iPhone 5s Studio Comparison

We lined up for the new Apple iPhone 5s this morning, and Dpreview's Studio Manager Kelcey Smith wasted no time in getting it into our studio, to take a critical look at how its new camera performs.

This is an initial comparison - there's much more on the way. As well as more studio work, we'll be taking the 5S out for the weekend to gather shots for a gallery planned for this Monday. In the meantime though, you can take a look at how the iPhone 5s compares to the competition in our new studio widget. We also recommend checking out our sister site, connect.dpreview.com which will be publishing additional related content in the coming days. 

Click here to find out more about our new studio scene 

Comments

Total comments: 263
12
JustinRebbert
By JustinRebbert (6 months ago)

Some say this isn't a camera. Some say it is. Which is it? Does it matter?

The device itself is, at its core, a phone. Even the name tells you that. But it's also a camera, a GPS, a calculator, an address book, a word processor, and so much more.

If there was a calculator-oriented website (and I'm sure there is somewhere on the Internet), we could talk about this calculator-phone. We could talk about how well it adds up 2+2 and whether the answer it gives is the correct answer, and how long it takes to arrive at its answer, etc. And we could also argue about whether talk about the iPhone belongs on a calculator website.

Whatever you call this device, it takes digital pictures, and that is a fact that cannot be denied. Therefore it is a digital photography device, at least partially, and reviews and discussion of it do belong, in my opinion, on this website.

Further, I believe that comparisons should be possible with other cameras in the same price range, at the very least.

Comment edited 5 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
JustinRebbert
By JustinRebbert (6 months ago)

If one wants to get very technical with definitions, one could argue that this website has never reviewed a camera. Dictionary.com's first definition of "camera" is:

"a boxlike device for holding a film or plate sensitive to light, having an aperture controlled by a shutter that, when opened, admits light enabling an object to be focused, usually by means of a lens, on the film or plate, thereby producing a photographic image."

Has dpreview.com ever reviewed something that uses film or plates to record an image?

Today we use the word "camera" to include digital cameras, without bothering to say "digital". Years ago, users of "real" cameras would not have allowed discussion of any digital camera to enter their worlds, but today, the common use of the word includes digital cameras, which are the main focus of this website. The iPhone has a digital camera in it. As a topic, it is not out of place here. It may not be a dSLR, but it belongs here as much as any $100 point-and-shoot does.

0 upvotes
monkerud
By monkerud (5 months ago)

What ever you call it... please not that at the Palm Springs Photo Conference last May, over 400 photographers from around the world entered the slide show contest. A young woman who took photos of people on the street with her cell phone, and a tintype app won. Many of the 400 were professional photographers.

0 upvotes
Bilgy_no1
By Bilgy_no1 (7 months ago)

Looking at the 'Print' size the advantages of the Nokia Pureview technology become really obvious: it is a much cleaner and more detailed image. Difference is significant even at these low ISO values, imagine what happens at ISO 400...

0 upvotes
cxsparc
By cxsparc (7 months ago)

The totally differently sized crop for the Lumia and Sony compared to apple due to the different resolution renders the visual comparison more or less useless. It would have been better to set the lumia to an equivalent resolution for this purpose

0 upvotes
chromnd
By chromnd (7 months ago)

You can set the image size to "print", to have the same size for all images.

2 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (7 months ago)

some say that phone cameras are not real. maybe they also say single-use cameras not real. but these cameras are at least better than some pre-war Leica. the plastic lenses have less aberration than German grinded and polished ones (because the precision technology and aspherical lens design).

call it real or not, we have been using better than Leica disposable cameras since 1980s.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 5 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (7 months ago)

also those who call phone camera not real may also want to call Pentax and Olympus not real, because they are really digital Polaroids. they cook photos so heavily that the raw files can hardly be called "digital negative."

Comment edited 40 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
CortoPA
By CortoPA (7 months ago)

Stop cooking Meth man.

0 upvotes
AbrasiveReducer
By AbrasiveReducer (7 months ago)

I guess there is a point to this but if you've decided to use a phone as a camera, you've already decided what your priorities are. It would be interesting to see how much you give up by not using a camera as your camera. Then again, some of the smaller sensor cameras are probably no better than a phone.

1 upvote
graybalanced
By graybalanced (7 months ago)

You cannot deny that is is a camera that photographers do use. You also cannot deny that it is a camera used by many photographers that also own and are proficient at using "serious" and "professional" gear.

3 upvotes
Jon Ragnarsson
By Jon Ragnarsson (7 months ago)

Meanwhile, we all wait for bunch of 'preview' cameras to be tested... what is this site turning into? :|

0 upvotes
ecm
By ecm (7 months ago)

Not one real camera to compare it to. I don't usually say this kind of thing but this article seems to be a waste of time on a photography website. I feel like someone is trying to sell me a Kodak Instamatic when I came here to buy a Nikon F100.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
3 upvotes
nonuniform
By nonuniform (7 months ago)

It's not a real camera. It's a phone with a camera. Makes sense to compare it to other phones with cameras.

Is using a smartphone to take photos NOT photography? Is photography a term that describes images captured with x,y,z brands of cameras?

Get a grip. If it's capturing still images, it's a camera, and it's photography.

8 upvotes
ecm
By ecm (7 months ago)

Nice straw man.

"It's not a real camera. It's a phone with a camera." vs. "If it's capturing still images, it's a camera, and it's photography."

So, which is it?

0 upvotes
schorscho
By schorscho (7 months ago)

A more relevant note:
I don't see any real improvements between the 5 and 5s it's hard to see any real improvements at Apple lately, hope this chance soon.

1 upvote
Menneisyys
By Menneisyys (7 months ago)

There IS an improvement in the non-corner areas. See my dedicated posts.

0 upvotes
DDWD10
By DDWD10 (7 months ago)

A few other sites have conducted low-light comparisons of the 5 and 5s and there is a definite improvement. This scene doesn't tell the whole story.

0 upvotes
graybalanced
By graybalanced (7 months ago)

If you don't see any improvements, you haven't been paying attention.

0 upvotes
jodyr
By jodyr (7 months ago)

At best, a modest improvement.

0 upvotes
schorscho
By schorscho (7 months ago)

Austrian money at Dpreview.

