So far, I've not read any intelligent comments about the pixel density of this camera. Folks, pixels do matter. They do make a better photograph, and here's why. How the heck are you going to put a zoom lens inside a thin phone? You aren't. So to compensate, you let your users Digitally Zoom. You can then save a 5MP photo, zoomed in like you had a real telephoto, and your photo will look great (not stupid like the software interpolated low-MP cameras do it).
JDW, you can zoom into all those glorious pixels all you want, but the fact remains that the actual physical optics (which, as you said, cannot provide true optical zoom) have already defocused the image to approximately the equivalent of your 5 MP sample spacing before the image even touches the sensor. What then? Then you have a "blurry" image relative to the 41 MP sample spacing, and when you attempt your digital zoom, you will discover that the telephoto image you thusly made is pure crap.
Now, I understand that you may not have ever heard of a "point spread function" or studied optics, but don't be like many other people who when they read something that contains words that mean nothing to them assume that there is nothing intelligent in there.
The noise reduction aspect is really nice though. WE did something like that on a commercial satellite once. This is not high science, but it is nice to add to a phone.
Until fairly near the end, likely the most ill-informed thread (and key-detail-lacking article) from people claiming knowledge of what makes for quality digital photos I've read in a long time (even if many had bits of accurate factoids). And that's saying something.
The Verge had actually cogent coverage - including of both hardware and software features (and associated upcoming apps and accessories) NO one's mentioned here.
Anyway, pending Apple's next release and actual reviews of production models of both, this one's on my watch list, since I'm buying this fall. And I won't leave the Apple ecosystem behind in any case, as a new iPad's and/or MB's (running VM Ware Fusion since I'm platform agnostic and need to be in both worlds already) on my list as well
The Verge had actually cogent coverage - including of both hardware and software features (and associated upcoming apps and accessories) NO one's mentioned here.
This thread is actually funny, in a very sad way. Watch all the neural connections short circuit as they try and come up with something, anything, to salve the ego-hurt caused by some company other than Apple having a technology that is indisputably far in advance of anything Apple has to offer.
One of the things I like about photography is that seeing is believing and no amount of rationalisation and mental gymnastics will ever be able to persuade someone to disbelieve the truth their eyes deliver.
I think you r wrong have you seen the quality of the 808 phones photos, it has better color reproduction and far less noise when you zoom than most DSLR cameras. Also consider security cameras, what are the resolution of those, hundreds of mega pixels?, so i think they are just following the trend, and of course they aren't going to put huge sensory devices in phones, because its impractical, and technology in general is getting smaller, so they are just showcasing that, and good on Nokia for putting it in a windows phone, because people with windows phones don't generally consider their cameras as a strong point.
I think you r wrong have you seen the quality of the 808 phones photos, it has better color reproduction and far less noise when you zoom than most DSLR cameras. Also consider security cameras, what are the resolution of those, hundreds of mega pixels?, so i think they are just following the trend, and of course they aren't going to put huge sensory devices in phones, because its impractical, and technology in general is getting smaller, so they are just showcasing that, and good on Nokia for putting it in a windows phone, because people with windows phones don't generally consider their cameras as a strong point.
That might be true, but if they had used pretty much the same tech, but used a lower resolution sensor, the results could have even been better. I think it's hard to disagree with the idea that this wasn't about using the best technology, but about bragging rights - the ability to say it has a 41MP sensor. It's no different than the way computer manufacturers used to use clock speeds as a marketing gimmick, but it meant relatively little.
Camera looks good, but my iPhone 5 looks like it takes pictures faster, singles and burst. Plus it has HDR. Really surprised this phone doesn't, it's marketed to photographers. When I show my HDR photos from my iPhone 5 at Ireland, people's mouths gape open every time. My friends have asked me to text them these photos, one friend told me she was going to have one painted. I love showing them off.
The super pixel stuff is complete nonsense. I bet you've never heard of super pixels before, maybe Nokia invented something that was never there! Let's say you have a 1inch 5mp chip, and a 2inch 5mp chip.. The 2inch will look better. The pixels are more accurate. Most camera companies market the larger chip. Nokia, though, doesn't want to market the larger chip size - why? Maybe because they don't want to be stuck giving you a large chip in the future, but still want to use the 'pure view' moniker. Maybe because they know their chip isn't big enough to warrant a 41mp label. But people will catch on, they'll get confused when Nokia afficianados start trying to explain super pixel processing.
As I said before, the camera does look good. But it also costs $100 more. Some have said that it starts at 32gb though. The extra 16gb doesn't cost $100. Apple and everyone else up charge, Nokia just isn't letting you choose the entry level, and getting your premium up charge by default.
I think larger chips in phones needs to continue, but some of these other practices need to stop.
Camera looks good, but my iPhone 5 looks like it takes pictures faster, singles and burst. Plus it has HDR.
Actually the Nokia is faster, the video's you have been seeing about the Nokia 1020 mostly shows photos being taken at an ISO speed of 200 - 400 and is on automatic, as you can manually change the ISO speed all the way up to 1600, 3200 add that and a super quick hardware shutter (and one of the few that actually use a hardware shutter), the Nokia can get 3 - 5 pictures a second, which makes it the fastest camera phone on the market. Now I haven't played with the new one but I do own the Nokia 808 and if the 1020 is anywhere near it then it will definitely be faster than the iPhone 5. Plus you have a dedicated camera button that can take pictures without unlocking the phone, so spare of the moment photos are much faster. HDR will be added later in the default app and third party camera apps already support it, plus there is a SDK kit just for the camera app, as with the Nokia 808 there are many plugins available, HDR support was added to Nokia 808 this way.
iPhone users probably won't be wowed enough to jump ship just for the camera though. I will definitely get one though as I have no allegiance to any one manufacturer, that and I love photography, my Nokia 808 takes the best pictures I have ever seen come out of phone or even most point and shoot cameras. Unfortunately the 808 runs Symbian and the platform is dead, Windows 8 will at least be around until my mobile contract is up in a year.
That is incorrect. Megapixels has NOTHING to do with the quality of an exposure. What megapixels brings you are two things 1) the ability to print onto larger medias (paper or screen), although most software can do what megapixels can't. 2) the ability to heavily crop an image and maintain reasonable megapixels when printing. That is it. What increasing megapixels will do is increase the size of the file, which on a phone for texting and emailing is a bad thing.
Now the quality of the pixels is a key factor as well as sensor quality and processor and software. And by far the most important is the glass!!!!
Canon's top of the line $6,700 EOS has 18MPs, while their 5D MIII $3,500 EOS has 22MP. So it is safe to say that a $200 phone having 41MP is strictly marketing!
I shot 90% of these with an 8MP EOS and assure you, it will beat out any 41MP phone image.
Those are some nice shots. That said, why are you comparing a camera of a phone to a DSLR? That's like comparing iPad's gaming performance against an i7 desktop with high end graphic card. I'm pretty sure Nokia wanted 1020 to compete against other camera phones such as iphones and galaxies. Now let's see the comparison between those 3.
It has the supersampling tech from 808 and OIS from 920, so it might actually be pretty good.
That will give you noise reduction to overcome issues with noise on CCD arrays. So it will be an improvement of sorts, and I like it. Note that in order to take advantage of that, you will be using the down-sampled 5 MP version of the image file. Resolution will be as any other 5 MP image but noise will be reduced.
But no matter what, increasing pixel density on the CCD cannot recover lost resolution due to optical diffraction, and so the resolution of the image will be limited by that (which is way more limited than the 41 MP spec implies). The vast majority of the folks responding on this thread have NO IDEA the relevance of what I am saying about optical physics. My argument is both winning and irrefutable, but instead of attacking my point, they ask "how can 41 MP not be better than 8 MP (or whatever)" or they just call me an Apple fanboi.
Those are some nice shots. That said, why are you comparing a camera of a phone to a DSLR? That's like comparing iPad's gaming performance against an i7 desktop with high end graphic card. I'm pretty sure Nokia wanted 1020 to compete against other camera phones such as iphones and galaxies. Now let's see the comparison between those 3.
I was not comparing the quality as much as the megapixels as stating that if higher end cameras don't use 41 megapixels, why would we buy the hype of a phone doing so. And thanks, I love photography!
I was not comparing the quality as much as the megapixels as stating that if higher end cameras don't use 41 megapixels, why would we buy the hype of a phone doing so. And thanks, I love photography!
Sigh. The more megapixels does not make a better photograph
Nokia knows this. Which is why it doesn't actually capture 41 MP pictures, it uses some sort of sensor magic to take better photos at regular resolutions (8MP, 12MP, etc...).
