokia to make it thinner, so we got bad optics, smaller sensor, and a weaker xenon flash..

0 upvotes
bigley Ling
By bigley Ling (9 months ago)

agree vlad0, the flash on the 1020 is weaker, and it shows, even with the latest camera update for the 1020. It is a balance between tweaking the ISO and shutter speed to get maximum range for the flash. and we see the 1020 selecting higher ISO and not much faster shutter speeds with the new firmware indicating that the xenon flash on the 1020 is a little under powered.

The 1020 seems to be beta testing alot of new tech as it seems. I say beta as the performance of the BSI, has not been major advantage, nor the use of 6 element optics, nor the new flat capacitor.

0 upvotes
Zlik
By Zlik (9 months ago)

Guys, yes, the 808 is slightly better (in some situations), but it's also much thicker and it doesn't have OIS. I own the 808 and my father just got a 1020, and believe me, the thickness of the 1020 is much more "market friendly". And in low light and for videos, the OIS makes a big difference. High ISO on the 1020 is also better (sharpness is just a small part of image quality). Above 800 ISO, the 808 gets green shadows, whereas the 1020 keeps more "natural" colors throughout the brightness scale. And that's something visible already at small sizes.

Both cameras are lightyears ahead of the competion, relax. If you want something thinner, get an iphone or a samsung. If you want a great smartphone that replaces your P&S camera, get the 1020.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
4 upvotes
michael2011
By michael2011 (9 months ago)

An interesting comparison between Lumia 1020 and Nikon D800E:

http://evan-theelectricalengineer.blogspot.com/2013/10/nikon-d800e-vs-nokia-lumia-1020.html

No doubt D800E is a better camera but Lumia 1020 holds up surprisingly well. In some cases Lumia is actually better!

In handheld low light shots, it's probably safe to say the 1020 with its OIS can actually get you usable photos more consistently than DSLRs with slow zoom lenses. Something to think about.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
8 upvotes
EEvan
By EEvan (9 months ago)

Haha so cool to see this mentioned!

Yeah, the D800 is amazing, but when walking around the city and willing to live with a 28mm FOV, the 1020 surprised me how well it held up.

2 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (9 months ago)

> In some cases Lumia is actually better!
The Lumia 1020 is never better than the D800, unless you define "better" as smaller or being a phone. For actual photography, AF, IQ, high ISO, handling, VF, versatility -- forget it.

> 1020 with its OIS get you usable photos more consistently than DSLRs with slow zoom lenses.

Yes because it common for people to buy a camera like the D800 and mount slow zoom lenses without VR on it. /sarcasm/

2 upvotes
bigley Ling
By bigley Ling (9 months ago)

The lens for the Nikon was not ideal. Larger high res sensors reveals more defects in lens. The 1020 uses a fixed focal length lens. Why put it against the Nikon with a zoom lens and not stop the lens down to at least f8.0. Lastly, there are far better zoom lens out there from Nikon, for instance the 14-24mm. I bet that lens would outclass the 1020 with ease

0 upvotes
CyberAngel
By CyberAngel (8 months ago)

So there actually are bad lenses for the mighty Nikon D800E and definately one should have VR with zoom.
Lumia 1020 has proven that.
At least that's what these defensive replies reveal.
Quite a smartphone camera if you really need to be smart about your lens choices in order to properly beat that puny lens system.

0 upvotes
Jonne Ollakka
By Jonne Ollakka (9 months ago)

Why is there a line of saturation in the (1020) asian girl's face?

0 upvotes
Danny
By Danny (9 months ago)

The 808 looks better..

8 upvotes
CyberAngel
By CyberAngel (9 months ago)

Also the pictures it takes look better :-)

3 upvotes
vlad0
By vlad0 (9 months ago)

Of course .. there is only so much you could do to compensate for the inferior imaging hardware on the 1020.

0 upvotes
bigley Ling
By bigley Ling (9 months ago)

Inferior imaging is only the tip of the problem with the 1020. 3 months after the release of the 1020, Nokia release a much higher spec Lumia 1520! Not only is this new phone a far superior higher resolution screen, a quad core CPU, but also the newer processor inside the 1520 is designed to assist processing high resolution images, which would mean if this was installed into the lumia 1020, the shot to shot times may not have been an issue.

In essence the 1020 has become obsolete in less than 6 months of it's release. At least the Nokia 808 reigned as top camera phone for a year.