0 upvotes
Higuel
By Higuel (7 months ago)

It is a pity that we can't compare them with the cameras tests!!! I find it would be VERY interesting and informative!!!
I wonder why Dpreview excluded that possibility?!? :(
Even if we would have to press an extra click to open that possibility!!!

3 upvotes
byinspiration
By byinspiration (7 months ago)

where is nokia lumia 1020 (5 mp)? This is the essence of technology Pureview

2 upvotes
Ran Plett
By Ran Plett (7 months ago)

I would love to see each phone's rendition of an HDR image as well.

0 upvotes
Menneisyys
By Menneisyys (7 months ago)

I don't think there's much difference - after all, the so-called "HDR" mode (when present) only provides about 1-2 EV's worth of additional DR but in no way more. Good to have but you'll always need to bracket for the best results as this "quick" HDR can't at all match "true" HDR.. (I have it always on on my iPhone 5, with enabled backing up of the non-"HDR" originals, should the HDR version being messed up.

For example, I've compared the stock HDR capabilities of the iPhone 5 to stitching at http://www.iphonelife.com/blog/87/exposure-compensation-and-bracketing-bible , in section "2.1 The stock Camera client". There is an auto-stitched HDR shot with 8 EV difference and also one made with the hDR featue of the stock Camera client.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
bigley Ling
By bigley Ling (7 months ago)

Looking at skin tones on the studio test image. we can see the iPhone 5 and 5s going for a much warmer approach which is actually somewhat pleasing to the eye. The 1020 and Z1 looks for some strange reason render skin tones very similar, albeit the resolution difference. The S4 skin tones seems to like in between the 1020 and the iPhone.

Interestingly, I actually like the skin tone gradations between the iPhone and the S4 more than the 1020, and the Z. It feels like both these camera sensor is missing a few bits or something.

0 upvotes
tkbslc
By tkbslc (7 months ago)

Would be nice to be able to compare against standard cameras, too.

3 upvotes
km25
By km25 (7 months ago)

Hey, the Iphone 5s looks bad, the best of the lot is the Samsung, it looks not so bad. What agreat add to buy a point and shoot. But I do come from a time when "take a picture of that with your phone", would make people think you were not well or very stoned.
A point and shoot for $100 would more then likely blow these guys out of the water. Anyone who buys a phone for a camera get's what he/she desreves.

0 upvotes
Menneisyys
By Menneisyys (7 months ago)

"Hey, the Iphone 5s looks bad"

Does it? IMHO, it's - apart from the corners - about as good as the GS4. Both have different strengths and weaknesses. The GS4 has definitely better resolution (also because of its lack of an AA filter) but definitely destructive oversharpening. The 5s applies far less sharpening but its effective resolution is lower and the corners are far worse than that of the GS4.

", the best of the lot is the Samsung, it looks not so bad"

In the corners (and, when compared to the 1020, in the left/rightmost 7% of the frame), the GS4 indeed is the best. In the remaining 84% of the frame, however, the 1020 has much better resolution and less noise (assuming equivalent downsampled image size).

0 upvotes
bigley Ling
By bigley Ling (7 months ago)

wow, I did not know the GS4 did not have an AA filter? if so then, does it suffer from Moire effects more than say the Z or does the Z also not need an AA filter. I know some Panasonic m43 cameras do not have an AA filter, but in doing so has a software processor to remove moire effects. It seems to work quite well, but still will not remove moire like an AA filter

0 upvotes
Menneisyys
By Menneisyys (7 months ago)

I don't know whether the AA filter is indeed fully missing or is "only" too weak.

Basically, the GS4 has VERY good effective resolution - and also a lot of (in videos) aliasing / (particularly in stills) color moire. Aliasing is certainly visible for example in the ISO 12233 video framegrabs over at GSMArena. Aliasing isn't really present in double-res ISO 12233 stills (including the vertical double-res resolution checker lines of DPReview's studio scene above) - but color moire is much more present than on the 5s or the 1020.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
bigley Ling
By bigley Ling (7 months ago)

In the case of the 1020, the video recording and alos the stills, as long as it has pureview 5mp as the output, there should be no moire, as moire is a side effect of bayer style sensors. Because the 1020 can combine 7 pixels into one creating a pure pixel, there should be absolutely no moire, even if the 1020 has no AA filter.

Do you really see the GS4 as having very good effective resolution? I think even though the charts may indicate good resolution, in real life, the s4 images lack textural detail, and also suffers from a massive edge sharpening phenomena.

0 upvotes
Menneisyys
By Menneisyys (7 months ago)

In synthetic resolution tests (includin g this one's ISO 12233 reschart lines), the GS4 shines.

Of course, real-world (non-BW synthetic) images are marred by NR and oversharpening.

0 upvotes
Thomas Kachadurian
By Thomas Kachadurian (7 months ago)

It would be more helpful to compare it to a real camera. Why are the all turned off?

1 upvote
David1London
By David1London (7 months ago)

Am I missing something, shouldn't the Sony images be the Z1 rather than the older Z?

1 upvote
Menneisyys
By Menneisyys (7 months ago)

The Z1 is a brand new camera. DPRewview may still not have it in-house.

Nevertheless, the Z1 produces pretty bad-quality images. I don't think it can beat the 5s / GS4, let alone the 1020. That is, we don't miss much.

0 upvotes
Benarm
By Benarm (7 months ago)

What about low-light scene? Is it that horrible?

2 upvotes
KariIceland
By KariIceland (7 months ago)

The Xperia looks god awful, the others look satisfactory, I own the S2 & I have been using it for a long time, would I get any of these phones? no because the difference is not enough yet for me to warrant spending over 500$ for a new phone.

2 upvotes
bigley Ling
By bigley Ling (7 months ago)

I think the 1020 is a massive jump in pixel IQ and quality over the S2. The only issue is that the 1020 is running Windows Mobile, and not Android.

2 upvotes
limlh
By limlh (7 months ago)

So is the Samsung S4. They look like coming from the same sensor, watercolor with over-sharpening of edges, just like a normal phone camera.

0 upvotes
Menneisyys
By Menneisyys (7 months ago)

limlh, the Z has way worse IQ than the GS4. There is just no comparison.

