808 still wins. I have a Galaxy Note I (2011) and I'll only upgrade to a decent camera phone. Moving from the N8 to the Galaxy Note I lost a lot of fun taking pictures through the phone and I want to recover it.
TheScrambler: It's nice. It's small. It feels good and it's quality is nearly at full frame level. But should i really leave APSC-DSLR technology ? I really dont know...;-)
I want using my legacy lenses, so another brand new APS-C camera is more of the same c*** to me.
sblecher6sj7: Three of us performed a side by side test with a NikonD800, a Canon 60d and a Mamiya 645 Pro. The Mamiya was loaded with Kodak Portra color negative film. The pictures were taken with the cameras on a tripod and the focal lengths were chosen to give the same field coverage. The focal lenth of the Nikon Test shots was !.6 times the Canon and the Mamiya focal length was 1.6 times the Nikon. Then the Mamiya negatives were scanned with a Nikon Coolscan 8000 scanner. The Nikon D800 was best performer, and handily outperformed the Mamiya , and Canon 60D also was better than the Mamiya by a smaller margin. Both digital cameras were both much less noisy than the scanned negative. Since the image from the Mamiya doesn't require as much enlargement,it's still capable of making a big print, but not as good as the Nikon D800. The Mamiya can produce a bigger print than my old Canon 30D. Too bad the test written up in DP Review didn't include any DSLR's between the 40D and The D800.
I think film will never compete with DSLRs in the "gross noise count". Film will always look noisy for the new generation of photographers. On the other hand, film noise is something you can live with while digital noise is monotonous and therefore more disturbing as that pattern take your attention.
On the other hand, the Velvia textures on the metal cable at bottom of the test picture or that gray building at mid right shows that film still is a good option for texture maniacs like me.
Maybe a raw picture from D800 can be better processed, but considering only this review, I still prefer the film one at daylight.
To me the best performer in daylight was the Velvia one. I prefer preserving textures as nearly-random film noise isn't really annoying. This test shows two things: smartphone cameras are not that bad and film is still alive (for practicity you'd better using a D800 though).
I'm still waiting a better camera phone than Nokia 808. Lumia 1020 looks overprocessed and oversharpened.
Boring review... Lumia 1020 wins with a slight margin against S4Z although Nokia 808 has a way better camera for still pictures, albeit it's outdated. In videos, however, the competition is tougher.
Maybe we'll have a better cameraphone landscape when we'll have truly Nokia competitors. But at that time we'll have an even better Nokia phone - a Lumia 1120, maybe.
Currently, when you have a near-premium compact camera performance, you have to buy a Nokia. There aren't any other reasonable options.
Wouldn't the new iPhone 5S have a bigger 8MP sensor than the previous version? This article points to the same sensor size.
Nice! Hopefully it will perform as good as Galaxy S4.
"he feels that his iPhone gives him access to places that his DSLR never could"
In Brazil, even an iPhone is a bit risky. I prefer using a Nokia camera-phone or a premium compact camera which look more like "cheap consumer stuff" so I don't get annoyed by casual robbers.
I wonder if Detroit is really that bad or he is only taking pictures from the most degraded neighborhoods.
Oops409: Your best camera is the one you have with you.My A55 rarely leaves the house - 5% usageMy Nex-6 I take on trips - 70% usageMy RX100 when I think I might come across something interesting - 23% usage.My iPhone 4s is always with me - 2% usageI will order the 5s... Perhaps it will make 5% usage?
I used my N8 on nearly 90% cases. Now with a Galaxy Note I practically stopped taking pictures. However, it keeps making around 80% of my pictures.
The 20% remainder pictures I take with a Pana LX3 (18%) and a Canon F1 (analog, 1%). I have a DSLR (Pentax K100D) and other film gear which I only click the shutter button to assure they're still alive.
In short, a decent phone camera made me more productive and now I almost click nothing. A physical shutter button can be a good explanation to my current behaviour, but not only.
siberstorm27: That headline is a contradiction. iPhone AND photographers? Photographers have DSLRs, and turn their noses at the thought of using an iPhone. I don't know why you are comparing the iPhone to the 41MP of the Lumia 1020 or the 20MP of the Xperia Z1, when it is basic knowledge especially for a photography site that MP doesn't mean jack. Everybody here wants bigger pixels and bigger sensors. You know you are not writing for the dumb naive consumers who look at only MP count. That is not your audience. The iPhone 5S camera isn't any worse than anything else out there. Probably much better than those 1.1 micron 13MP shooters. The Lumia 1020 is a niche product and the Z1's 20MP photos don't look much better than lesser 13MP ones. Neither iPhone 5S or Z1 have OIS. It is still very competitive. Apple hasn't been known to be extraordinary innovative in cameras. I don't see them bucking the trend and pulling out some Lumia 1020 rival.
@TrojMacReady - Yes, I partially agree with you. I agree in the sense that HTC One's 4MP "ultrapixels" perform worse than most current high-end smartphones in all aspects (DR, noise, color accuracy and resolution).
On the other hand, Nokia N8 reportedly had better or - at least on par - DR and low-light performance than Nokia 808 and Lumia 1020, despite it had a smaller - but less dense - sensor than its newer brothers (although N8's sensor was pretty big even in the state of the art of mobile phones).