0 upvotes
CyberAngel
By CyberAngel (8 months ago)

The sensor is much smaller in the Lumia 1520, about half the size and the Flash is the dual-led type - no Xenon. What you want is a Lumia 1025:
Exactly the same phone, but FHD+SD800.
I like the 6" screen better...waiting for a 1820 and WP 8.1 plus GDR (summer 2014). Yes, I can see the Microsoft-Nokia engineering future: bright as Xenon flash!

Comment edited 48 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
kahren
By kahren (9 months ago)

why can't you select corresponding iso values?

1 upvote
Menneisyys
By Menneisyys (9 months ago)

DPReview didn't have the time to shoot all possible configurations? I too miss for example direct ISO 1600 comparison capabilities.

0 upvotes
vlad0
By vlad0 (9 months ago)

The 808 can afford to shoot at lower ISO and still capture as much light as the 1020.. that's what a bigger sensor can do.

From that point on, its pretty much no contest.

But yes, they should shoot them at the same ISO.. problem is, the 1020 doesn't go as low as 50 and the 808 doesn't go as high as the 1020.

0 upvotes
jcmarfilph
By jcmarfilph (9 months ago)

I am not sure how an iPhone with mediocre sensor would come close to these two cams, maybe in the next 2 or 3 years when Apple realized that 1/3 sensor is for fisher-price camera only.c

9 upvotes
Tom May
By Tom May (9 months ago)

Give it a rest.

The iPhone is thinner with no camera protrusion., hence a smaller lens module. That's a design decision that I agree with.

The fact that Apple gets such a high level of IQ out of such a small imager comes down to the level of engineering effort.

Apple also has a class leading processor to give it an edge in shot to shot performance, panoramas and video, again a design decision.

Not everyone wants a large smartphone that won't sit flat on a table.

4 upvotes
CyberAngel
By CyberAngel (9 months ago)

a moped is incredible when you put a lot of effort to the get the most out of it, but it never becomes a true motorcycle.
The same way the Apple is very conservative ancient old-fashioned peace of

0 upvotes
Digital Suicide
By Digital Suicide (9 months ago)

808 and 1020 are meant to shoot in 5MP, not at ridiculous 38MP. What's the point comparing them at this resolution?

3 upvotes
stany buyle
By stany buyle (9 months ago)

Nothing ridiculous about 38Mp...
Just use it or don't.

9 upvotes
bigley Ling
By bigley Ling (9 months ago)

Maybe initially not but the 808 has proven time and time again it can resolve impressive detail at 38mp, across the entire frame.

5 upvotes
KariIceland
By KariIceland (9 months ago)

Actually at 50 and 100 iso it is very very usable at 38mp

5 upvotes
zodiacfml
By zodiacfml (9 months ago)

I thought there is a Print Mode (8 MP) button up there.

3 upvotes
Kivivuori
By Kivivuori (9 months ago)

Actually 808 works very well. I´ve done quite many 50x70 cm englargments from 38 MP files (most of them were 60-80 % crops from the files). Why use 5 Mp when you can get so much more...?
It`s a pity I can`t send you a file so could judge yourself...

4 upvotes
keeponkeepingon
By keeponkeepingon (9 months ago)

The second favorite after full res for most 808 shooters is the 8mp mode. Would love to see a comparison at that resolution.

Oh wait....

0 upvotes
vlad0
By vlad0 (9 months ago)

The 808 does very well in 8Mpix pureview mode as well.. in fact, that is the most common res I shoot at.

0 upvotes
Michael Ma
By Michael Ma (9 months ago)

Such great technology wasted on a Windows phone and Nokia branded devices. Put it on the iPhone or Galaxy device. It's like finding a cure for aging, but adding in the clause that you have to go through a gender change operation if you want to use it.

For most people, it's not worth the switch.

4 upvotes
Stig Vidar Hovland
By Stig Vidar Hovland (9 months ago)

Excuse me, but this is plain BS. Windows Phone does a good job and is on the same level as all the others. You can of course have your own opinion, but you are so way off that I would recommend you keep it for your self. For your own sake.

26 upvotes
zodiacfml
By zodiacfml (9 months ago)

I'm stuck with Google, and having this camera hardware on an Android would be nice.

1 upvote
YiannisPP
By YiannisPP (9 months ago)

I'm with Stig as well, I call major BS. After having used WP8, I can't use the others, WP8 just feels so much more modern. It's sleek, smooth, CPU-efficient, simple to use and does everything you need well. As for knocking "Nokia branded devices", I call even bigger BS. They are the sturdiest devices out there, almost drop proof and their navigation capabilities that come with the preinstalled maps and strong and accurate GPS receiver make all the other phone users green with envy. People look at me having flawless voice navigation in my language with no hickups or mistakes whatsoever and they just can't believe I'm using no data at all.