0 upvotes
bigley Ling
By bigley Ling (7 months ago)

the Z only has worst IQ than the GS4 due to poor image processing algorithms. This is strange since Sony is known to have excellent image processing in their dedicated digicams.

It is said that both the Z and the SG4 have the same 13mp sensor, but the optics may be different and the way the image is processed may be different.

0 upvotes
Menneisyys
By Menneisyys (7 months ago)

The HX series has exactly the same bad IQ. It's indeed the JPEG procession - it just can't make out anything meaningful of the sea of noise.

0 upvotes
Jen Yates
By Jen Yates (7 months ago)

Nobody seems to be mentioning that the 5S shots are much sharper than the 5 when examining the items in front of the main scene (EG Top left sponge, top right feather). When you look at the items at the 'back' (Such as all the focus charts) the 5S is softer.

So what we are seeing is a depth of field difference, or maybe some front focussing or maybe a poor selection of focus point.

Some of it 'could' be jpeg artefacts, or noise but I think the culprit is focus / dof.
I don't think this one test image alone can conclude which 'is sharper'

2 upvotes
Menneisyys
By Menneisyys (7 months ago)

I'm pretty sure it's not a DoF issue - after all, the 5s only has a 1/3" sensor, which, with a 30mm equiv f/2.2 lens, still produces very deep DoF (the iPhone 5 has a 33mm equiv lens, which means it would have somewhat shallower DoF if the aperture / sensor size would be the same). Even with the feather "sticking out" a lot, both it and the cardboard would still easily be in focus.

BTW, I've closely scrutinized the feather / sponge. What you consider "being in focus" is plain less NR / post-sharpening, which, with pretty much homogenous colors like those of these, results in much better detail retention. Note that I too pointed out (see my posts on the three-color decreasing-charize text) the 5s applies far less NR / post-sharpening than the 5.

(contd. below)

0 upvotes
Menneisyys
By Menneisyys (7 months ago)

(contd. from above)

Furthermore, if the background were defocused, the 5s couldn't have beaten the 5 in the three-color text test (my dedicated post & crops at http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/52204330 )

All in all, the 5s is in focus. The corner softness is because of the somewhat wider (30 vs 33mm) & brighter (2.2 vs 2.4) lens and 15% bigger sensor area. It'd be impossible to reuse the same (-size) lens of the 5 with the same corner sharpness. Even Nokia couldn't do it while miniaturizing the 808's lens for the 1020.

0 upvotes
bigley Ling
By bigley Ling (7 months ago)

Those focus charts in the corner are designed to test corner sharpness of the lens. Obviously the main focus point will be the center circle and moire testing charts in the middle.

I would imagine DP review would have designed their new studio test chart to be larger, and hence allowing the phone camera to sit further away from the focus plane of the chart. The distance should alleviate the need to correct for DOF.

0 upvotes
Petrogel
By Petrogel (7 months ago)

Both Samsung S4 and iPhone 5 they seem to be equipped with more appropriate lenses, giving sharper images even at the corners, where lumia is the worst than competition.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
4 upvotes
KariIceland
By KariIceland (7 months ago)

*facepalms* the other phones use a ton of noise reduction not to mention the lumia is taken at 41 megapixels, the others at 8 megapixels, size it down to an 8 megapixel image and it wins hands down but still looses to the 808 by a tiny bit.

1 upvote
Petrogel
By Petrogel (7 months ago)

Lumia's superiority is obvious only at high iso, even at 8mp the lens has serious light fall off at corners!.

1 upvote
Menneisyys
By Menneisyys (7 months ago)

"Lumia's superiority is obvious only at high iso, even at 8mp the lens has serious light fall off at corners!."

???? you mean corner softness & CA, not vignetting, do you?

Nevertheless, the 1020 indeed has bad corners / left&right borders. However, in everything else, it wins. Including shooting in bright light like the above test scene (ISO 100 & 1/120s means bright scene): when downsampled to 8 Mpixels, it has considerably less noise than even the (also-downsampled) GS4 or the 5s, let alone the worst of the bunch (the iPhone 5).

Again, feel free to read my dedicated writeup here in the DPR forum, where I've proved this all: http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/52202175

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
bigley Ling
By bigley Ling (7 months ago)

@KariIceland Yes, sizing down to 8Mp will not only reduce noise, but also reduce the corner softness, but as Menneisyys has stated, that even at the reduce 5Mp pureview, the softness in the corners is still of concern, just less of a concern.

I also find it annoying there is actually no option to do 8Mp oversampling with the 1020, so you either are stuck with the massive full resolution image, or a much lower resolution 5MP image.

I tend to agree that the iPhone and SGS4 do have better corner performance, but one has to remember that the iPhone does have a narrower focal length, which in turn makes it easier to to achieve more consistent sharpness in the corners.

0 upvotes
topokus
By topokus (7 months ago)

The 1020 has a very wide FoV compared to the iphone. Seeing as size was clearly important to nokia I can see why they went with smaller lenses. Besides, the intention was never to use the full 38MP images, but rather the oversampled 5MP images or even zoom crops from (hopefully) the centre regions of the sensor.

I think the 1020 should include an 8MP option like the 808, and I think this is planned for a future update. In fact I'm sure I read somewhere that this is coming, but I can't remember where. 8MP would be nice because you do get that extra resolution, but you also get the amazingly sharp and noise free image that the oversampling provides. Even the 5MP images from the 1020 have way more detail and less noise than the S4/iphone images, and they often look better than the full 38MP image anyway, so I tend to stick to using those for sharing/publishing.

0 upvotes
bigley Ling
By bigley Ling (7 months ago)

yes the 1020 really does need 8mp modes, since 5Mp is a little low these days.

Just to let you know using 3rd party app on the 808, it can capture 12mp pureview oversampled images. Obviously it is not as clean as 8mp pureview or 5mp pureview, but at least there is a solution for those who want a smaller amount of over sampling in favor of higher resolutions.

0 upvotes
limlh
By limlh (7 months ago)

I think there is a definite improvement. Image from Iphone 5s looks like it comes from a real camera and not a phone. Nokia Lumia 1020 looks very good as well. Sony Xperia Z and Samsung S4 look terrible.

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
Menneisyys
By Menneisyys (7 months ago)

The GS4 is in no way terrible compared to the 5s - actually, it's definitely better in the corners.

It does apply more sharpening than the 5s and has some bad aliasing over the Nyquist limit because of the lack of the AA filter but, on the whole, I'd say the IQ of the GS4 isn't much worse than that of the 5s - if at all.

8 upvotes
KZMike
By KZMike (7 months ago)

It would seem that we ought to be able to compare 'it' with some 'real' cameras as well as Vlad has suggested.

Phones are not dedicated cameras yabokkie and others suggest and have little flexibility in some many instances

0 upvotes
ChrisKramer1
By ChrisKramer1 (7 months ago)

Have to disagree. The Iphone 5 looks better. Compare the cards and colour circle towards the top right. The card next to the Queen of Spades looks cleaner and better defined on the Iphone 5. Look again at the threads. The Iphone 5s has slightly better thread definition, but the colours are off, with red looking like orange (skin colour on the unshaven caucasian is also orange) and the black-white inscriptions are clearer on the Iphone 5. So, definitely not an improvement - objectively speaking.

0 upvotes
KariIceland
By KariIceland (7 months ago)

The S4 actually looks better than the iphone 5s & Xperia Z

2 upvotes
Menneisyys
By Menneisyys (7 months ago)

"The S4 actually looks better than the iphone 5s & Xperia Z"

I wish it applied way less (or at least configurable) sharpening. It has a very detrimental effect on the overall IQ - which, again, isn't at all bad, also thanks to the (seeming) lack of the AA filter.

0 upvotes
Vlad4D
By Vlad4D (7 months ago)

I would like to compare smartphones with real cameras. Why not add phones and cameras to same single database?

3 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (7 months ago)

smart phones are not fake cameras, they are all real.

1 upvote
Petrogel
By Petrogel (7 months ago)

@Vlad4D
You mean, real cameras with real lenses taking real photos ?
That would collapse peoples arguments flaunting the superiority of cell phones, it won't be good for the arguments.

1 upvote
JadedGamer
By JadedGamer (7 months ago)

There is a lens, there is a sensor, there is capture taking place. So it is a camera.

Some people sound like the large- and medium-format die-hards said when that teeny-weeny 35mm film on a roll was introduced. It's not really photography unless you slide it in.

1 upvote
Petrogel
By Petrogel (7 months ago)

If the closest you can get to a real camera is your phone, then good for you, you won't be asking for more.

3 upvotes
wansai
By wansai (7 months ago)

I would actually like to see this as well. If we consider phones to be equivalent as point and shoots, I'd like to be able to compare relative performance. I think it makes a lot of sense if I, as a consumer, can decide if the improvements on mobile are good enough relative to a dedicated camera to make either purchase or just stay with one for photographs.

0 upvotes
JadedGamer
By JadedGamer (7 months ago)

I take my phone with me always. I do not bother dragging my Canon 5D mk III with me everywhere. See the point? The phone will capture shots the DSLR will not because the DSLR was not there when opportunity arose.

0 upvotes
Teru Kage
By Teru Kage (7 months ago)

I'm not a huge Samsung fan but I chose the Galaxy S4 earlier this year and it's good to see it performs better than most of the competition.

4 upvotes
KariIceland
By KariIceland (7 months ago)

It actually outperforms any of the camera phones except the nokia 808. You made a good call, I own the S2 & personally am going to wait another year before spending hundreds of dollars on a new phone.

2 upvotes
Tuukka
By Tuukka (7 months ago)

Drop it to "print" or "web" size and anyone would be hard pressed to find a difference without reference.

1 upvote
Menneisyys
By Menneisyys (7 months ago)

"Anyone"? You meant people without knowledge of photography / image quality.

The IQ differences are obvious, particularly in the corners and in the small-text areas (e.g., the bank note and the multirow text at the top)

1 upvote
Tuukka
By Tuukka (7 months ago)

By anyone i mean anyone whos not looking for differences and shooting in uncontrolled enviroment. Thats around 90+% of consumers right there. be honest .. When was the last time you heard someone take a picture with camera phone and complain about soft corners?

3 upvotes
Menneisyys
By Menneisyys (7 months ago)

" Thats around 90+% of consumers right there. be honest .. "

Sure, casual users / snappers won't really notice the difference because they don't know much about photography. We do.

0 upvotes
aimasum1
By aimasum1 (7 months ago)

IPhone 5s Studio Comparison is very helpful to us.but now iphon 5s is going well in it.so I hope the iphone 5s will go long run.
http://www.solidsetup.com/
but the user infrared is very good.lets see

1 upvote
Michael Ma
By Michael Ma (7 months ago)

5S corners are much softer than the 5. This factor negates any improvements in the minimal improvements towards the center.

1 upvote
quiquae
By quiquae (7 months ago)

The lower right corner looks softer than the upper left corner, which suggests that the camera was not well aligned with the object. It's interesting that the Lumias look terrible in the corners, too.

0 upvotes
jose vu
By jose vu (7 months ago)

how come only ISO32?

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (7 months ago)

DPReview's target is very brightly illuminated, about 7-10 times of a normal livingroom.

0 upvotes
rhlpetrus
By rhlpetrus (7 months ago)

The 5s is not well aligned, check corners. For my tastes the 5s is best in terms of natural reproduction, very good for a smartphone.

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (7 months ago)

think they need a trolley in the studio, which will be also good for checking lens' angle of views in normal usage.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
1 upvote
TrojMacReady
By TrojMacReady (7 months ago)

Or more likely the lens elements aren't well aligned, which is more of a QC problem at manufacturer level.

0 upvotes
comet suisei
By comet suisei (7 months ago)

can't understand this Comparison, you take the brand new iphone 5S but the one year old Sony Z, you d'better compare the iPhone 5 and Galaxy S4 with the Sony Z

0 upvotes
Stitzer23
By Stitzer23 (7 months ago)

Nowhere has a patch of green leaves and fluff been more scrutinised than this test scene.

0 upvotes
ageha
By ageha (7 months ago)

Why didn't you add the Z1 instead of the Z? ;)

1 upvote
Menneisyys
By Menneisyys (7 months ago)

Because they still don't have one? It's a very recent handset.

