I don't get it. By definition, you can't add any DR to camera by firmware update, as it's given by the noise levels of the sensor in the shadow areas.
In other words, this is JPEG tweak, it does not translate to DxOMark results, since these are RAW based.
dennishancock: I find Nokia's whitepaper on the Lumia 1020 to be pseudo-engineering without any math--a.k.a marketing hype--and only serves as the latest example of elucidation through obfuscation. It might serve to make the clueless feel they're purchasing some advanced technology, but really, how is Bayer sensor interpolation noise overcome by (electrically noisier) oversampling?
I noticed marketing-style dishonesty of the text when it tried to convince that cropping-based zooming is better than optical zoom because in case of optical zoom the aperture typicaly narrows down as you zoom in, forcing higher ISO.
They forgot to mention the fact that in case of cropping-based zooming the IQ gets lost at even faster rate, because it reduces the active sensor area used.
Sure they are better than entry level compacts. But not thanks to some mysterious advanced oversampling which is just another name for downsampling) but due to the sensor size.
Frankly they are not pixelpeepable in shadow areas (noise) not even at ISO100. You have to downsample, and then they become no different IQ-wise from any output from similarly sized enthusiast compact sensor.
808 fared better because of larger sensor: by 50%, not 30% as erroneously stated by dpr.
keeponkeepingon: "Although the 1020's sensor is around 30% smaller than the one found in the 808, it's still larger than the 1/1.7" type found in most high-end enthusiast compact cameras. The Lumia 1020's aperture is also 1/3EV faster (F2.2 vs F2.4), which makes up for much of the difference in sensor size."
1/3EV makes up for a 30% reduction in sensor size? I'd love to see the math behind that one.....
I was very excited about this camera but then disappointed in the smaller sensor. I'll believe they compensated for the 30% reduction in size when I can compare some samples side by side, until then my guess is it's slightly worse and no better than the 808.
This also gave me a chuckle:"the 808 performed only slightly better than a 5-year-old-camera"
Let me rewrite that for you:
"The 808, amazingly, performed better than 2007's Canon G9, a camera that dpreview claimed was "as it gets in a compact camera".
Well, that was 2007. How does 808 compare to G15, X10, XZ-2 and RX100 with their bright zoom lens, flashes, hotshoes, viewfinders?
Frankly, I dont see anything revolutionary about these Pureview phones. They use conventional sensors: the hyped oversampling is no different from plain downsampling. The only remarkable part is the prime lens, probably of high resolution.
JEROME NOLAS: Yes, Nokia should be making cameras, can't be so tough, just check what we have on the market...
I dont understand: what do we have on the market ?
I see quite satisfying offer of mirrorless cameras and enthusiast compacts. And they even provide the real zoom, not cropping
1. Is the area of the sensor on this one really smaller than the sensor on 808 only by 30% ? What are the physical dimensions ? I hope you guys are not comparing the diameter: what matters is area.
2. It is definitelly more noisy than 808. The lens is worse too.
3. This is surely a resolution king. But - in contrast to 808 -, shadows suffer a lot, so do corners. And I very much doubt the downsampled 5mpix will be substantially better than downsampled ouput of XZ-2 or G15
Cane: There's a whole lot of people posting on here about a camera they have never touched who have more opinion than brains.
This is a fantastic camera to use. Great photos, great quality, and believe it or not, you can actually take pictures without a viewfinder!
Oh, and for those that think they are creative types, yet think cameras should only be black, I've got news for you. You aren't.
Believe it or not, almost all the posters here have tried to compose in bright sunlight on LCD. You don't need to own K-01 to know the frustration.
Believe it or not, many posters have tried to use PDAF lenses with body in CDAF mode. Again, you don't need to own K-01 to know the frustration.
schaki: Dammit Pentax... GTFO with this joke and that comes from one which like some of the Ricoh compacts though not some of the more questionable products like Pentax Q etc.
I consider Q (especially Q7) to be much less questionable than K-01.Look at it this way: Q is basically an enthusiast P&S with interchangeable lenses. Which is not a bad thing, considering you can attach to it a fisheye, primes and nice zooms.On the other hand K-01 is a unworkabke monster crippled by its lack of CDAF lenses, lack of (optional) viewfinder and by DSLR flange distance.
kgreggain: I own one and paid pretty well full price when it came out. It actually creates decent images. I don't care about all that external crap people are bitching about, for me, it uses my Pentax lenses, and I use a Hoodman for the viewfinder when shooting video. At 895.00 with the 40mm 2.8xs it was not worth it, but at the current of about 400 or so, it's a decent little camera.
I'm not a Pentax fanboy by any means, I just like the camera. I also shoot Nikon and Olympus - I think Pentax got some pretty bad raps about this camera, but all in all it's not that bad.
Sure sensor produces nice imaged. But in order to produce them, the lens have to be focused efficiently, you know. And the whole package has to work in your hands well.How quickly does it focus your PDAF optimised lenses with CDAF ? And how do you use its focus-peeking optimised MF in bright sunlight without viewfinder ?Does really Pentax force you to use its great K-5-like sensor in such a uncomfortablr way ?
