Zoe out of her sleep wear would require more blanketing... to keep warm...
I remember iPhone 4 introduction and although many people found Retina display as the most pointed out hardware feature, iPhone 4 brought also other important hardware functionalities that were well promoted in the package, like new form factor, aluminum unibody case, glass back, camera, not to mention software related improvements.
Apple still make feature focused ads, however, they are maturing here and that's why it makes it again even funnier seeing such pathetic ad from Nokia or anybody else. The other point is that they are mocking a year old technology from Apple, which can bang back in their head like a boomerang in month or two...
No, I don't. I have 3GS in drawer. I have some 2 or 3 Nokia phones, one Sony and some Panasonic in the same. Why would anyone care about that?
Most important, I do not see any relevance in comparing iPhone 4 with new Nokia. There are almost 3 huge mobile technology years of difference between them...Especially camera comparison shows foul intentions...
What was smart phone percentage in 2007 and 2008 compared to 2012 and 2013 in total phone sales? Where was iPhone sold at the time? Through which and how many carriers in how many lands? Do you understand what you are talking about? Would you congratulate Apple for outselling Altair with Apple II?
The fact is there are 2 companies that should be important players in the mobile market today, 2 former flagship companies. But they are not, because they never understood the business they got lucky with. They may make a good phone, even a very good one, but they won't make a second break, because they did not understand the first one...
Make no mistake, I am not happy with it.
you are right. An actual review would be good and fair.
however, you must admit you also need it be a bit more reasonable of your expectation of camera that is based on 2004 CCD technology sensor in the D70. How about we compare photos from my D600 Full Frame sensor to your RX100 1" sensor. Down sampled to 16MP. ISO 6400. to see which one is smoother. You game?
I am not asking for pissing contest here. I just want you to be a bit more reasonable in comparing sensors technology to at least similar eras. OK?
OK.. so I checked out their brief preview. So I got to ask.
Have you actually downloaded and looked at the sample images at 100% zoom? I was ready to "assume" that since the Nokia had the highly regarded name brand Leica lens it was going to produce shaper image with less distortion.
Look at the corners sharpness of the Nokia compared to the iPhone 5? This is better? are you kidding me? Wow. was my assumption wrong. Look for yourself please, its very obvious
I had to do a double take to make sure I did not mix up which one was which. The Leica lens distortion and softness is surprisingly very bad. Pick any corner, there is resolution chart. The other Nokia model the 920 is every worse.
As far as the center of the image I dont see much softness from the Lecia lens as expected.
However, you can see a different problem on the Nokia. Nokia is using VERY aggressive sharping. I don't know if dpreview messed up or something but its a bit over the top setting. So much so that the Edges are are pixelated and eye balls are glowing.
I am sure you could get the iPhone image to be just as sharp by running it through a sharpening filter in further post.
To see my point, look at the resolution graph.. just left of center in the frame.
On the plus side, the colors on the Nokia look a lot more natural skin tones. The iPhone sample has way to much saturation. But as you know people like punchy colors. Not really surprised by the iPhone being over saturated, but I am pleased with the Nokia more natural skin tones.
So, to make things look a bit more fair, I opened up both samples in Aperture. Changed both images to B&W by setting saturation to zero and cranked up the Sharpening to Nokia levels. In the end, I like the iPhone 5 photo better in terms of IQ. Its probably purely that Aperature sharpening settings keep the image looking more natural then the in camera sharping of the Nokia. I believe I am being honest and fair here. Try it yourself. When you get all done zoom back out and look at the entire photo with similar sharping levels. The Nokia sharpening filter ruined the image for me.
So from this exploration, I learned that the Lecia Lens has lots of distortion issues and is soft in the corners. The iPhone 5 does not have these issues. I was very surprised by this. Not sure if the iPhone crystal element had anything to do with this. I am thinking; maybe. Or perhaps that the iPhone has a smaller maximum aperture compared to the Nokia lens. Never had a camera which such technology before but the corners seem just as good as the center to me. Not so with the Leica lens on the Nokia which show a lot of distortion and softness in the corners.
I also learned that the Lecia "down sampling" process goes completely overboard on sharpening in the sample provided on dpreview.
I learned that the Nokia has natural skin tones, this is unexpected for a consumer cameras which tend to get overboard everywhere. iPhone goes a bit crazy with Saturation because consumers seem to love vivid colors. Not me however. Nokia is better in this sense.
for the low light comparison samples on page 4.. no doubt the Nokia image has much less noise compared to other smart phones due to its much larger sensor. Likewise you can expect a much cleaner photos with larger sensors found in DSLRs than the Nokia. Which goes back to my assertion about quality of high MP photos on small sensors. Or do we need to prove this by putting up my D600 against your RX100 using the preview.com IQ database?