Nevertheless, I'm not too bothered. The Z1 seems to be a loser, IQ-wise. I definitely won't purchase it - I'll wait for the Nexus 5 announcement to see whether it really has the G2 camera, with OIS and all the other niceties.

0 upvotes
Frank_BR
By Frank_BR (7 months ago)

Unbelievable, the Nokia Lumia 1020 outresolves almost all FF cameras except the Nikon D800! For example, if you compare the Nokia Lumia 1020 with the Canon 5D MkrIII you'll get the following numbers:

Nokia Lumia 1020: ~3600 LPH
Canon 5D MkrIII: ~3000 LPH

This result is even more surprising if you consider that the 85mm Canon lens was set to F/7.1, whereas the Lumia lens was wide open at F/2.2. That is, the Canon lens was operating at the optimum aperture regarding resolution, and the Lumia lens was using an aperture much more prone to degradation by optical aberrations. Even so, the Lumia won.

6 upvotes
jnxr
By jnxr (7 months ago)

So does it best the Nokia 808 Pureview in terms of IQ?

0 upvotes
Matthew Miller
By Matthew Miller (7 months ago)

I think you're making a false assumption about the "wide open" lens. Basically, all conventional wisdom is off the table here, since this lens doesn't stop down at all, controlling exposure only through digital ISO and shutter speed. That means it's optimized for the only aperture it has -- there really is no concept of "wide open" because there is nothing else.

0 upvotes
Matthew Miller
By Matthew Miller (7 months ago)

That's not to say it isn't impressive, of course!

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (7 months ago)

it's an f/8.5 lens in term of 35mm format, piece of cake.

some complains about peripheral aberration but quality at the center is much more important especially for digital zoom. it's very impressive for it's a lead camera of a new breed of cameras we are going to have, even for interchangeable lens ones because optical extenders will always perform less as well as digital zoom as long as we have enough sensor resolution.

0 upvotes
Frank_BR
By Frank_BR (7 months ago)

"it's an f/8.5 lens in term of 35mm format, piece of cake".

I think there is a confusion here. In terms of control of aberrations, an F/2.2 lens is an F/2.2 lens, no matter the size of the sensor. Designing an F/2.2 is not a "piece of cake". By the contrary, it is very difficult to control the aberrations, especially in the corners.

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (7 months ago)

well "how difficult" is not something I can calculate with high accuracy. it may be more difficult than f/8.5. still f-number equiv. is a good rule of thumb for cost unless we get really close to f/0.5.

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
wansai
By wansai (7 months ago)

The lumia can resolve a lot of detail but the general performance overall is still heavily in favour of the mid to higher end cameras.

I can appreciate the detail here but it also misses in other areas of scene reproduction.

0 upvotes
KariIceland
By KariIceland (7 months ago)

Eh no, no it does NOT. What you just said is 100% BS.
And I say this as a future owner of that phone (coming in a few days time) But sir you have proven that you have NO knowledge about photography so please just stop claiming things like this, it is utter nonsense.

0 upvotes
bigley Ling
By bigley Ling (7 months ago)

In the right situation, the Nokia 1020 and it's predecessor, the Nokia 808, would out resolve the 5d3 for detail. I have tested this on the field, and it is the case.

This does not mean the 808 or 1020 is a replacement for your DSLR. There are many other factors that affect capturing images, eg dynamic, range, usability, ergonomic grip, focus speed, high ISO performance, etc. All of these a DSLR will easily outperform the 1020.

If you primarily capture landscapes and use a tripod often, the lumia 1020 or 808 will capture an image with substantial detail but not without some digital noise.

The optics on both the 1020 and the 808 is really quite amazing being able to resolve good detail at full resolutions without suffering from too much diffraction effects. The 808 goes that little bit further by having really impressive detail throughout the frame including the corners, while maintaining an aperture of f2.4.

Comment edited 53 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
vlad0
By vlad0 (7 months ago)

808 > 1020 in terms of image IQ and overall lens performance..

0 upvotes
bigley Ling
By bigley Ling (7 months ago)

agree vlad0 I still believe the 808 was designed to compete against large sensor DSLR's whereas the 1020 is designed to compete against entry level point and shoot and other mobile cameras.

0 upvotes
vv50
By vv50 (7 months ago)

there's no evidence that the designer of the 808 targetted DSLRs. the pureview technology in the 808 was designed to be able to perform lossless zoom for pictures and video like an entry-level P&S without making the phone bulky. the exceptional image quality at 1x was just an added benefit. read the white paper if you have any doubt.

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (7 months ago)

near all of new features we have on SLRs come from P&Ss, live-view, video, facial recognition, on-sensor PDAF, and many new sensor technologies (any sensor maker should have a firm foot in mobile and P&S market, or fail the competition like Canon).

0 upvotes
dale thorn
By dale thorn (7 months ago)

I can't find my post here in these comments, but I posted detailed images from both the 5 and 5s on my gallery and in the iOS forum, showing both to be rather poor cameras when images are viewed at 100 percent. The tremendous variation in quality across the images at random points are unexplainable.

0 upvotes
InTheMist
By InTheMist (7 months ago)

The skin tones are all over the place.

I wonder which looks more like the original?

0 upvotes
Menneisyys
By Menneisyys (7 months ago)

A quick note: I've posted a detailed comparison of the three-colored varying-charsized text area at the top center to http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/52204330

0 upvotes
RichRMA
By RichRMA (7 months ago)

Sony is junk. I guess we know where they saved money?

2 upvotes
Menneisyys
By Menneisyys (7 months ago)

All their small-sensor cameras (e.g., the HX series) are junk, IQ-wise, compared to cameras in the same class (e.g., travel zooms) from other manufacturers (e.g., Pana) with the same sensor size.

Comment edited 43 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (7 months ago)

it's not really the small sensor but small aperture lens.

0 upvotes
kriztian
By kriztian (7 months ago)

Well well, I think we all can agree on one thing. The Lumia 1020 is nocking the sock out of the rest. Having said that the Iphone is better than Xperia.
Cheers :)

0 upvotes
Kelton Sweet
By Kelton Sweet (7 months ago)

These complaints are incomprehensible.

