Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
You're kidding saying that 920 outperforms 808. It can't even outperform N8.
OIS is just a slight improvement for giving better low-light performance than standard 8MP phone cameras but not a significant improvement which could beat N808 or N8 big sensors.

Maybe OIS can give some breath to L1020 and its smaller sensor compared to N808. But this is only a feature in low light situation. N808's bigger pixels still have better ISO performance so at best you could say they perform the same in low light.

In bight days, no chance for L1020 performing better than 808 in terms of sharpness and dynamic range.

The L920 can capture more light, with a much smaller sensor, than the 808 because of its IOS. For low light, and low light only, the L920 outperforms the 808 because of this. Now the L1020 has a sensor almost as big as the 808, the difference is much smaller than going from a FX to a DX or a DX to micro 4/3s, and the IOS capabilities of the L920.

This means that the L1020 will be marginally worse than the 808 under daylight conditions but much better in low light.

Picture:
http://www.1800pocketpc.com/blog/wp...0/Nokia-Lumia-920-Low-Light-Night-Shots-3.png
 
it's a great phones, really hard for me not to buy it, but the thing is windows needs to grow their app store, not enough apps is only issue i have with the windows phones.
 
I'm still wondering about this. The leaked video from months back showed a motorized lens. And there's a 3x zoom spec floating around. People are attributing it to the lossless digital zoom max but that makes no sense because lossless digital zoom depends on the final size of the image. IE a 5 mp image should be lossless for 7x, an 8 mp should be lossless for 4x, etc

Well if it did have optical zoom, I'm pretty sure they would have flaunted it during the announcement.
 
Its amazing how many apparent experts on cameras we have on MR. What is even more amazing however, is the amount of disagreements these apparent experts are having with one another.
 
I have the Lumia 920 and it has the best phone camera I have seen. Kind of want this asap!!!!!!!
 
wm7

Yeah, matching the color of the icons to the color of the case. Dumb move on their part. Plus, the icons are just so basic, it looks like kindergartner designed the icons or they are designed to be used by a kindergartner.

That's one thing that they did this in their Windows Mobile Phone "kiddie pool", where it doesn't matter because they have like 1% market share, but to uglify Windows itself was a huge mistake, maybe enough to cost them the desktop market. Who really wants to barf every time they look at their desktop?

The world might just have to transition to OSX and Ubuntu, LOL!

nokia has done it again, a great high-end phone, too bad i wont be able to buy this beauty.

Too bad it's stuck with such crappy software.

::
 
No it's not. Get over it. Quit being an Apple warrior. :rolleyes:

Him/her saying that Windows Phone OS is ugly doesn't make him an Apple warrior. What do ya know, people on an APPLE Enthusiasts site being told not to be an "Apple Warrior".:rolleyes:

----------

To the author: Just an FYI, that isn't the Microsoft logo anymore. They updated it when Windows 8 debuted.

http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/default.aspx

You're posting that in the wrong place if you think it really matters.
 
What counts is the image-level IQ, and the higher-density sensor will never be worse than a lower density sensor in any metric, including resolving ability, diffraction, noise, etc.. It may be that a higher density sensor wont show improvement due to these factors (in certain situations) but again it'll never be worse, and so the higher density sensor yields more options for situations which can utilize the extra density but without any IQ downside in situations where it can't.

Uhh, ideally? But I don't think that's always the case. Higher density doesn't always equal a better image. There's other factors that come into that, things that can affect the quality of the image being captured. There's certain advantages that might come from having the extra pixels, but that wont always equate to a better image.

My D700 is a lower pixel density than my D7000. I get better images out of My D700. I can stop it down further than I can with the D7000. It performs better in the mid-range ISO range.

I don't think you understand diffraction if you're sitting there telling me a higher density sensor would never perform worse than a lower density sensor. If we have two 32mp sensors, Crop and Full frame... that full frame sensor is going to perform better. I can stop the lens down further without losing sharpness.

In fact, this is why I prefer my D700 over the D7000. Stopped down so far, I get a sharper image. I can stop my D7000 down to about f/5.6 before it stars getting soft. My D700 can stop down to about f/11. The difference in resolution is negligible, the difference in sharpness is noticeable. If I'm shooting at night with a f/1.4 50mm lens @ 6400, neither is really better than the other. If I'm shooting portraits in a studio with lights and a lens stopped down to f16-f22, the differences become more apparent.

I brought up diffraction because it's a physical limitation that affects higher density sensors and it's one of the downsize of having such a high density sensor. I'd expect anyone that had experience coming up against that wall would have realized this. There are certain physical limitations that we have to work against, especially as we make things smaller and smaller.

If we're down sampling a 41mp image to 7mp image then sure, diffraction isn't such an issue. That's a bit of a straw man argument though. The loss of pixels negates the loss of quality that was caused by diffraction. If it's as some have suggested though, that when you zoom in, you're actually cropping down to a smaller part of that 41mp image, the quality of the photo is going to drop as the issues of diffraction become more apparent.
 
41 megapixels in a sensor that small!?

The sensor in Lumia 1020 is 4 times larger than on other smartphones. This means that you will get 4 times more detail in the final photo - the photo can be done as 38 megapixels (so that you can resize it with image editors) or as 5 megapixels (where the phone will do the resizing itself).
 
Is this phone on the large side? Maybe the model's hands were particularly small. But this just seems kind of bulky. I wish that camera were in the iPhone though.
 
I've managed to get some good photos out of my iphone5, but it's not something I've ever been thrilled about. I've looked at shots on my phone and got excited, but on the computer it's eh. With those samples, if I could get to that quality, I'd be a lot happier.

My point and shoot is a Fuji XE-1. I don't know that a phone could replace that, it can't give me what I like about that camera. On those days when I don't want to drag a camera around though it'd be a godsend. I've been left dismayed too many times with the quality of pictures on my iphone5.