I was not comparing the quality as much as the megapixels as stating that if higher end cameras don't use 41 megapixels, why would we buy the hype of a phone doing so. And thanks, I love photography!
You seem to be very passionate about debunking Nokia's new camera phone. Though your absolutely right that megapixels doesn't necessarily equal great photos the Nokia also has one the largest sensors and probably the best optics you can possibly put into a phone without fusing a camera onto it like Samsung did with Galaxy S4 Zoom.
Here is a break down of the Nokia 808 for example;
The new Nokia 1020 uses 6 very high quality Leica lens
The manual controls on the Camera app are also fantastic, I have never seen this kind of control on any phone. You can select a manual ISO speed of 80 - 1600, the 808 had a plugin for 3200 which will probably see for the 1020 soon. The Carl Zeiss lens is F2.2 and has a optical image stabilization, 4x Optical zoom without distortion like you get with digital. The audio when recording video is something that you just have to hear for yourself, at just north of 140db nothing compares. There is a whole lot of other features but I think there is no way to convince you because you keep comparing this to a DSLR camera.
I bought the Nokia 808 the day it was available, though the phone itself was nothing to write home about the camera in it was absolutely brilliant. I used to carry around a Leica X1 in my purse, it was small enough and took exceptional pictures but the Nokia 808 was so good I didn't feel the need to carry it around any more. Look don't take my word, head over to http://www.dpreview.com/articles/8083837371/review-nokia-808-pureview and read some of the comments. We'll have to wait for the review of the 1020 but if it's anywhere near the 808 it will be a winner for photographers. You might also want to check out the National Geographic boards on the subject, they issue out Nokia 808's to their photojournalist.
Before you roll your eyes I would really recommend you play with the Nokia 1020. Nokia might have made a mistake with going all WIndows 8 with their phones but one thing they do know how to do is make a great camera phone, I still think the three year old N8 takes better pictures than the iPhone 5. Heck they were the first to really bring the camera phone to the masses with their Nokia 7650, even first with Xenon flash with the Nokia N82. I was going to suggest picking up a used Nokia 808 but it looks like they're still going for about 400 bucks, even used. If you lived in the EU I would be more than happy to let you borrow mine for a while. I might be willing to send it to California if you promise to send it back, I'm that confident in the product, that and I think your a wonderful photographer.:D
I was not comparing the quality as much as the megapixels as stating that if higher end cameras don't use 41 megapixels, why would we buy the hype of a phone doing so. And thanks, I love photography!
Check out Hasselblad, they make a REAL 60 megapixel camera that's $32K, i can guarantee you that this Lumia 1020 is NOT even in the same ball park of anyone's pipe dream as the Hasselblad H4D-60. It's not even going to be close to their earlier models like a H5D-40 40 Megapixel medium format camera that goes for $18K.
You want a REAL camera, buy a REAL camera. You want 4K or 5K resolution video? Buy a RED. It's so funny how these mass merchandise products confuse and mislead consumers. To me it's like BOSE spouting off that they make high end speaker systems. The Lumia is just another Windows phone that's trying to be a camera and I'm sure it takes decent photographs for what it is, but it's still just a consumer grade product for taking photos and videos for Joe Blow that just wants to have a point and shoot camera, instead of a REAL professional grade product. But it's still a Windows phone which doesn't have many apps available on it.
You seem to be very passionate about debunking Nokia's new camera phone. Though your absolutely right that megapixels doesn't necessarily equal great photos the Nokia also has one the largest sensors and probably the best optics you can possibly put into a phone without fusing a camera onto it like Samsung did with Galaxy S4 Zoom.
Here is a break down of the Nokia 808 for example;
The new Nokia 1020 uses 6 very high quality Leica lens
The manual controls on the Camera app are also fantastic, I have never seen this kind of control on any phone. You can select a manual ISO speed of 80 - 1600, the 808 had a plugin for 3200 which will probably see for the 1020 soon. The Carl Zeiss lens is F2.2 and has a optical image stabilization, 4x Optical zoom without distortion like you get with digital. The audio when recording video is something that you just have to hear for yourself, at just north of 140db nothing compares. There is a whole lot of other features but I think there is no way to convince you because you keep comparing this to a DSLR camera.
