Low Light - Nokia N808 vs Sony RX100

Started Jul 23, 2012 | Discussions
MT Senior Member • Posts: 1,943
Low Light - Nokia N808 vs Sony RX100

If anyone is able to swing it, I'd love to see some no flash low light shots from both the Nokia and the sony at 28mm using each's respective widest aperture, and then to have aperture matched at f2.8.

I realize the chances of my seeing this is low but it's worth a post to see how the N808 stacks against the best low light small digicam currently.

Thanks,
MTMT

Steve Bingham
Steve Bingham Forum Pro • Posts: 27,311
Impossible to do

The Nokia 808 shoots everything at a fixed aperature of f2.4 and varies shutter speed or ISO (or a ND) to correct exposure.
--
Steve Bingham
http://www.dustylens.com
http://www.ghost-town-photography.com

 Steve Bingham's gear list:Steve Bingham's gear list
Nikon Coolpix 990 Nikon D810 Nikon D7200 Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.8D Fujifilm XF 60mm F2.4 R Macro +32 more
OP MT Senior Member • Posts: 1,943
Re: Low Light - Nokia N808 vs Sony RX100

Ah....then compare them at f2.4, 28mm.....:) Thanks for that bit of information. F2.4 is certainly better than f2.8.

MTMT

CAcreeks
CAcreeks Forum Pro • Posts: 14,843
Re: Low Light - Nokia N808 vs Sony RX100

MT wrote:

Ah....then compare them at f2.4, 28mm.....:) Thanks for that bit of information. F2.4 is certainly better than f2.8.

Sooner or later imaging-resource.com is likely to add Nokia 808 studio shots to their Comparometer.

The N8 comes out fairly well against typical P&S models, but does not beat the Canon S90/95/100.

Alupang
Alupang Senior Member • Posts: 2,889
Re: Low Light - Nokia N808 vs Sony RX100

MT wrote:

If anyone is able to swing it, I'd love to see some no flash low light shots from both the Nokia and the sony at 28mm using each's respective widest aperture, and then to have aperture matched at f2.8.

I own and use a Nex 5n for well over a year now so I think I have a fair opinion how well the Nokia 808 stacks up against the Nex.

These two low light show below: 1st one is ISO50 and the second is ISO800. You can see the ISO50 shot is super clean while the ISO800 is showing shadow grain--more grain than my Nex at ISO800.

I realize the chances of my seeing this is low but it's worth a post to see how the N808 stacks against the best low light small digicam currently.

The areas where the RX100 will beat the 808 is DR and controls obviously. The 808 has the HUGE advantage in size--if you already normally carry a phone then the Nokia 808 has no size at all; it's nothing extra to carry. The RX100 is therefore infinitely larger--as it's another whole device to carry. The 808's fixed wide angle is wider than the RX100--for me this is another huge advantage. Super wide angles are rarer and more expensive--this was a key feature that lured me into buying the 808 Pureview.

But that's just me--I much prefer the 808's tiny but excellent fixed 26mm over the RX100's pop-out consumer zoom. I can carry the 808 powered up and ready to shoot totally concealed in my hand--or simply pretend (or not!) I'm using it as a phone without drawing any attention at all. If you are into street candid shooting I'm sure you can imagine the implications here.

Menneisyys Senior Member • Posts: 1,458
Re: RX100 vs 808 shots here

WOW! I wouldn't have thought the 808 is better at DR than the RX100! Two comparative shots have shown it has clearly better DR than the RX100.

(BTW, the RX100's DR is elaborated on at http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1009&thread=42093245 . At the (artificial) ISO 80/100 settings, it's clerarly worse than at the (native) base ISO, 200. I yet have to check out the EXIF data to see the ISO the shots have been taken at. If at 80/100 and not 200, then, this comparison can't really be used to properly compare the two cameras' DR.)

nRequimM wrote:

http://www.dcfever.com/phones/readreview.php?id=6931

Google translated:

http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=zh-CN&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dcfever.com%2Fphones%2Freadreview.php%3Fid%3D6931

Menneisyys Senior Member • Posts: 1,458
Re: RX100 vs 808 shots here

At last, the full photo ( dcfever.com articles/news/2012/07/120720_rx1005b.jpg ) has been downloaded. It's taken at ISO 80. This means the RX100 has definitely worse DR at the artifical ISO 80/100. The DR-wise optimal sensitivity, ISO 200, however, may turn out to be significantly better - even better than that of the 808.

Menneisyys wrote:

WOW! I wouldn't have thought the 808 is better at DR than the RX100! Two comparative shots have shown it has clearly better DR than the RX100.

(BTW, the RX100's DR is elaborated on at http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1009&thread=42093245 . At the (artificial) ISO 80/100 settings, it's clerarly worse than at the (native) base ISO, 200. I yet have to check out the EXIF data to see the ISO the shots have been taken at. If at 80/100 and not 200, then, this comparison can't really be used to properly compare the two cameras' DR.)

nRequimM wrote:

http://www.dcfever.com/phones/readreview.php?id=6931

Google translated:

http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=zh-CN&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dcfever.com%2Fphones%2Freadreview.php%3Fid%3D6931

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads