- 07-11-2013, 02:35 PM #1
Nobody talks about this
The new Lumia 1020 sensor si BSI but smaller than the preview 808 pureview
1.4 microns pixel size vs 1.12
In good light conditions, probably there won't be a real difference, but I would like to see results at same iso values. I have an xperia z and a lumia 920 (1.4 vs 1.12 microns) and the Nokia is fine even at 800 iso and the Sony sucks...
- 07-11-2013, 02:57 PM #3
Probably it compensates, but it's not sure better. We have to see comparatives. The big deal would have been BSI sensor and preserving the bigger sensor size.
Now I'm not sure... Lumia 920 has BSI sensor and f2.0 and xperia z with BSI sensor and f2.4 captures much more light at same iso and shooter speed. But at same iso, xperia z is too noisy because of the 1.12 microns pixel...
Enviado desde mi C6603 usando Tapatalk 4 Beta
- 07-11-2013, 04:02 PM #4
Real comparison is needed; but it would be a real shame if the 1020 camera proves to be inferior to the 808, in the same conditions.
Last edited by John20212; 07-11-2013 at 05:03 PM.
- 07-11-2013, 04:02 PM #5
This partially explains why the hump is smaller:
1. Slightly smaller sensor
2.. Single capacitor for the xenon vs. 2 in the 808 (still more range thanks to newer tech)
3. Smaller xenon bulb
4. No loud speaker inside the camera hump
On the other hand.. 6 lenses vs 5 on the 808
Also.. the detail is still amazing. There this argument .. pixel density vs. pixel size and both sides have legitimate claims. The 1020 has a very potent pixel density.. you can take a 40Mpix shot and then edit on a PC.. I am sure the results will be jaw dropping.
I am super excited about the shutter speed.. can't wait to test it
Last edited by vlad0; 07-11-2013 at 04:27 PM.
- 07-11-2013, 07:35 PM #6
This will be an awesome cameraphone. Probably sharper than 808 and capable to capture more light at same iso and shooter speed (like xperia z does besides lumia 920 even with a slower lenses), but to be perfect the 1020 should have had same sensor size than 808. Can't wait to see comparatives.
By the way, what is the sensor manufacturer? Any info?
- 07-11-2013, 08:58 PM #7
don't let anyone delude you, sensor size is still the most important factor and BSI is still good only on paper
this is night photo from 1020
and this is from 808
2013-01-03-6882-2048 Star Pier at night
I think it's quite clear which camera gives better photo with more realistic colors and a lot less grain/noise
- 07-11-2013, 11:14 PM #8
The shutter speeds, OIS, and the camera UI overall are all advantages over the 808...
Anyway, here is a good compOn 2013-07-11 22:50:01, Sonysta wrote:
Side By Side Nokia 808 Pureview (Phase 1) Vs Nokia Lumia 1020 Pureview (Phase 3):
* Optical Assembly: 808 (Zeiss Vario Tessar Wide Angle 26 mm) Vs 1020 (Zeiss Vario Tessar Wide Angle 25 mm)
* Construction Lens: 808 (5 Elements, 1 Group. All Lens Surfaces Are Aspherical) Vs 1020 (System Of 6 Lenses, 5 Plastic Molded High Performance Plastic, One High Precision Glass Element)
* F-Number: 808 (f/2.3984375) Vs 1020 (f/2.2)
* Focus Range: 808 (15 Cm - Infinity) Vs 1020 (15 Cm - Infinity)
* Iso Sensitivity: 808 (50 - 1600) Vs 1020 (100 - 3200)
* Shutter Speed: 808 (Min: (2,7s) / Max: (1/2747s) Vs 1020 (Min: (4s) / Max: (1/16000s)
* Flash: 808 (Xenon (3rd Generation) And Led (2rd Generation) Vs 1020 (Xenon (4rd Generation) And Led (2rd Generation)
* Reach In Shooting Of Flash: 808 (Up To 4 Meters) Vs 1020 (Up To 4,5 Meters)
* Sensor: 808 (CMOS FSI) Vs 1020 (CMOS BSI)
* Format: 808 (1/1.2”) Vs 1020 (1/1.5")
* Surface: 808 (10,67 x 8,00mm) Vs 1020 ( 9,00 X 7,00mm)
* Image Stabilization: 808 (Digital) Vs 1020 (Optical)
* Pixel Size: 808 (38 MP (1.4 Microns) / 8 MP (3.07 Microns) / 5 Megapixels (3.91 Microns) / 3 MP (4.89 Microns) Vs 1020 (38 MP (1.12 Microns) / 5 Megapixels (3.20 Microns)
* Total Pixel Are Used: 808 (7728 x 5368 - 41.4 MP) Vs 1020 (7712 x 5360 - 41.3 MP)
* Maximum Effective Resolution: 808 (7728 x 4354 For (16:9) / 7152 x 5368 For (4:3) Vs 1020 (7712 x 4352 For (16:9) / 7136 x 5360 For (4:3)
P.S: Who is Better ? To Me The 808 ! But For You ?