I bought the Nokia 808 the day it was available, though the phone itself was nothing to write home about the camera in it was absolutely brilliant. I used to carry around a Leica X1 in my purse, it was small enough and took exceptional pictures but the Nokia 808 was so good I didn't feel the need to carry it around any more. Look don't take my word, head over to http://www.dpreview.com/articles/8083837371/review-nokia-808-pureview and read some of the comments. We'll have to wait for the review of the 1020 but if it's anywhere near the 808 it will be a winner for photographers. You might also want to check out the National Geographic boards on the subject, they issue out Nokia 808's to their photojournalist.
Before you roll your eyes I would really recommend you play with the Nokia 1020. Nokia might have made a mistake with going all WIndows 8 with their phones but one thing they do know how to do is make a great camera phone, I still think the three year old N8 takes better pictures than the iPhone 5. Heck they were the first to really bring the camera phone to the masses with their Nokia 7650, even first with Xenon flash with the Nokia N82. I was going to suggest picking up a used Nokia 808 but it looks like they're still going for about 400 bucks, even used. If you lived in the EU I would be more than happy to let you borrow mine for a while. I might be willing to send it to California if you promise to send it back, I'm that confident in the product, that and I think your a wonderful photographer.
Well, I'm sure some will wait for the next iPhone because that's only a couple of months away. So you are trying to compare a brand new product with one that's 10 months old? Oh, OK. I think people will get plenty of satisfaction on an iPhone camera for MOST point and shoot situations. These are NOT going to replace high end professional cameras because the lens are tiny. People just want a decent camera instead of buying one of those point and shoot camera for taking pictures of friends, family members, etc. I am just curious how long the battery will last if you use the thing as a camera. That's a major concern since I would like to be able to answer calls and make calls instead of using it as a camera and only getting a couple of hours of battery life. That's what I would be concerned about. My old Fuji ran on AA batteries and it ran through those like water which is why I don't use it anymore. Either way, I don't do Windows, the iPhone camera is plenty good enough for my needs and they aways improve the camera so I really don't need to focus on one aspect of a product to persuade me to use a platform that hasn't got very many apps to choose from.
Commercial applications will always go for the high end products, plain and simple.
Relic, You seem to have this smartphone fetish and I'm afraid not everyone spends (wastes) as much money on you on smartphones were it gets to the point where we collect them like you do. I buy a product to use it, not to collect it. Moving from phone to phone, platform to platform to me is the biggest waste of time just to show off that I'm always using the latest and greatest smartphone technology because I can't seem to just buy something and use it for a couple of years. Aren't you ever happy with something you bought where you just don't always need to buy something else every time a new product is announced?
Wow, I bet if Apple used this technology in their iPhone 5s or 6 it would be hailed as the next revolutionary option and you wouldn't question it one bit. Have you even been to any of the shutter bug blogs, the Nokia 808 almost always get's high praise from the, "who know optics" crowd . Yes the new Nokia 1020 runs WIndows 8 but the OS isn't bad, it's actually pretty intuitive and all of the mainstream apps are available; Evernote, Instagram, Facebook, Twitter, News; CNN, Engadget, Pulse, News 360, games; Modern Combat 4, Asphalt 7, Armed!, ect. What apps are you looking for that aren't in the Windows Store. I don't have a Windows 8 phone yet but my 13 year old son does and he has the exact same apps that my daughter and husband have on their iPhone. He especially enjoys the Xbox Live app so he can keep in touch with friends and arrange weekly battles with his Halo clan and uses Xbox Glass for his games.
I'm not comparing Windows 8 to iPhone here, I'm just saying that there is absolutely nothing wrong with people using this mobile OS. Except for the lack of a file manager it's actually a pretty decent OS and I will enjoy it when my new Nokia 1020 arrives early next month.
The Nokia 808 has proven that Pureview isn't just a gimick, the burst mode for example at 8MP takes between 3 - 5 pictures a seconds, I have never seen that kind of speed with the same picture quality on any cell phone. The new 1020 even has hardware image stabilization and hardware zoom. I have played with almost every native camera app that exists, the Nokia's blows them all away by a huge margin. There is even a developers kit just for the camera app so you can add your own functionality. National Geographic has issued them to their field photographers and has even developed an app for the phone because of how they felt about this phone.
I'm sure your very happy with your phone and it takes great photos but this is on another level, itis a unique camera phone that honestly does what Nokia is marketing.