I don't like Lumia 1020 approach. Nokia 808 pixel density was already concerning having a big 1/1.2" sensor. There wasn't any room for increasing sensor density. But Nokia decreased pixel size in L1020 arguing that BSI sensor would compensate losses in pixel size. However, this approach visibly didn't work: L1020 performs virtually the same as a "modest" 13MP Galaxy SIV. In Nokia 808 I can see better picture quality comparing to Samsung's flagship phone though.
miketala: Was thinking yesterday that Apple is perhaps the most innovate camera maker in the world. For example, the 5s is the only camera in the world to have:1. dual flashes to help get proper white balance regardless of ambient light (1000+ variations of how the flashes fire).2. ability to take 10 pics/second, camera then chooses the best and potentially eliminates remaining motion blur using the remaining pics.3. ability to take slow-motion video (120fps at 720p) and, at any point in the video, speed that part of the vid to real time on the fly.
Not only are these new, but they're totally accessible and useful, even to the lay person.
Thom Hogan speaks directly on all of this at bythom.com.
If it only chooses the best-of-ten pictures as a software IS this would be the most dumb approach I would expect.
I presume that with a 64bit processor, Apple will use advanced algorithms for guessing how the picture will look with no motion blur, merging the ten pictures in only one, pairing or almost pairing with OIS performance.
Mikael Risedal: The ccd is from Sony, more pixels are always better, do not confuse sensor size and pixel pitch.= in plain english, the sensor size always matter and more pixels are a benefit
Suppose a sensor technology called X.If you have two sensors, one with 8MP and the other with 3MP, both with the same size and using the X technology, I would prefer the 3MP one because:
- 4K monitors are not so popular yet.- I prefer bigger dynamic range than highlight-clipped, sharper images;- Lower resolution in this context means better low-light performance;- I never print pictures taken from a mobile phone;- 3MP fits perfectly in a retina iPad.
Charlie Jin: I think that the most innovative feature is the 8M resolution with bigger pixel size. Virtually no one has done it. If they could add more pixels, they always did. If they are idiots, they make it 41M as if we actually need it. It (41M resolution) may make sense, if the phone comes with 256G internal memory with the same price and the 8GHz CPU that can process the 41M image in same speed, and the extra strength battery, and the super speed 6th-generation LTE, and next next generation WiFi.
Apple, well done. It is the best camera phone ever. Congratulations.
I wish Samsung would do that too, since I am using Galaxy Note 2 and I don't have plan to come back to Apple (I am getting old and my eyes can't read things on small iphone screen any more unfortunately). But I know, Samsung will do the same idiotic behavior as Nokia does, since the only thing they can do against Apple would be pixel numbers, which is the easiest thing that manufacturers can do.
Agreed when you say that bigger pixels are a great improvement. But I wouldn't like if they said that the 5S lens now has a wider field of view. Bigger sensor at the expense of wider, very distorted pictures don't seem to be a good choice.
If they could keep the same FOV but added a brighter lens and a bigger sensor, that would be really nice.
Bigger pixels usually mean better dynamic range and also better SNR at the expense of lower resolution in comparison with a denser sensor. I don't mind being stuck with lower resolutions in a phone, but I think it's important having a good dynamic range and low light performance.
This said, a mobile camera with 3MP in a 1/2.3" sensor, 40mm equiv. fov, f/2.4 lens sounds good to me. Pictures would fit perfectly in a retina display and would be on pair with premium compact cameras IQ.
Bring to us a digital film roll for using with analog cameras and I'll pay EUR 1000,00.
Currently, the most acclaimed camera phones are too wide that usually users must zoom to achieve the field-of-view they want. So, a 33mm FOV in a bigger sensor, greater aperture, looks a good improvement.
Also, I guess blazing fast algorithms can do a good job on image stabilization, mixing high and low iso exposures and long and fast exposures. If you can process something like ten pictures fast enough to not make the photographer bored, you'd probably achieve similar goals of an OIS.
Since the early years, Apple invest more on software than on hardware. This is simple to explain: you are more independent when designing good software than when investing massively in hardware - which you usually need to outsource its manufacturing.
When in Nokia phones there's a lot of room for software improvement, in Apple phones you won't get too much improvement on software updates. You can't say there won't be big improvements in iPhone 5S only reading its hardware specs.
What's wrong with a thicker phone with a larger sensor? An 808 with an OIS would be perfect to me.
Alexis D: I got here by chance. I am leaving a comment just because nobody else has, 0 comments! That just shows how much interest people have in Nokia phones. I hope Nokia wakes up and starts using Android before it disappears. It was such a great mobile company once.
And this blog is a waste of time. Nobody care about these phones.
Bye, Nokia, or should I say, So long!
If you really had used Symbian once, you'd prefer it instead of Android. I had a Nokia N8 and now I have a Galaxy Note N7000. Screen and processing power apart, I'd be better with an upgraded Symbian phone supporting higher resolutions.
Basically a Surface Pro more expensive and - maybe - with a better Wacom pen?
Looks like badge-engineering - like the Hasselblad Stellar:http://www.dpreview.com/news/2013/07/22/Hasselblad-announces-Stellar-Sony-RX100-based-20mp-compact
Or Panasonic LX x Leica D-Lux and so on...
Not gonna happen.