On a phone, I think these photos are incredible. The detail on those tiny little cropped samples are amazing....for a phone

2 upvotes
AndreeMarkefors
By AndreeMarkefors (7 months ago)

Refreshingly restrained sharpness settings means less artifacts baked in.

So I guess that's nice.

1 upvote
Menneisyys
By Menneisyys (7 months ago)

The 5s applies less oersharpening as it doesn't need to do as much NR as with the iPhone 5. This is why for example the text rendering (see my just-posted article addition at http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/52204330 ) is decidedly better on the 5s than on the 5.

Nevertheless, it's still a long cry away from the 1020, apart from the blurred 6.6% part of the frame next to the left/right borders.

1 upvote
photosen
By photosen (7 months ago)

A comparison with a Point and Shoot, a super zoom and a DSLR would be useful, I would expect all of these to suck, just like my Nexus 4 does.

0 upvotes
Menneisyys
By Menneisyys (7 months ago)

Come on - the Nexus 4 has, as is well known, a sub-par camera. It just can't be rightfully compared to any of the high-end smartphones (iPhones, Samsung GS series, Nokia's cameraphones etc).

0 upvotes
Itai42
By Itai42 (7 months ago)

Did you notice the bunch of hair to the right of center is not there on other cameras (e.g. the S4) :)

0 upvotes
Menneisyys
By Menneisyys (7 months ago)

Yup, the GS4 shots must have been taken earlier.

1 upvote
bigley Ling
By bigley Ling (7 months ago)

Hi, new test scene is very nice. Just wondering though, will you be adding more ISO settings for the mobiles.Also how about the low light mode..

Lastly, will you be adding the likes of older camera phones like the Nokia 808, iPhone 4s etc to this new studio test scene?

0 upvotes
brent collins
By brent collins (7 months ago)

Overall the iPhone 5s is clearly superior to any of the others. Add up all the pros vs cons and there is no other conclusion possible to anyone who is objective. Corner sharpness alone crushes the Nokia. None will replace my DSLR, Micor4/3 or even my aging G6, but when it's all you've got I'd take the 5s anyday.

3 upvotes
supeyugin1
By supeyugin1 (7 months ago)

If you're an Apple fan, then yes, iphone is the best and clearly superior to others. Otherwise Galaxy S4 is better.

10 upvotes
brent collins
By brent collins (7 months ago)

Nothing to do with being an Apple fan. I compared the 4 phones displayed in the article.

1 upvote
brent collins
By brent collins (7 months ago)

Although after glancing at your posting history, it appears that YOUR opinion is one based on being a Samsung fan. A bit hypocritical if you ask me.

1 upvote
Itai42
By Itai42 (7 months ago)

Did you check out the Nokia 1020 (both in full size and print size) the difference is just amazing in resolution and color reproduction. Will probably be more noticeable once they add the low light test as well...

2 upvotes
brent collins
By brent collins (7 months ago)

I checked them all very carefully and the sponge, brushes and other items look terrible from the Nokia.

2 upvotes
nerd2
By nerd2 (7 months ago)

It's NOT. Resolution clearly lags behind other 13MP crops of cameras, and has NO manual control whatsoever, lacks OIS.

0 upvotes
Menneisyys
By Menneisyys (7 months ago)

"If you're an Apple fan, then yes, iphone is the best and clearly superior to others. Otherwise Galaxy S4 is better."

Yup, brent collins is another blind Apple fanboy. Or one that doesn't know anything about photography.

1, the GS4 has about the same IQ as the 5s in the center of the frame.
2, the GS4 has significantly(!!!) better IQ than the 5s in the corners
3, even the iPhone 5 beats the iPhone 5s in the corners!

BTW, WRT your assessment of the GS4 being the best, let me disagree, Disregarding the left/rightmost 10% of the frame in 16:9 mode, the 1020 delivers (when all images are downsampled to print sizes) cleaner and better-resolution images.

Comment edited 43 seconds after posting
2 upvotes
Menneisyys
By Menneisyys (7 months ago)

"I checked them all very carefully and the sponge, brushes and other items look terrible from the Nokia."

If you meant the sponge and the right brush in the bottom right corner, you're right. They're already in the "red zone" of the 1020 - with a native 4:3 shot, the rightmost 6.66% of the frame, that is, 7136 * 0.0666 = the rightmost about 475-500 pixels. Everything in that area (and on the left, of course) is blurred and packed with CA.

However, the center of the frame (about 7136 - 2*500 pixels) has much-much better resolution than that of the 5s. Try, for example, reading the text in the three-color English text, with decreasing character size, in the top center! You'll be able to read almost everything on the 1020, while, on the iPhone 5/5s, only the first few rows.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
KariIceland
By KariIceland (7 months ago)

Not it actually is NOT. the 1020 & S4 beat it hands down but the S4 BARELY beats it, apple fan much?

0 upvotes
Wye Photography
By Wye Photography (7 months ago)

One thing I dislike about Americans is their overtly nationalistic and patriotic attitudes. You know, hand on heart and that "One nation under God" lark. And what do they do, buy phones from a Korean company instead of an American company. Makes me laugh.

Perhaps Americans aren't as nationalistic and patriotic as the media makes us Brits believe.

1 upvote
Devendra
By Devendra (7 months ago)

Apple is a US company. 95% of the strategy, design, implementation, execution of their products happen in the US. Manufacturing and assembly of the products may happen outside the country where it can be cheaper and economic.
What is wrong with the picture is your interpretation of how high-end products are engineered, manufactured and sold. You are stereotyping based on certain observations and assumptions, making you look childish and foolish.

3 upvotes
BubbaHotepUK
By BubbaHotepUK (7 months ago)

At least Jonny Ive is a Brit.

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (7 months ago)

Americans have quite open mind that they threw their own TVs into toilet in favor of Japanese and now Korean. they may prefer Chinese, or some made by honey bees or ants if the quality is good and the price is right.

Comment edited 12 minutes after posting
1 upvote
Bamboojled
By Bamboojled (7 months ago)

Wow what an off topic comment...

I especially find your comment about "one nation under God" kind of the Pot calling the kettle Black, when you and your countrymen say "God save the Queen".