Just for fun take the phone out of your pocket and take a picture as fast as you can, by the time you get to your phone app I would have already taken 3 pictures that have begone syncing with my Skydrive and Instagram.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by JDW
So far, I've not read any intelligent comments about the pixel density of this camera. Folks, pixels do matter. They do make a better photograph, and here's why. How the heck are you going to put a zoom lens inside a thin phone? You aren't. So to compensate, you let your users Digitally Zoom. You can then save a 5MP photo, zoomed in like you had a real telephoto, and your photo will look great (not stupid like the software interpolated low-MP cameras do it).
JDW, you can zoom into all those glorious pixels all you want, but the fact remains that the actual physical optics (which, as you said, cannot provide true optical zoom) have already defocused the image to approximately the equivalent of your 5 MP sample spacing before the image even touches the sensor. What then? Then you have a "blurry" image relative to the 41 MP sample spacing, and when you attempt your digital zoom, you will discover that the telephoto image you thusly made is pure crap.
Now, I understand that you may not have ever heard of a "point spread function" or studied optics, but don't be like many other people who when they read something that contains words that mean nothing to them assume that there is nothing intelligent in there.
The noise reduction aspect is really nice though. WE did something like that on a commercial satellite once. This is not high science, but it is nice to add to a phone.
It has the supersampling tech from 808 and OIS from 920, so it might actually be pretty good.
Until fairly near the end, likely the most ill-informed thread (and key-detail-lacking article) from people claiming knowledge of what makes for quality digital photos I've read in a long time (even if many had bits of accurate factoids). And that's saying something.
The Verge had actually cogent coverage - including of both hardware and software features (and associated upcoming apps and accessories) NO one's mentioned here.
Anyway, pending Apple's next release and actual reviews of production models of both, this one's on my watch list, since I'm buying this fall. And I won't leave the Apple ecosystem behind in any case, as a new iPad's and/or MB's (running VM Ware Fusion since I'm platform agnostic and need to be in both worlds already) on my list as well
I already posted the Verge article here; http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/158449/nokia-lumia-1020-a-41-megapixel-windows-phone
This thread is actually funny, in a very sad way. Watch all the neural connections short circuit as they try and come up with something, anything, to salve the ego-hurt caused by some company other than Apple having a technology that is indisputably far in advance of anything Apple has to offer.
One of the things I like about photography is that seeing is believing and no amount of rationalisation and mental gymnastics will ever be able to persuade someone to disbelieve the truth their eyes deliver.
Well done, Nokia.
I think you r wrong have you seen the quality of the 808 phones photos, it has better color reproduction and far less noise when you zoom than most DSLR cameras. Also consider security cameras, what are the resolution of those, hundreds of mega pixels?, so i think they are just following the trend, and of course they aren't going to put huge sensory devices in phones, because its impractical, and technology in general is getting smaller, so they are just showcasing that, and good on Nokia for putting it in a windows phone, because people with windows phones don't generally consider their cameras as a strong point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brett Taggart
I think you r wrong have you seen the quality of the 808 phones photos, it has better color reproduction and far less noise when you zoom than most DSLR cameras. Also consider security cameras, what are the resolution of those, hundreds of mega pixels?, so i think they are just following the trend, and of course they aren't going to put huge sensory devices in phones, because its impractical, and technology in general is getting smaller, so they are just showcasing that, and good on Nokia for putting it in a windows phone, because people with windows phones don't generally consider their cameras as a strong point.
That might be true, but if they had used pretty much the same tech, but used a lower resolution sensor, the results could have even been better. I think it's hard to disagree with the idea that this wasn't about using the best technology, but about bragging rights - the ability to say it has a 41MP sensor. It's no different than the way computer manufacturers used to use clock speeds as a marketing gimmick, but it meant relatively little.
The super pixel stuff is complete nonsense. I bet you've never heard of super pixels before, maybe Nokia invented something that was never there! Let's say you have a 1inch 5mp chip, and a 2inch 5mp chip.. The 2inch will look better. The pixels are more accurate. Most camera companies market the larger chip. Nokia, though, doesn't want to market the larger chip size - why? Maybe because they don't want to be stuck giving you a large chip in the future, but still want to use the 'pure view' moniker. Maybe because they know their chip isn't big enough to warrant a 41mp label. But people will catch on, they'll get confused when Nokia afficianados start trying to explain super pixel processing.
As I said before, the camera does look good. But it also costs $100 more. Some have said that it starts at 32gb though. The extra 16gb doesn't cost $100. Apple and everyone else up charge, Nokia just isn't letting you choose the entry level, and getting your premium up charge by default.
