Lumia 1020 vs Canon 7D

[anon(5959407)]

Hello all!

I decided to do a little comparison of the Nokia Lumia 1020 and the Canon 7D (with an f/1.8 50mm lens).

DISCLAIMER: I'll say this right off the bat, these two cameras were designed with two different purposes and uses in mind, so they are NOT in direct competition with each other... but there is some capability overlap between the two and in that overlap area, we can take a look at the two cameras and see how they stack up with each other.

PHOTOS

So I went into the comparison with the goal of taking the best photo that I could produce on each device, so all settings are manual for each photo. You can look at the EXIF data if you'd like to know the conditions and parameters of each photo. With that said, I had the camera grip on the 1020 which made it a little easier to handle. The Canon 7D had a fixed f/1.8 50mm lens attached to it and since the 7D uses an APS-C sensor (which has a crop factor of 1.6), the lens was more like a 80mm lens which you'll definitely notice the difference between the 1020 and the 7D when it comes to the video comparison. Anyways, on to the photo comparisons!

Canon 7D

Lumia 1020

Hi-Res
http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3717/9478973859_0c4f69211a_o.jpg


Canon 7D

Lumia 1020

Hi-Res
http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5442/9478970555_d90a894601_o.jpg


Canon 7D

Lumia 1020

Hi-Res
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7334/9478966329_58d2b31885_o.jpg


Canon 7D

Lumia 1020

Hi-Res
http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3740/9478962877_60122e6627_o.jpg


Canon 7D

Lumia 1020

Hi-Res
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7328/9478959165_1364918c0b_o.jpg


Canon 7D

Lumia 1020

Hi-Res
http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2882/9478956677_cf0f68aa37_o.jpg


VIDEO
For shooting video, both cameras were set to 1080p and 24fps. The focus was set at a fixed distance for both cameras in all scenes.

All in all, I think the 1020 held its own against the 7D pretty well. The advantage of the 7D however is that I was shooting in .RAW and could very easily go back a fix most of the mistakes I made while shooting in the post-processing stage, whereas with the 1020 you're kind of stuck with what you've got since JPEG is our only option. The 7D suffered a little in macro photography and macro videography due to the 50mm lens being paired with the APS-C sensor, but that's just a limitation of the combination I had. Since the 7D is a DSLR camera, the right lens could very easily be attached to the camera and the photographer could go about their merry way, but that's dependent on the photographer having multiple lenses which in the end is very costly.

Carrying the 7D and multiple lenses around is also more cumbersome than just throwing the 1020 and maybe the camera grip in your pocket and heading out for the day. I think the 1020 is versatile enough and is so good at what it does that probably 80-90% of the time, one could get away with just carrying it around and you'd be able to capture what you could with the 7D but in a much more compact and versatile package.

In the end both the 7D and the 1020 are tools for the photographer to use and it's up to the photographer to choose the right tool for the right job, but the 1020 is an excellent tool to keep in your pocket that will work for the majority of jobs that one would come across.

 

[anon(5959407)]

Apparently you can only have one video in your post... but here's the second one I wanted in the original post:

I'll leave this quick video demo to make my point. Due to the 41MP sensor on the 1020 and Nokia's implementation of digital zoom, I was able to zoom in on the action without having to change lenses, without having to stop recording and without having to deal with the bulk of a DSLR and still get a great outcome:

 

[lce123]

The 1020 definitely had the best pictures over all

 

[WavingReds]

this makes me want it more so than ever before

 

[stephen_az]

The 1020 definitely had the best pictures over all

Of course they look better, you are looking at jpgs clearly taken with a point and shoot's smaller sensor set to a high definition setting vs minimally processed or unprocessed Canon DSLR raw files shot wide open to emphasize softness and minimal/no depth of field. Regardless of what the OP may say, this was set up to make the DSLR look inferior to a glorified P&S camera. I could demonstrate the same illusion with my 928 and Nikon D7000, or the office's little Olympus 12MP P&S and my D7000. I am sorry but either the OP is a really lousy photographer who does not understand how a DSLR operates, or they have presented you with apples to oranges comparison shots to amplify the effect of how "wonderful" the 1020 shots appear. The most obvious evidence for those options is the fact the Canon 50mm is incredibly sharp and you really have to try to get soft images. I don't even like Canon DSLRs (as a lifelong user of Nikon SLRs and DSLRs) but even the cheapest DSLR from any manufacturer, let alone a Canon mid level flagship can make any camera phone (including the 1020) look like the low end to mid level P&S cameras they really are simply by using it properly. BTW, if anyone thinks I am being overly harsh, I am an archaeologist and photographer who has taken tens of thousands of photos with a wide array of film and digital camera. I have little patience for these sorts of misleading comparisons and it does not matter whether the photographer created the "differences" intentionally to emphasize effect or simply by poor technique/incompetence.

 

[vladimirrosky]

I'm sorry to say this, but this comparison is a total joke. You're not even comparing the cameras in scenes with a similar angle, focal length or depth of field. Small cameras like compact cams and smartphone cameras have a large depth of field due to the sensor being so close to the lens. DSLRs, by comparison, have a smaller depth of field, which you increase by setting the proper aperture.

Take that first photo as an example. The DSLR has a tiny depth of field, almost everything is out of focus. And surprise surprise, the 1020 has almost the entire scene in focus. What is it that you want to conclude now? That the 1020 is better, for being more "sharp", or having more "detail"? Because that is what you suggest and what readers will pick up. If you wanted to make the comparison fair, you would have both photos with an equal depth of field. Next, you would be able to compare detail, dynamic range, noise, etc.

You do none of those things, so I see a few possibilities here:
- You do not understand those basic photography principles and differences, which disqualifies you as somebody to make a comparison
- You do understand those principles, yet willingly leave it out anyway, which is cherry picking a comparison and spreading misinformation
- You simply don't care what you write about, and the information should be treated as such

And yes, I am not even beginning to address the other big issue of comparing unprocessed RAWs to fully processed JPEGs. Ouch.

 

[gsquared]

Ohno OP. You've brought out the fury of the 1 post crowd.

 

[Aldwin1999]

I have a dslr myself, umaliphotography.tk and I have to say those pictures are outstanding! Compared to a dslr its quite nice, some really good sharpness and contrast in pictures. It'll be real nice to process the 1020s pictures in lightroom to see the 'real' power of these photos

 

[Billy Gun]

WOW I want a lumia 1020 right now! I just need some money :unhappysweat:

 

[msrb21]

awesome!

 

[zlx]

nice - you glorified my L1020 - but I'm realistic enough to know that even if it's a fantastic technology/camera, a DSLR will always be better. As long as the person who operates it knows what he's doing ;-)

Visit (and join) my gallery on LumiaGallery.com and have a look!

 

[machail]

For the bokeh you will physically not be able to reproduce what a DSLR lens can do on a phone. Period.
Other than that the Lumia looks unbelievable for a phone when compared. Love it. Now give us an 40 MP Denim-feature-packed and W10 1030. I would sell my soul for it.