Considering that all your industry is owned by foreign companies (Land Rover and Jaguar owned by an Indian Company, Mini owned by Germany, Aston Martin owned by Ford and other companies)... I don't see why you would choose to make such a silly comment, but to each his own.

One thing I don't like about Brits is their bad teeth, but you won't catch me saying this on a forum :)

Comment edited 48 seconds after posting
1 upvote
MarshallG
By MarshallG (7 months ago)

I think you don't understand the multinational makeup of these products. Neither product is all-American, neither is all-Korean, either.

1 upvote
chj
By chj (7 months ago)

empty anti-American comments make me laugh. Americans buy the best product at the best price, regardless of who made it, because that's the American way and that's completely FAIR.

You must be a true Brit and buy all your products from British manufacturers. Which means you have a Triumph motorcycle and not much else :P :P :P

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_in_the_United_Kingdom

0 upvotes
bgbs
By bgbs (7 months ago)

no, Americans are not nationalistic, they are more laid back. For example they don't throw TV's out of their windows when their team loses (in any sport) on the international level.

Besides, how can they be nationalistic when Americans are ALL migrants. But when it comes to tyranny that they escaped from, they do get pretty patriotic about their freedom.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
Digitall
By Digitall (7 months ago)

Enjoyed seeing the last two versions of the S series, 4S and 5S.

0 upvotes
STNY
By STNY (7 months ago)

Where's the lowlight comparison?

2 upvotes
bigley Ling
By bigley Ling (7 months ago)

exactly...

0 upvotes
Menneisyys
By Menneisyys (7 months ago)

Posted a quick evaluation and comparison to the forums here:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/52202175

(Sorry for the link - it's too long a post, I'd have to separate it into several consequtive comments if I wanted to replicate it here.)

I only replicate the Conclusion section:

- the 5s delivers less noisy images than the iPhone 5
- it, however, has somewhat worse corner sharpness than the previous model (as was easy to predict, given that the lens is brighter and the sensor larger, while the lens is of the same size.)
- the 1020 delivers considerably better images, both noise- and resolution-wise, than any of the iPhones, if you shoot full-size and downsample on the desktop. Before it’s fixed, avoid using the output in-camera downsampler for serious shooting!
- however, the 1020 has definitely worse corner & border sharpness than even the iPhone 5s, let alone the, in this regard, better-than-5s iPhone 5. Shoot in 16:9 and crop afterwards to compltely get rid of the problem.

1 upvote
supeyugin1
By supeyugin1 (7 months ago)

On 1020, 16:9 is already cropped (removes top and bottom of the sensor), the you ask to remove left and right, that means you're using the same size sensor as others. Then, what's the point of having a big sensor? The lens seems to be crappy at the borders, I don't see the point of having big sensor with this lens.

1 upvote
bigley Ling
By bigley Ling (7 months ago)

yes the corner softness is quite apparent in the 1020. What is interesting though is the SGS4 has the best corner sharpness to resolution, with the older iPhone 5 coming in second. It seems if you want detail across the whole frame, it is easier to achieve using a smaller sensor

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (7 months ago)

DPReview now cut off the left and right of 3:2 sensors (88.9% left) before comparing with 100% of 4:3.

a fair comparison will need 3 rectangles of exactly the same area for 4:3, 3:2, and 16:9 and compare the fully overlapped common area. all the sensors will have some parts cut off but the cut off area will be exactly the same (so it's fair for everyone).

currently DPReview use a target 1m high which is a fundamental flaw in their test design. but use 1.5 square meter as standard, we will have,
1500.0 x 1000.0 mm2 for 3:2,
1414.2 x 1060.7 mm2 for 4:3, and
1633.0 x 918.6 mm2 for 16:9
with the fully overlapped common area
1414.2 x 918.6 mm2 = 1.3 m2 or 86.6% of any sensor.

note: the common area is for sensor test only, the non-fully-overlapped areas are still there for lens tests.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 9 minutes after posting
1 upvote
Menneisyys
By Menneisyys (7 months ago)

"On 1020, 16:9 is already cropped (removes top and bottom of the sensor), the you ask to remove left and right, that means you're using the same size sensor as others"

Wrong - the DPR shots are using the native 4:3 mode of the sensor, which, just like with every multiaspect sensors (also see Pana GH1, GH2, ZS3 and the like) uses far more rows as the native 16:9 mode.

If DPR used the 16:9 mode and, then, cropped to 4:3 (this is what I've recommended and you've also assumed), the outermost 10% would have completely gone. With the native 4:3 mode, 6.666% of the outermost region is still blurred.

Finally, if you shoot 16:9 and crop to 3:2 (it already gets rid of the blurred areas - you don't need to crop to 4:3), you still have much more pixels (and, consequently, much better IQ than even the 5s / GS4) and a comparable FoV (around 33mm equiv - just like with the iPhone 5 and 5s). That is, cropping 16:9 shots to 3:2 is a usable way of getting high-quality images w/o blur / CA.

Comment edited 24 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Menneisyys
By Menneisyys (7 months ago)

"DPReview now cut off the left and right of 3:2 sensors (88.9% left) before comparing with 100% of 4:3. "

Nope, the *native* 4:3 mode of the 1020 shoots 7136*5360 images. (The sensor being a truly multi-aspect one, the 16:9 mode is of resolution 7712×4352. This is why there is a considerably wider blurred area when shooting 16:9 - all horizontal photodiodes are used in 16:9, unlike in 4:3.) No cropping was done.

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (7 months ago)

@Menneisyys,

"DPReview now cut off the left and right of 3:2 sensors (88.9% left) before comparing with 100% of 4:3. "

would you kindly read it again please.

we should use each of the target rectangles for each aspect ratio. how the maker makes use of a sensor we have no control but we can test them on level ground and whatever the result should be fair.

we should not cut off a sensor in a test but if that's not possible for sensors of different aspect ratios, we can cut off the same portion of area of each and compare, like if we compare 86.6% of two sensors and decide they are the same, we can say 100% of them are the same, too (not the lens).