I think larger chips in phones needs to continue, but some of these other practices need to stop.
Actually the Nokia is faster, the video's you have been seeing about the Nokia 1020 mostly shows photos being taken at an ISO speed of 200 - 400 and is on automatic, as you can manually change the ISO speed all the way up to 1600, 3200 add that and a super quick hardware shutter (and one of the few that actually use a hardware shutter), the Nokia can get 3 - 5 pictures a second, which makes it the fastest camera phone on the market. Now I haven't played with the new one but I do own the Nokia 808 and if the 1020 is anywhere near it then it will definitely be faster than the iPhone 5. Plus you have a dedicated camera button that can take pictures without unlocking the phone, so spare of the moment photos are much faster. HDR will be added later in the default app and third party camera apps already support it, plus there is a SDK kit just for the camera app, as with the Nokia 808 there are many plugins available, HDR support was added to Nokia 808 this way.
iPhone users probably won't be wowed enough to jump ship just for the camera though. I will definitely get one though as I have no allegiance to any one manufacturer, that and I love photography, my Nokia 808 takes the best pictures I have ever seen come out of phone or even most point and shoot cameras. Unfortunately the 808 runs Symbian and the platform is dead, Windows 8 will at least be around until my mobile contract is up in a year.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Relic
Have you used a Nokia 808?
No, but I don't see the relevancy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Getz
That is incorrect. Megapixels has NOTHING to do with the quality of an exposure. What megapixels brings you are two things 1) the ability to print onto larger medias (paper or screen), although most software can do what megapixels can't. 2) the ability to heavily crop an image and maintain reasonable megapixels when printing. That is it. What increasing megapixels will do is increase the size of the file, which on a phone for texting and emailing is a bad thing.
Now the quality of the pixels is a key factor as well as sensor quality and processor and software. And by far the most important is the glass!!!!
Canon's top of the line $6,700 EOS has 18MPs, while their 5D MIII $3,500 EOS has 22MP. So it is safe to say that a $200 phone having 41MP is strictly marketing!
I shot 90% of these with an 8MP EOS and assure you, it will beat out any 41MP phone image.
Those are some nice shots. That said, why are you comparing a camera of a phone to a DSLR? That's like comparing iPad's gaming performance against an i7 desktop with high end graphic card. I'm pretty sure Nokia wanted 1020 to compete against other camera phones such as iphones and galaxies. Now let's see the comparison between those 3.
Quote:
Originally Posted by macfb6
It has the supersampling tech from 808 and OIS from 920, so it might actually be pretty good.
That will give you noise reduction to overcome issues with noise on CCD arrays. So it will be an improvement of sorts, and I like it. Note that in order to take advantage of that, you will be using the down-sampled 5 MP version of the image file. Resolution will be as any other 5 MP image but noise will be reduced.
But no matter what, increasing pixel density on the CCD cannot recover lost resolution due to optical diffraction, and so the resolution of the image will be limited by that (which is way more limited than the 41 MP spec implies). The vast majority of the folks responding on this thread have NO IDEA the relevance of what I am saying about optical physics. My argument is both winning and irrefutable, but instead of attacking my point, they ask "how can 41 MP not be better than 8 MP (or whatever)" or they just call me an Apple fanboi.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JJ Kay
Those are some nice shots. That said, why are you comparing a camera of a phone to a DSLR? That's like comparing iPad's gaming performance against an i7 desktop with high end graphic card. I'm pretty sure Nokia wanted 1020 to compete against other camera phones such as iphones and galaxies. Now let's see the comparison between those 3.
I was not comparing the quality as much as the megapixels as stating that if higher end cameras don't use 41 megapixels, why would we buy the hype of a phone doing so. And thanks, I love photography!
Because of this.... make sure it's on 1080p
[VIDEO]<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/OvW4KbVL6rg" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>[/VIDEO]
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/64797097/Nokia/nokia-lumia-1020-pro-3.jpg
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/64797097/Nokia/nokia-lumia-1020-pro-highres-3_SRGB_5M.jpg
http://www.esato.com/phonephotos/cam/nokia/808_pureview/201305052343DrX30k.jpg
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnnyb0731
Sigh. The more megapixels does not make a better photograph
Nokia knows this. Which is why it doesn't actually capture 41 MP pictures, it uses some sort of sensor magic to take better photos at regular resolutions (8MP, 12MP, etc...).