9 upvotes
robbo d
By robbo d (9 months ago)

Ditto, just changed from Android to WP8....holy smoke, what a slick machine. The 1020 camera is truly a revelation. it certainly sticks it to my DSLR in some situations......

5 upvotes
mad marty
By mad marty (9 months ago)

I like WP much more than android. There was nearly no acclimatization period. Android is a laggy playground for poeple who like to tinker and have a fetish with installing roms and adjusting settings.
I'm glad this camera is available on a smart, modern OS like Windows Phone.

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting
7 upvotes
Michael Ma
By Michael Ma (9 months ago)

"For my own sake"? Are you threatening me Stig for sharing my opinion on a piece of electronics? You must be a model representative to Windows Phone users.

2 upvotes
YiannisPP
By YiannisPP (9 months ago)

Michael, I think it's obvious that he is not threatening you. I take it what he means is that you are embarrassing yourself by ridiculing WP and Nokia like some teenager Apple fanboy, when in reality Nokia Lumia Windows phones are as capable and in many respects better than the Samsungs and iPhones. So he's suggesting you'd be better off keeping your embarrassingly wrong opinion to yourself, At least that's how I took it and I kind of agree with him.

2 upvotes
CyberAngel
By CyberAngel (9 months ago)

"By mad marty (15 hours ago)
I like WP much more than android. There was nearly no acclimatization period. Android is a laggy playground for poeple who like to tinker and have a fetish with installing roms and adjusting settings.
I'm glad this camera is available on a smart, modern OS like Windows Phone."
- - -
My S4 Active is NOT laggy!

1 upvote
Menneisyys
By Menneisyys (9 months ago)

"My S4 Active is NOT laggy!"

Neither is my N7 2013. It's just that you need to close background tasks / tabs in browsers. Then, it'll be really snappy and responsive.

I love my N7 2013.

Comment edited 13 seconds after posting
1 upvote
CyberAngel
By CyberAngel (8 months ago)

Yet still I want something like the Note 3 or Xperia Z Ultra or...rather:
the Lumia 1520 in RED

0 upvotes
lightsculpture
By lightsculpture (9 months ago)

All Nokia had to do was to update the OS of the original 808 and release it a few months after it was first launched.

Instead they took a very long time, frustrating customers and giving time for competitors to react, only to release a product which is.. well.. slimmer but inferior to the 808. Inferior in the main aspect that excites pureview users in the first place - the camera. By the way, the 1020 is still rather bulky and heavy when compared to its competitors.

I guess this is expected from a guy who engineered his own return to Microsoft (with a huge payout) at the expense of the company he is supposed to be turning around. RIP Nokia... You got stabbed by the Ambulance medic who was supposed to be resuscitating you.

8 upvotes
Jonne Ollakka
By Jonne Ollakka (9 months ago)

Pure View R&D started some five years before Nokia had any intentions of going with WP. It's not just a case of "updating the OS", when the hardware is for something entirely different. Trying to get WP working in the 808, now that would've frustrated customers.

4 upvotes
micksh6
By micksh6 (9 months ago)

You need to realize that such high resolution camera was only possible with Symbian at the time 808 was released. Nokia used a dedicated DSP to process the data and from all mobile OSes only Symbian had architecture with modularity needed to support the DSP.

It took several years for Microsoft to develop software support needed for such resolution and Nokia also had to work with Qualcomm to customize CPU. It's a lot of work, it's not like you take another OS, install it on smartphone and enjoy. It's not plug-and-play in PCs.

As for 1020 being inferior to 808 - the 808 was too big to gain popularity in modern market. They had to make compromises and reduce camera module size. Still, 1020 has the best camera in modern smartphones by large margin.

7 upvotes
CyberAngel
By CyberAngel (9 months ago)

lightsculpture: you have your feelings, but have you ever hold the Lumia 1020 in your hand?
It is NOT bulky and heavy!
Going after Elop shows emotions, but not much reason.

Comment edited 12 seconds after posting
1 upvote
Stevan G
By Stevan G (9 months ago)

if you get a bit closer to the edge 808 is better in low light than 1020 in daytime conditions...