DPReview now compares 88.9% of a 3:2 sensor against 100% of a 4:3 one so that if we see two sensors the same in such a setting, we can say 100% of the 3:2 is 0.17 stops better than 4:3.

the same applies to 16:9 only the error introduced by test design may be different.

Comment edited 5 times, last edit 14 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Menneisyys
By Menneisyys (7 months ago)

"DPReview now compares 88.9% of a 3:2 sensor against 100% of a 4:3 one so that if we see two sensors the same in such a setting, we can say 100% of the 3:2 is 0.17 stops better than 4:3."

OK, now I understand what you meant.

In this case, this didn't cause any problems as all smartphones, except for the multiaspect 1020, are natively 4:3; that is, extreme (true) corner softness can be directly evaluated and compared.

(The 1020, while its 4:3 mode uses about 400 pixels less than the 16:9 mode, used its native 4:3 mode as people would do. That is, the comparison to it was also valid.)

Of course, with natively 3:2 sensors (those of DSLR's) corner sharpness can't be evaluated / compared based on 4:3 crops.

Comment edited 54 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (7 months ago)

as for lens test, targets of the same area should also be used (like the sizes give above) for that's the base we can have to measure "sharpness".

a scale could be sqrt(area) or 1224.7mm here for normalized 1.5m2 targets . then it's
115.5% PH for 4:3,
122.5% PH for 3:2, and
133.3% PH for 16:9
this also shows that any resolution numbers based on PH are not directly comparable across different aspect ratios.

then the "corner" that I think it should also be defined based on area, like a certain portion of area between concentric circles, but a 7x7 grid for all aspect ratios may be a handy method that corner = (1,1), border=(2,2).

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 5 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
mpgxsvcd
By mpgxsvcd (7 months ago)

The iPhone 5 is a lot better than the 5s for pictures. I thought it was supposed to be the other way around?

Comment edited 7 seconds after posting
4 upvotes
Menneisyys
By Menneisyys (7 months ago)

Only worse in the corners, i think. In the center, it's at least as good as the 5.

0 upvotes
Northgrove
By Northgrove (7 months ago)

I think the same... But pay attention to the ISO. The 5s is shooting at almost twice the sensitivity. I'm not sure why that is so. Did Apple silently raise the base ISO?

Comment edited 26 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Menneisyys
By Menneisyys (7 months ago)

"I think the same... But pay attention to the ISO. The 5s is shooting at almost twice the sensitivity. I'm not sure why that is so. Did Apple silently raise the base ISO?"

Are you sure about this? The 5s shoots at ISO 32, while the 5 at ISO 50.

Of course, these values aren't necessarily the true ones, as has also been pointed out by another comment stating the 1020's shot of exactly the same brightness and shutter speed (the aperture of the two lens being the same) was done at ISO 100. This can even be intentional: We all know how Panasonic? / Olympus? used to overstate their m43 cameras' ISO to make people think their cameras are far better in low light than they really are.

0 upvotes
CameraLabTester
By CameraLabTester (7 months ago)

This is shockingly UNBELIEVABLE but true.

All the 4 corners of the Lumia 1020 image are total CRAP nightmare.

.

5 upvotes
mpgxsvcd
By mpgxsvcd (7 months ago)

Your right. However, the rest of the image is great and the whole point of a 40 megapixel image is that you will crop the image.

3 upvotes
Menneisyys
By Menneisyys (7 months ago)

"All the 4 corners of the Lumia 1020 image are total CRAP nightmare."

Shoot in 16:9 and CROP.

1 upvote
christylewis
By christylewis (7 months ago)

yup, Lumia 1020 is pretty much overhyped

0 upvotes
Menneisyys
By Menneisyys (7 months ago)

"yup, Lumia 1020 is pretty much overhyped"

again, the 1020 is only worse in the corners / around the borders. In the rest of the frame (with 16:9 shots, 80% of the entire frame) it's CONSIDERABLY better than even the 5s.

You only need to crop in post and compose your shot accordingly.

0 upvotes
Wye Photography
By Wye Photography (7 months ago)

I don't want to crop the 1020, why should I. I want it sharp in the corners or not at all.

2 upvotes
Northgrove
By Northgrove (7 months ago)

No, the point of 40 MP is absolutely not to crop the image. That would mess with the focal length and cheat the user, causing a host of problems such as seeing something on the LCD that doesn't represent what will be usable.

No camera assumes that the end-user should take care of cropping horrible lens weaknesses.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 1 minute after posting
1 upvote
Menneisyys
By Menneisyys (7 months ago)

"I don't want to crop the 1020, why should I. I want it sharp in the corners or not at all."

Well, then, you can have the 5s or the SG4, which are way worse in the center. Or any other cameraphone - all of them being worse than the 1020.

Your other choice, with perfect corners, is the 808 if you can live with the lack of OIS / full manual mode / a modern OS.

Unfortunately, in the camera world, you have to live with limitations. You can't have great IQ in a small body.

Comment edited 33 seconds after posting
1 upvote
Menneisyys
By Menneisyys (7 months ago)

"That would mess with the focal length and cheat the user, causing a host of problems such as seeing something on the LCD that doesn't represent what will be usable."

Well, a photo-savvy user wouldn't be bothered by this recommendation. They already know few lens are tack sharp in the corner and already crop when necessary if stopping down during shooting doesn't help / must be avoided to have as shallow a DoF as possible.

For non-tech savvy people, nothing is required - after all, they may not even notice the corners being bad.

Comment edited 25 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
bigley Ling
By bigley Ling (7 months ago)

@Menneisyys. If one has to crop all the 1020 images to avoid soft corners, what is the approx new focal length of the 1020?

0 upvotes
Menneisyys
By Menneisyys (7 months ago)

if you shoot 16:9 and only crop 10% on both sides, about 31-32mm equiv. that is, still somewhat wider than the iPhone 5 - but already narrower than the 5s or the GS4. (Assuming the 5s indeed has a 30mm equiv lens, that is, the EXIF data is right.)

0 upvotes
bigley Ling
By bigley Ling (7 months ago)

thats alot of loss focal length!. Even thoug 32mm is still considered as wide angle, the iPhone at about 35mm not that far off, and you do not need to pos process crop every single image captured!.

Think the 808 is still the 41mp champion imho

0 upvotes
Total comments: 263
12