< div class="forumeditby">[ This Message was edited by: Sonysta on 2013-07-11 21:51 ]</div>
- 07-12-2013, 05:20 AM #10
OIS is nice but not necessary IMO, I have seen tons of this good pictures done without tripod, some people have steady hands :)
camera UI is improved, however 808 UI is good enough
- 07-12-2013, 08:00 AM #11
OIS is just for a few situations. When you shoot at people at night, you must keep a faster speed (1/2s isn't enough), and with a faster speed, doesn't matter if you have OIS or not...
In that case, the bigger sensor you have, the better results you obtain.
BSI sensors are overrated. In my experience, they captures more light but are noisier and images are "less natural" than FSI ones. It's like BSI sensors amplifiers the electronic signal in the photocells and produces some rare black spots in dark areas, lots of noise in shadows...
Enviado desde mi C6603 usando Tapatalk 4 Beta
07-12-2013, 01:32 PM #13
- 36 Posts
- 0 Post(s)
- 0 Thread(s)
So, correct me if I'm wrong, but the difference in sizes of the sensors is about 1/5th, so the 1020's sensor is still huge compared to other leading
phones out there...I also noticed that from all the sample images the only one with hard and maybe a little unpleasant noise is the one with night one with the girls on the coastline, which is obviously shot with the highest ISO possible to eliminate any chancce of blur. And that value for ISO on the 1020 is double that of the 808, so i personally expect relatively the same amount of noise from the tqo devices if used with the same settings in the same conditions
- 07-12-2013, 01:56 PM #14
well, technically speaking 808 has sensor with 56% bigger area, that's not some mindboggling difference but it's still significantly bigger, to put that into perspective 808 has bigger sensor from 1020 than 1020 has bigger sensor from the ancient N8...
- 07-12-2013, 04:51 PM #15
- 07-12-2013, 11:50 PM #17
^ how did you get the 56% figure ?
It makes more sense to me in millimeters..
808 is @ 10,67 x 8,00mm
1020 is @ 9,00 X 7,00mm
The difference isn't that big, but still.. it results in smaller pixels
1.12 for the 1020
1.4 microns for the 808
I think that this is the main reason they went with BSI instead of FSI.. from what I've read, if you dip below 1.4 microns FSI gets messy, so that's why you use back side illumination instead.
Also, BSI allowed the OEMs to keep the sensors small, but still increase the megapixel count... keeping up with years of "more mpix = better IQ" trend..
And yes, the 1020s sensor is still way bigger than anything the competition has at the moment.
On another note, the 808 seem a bit more ergonomic
07-13-2013, 12:14 AM #18
- 10 Posts
- 0 Post(s)
- 0 Thread(s)
If you compare the 808 pictures to 1020 the 808 pictures are less noisy, more sharp and contain less artefacts. Especially the portrait pictures of the 1020 samles contains heaps of artefacts while the 808 pictures are smooth.
Also the 808 sensor supports ISO 50, while the 1020 only supports ISO 100. If you compare pictures of the 808 with ISO 50 and ISO 100 you see a big difference in noise there as well. Not supporting ISO 50 is a hige drawback for the 1020 because of f2.2 most daylight pictures are done with about 1/2000 secs. 1020 lacks huge potential there compared to the 808.
- 07-13-2013, 02:51 AM #20
That's exactly what I am thinking about. I think 5mpx is not enough. 8mpx is the perfect ratio between detail and size of the photo file. And I was also very disappointed, that there is only possible to capture full size or 5. Maybe a fw update could change that...
Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk 2
- 07-13-2013, 06:46 AM #22
So, the 5Mpix pics from the 1020 will be bigger on average in terms of file size fore sure.
- 07-13-2013, 07:21 AM #23
now if I look better if pixels on 808 are exactly 25% bigger(if it's the exact measure) then area should be roughly ~56% bigger no?
no chance 50% longer exposure(4/2.7 hope I got that right lol) will yield better result than having bigger sensor
- 07-13-2013, 07:57 AM #24
^ I am more impressed with how fast the shutter on the 1020 is.. the 4 sec thing.. it will be so grainy, it would be hard to look at.
As far as the sensor size the Nokia white paper says
Which should be 9x7 mm unless I messed up the math
- By gwydionjhr in forum Nokia Lumia 1020Replies: 2Last Post: 07-11-2013, 02:24 PM
- By kiddori in forum Nokia Lumia 1020Replies: 5Last Post: 07-09-2013, 10:58 AM
- By I am 711 in forum Nokia Lumia 928Replies: 3Last Post: 07-08-2013, 08:08 PM
- By shadowflare in forum Nokia Lumia 820Replies: 4Last Post: 07-08-2013, 03:18 PM
- By Technoloay in forum The "Off Topic" LoungeReplies: 2Last Post: 07-08-2013, 02:15 PM