2 upvotes
bigley Ling
By bigley Ling (9 months ago)

the optical design of the 808 is vastly superior to the 1020 due to the design on the 808 being designed for uncompromised quality and the formfactor designed around the camera design. The 1020 has a formfactor set thickness requirement, and the camera had to be designed to fit in a much thinner space.

3 upvotes
KariIceland
By KariIceland (9 months ago)

And now I know who to blame for this terrible new scene, thanks Dpreview. And shame on the manager.

2 upvotes
YiannisPP
By YiannisPP (9 months ago)

Where is that person who was mocking us because we thought that the 808 had visibly better IQ than the 1020? You remember that person who was calling us "fragile creatures" who were too hurt to admit that our 808 (which we never owned by the way!) had been surpassed! Lol, the characters you meet on internet forums...

Comment edited 22 seconds after posting
4 upvotes
KariIceland
By KariIceland (9 months ago)

I agree, I did NOT own the 808 when I called it (was obvious the entire time which would perform better) But I purchased it 2 weeks or so ago & am happy.

1 upvote
YiannisPP
By YiannisPP (9 months ago)

The 808? Good for you for not letting the hype about its old operating system influence you. I'm sure it's a perfectly good smartphone and of course its camera rivals any dedicated compact camera (except my RX100 of course:)

1 upvote
vlad0
By vlad0 (9 months ago)

Are the 1020 jpeg files bigger than the 808's because there is more junk in them ?

Especially the low light.. there is a 2mb difference, but there certainly isn't 2mb worth of extra detail in that 1020 shot.

Comment edited 33 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Menneisyys
By Menneisyys (9 months ago)

"Especially the low light.. there is a 2mb difference, but there certainly isn't 2mb worth of extra detail in that 1020 shot."

Exactly the opposite. The 1020 shot is almost completely devoid of detail. The NR is very strong in the 1020 at ISO 800 and it eradicates most detail, while the end result is still significantly noisier than the 808's output.

That is, it's not the additional detail that's resulting in the larger file size, but plain noise.

2 upvotes
Menneisyys
By Menneisyys (9 months ago)

BTW, regarding the 1020's preferring choosing higher ISO's and, at the same time, a bit overexposing images:

- as I've pointed out several times (back in September too - see my Sony Z1 comparison), at ISO 400, there isn't as destructive NR as at ISO 800.

- the 1020 tens to over-expose images, which is certainly visible in this case too.

Therefore, if you manually lock ISO at 400 (max.) and possibly also shutter speed (not to allow the phone to introduce motion blur), you can let the camera under-expose (or, for that matter, properly expose) the image. While the resulting image will be a bit more noisy (particularly if you do under-expose and, consequently, you'll need to do some shadow puulling in pp), it'll be FAR more detailed.

Of course, the introduction of RAW to the 1020 will solve this problem too. Before that, however, you should never let the 1020 go over ISO 400, should you want to preserve detail.

2 upvotes
vlad0
By vlad0 (9 months ago)

By "junk" I meant noise.. not detail :)

1 upvote
YiannisPP
By YiannisPP (9 months ago)

This result could be easily seen just by casually pixelpeping 38MP real-world samples from the two devices. It was plenty obvious to me, but of course there were people here who wouldn't have any of it, there always are some:)
The 1020 probably still has the best camera in a modern OS smartphone, but it's disappointing that they took a step back compared to the 808. Yes it has I.S. and all, but 808 still better.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 5 minutes after posting
5 upvotes
vlad0
By vlad0 (9 months ago)

Please test the "pureview" mode as well.. I think that the 808 will pull further ahead.

And thanks for using 95% jpeg compression on the 808.. most other reviews shoot it in auto, which defaults to 85%

2 upvotes
YiannisPP
By YiannisPP (9 months ago)

That's right, as if it's not enough that the 808 sensor was superior, the 1020 version of "pureview oversampling" is worse as well:) Let's hope Nokia fixes that in firmware.

1 upvote
Lan
By Lan (9 months ago)

Thank you for publishing this really useful comparison, and using the high resolution mode - this is exactly the comparison I was looking for :)

Bad news for Nokia, I'll stick with my 808!

2 upvotes
vlad0
By vlad0 (9 months ago)

If you want a relatively reliable camera in your pocket at all times.. there is no alternative to the 808.

I will be holding on to mine until Microsoft comes up with a proper replacement, not a compromise which feels like a downgrade.

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 3 minutes after posting
3 upvotes
bat400
By bat400 (9 months ago)

Pretty much as I would have expected. The bigger module on the 808 probably allows the edge sharpness to be addressed; the 1020 is a compromise. I'm keeping my 1020 though, because the overall package is more appealing to me, and the results for my use cases are comparable. I sold my 808.