While I generally dislike following the herd in my judgements, this time I agree with crowd wisdom. This camera is simply wrongly conceived from the very start. Using PDAF-optimized lenses with CDAF results in poor AF, huge flange distange results in aesthetic/ergonomic disaster, lack of viewfinder makes the focus-peeking assisted MF difficult.Pentax got the concept of mirrorles completelly wrong
I hope at least somebody here has found this an opportunity to pay respect to this creative and industrious man: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Zeiss
ogl: I'd like to see more faster lens.
Then go, buy Nikon V2 with bunch of excellent fast primes and you're all set !
Ben O Connor: God what specs! What a cam!
The most serious treathe to Olympus XZ-2. Come on olympus! Now give us the XZ-3 which has same sensor body & specs with ep-5, smilar amazing lens as XZ-2 which is 20mm on the wide, 120mm on tele end. And not above f2.8
Guys, you realize that you ask for impossible ?
Sony RX-100 is just on the border of the possible. It's small overall size was made possible on 1" format exactly by means of slow (f/4.9) lens @ tele.
Having 4/3 instead of 1" with f/2.8 would take you in a completely different territory size-wise. Look here:
That implies increased size - and most likely a substantial one. Would you accept that ?
ManuelVilardeMacedo: Mirrorless, as it is done now, is a path that leads to nowhere. Cropped sensors will never equal full frame. The way to go is the one Sony pointed at with the RX1: full frame mirrorless. Price can be a problem, I know, and then there's the lens size issue, but mirrorless cameras like this one are uncapable of the kind of dynamic range a full frame sensor can offer. I use a mirrorless camera alongside a 35mm film one, so I'm not writing this out of bigotry or cynicism. These are my findings after comparing results.And no viewfinder is an issue, too - although there will always be the X-E1 for those who can't do without one.
I'm curious, which camera's results did you compare ?
Because for example D5200 sensor matches DR of D700 throughout the ISO range, being 1 stop better @ ISO200.
And don't tell me people were unable to create stunning photography before D800 was launched.
Well, wide-apertured, reasonably priced pancake of great optical performance is a "cherry on the cake" of any mirrorless system.
Think of Samsung's 30 f/2.0 or Panasonic's 20/1.7. Fuji seriously hurt its X system by going the Sony's NEX way, rather than Samsung's NX or Panasonic's M43 way.
nicoboston: Poor review IMO.Almost everything has been described elsewhere for weeks or months.More importantly, there's not a single word about DYNAMIC RANGE, which was one of the most interesting aspect of X10, thanks to EXR.
In fact, review mentioned the that there is an option for expanding DR. However - due to the lack of EXR- the conventional method of underexposing & tonecurve manipulation is used. This method (used by other manufacturers as well) has drawback of amplifying the shadow noise and requires stronger NR.
EXR was invented to improve upon the situation by underesposing only the highlights, not the shadows. This allows the shadows to be much less affected by noise & NR.
This is how it traslated to real-world (X10 vs X20): http://www.dpreview.com/files/t/E~a0cacda465cd43d6a39dc7c5c3cdab71
Joerampi: The cons"Video quality not as good as other high-end compacts"
this camera has 60fps for video, which camera is high end that Dpreview mention?
also for me strength in "optics performance" x10 better then X20" (compare the result) both camera using same lens, but why X10 highest poin with x20
anyone can help to explain?
In my understanding X20 resolves more that X10 not because of X-Trans sensor, but because of getting rid of EXR. X20 resolving power is roughly equal to bayer sensors.
X-Trans provides better resolution than Bayer only in the of APS-C sensor (especially when coupled with prime lenses).
I don't agree with you that X20 is blurrier than XZ-2 in general. Look at JPEG results in DPR studio comparison. When it comes to RAW, it seems there is some noise-reduction applied in DPR studio shots, while there is none of it in XZ-2 shots.
Re: Jpeg engine regress ...
I guess the situation might be salvageable by FW update. These are the problems wrt noise reduction:
- chroma denoising induces excessive chroma (esp. red) bleeding. This may be caused either by insufficiently careful calibration of the algorithm or its general undersophistication.
- luma noise NR seems hard-treshholded. It either obliterates any noise together with any details, or keeps the details (& noise) intact. This trait of the NR algorithm leads to both excessive smearing and the artifacts (especially in the form of blackpepper-like dots).
Looking at RAWs, there seems to be nothing to prevent the X20 to utilize similar NR routines that were present in X10.
X20 is an exemplary case of manufacturer listening too carefully to their customers. X10 was often criticised for its limited resolving power, and since (in popular mind) Fuji owned the means to achieve the high resolution results - the X-Trans - people demanded X10's successor to be equiped with X-Trans.
While X-Trans worked for APS-C very well, in the (diffraction & noise limited) world of small sensors there are other contraints - besides OLP (AA) filter- in the way of achieving very high resolution results. And indeed, X20 yields no more lph than Bayers (such as G15 or XZ-2).
It is futile to hope for hi-res from small sensors. Here Fuji's EXR made much more sense, as it was quite successful in combating other small-sensor limitations: it extended DR considerably or provided somewhat better color separation in low-light situations.
Even if Fuji wanted to sacrifice the EXR benefits for resolution, why did it go the X-Trans instead of Bayer ?