As far as using the all those extra MP simply to overcome no optical zoom, is a bit cheesy IMHO. This is effectively doing a "crop" of your photos in camera and is effectively gated by the resolution of the Leica lens and you will see a lot of noise due to the high pixel pitch density of the physcal 41MP sensor.
IMHO, If you can't frame your photo correctly in the first place by walking around and taking a few steps forward, you have bigger issues and are sunk for getting much IQ when you go to crop (either in camera or on the computer).
Cropping an image out of high MP image to achieve zoom is no substitute for real telephoto optics. Not on this Nokia, just the same as not on a high MP DSLR. We should not need to debate this. right? Otherwise, there would be no need to buy telephoto lens anymore, everyone would just be cropping photos instead.
All you will see is more noise as you attempt to crop further and IQ will suffer. You should know better to buy into this. Its not revolutionary breakthrough technology that Nokia is pushing here. Just cheesy marketing. its still called "digital zoom" and its still crap no matter how you spin it. " Shame on Nokia.
If there was no loss in quality you would not be downsamping to 5MP all the time on regular photos. You would be defaulting 41MP straight out of camera, which in the dpreview preview clearly states show looks like crap compared to downsampling to 5MP to remove all the noise.
Analytically speaking, how is cropping a portion of the 41MP sensor to "zoom" magically not going to not lose quality? nice. Or maybe I am mis-interpetting the statement. No loss in quality compared to photos which like like crap at full 41MP resolution? If that is the claim, then I agree. It looks no crappier at full zoom (aka native resolution) then it does at full 41 MP resolution. This seems like silly spin marketing to me. Its 41MP, but we dont let you use it in native resolution because the photos look like crap compared to an iPhone 5 native resolution taking photos at 8MP. what?????
I believe I am being fair in my observations. Look at the sample images and see for yourself. Its not subjective. Samples don't lie.
all in all, I am surprised with how good the crystal lens is on the iPhone 5 (or perhaps this is just a result of a smaller maximum aperture compared to the Leica). I am also impressed with how well the Nokia does with keeping the skin tones looking natural for a consumer oriented phone. Nokia produces less noise due to physically large sensor size AFTER it has been down sampled; no surprise on this one. However, full native resolution images on Nokia are noisy. As a result, large photos way beyond 5MP suffer in image quality as well as digital "zoomed"/cropped photos. We are not sure how good image looks at 8MP on Nokia compared (downsampled to 8MP instead of 5MP) to iPhone 5 native 8MP sensor. Maybe someone will do a direct comparison. Or downsampling both to something more in common. 5MP or smaller.
ps. it was also interesting to see comparison of Galaxy S 4 image quality compared to the iPhone 5. Wow. I am not sure if the iPhone 5 is that good or if the Galaxy S 4 is just that bad. Considering I have always felt the iPhone 5 photos were just "ok", it puts the Galaxy S 4 is lower category. Pretty sure I am not being subjective here. Its fairly obvious by the samples. go check out lower right corner of image on page 4 of review and look at male face at dim lit left side of sample on same page.
I love the Nokia 920. I like the OS a lot too. Yes they are still waiting on some big apps but there really isn't much I need that I don't have. I take pictures alot and appreciate a good camera built in. Would love to upgrade to the 1020 but waiting on my two year discount.
My iPhone 4 sits in the drawer now.
Any reason why not simply just sell the iPhone 4. Its worth money you know. I sell my iPhones when I am due for an upgrade. I end up getting enough to pay for the new iPhone upgrade.
Maybe you can do the same with the Nokia 920 to pay for your 1020 upgrade for free when you are eligible for an upgrade. Right?
I agree 100%. I normally shoot basic JPEG+RAW in my workflow. First import the JPEGs, reject and rate. Then pull in the matching RAWs for the high rated ones which are worth my time for post.
I didn't know iPhone offered anything more than JPEG.
as far as over sharping.. to be fair.. the Galaxy S4 is the worst one in the batch of samples.
I love it too. What I found very disturbing was that dpreview had an article 2 weeks ago entitled "What the new Nexus 7 tablet means for photographers".
hmm.. let me think now..
1. it has 16x9 aspect ratio which does not match any common photos aspect ratio; check
2. it limited RAM and storage to process RAW files; check
3. it has relative slow CPU compared to a laptop for processing RAW; check
4. it can not read SD cards directly; check
5. It can't act as a live view screen; check
What the heck CAN it do for me vs a full size iPad? It least the iPad has a compatible aspect ratio for reviewing photos and colors which are at least not too far off.
after all this, they somehow thought it was the greatest thing for photographers since sliced bread. . I have no ideal why they though it would be a useful tool. As a result, that web site lost some credibility with me.
