Off topic but...is it just me or have they started applying more compression to their images just recently? 500px pictures used to look real sharp but a lot of them look pretty crappy all of sudden. Compression artifacts in facial details are the easiest to spot. It's as if they've suddenly switched their jpegs from 90% to 60% quality. Now all I see are compression artifacts and I can't enjoy the photos anymore!
Surprised it performs noticeably better than other phones including iPhone 5S which has a similarly sized sensor. My wife wants this phone and I now have no reservation recommending this.
Looking forward to your review on 1020's RAW capability...
BTW, your link to "Page 8: Image Quality Comparison (Bright Light" (and subsequent ones) takes me to a wrong page.
michael2011: For low light shots, were cameras handheld or on tripod?
Thanks for that very critical information. Although still informative, that makes the above test results much less useful to typical users who don't carry around tripods. That's because it's basically impossible to ignore the effect of camera shake at such low shutter speeds like 1/15 sec used for the test.
I'm very curious to know how they would compare if they are handheld. From what I've seen elsewhere, Lumia 1020 with OIS may beat many of those DSLRs (even with VR/IS) in very low lights when you are forced to 1/10 to 1/20 sec of shutter speed.
For low light shots, were cameras handheld or on tripod?
People criticize 32GB as "limited storage" for shooting RAW these days? How much memory do you put in *your* DSLRs?
An interesting comparison between Lumia 1020 and Nikon D800E:
No doubt D800E is a better camera but Lumia 1020 holds up surprisingly well. In some cases Lumia is actually better!
In handheld low light shots, it's probably safe to say the 1020 with its OIS can actually get you usable photos more consistently than DSLRs with slow zoom lenses. Something to think about.
michael2011: So D800 is about same as D300S and worse than Canon 7D and Pentax 5-K which cost 1/2 to 1/3 as much? That's a head scratcher to me.
BTW, pictures in the AF review section don't show up in my browser. Links are broken?
Those cameras I mention ARE listed in the same class of "Semi-professional Interchangeable Lens cameras" that show up when you turn on the comparison tool.
Yeah I'm also curious how D800 got docked so much points in the AF & metering subscore compared to other cameras. It probably cost the top overall score. To me, 4 fps is not a real con when nobody else offers 36mp.
So D800 is about same as D300S and worse than Canon 7D and Pentax 5-K which cost 1/2 to 1/3 as much? That's a head scratcher to me.
Images look pretty good now. Even better than the 1024px on Flickr, I might say. Will be interesting to see how this affects Flickr's popularity.
sugardaddy: They're trying to catch up to Google+ in terms of photo displaying/sharing. Even if Facebook is more popular than Google+, Google + has been favored by photographers due to the ease and fidelity of images.
Even if resolutions stay intact, we'll see if file sizes stay intact. Facebook has been known to severely compress jpegs to the point of digital artifacts.
It seems they quietly fixed the recompression issue recently. I see recently uploaded pictures look much better than before. They still compress a bit but hardly noticeable anymore. (Note that they *have* to compress a bit for faster rendering. Otherwise it would take too long to render 3M-5MB images people upload regularly.)
BJL: I wonder why they chose 2048 as the maximum pixel count, and this as the month to announce it?
2048px has been the max for optional downloading. Now they just use it for displaying as well, that's all.
If Nokia brings that to a Windows Phone, it will surely be my next phone. WP is already fantastic and this will be an awesome icing on the cake.
Most of you are missing the point. G+'s higher resolution support doesn't mean a thing if you don't have friends and family there to see them. They may like your beautiful pictures, but most won't ditch FB or open another account on G+ just so they could follow your picture posts. People who would because they are into photos are already on all on Flickr.
One of their biggest expenses for FB now is probably on the storage and transmission of photos due to huge popularity of their service, hence the recompression of images. G+ doesn't have this cost issue because not many people are using their service.
I think FB's 960px for default display size is fine. It suits most laptops and desktops pretty well. Problem is with their recompression. Although I think it's still very good for mobile phone viewing, IQ loss is a little too much for desktop viewing. I hope they improve on that going forward.