The low-light shot 808 shutter speed was about 1/8 of a second and the 1020 about 1/11 of a second, so comparable. I would be interested to see the same low-light simulation with the camera hand-held to see the impact of OIS on the 1020.

Call me romantic, but I wasn't expecting the 808 shots on the colour squares to have any noise at all in daylight at ISO 50, so I was surprised that there wasn't more difference between the two devices. The 808 clearly wins but a lot of that is just Physics working as it should. The overall daylight shots are comparable with the exception of the left-right sharpness issue.

Thanks for the great tool!

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

"Call me romantic, but I wasn't expecting the 808 shots on the colour squares to have any noise at all in daylight at ISO 50, so I was surprised that there wasn't more difference between the two devices. "

1. Blue (and, even worse, the even higher-frequency violet) will always be impossible to render without noise. Not even cameras with much larger photodiodes can.

2. There is some major chroma noise difference between the two cameras. Not only in rendering blue / violet, but, interestingly, also orange. The latter shouldn't be THIS problematic on the 1020 - after all, orange is low-frequency and shouldn't pose much problems to even a smaller sensor. Still, it's much-much more noisier than on the 808 - or, for that matter, than even the pure yellow / red color of the same 1020.

(I've just posted a daylight crop in my below-linked article of these chroma noise issues.)

2 upvotes
Menneisyys
By Menneisyys (9 months ago)

Wow! Thanks!

I've posted a lengthy elaboration on the results here in the DPReview forum: http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/52400993

I don't cross-copy it here as it'd be pretty useless without inline crops. Just a summary:

1, at ISO 800 (versus 400), the sharpness of the 1200 gets a MAJOR hit and is MUCH worse than the 808 at ISO 640. At base ISO, the two deliver appr. the same sharpness (except for, of course, the left/right border areas; see bullet 2 below.)

2, the left/right border area (including the corners) softness is just incomparable. The 808 delivers way better results.

All in all, I'm sticking with the 808. I don't see much point in switching to the 1020 as in no way does deliver better results in good light / at the same (high) ISO.

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

Added another post in the original thread (direct link to the new post: http://connect.dpreview.com/forums/post/52401367 ). A summary (without inline images, of course):

Chroma noise-wise, at base ISO, the 808 is cleaner in all colors. As you can expect, the blue channel is significantly noisier in the 1020. This is pretty normal – after all, not even APS-C cameras can render blue skies without noise at base ISO – they can't beat the laws of physics. (At least not most of them.) Interestingly, which was pretty much hard-to-anticipate, the red channel, particularly with orange colors, is also significantly(!) more noisy in the 1020.

Noise reduction at base ISO makes foliage (in this case, green feathers) being rendered better on the 808. The 808 renders the feathers better. Some of them aren't even visible on the 1020's image.

2 upvotes
vlad0
By vlad0 (9 months ago)

The 808 has the better camera overall, it has been obvious from the very beginning... one look at the official images Nokia published and it was pretty clear to me what was going on.

It makes perfect sense based on sensor size, but the whole BSI thing seems to be confusing people a little bit.

That being said, I don't think Nokia are extracting the maximum out of the 1020's sensor at this point.. the jpeg processing is not up to the task, and they've addressed a lot of the issues in the upcoming "black" update.

It won't be able to beat the 808, but it might get closer.

Now the side blur issue.. there is no way to fix that, its just bad optics.

Comment edited 37 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Menneisyys
By Menneisyys (9 months ago)

BTW, regarding the 1020's preferring choosing higher ISO's and, at the same time, a bit overexposing images:

- as I've pointed out several times (back in September too - see my Sony Z1 comparison), at ISO 400, there isn't as destructive NR as at ISO 800.

- the 1020 tens to over-expose images, which is certainly visible in this case too.

Therefore, if you manually lock ISO at 400 (max.) and possibly also shutter speed (not to allow the phone to introduce motion blur), you can let the camera under-expose (or, for that matter, properly expose) the image. While the resulting image will be a bit more noisy (particularly if you do under-expose and, consequently, you'll need to do some shadow puulling in pp), it'll be FAR more detailed.

Of course, the introduction of RAW to the 1020 will solve this problem too. Before that, however, you should never let the 1020 go over ISO 400, should you want to preserve detail.

2 upvotes
Total comments: 118
About us
Sitemap
Connect