How can Nokia be so clueless? People do not buy cell phones for the camera. Nokia is just another Microsoft Windows Phone cloner. Being a cloner, they have nothing to distinguish their phones from anyone else. So they have latched onto the camera as being their difference. well, Nokia, any cloner can play the megapixel game, and even Apple can too. Fact is the camera in a super thin cell phone is _never_ going to get close to a point and shoot. Physics rule.
I always look at the camera when buying a phone. In-fact the only real difference between at £100 and £400 phone these days is the camera and screen (apart from what type of plastic of metal is made of).
I like good photo's and after going to a few places and forgetting my actual camera it's been nice to get home and discover that the pictures I took on my phone look great full screen on my iMac even when zoomed. I'm now at the point where I don't bother with a separate camera any more as the dedicated camera button on the phone actually make the whole process of getting your phone out, taking a photo and then putting it away again far better than an actual camera. There also just isn't space in my pockets for a separate camera.
Also cloner? Cloner of who, Microsoft don't make there own phone, and looking at the range of Windows Phones it's quite clear Nokia is Microsofts main partner with Windows Phone. In terms of having stuff to distinguish their phones, have you seen there apps? Irrespective of what hardware HTC or Samsung come out with for Windows Phone, I'd still go Nokia for the apps.
I remember Nokia and their fans saying the iPhone was dead because it's 2 megapixel camera was no match for their crop of Carl Zeiss equipped 5 megapixel camera phones.
Of course we now know how well that went.
btw Nokia has had exclusive rights to use the Carl Zeiss name on camera phones for many years now.
I think you'll find that "talking to another person on a phone" usage of smartphones is not the primary use. It still may have been when the iPhone was introduced, but not anymore. Texting, Tweeting Facebook, Photos, Web Surfing, Apps, etc. (in no particular order) are all used more than the phone itself. And with the zillions of photos taken each day, photo quality is important. I don't think you'd be making the statement you made if it had been Apple that had improved the camera.
As for Canon and Nikon, they're both in deep trouble because DSLR and Mirrorless sales are declining somewhat and point-and-shoot camera sales are declining rapidly. I don't have my numbers with me, but I believe p-and-s sales are down 30% this year and that's primarily due to smartphones (of all brands). Pentax is practically a non-player and Hasselblad is an esoteric fringe player.
I don't necessarily agree that a high pixel count small sensor is the answer to achieving quality (since noise levels will be high at that photosite density, especially at low ISOs), but the manufacturers who are trying to compete with Apple by appearing to improve the camera are smart. It simply gives a certain segment of people another reason to look at a smartphone that's not Apple. And in the long run, it's good for Apple users because while Apple won't necessarily respond to every "improvement" the competition comes up with, they'll have to respond to at least some, making future Apple phones better.
you are right about them being the largest in phones. Pin head was an exaggeration.
I thought Samsung and Android were the big dogs now, I mean aren't they beating Apple to a pulp in market share?
This may sound strange, but I actually don't want Apple to have the biggest market share.
Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.
(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)
Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.
(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)
review which came to the same conclusion as I did about the 1020 lens and also points out a fatal flaw about speed. weird that the dpreview article field to mention this problem. This would be completely unacceptable to me even as a camera phone.
"..The lens is not sharp from edge-to-edge, however. It's quite impressive in the centre and mid-parts of the frame, but as you reach the outer edges and corners things get a bit muddy..."
"We performed our tests in the 4:3 aspect ratio, which puts a bit more stress on the corners of the lens. If you shoot photos at 16:9 the corners will be cropped out of the image, but edges will still appear a bit soft. When looking at photos in web resolution it’s unlikely you’ll notice this; but if you plan on using the 1020 as a more serious photographic tool the limitation will be more obvious in prints or at large screen resolutions."
The part which would be unacceptable to me that dpreview failed to mention
"Where the 1020's camera really suffers when compared with a good compact camera is in terms of speed. It takes a full 6.1 seconds to launch Pro Camera and capture a photo. Focusing and firing a shot results in a shutter lag of about 0.7 seconds, though if you are shooting in manual focus mode or if you half-press the shutter to prefocus, the lag dips to a much more usable 0.1 second.
I guess "better quality" takes time and requires cropping out the center of the frame.
This. I've a Nikon D800 with a sensor that's many,,many multiples of that area (as it's a full size dSLR sensor) with "only" 32 megapixels....
according to Nokia the correct way to use your 32MP sensor D800 is to put on a wide angle prime lens set to wide open aperture (all the time, its not adjustable) and crop your shot if you want to telephoto. For shots which you don't want to crop, automatically set the image size to "small" with sharping set to Max.
This is in essence how you mimic Nokia's breakthrough "PureView" technology on your D800, as I understand it.
Someone correct me if I misrepresented the PureView technology incorrectly, somehow.