You seem to be very passionate about debunking Nokia's new camera phone. Though your absolutely right that megapixels doesn't necessarily equal great photos the Nokia also has one the largest sensors and probably the best optics you can possibly put into a phone without fusing a camera onto it like Samsung did with Galaxy S4 Zoom.
Here is a break down of the Nokia 808 for example;
The new Nokia 1020 uses 6 very high quality Leica lens
The manual controls on the Camera app are also fantastic, I have never seen this kind of control on any phone. You can select a manual ISO speed of 80 - 1600, the 808 had a plugin for 3200 which will probably see for the 1020 soon. The Carl Zeiss lens is F2.2 and has a optical image stabilization, 4x Optical zoom without distortion like you get with digital. The audio when recording video is something that you just have to hear for yourself, at just north of 140db nothing compares. There is a whole lot of other features but I think there is no way to convince you because you keep comparing this to a DSLR camera.
I bought the Nokia 808 the day it was available, though the phone itself was nothing to write home about the camera in it was absolutely brilliant. I used to carry around a Leica X1 in my purse, it was small enough and took exceptional pictures but the Nokia 808 was so good I didn't feel the need to carry it around any more. Look don't take my word, head over to http://www.dpreview.com/articles/8083837371/review-nokia-808-pureview and read some of the comments. We'll have to wait for the review of the 1020 but if it's anywhere near the 808 it will be a winner for photographers. You might also want to check out the National Geographic boards on the subject, they issue out Nokia 808's to their photojournalist.
Before you roll your eyes I would really recommend you play with the Nokia 1020. Nokia might have made a mistake with going all WIndows 8 with their phones but one thing they do know how to do is make a great camera phone, I still think the three year old N8 takes better pictures than the iPhone 5. Heck they were the first to really bring the camera phone to the masses with their Nokia 7650, even first with Xenon flash with the Nokia N82. I was going to suggest picking up a used Nokia 808 but it looks like they're still going for about 400 bucks, even used. If you lived in the EU I would be more than happy to let you borrow mine for a while. I might be willing to send it to California if you promise to send it back, I'm that confident in the product, that and I think your a wonderful photographer.:D
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Getz
I was not comparing the quality as much as the megapixels as stating that if higher end cameras don't use 41 megapixels, why would we buy the hype of a phone doing so. And thanks, I love photography!
Check out Hasselblad, they make a REAL 60 megapixel camera that's $32K, i can guarantee you that this Lumia 1020 is NOT even in the same ball park of anyone's pipe dream as the Hasselblad H4D-60. It's not even going to be close to their earlier models like a H5D-40 40 Megapixel medium format camera that goes for $18K.
You want a REAL camera, buy a REAL camera. You want 4K or 5K resolution video? Buy a RED. It's so funny how these mass merchandise products confuse and mislead consumers. To me it's like BOSE spouting off that they make high end speaker systems. The Lumia is just another Windows phone that's trying to be a camera and I'm sure it takes decent photographs for what it is, but it's still just a consumer grade product for taking photos and videos for Joe Blow that just wants to have a point and shoot camera, instead of a REAL professional grade product. But it's still a Windows phone which doesn't have many apps available on it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Relic
You seem to be very passionate about debunking Nokia's new camera phone. Though your absolutely right that megapixels doesn't necessarily equal great photos the Nokia also has one the largest sensors and probably the best optics you can possibly put into a phone without fusing a camera onto it like Samsung did with Galaxy S4 Zoom.
Here is a break down of the Nokia 808 for example;
The new Nokia 1020 uses 6 very high quality Leica lens
The manual controls on the Camera app are also fantastic, I have never seen this kind of control on any phone. You can select a manual ISO speed of 80 - 1600, the 808 had a plugin for 3200 which will probably see for the 1020 soon. The Carl Zeiss lens is F2.2 and has a optical image stabilization, 4x Optical zoom without distortion like you get with digital. The audio when recording video is something that you just have to hear for yourself, at just north of 140db nothing compares. There is a whole lot of other features but I think there is no way to convince you because you keep comparing this to a DSLR camera.
I bought the Nokia 808 the day it was available, though the phone itself was nothing to write home about the camera in it was absolutely brilliant. I used to carry around a Leica X1 in my purse, it was small enough and took exceptional pictures but the Nokia 808 was so good I didn't feel the need to carry it around any more. Look don't take my word, head over to http://www.dpreview.com/articles/8083837371/review-nokia-808-pureview and read some of the comments. We'll have to wait for the review of the 1020 but if it's anywhere near the 808 it will be a winner for photographers. You might also want to check out the National Geographic boards on the subject, they issue out Nokia 808's to their photojournalist.
Before you roll your eyes I would really recommend you play with the Nokia 1020. Nokia might have made a mistake with going all WIndows 8 with their phones but one thing they do know how to do is make a great camera phone, I still think the three year old N8 takes better pictures than the iPhone 5. Heck they were the first to really bring the camera phone to the masses with their Nokia 7650, even first with Xenon flash with the Nokia N82. I was going to suggest picking up a used Nokia 808 but it looks like they're still going for about 400 bucks, even used. If you lived in the EU I would be more than happy to let you borrow mine for a while. I might be willing to send it to California if you promise to send it back, I'm that confident in the product, that and I think your a wonderful photographer.
Well, I'm sure some will wait for the next iPhone because that's only a couple of months away. So you are trying to compare a brand new product with one that's 10 months old? Oh, OK. I think people will get plenty of satisfaction on an iPhone camera for MOST point and shoot situations. These are NOT going to replace high end professional cameras because the lens are tiny. People just want a decent camera instead of buying one of those point and shoot camera for taking pictures of friends, family members, etc. I am just curious how long the battery will last if you use the thing as a camera. That's a major concern since I would like to be able to answer calls and make calls instead of using it as a camera and only getting a couple of hours of battery life. That's what I would be concerned about. My old Fuji ran on AA batteries and it ran through those like water which is why I don't use it anymore. Either way, I don't do Windows, the iPhone camera is plenty good enough for my needs and they aways improve the camera so I really don't need to focus on one aspect of a product to persuade me to use a platform that hasn't got very many apps to choose from.
Commercial applications will always go for the high end products, plain and simple.
Relic, You seem to have this smartphone fetish and I'm afraid not everyone spends (wastes) as much money on you on smartphones were it gets to the point where we collect them like you do. I buy a product to use it, not to collect it. Moving from phone to phone, platform to platform to me is the biggest waste of time just to show off that I'm always using the latest and greatest smartphone technology because I can't seem to just buy something and use it for a couple of years. Aren't you ever happy with something you bought where you just don't always need to buy something else every time a new product is announced?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Relic
Wow, I bet if Apple used this technology in their iPhone 5s or 6 it would be hailed as the next revolutionary option and you wouldn't question it one bit. Have you even been to any of the shutter bug blogs, the Nokia 808 almost always get's high praise from the, "who know optics" crowd . Yes the new Nokia 1020 runs WIndows 8 but the OS isn't bad, it's actually pretty intuitive and all of the mainstream apps are available; Evernote, Instagram, Facebook, Twitter, News; CNN, Engadget, Pulse, News 360, games; Modern Combat 4, Asphalt 7, Armed!, ect. What apps are you looking for that aren't in the Windows Store. I don't have a Windows 8 phone yet but my 13 year old son does and he has the exact same apps that my daughter and husband have on their iPhone. He especially enjoys the Xbox Live app so he can keep in touch with friends and arrange weekly battles with his Halo clan and uses Xbox Glass for his games.
I'm not comparing Windows 8 to iPhone here, I'm just saying that there is absolutely nothing wrong with people using this mobile OS. Except for the lack of a file manager it's actually a pretty decent OS and I will enjoy it when my new Nokia 1020 arrives early next month.
The Nokia 808 has proven that Pureview isn't just a gimick, the burst mode for example at 8MP takes between 3 - 5 pictures a seconds, I have never seen that kind of speed with the same picture quality on any cell phone. The new 1020 even has hardware image stabilization and hardware zoom. I have played with almost every native camera app that exists, the Nokia's blows them all away by a huge margin. There is even a developers kit just for the camera app so you can add your own functionality. National Geographic has issued them to their field photographers and has even developed an app for the phone because of how they felt about this phone.
I'm sure your very happy with your phone and it takes great photos but this is on another level, itis a unique camera phone that honestly does what Nokia is marketing.
Just for fun take the phone out of your pocket and take a picture as fast as you can, by the time you get to your phone app I would have already taken 3 pictures that have begone syncing with my Skydrive and Instagram.
These are neat,
Looks kine of bulky to me.