I can see that. In my case though I have a dslr and a point and shoot would not be a primary camera, but be something to carry around with my phone for snapshots as phone cameras do not cut it. This one would be more than satisfactory for when I do not have the dslr. It would depend on what role the point and shoot plays for the individual. Just looking at it from my view.

For someone that uses a point and shoot as their primary camera it would not be a good replacement.
 
Its amazing how many apparent experts on cameras we have on MR. What is even more amazing however, is the amount of disagreements these apparent experts are having with one another.

I guess I'm one of those apparent experts? Or am I giving myself too much credit? People will always disagree. Everyone has their own set of experiences that dictate their opinion. Thing is, two people can disagree and still both be right.

I've had arguments on here with "expects" on a variety of topics. I recall the one's I've got into about professional class hardware and that whole space. We're both professionals working in the industry, but we're working with a different system and so our requirements are pretty different. It causes us a disagreement on what we think is best. Both of us are right though because for our needs, what we argue, is best... though it may not be for the other person.

I'm sorry if we offended you (probably didn't) by discussing camera related topics though. Some of us are rather excited about the prospect of a high quality camera as such. It warrants discussion and thought for us. Photography is our passion after all. If it makes you feel any better, at the end of the day, I detach myself from the chair and go enjoy this passion... leaving these sorts of technical disagreements behind. After all, we can argue it's the emotion the picture evokes more than the sharpness of the image. Anything we argue here is null if the image that was taken sparks a fire in someone's soul, brings a tear to someone's eye. I've seen 110 images do that. I've had 110 images do that to me. :p
 
I love my macs, but honestly... you're claiming you've never had a crash on your Mac... ever?

Sorry for my skepticism, but I find that hard to believe.

w00master

You have to realize something. Most people don't actually consider force closing an app as a crash, "It just stopped working/responding", but they they don't equate that to a crash. :)
 
For someone that uses a point and shoot as their primary camera it would not be a good replacement.

I have to disagree with you on this one. I see many people carrying $100 point and shoots with them all the time, taking over exposed pictures with their flash on all the the time. So carrying a phone like the Lumia 1020 instead of that crappy point and shoot won't make that much of a difference.
 
Pixel size has no effect on the noise in the image when compared at equivalent viewing sizes (vs per-pixel noise, which has no bearing at the image level anyway). In fact more pixels typically means less noise due to some sensor read out efficiencies.

Quoth Cambridge Colour on their Digital Camera Sensor Sizes page.
PIXEL SIZE: NOISE LEVELS & DYNAMIC RANGE

Larger sensors generally also have larger pixels (although this is not always the case), which give them the potential to produce lower image noise and have a higher dynamic range. Dynamic range describes the range of tones which a sensor can capture below when a pixel becomes completely white, but yet above when texture is indiscernible from background noise (near black). Since larger pixels have a greater volume — and thus a greater range of photon capacity — these generally have a higher dynamic range.

digital sensor pixels
sensors_photosites-mono.png

Note: cavities shown without color filters present

Further, larger pixels receive a greater flux of photons during a given exposure time (at the same f-stop), so their light signal is much stronger. For a given amount of background noise, this produces a higher signal to noise ratio — and thus a smoother looking photo.


Larger Pixels (with a Larger Sensor)
noise_20DISO100-crop.jpg


Smaller Pixels (with a Smaller Sensor)
noise_epsonISO400-crop.jpg


This is not always the case however, because the amount of background noise also depends on sensor manufacturing process and how efficiently the camera extracts tonal information from each pixel (without introducing additional noise). In general though, the above trend holds true. Another aspect to consider is that even if two sensors have the same apparent noise when viewed at 100%, the sensor with the higher pixel count will produce a cleaner looking final print. This is because the noise gets enlarged less for the higher pixel count sensor (for a given print size), therefore this noise has a higher frequency and thus appears finer grained.
 
I can see that. In my case though I have a dslr and a point and shoot would not be a primary camera, but be something to carry around with my phone for snapshots as phone cameras do not cut it. This one would be more than satisfactory for when I do not have the dslr. It would depend on what role the point and shoot plays for the individual. Just looking at it from my view.

For someone that uses a point and shoot as their primary camera it would not be a good replacement.

To be fair the XE-1 isn't a point and shoot camera. I got it because it'd give me what I want out of a DSLR in a more manageable package. It's still cumbersome though and isn't good for snapshots. I can't bring myself to snagging your run of the mill point and shoot though. I like the quality of the images that were shown from this camera/phone. I think it could step up to the plate for what I want out of a point and shoot. It could fill a void I have.

----------

Quoth Cambridge Colour on their Digital Camera Sensor Sizes page.

High-five!
 
It's all subjective because I don't see any resemblance of Windows Phone 8 in iOS7. I see Android but Windows 8? Nope.

Probably because your expertise on Metro begins and ends at the pictures of the home screen you've seen. Inside the apps, the two do have quite a bit in common.

...though I will admit that iOS7 does lean a little more heavily towards Android function and feel.

I thought they were a bit meh? Missing something, sure nice colour but still missing something.

Yeah. Apps. :p
 
Quoth Cambridge Colour on their Digital Camera Sensor Sizes page.

That information about larger pixels being better is incorrect. It was the prevailing wisdom for some time, mostly because early full-frame sensors used very large pixels and had a big noise advantage but that advantage is due to the size of the sensor rather than the size of the pixels. The best supporting evidence is that the highest density sensors available today also have class-leading or class-matching low-light performance and dynamic range, including the Sony RX100 (20MP 1" sensor), Nikon D7100 (24MP APS-C sensor), and Nikon D800 (36MP FF sensor).
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.