Can someone show me some sample images of Lumia 1520 taken under low light? Is it true that low light images taken by Lumia 1520 aren't as good good as the low light images taken by Lumia 920?
Lumia 1520 low light images
- Thread starter maverick786us
- Start date
naeem151287
New member
Yup. It's true that low light images on the 1520 aren't as good as the 920 (having owned both for a considerable amount of time). I have a few examples on my Instagram (see signature) if you want to see.
naeem151287
New member
Also, I won't say the 1520 is bad in low light - it's just noisier compared to the 920/925. I think that's to do with having a f2.4 lens as opposed to f2.0 in the 920/925. The bigger sensor and better OIS does compensate for it but the result is still slightly noisier and softer on the 1520.
Mark Reed2
New member
Problem is if you put all the good stuff in one place....who will buy the other phones.
1020 is the photo/video.....the size of the 1520 they could have gone for that or close....but then if they did that who would buy the 1020.
The selling point for this phone was the screen size and the fact they joined the big boys with the SD800....the rest was sort of a addon, good, but not the best.......but as per other comments many of us made, this does not justify the horrible low light videos (UK firmware...update plz fix) its not even passable when side by side with most other top end phones.
Dos101
New member
I too have noticed that my 920 takes somewhat better pictures in low light compared to my 1520, but the pictures taken by 1520 certainly aren't bad. The only other thing I've noticed is that my 920 seems to be better at taking clearer pictures of moving objects compared to my 1520.
My guess is that Nokia wants to keep the device as slim as possible. A thicker profile combined with the overall large size might not fly well.
The camera module for 1520 is larger than the 920's to accommodate the sensor which is more than 60% bigger. With a bigger module the OIS system also needs to be upgraded in order for it to be effective. Everything adds up, and a larger/thicker lens might not be feasible at the balance. I imagine that it might be possible to use a faster lens on a smaller device (i.e. non-phablet) as thickness/weight would be less of an issue.
Another thing to keep in mind is that, given the same focal length, the 920 will have a larger crop factor compared to the 1520. What this means is that the 1520 has a wider angle. Effectively this means that the 1520's extra sensor area is being utilized to capture a bigger frame, while still retaining the ability to crop ("zoom") into the image under good lighting conditions.
Last edited:
husslord
New member
Dos101
New member
Nokia has continually released firmware updates that improve the camera algorithms used to process the pictures, so they can make it better, but not significantly (unless there is some sort of bug that has a detrimental effect on what the pictures look like).
Shredcow
New member
Interestingly, I can't tell how the oversampling improves the quality of low light shots. I think there is some improvement... but I can't put a finger to it. It's really quite underwhelming. Maybe it's worse for me since I used the 808 before. Anyway...
Have a look at my comparison - Lumia 1520 oversampling comparison, low light - a set on Flickr
Here's a set for convenience,
WP_20140120_21_09_40_Pro__highres by Shredcow, on Flickr
WP_20140120_21_09_40_Pro by Shredcow, on Flickr
Have a look at my comparison - Lumia 1520 oversampling comparison, low light - a set on Flickr
Here's a set for convenience,
WP_20140120_21_09_40_Pro__highres by Shredcow, on Flickr
WP_20140120_21_09_40_Pro by Shredcow, on Flickr
So people who moved from 920 to 1520 have missed good low light images and low light videos? If I move from 920 to 1520, will I feel regretful because of these 2 factors?
cactuz911
New member
I just switched to a Lumia 1520 after using the 920 since the release 2012. I'm really disappointed by now as the camera is quite faster but produces bad pictures in every situation compared to the 920!
It reminds me of the 920 in 2012 until Nokia fixed the software!
When I used 920 and a canon powershot sx260 for the same shots, it was hard to see differences in quality - now it's pretty easy:
Pictures are less sharp, you recognize the distortion and colors are not matching sometimes!
The 920 was a replacement for a camera but the 1520 is far away from that!
If Nokia or Microsoft are not going to fix it soon, I'm going to replace this phone!
It reminds me of the 920 in 2012 until Nokia fixed the software!
When I used 920 and a canon powershot sx260 for the same shots, it was hard to see differences in quality - now it's pretty easy:
Pictures are less sharp, you recognize the distortion and colors are not matching sometimes!
The 920 was a replacement for a camera but the 1520 is far away from that!
If Nokia or Microsoft are not going to fix it soon, I'm going to replace this phone!
You cannot compare this to the 808 or the 1020. The 1020's sensor is almost 300% the size of the 1520's sensor, which is in turn 160% the size of the 920's sensor.
An oversampled image, when viewed at pixel level, clearly shows much lower noise level compared to the full resolution image. But when you view both at the same size, you will not see very significant difference (except lower chroma noise). This is true for both the 808 and 1020 as well, and there was also a study on this done by DPReview before. But, a 5MP oversampled image will clearly beat a 5MP non-oversampled image from 1/3" sensor (e.g. HTC One) by virtue of the larger pixel size.
I believe even in lowlight, the 1520's 5MP image should still be better than the 920's at 8.7MP. Once oversampled, the 1520's pixel is almost 3x the size of the 920's. Granted the smaller aperture works in the 920's favour, but this is not enough to offset the difference in pixel size. Of course if we compare the 1520's full res 20MP versus the 920's 8.7MP, then it will be noisier as the pixel size will be smaller (i.e. more than twice as much pixels, but only 60% more sensor area). But, like I mentioned earlier, it is difficult to compare like-for-like as the 1520 has a larger field of view while the 920 will be more zoomed in. Because of the larger FOV, along with the lower 5MP pixel count, it will seem to have less detail compared to the 920 which is more zoomed in.
Congrats on your first post. It might be helpful if you post some sample pictures for comparison.
Shredcow
New member
I think the 920 has a very different feel from the 1520. Where the 920 makes dark scenes look artificially brighter, the 1520 tries to go for a more natural look. And that does throw off a 920 user.
Keeping the hardware limitation in mind, is it possible that a future firmware can reduce, low light noise upto an extent, that picture quality becomes as good as Lumia 920 if not better.
I am surprised that 925 too is thinner, so I presume, that just like 1520, it should have a small lense, compared to 920. No one ever complained about 925 pics. Overall 925 is a downgrade to 920. Except for less weight and aluminium finish (which doesn't feel premiumed material as iPhone), what else does it offer over mighty 920?
I am surprised that 925 too is thinner, so I presume, that just like 1520, it should have a small lense, compared to 920. No one ever complained about 925 pics. Overall 925 is a downgrade to 920. Except for less weight and aluminium finish (which doesn't feel premiumed material as iPhone), what else does it offer over mighty 920?
It is quite possible as the Nokia team has continued making improvements. I haven't seen any sample comparisons between the 920 and 1520, so I don't really know the nature of those differences reported. I'm quite certain the 1520 has got to be the superior camera nonetheless, given the specs. In lowlight, difference in sensor size should (theoretically) balance out the difference in lens aperture, and oversampling gives it the edge. In good lighting the high pixel count will produce far better, far sharper images.
Except for the extra 6th lens element, I believe the 925 has exactly the same camera specs as the 920. The thinner profile is gained by use of different materials (metal vs plastic), possibly different configuration of components and lack of wireless charging. It's for a very good reason the 920 has that distinct reputation for being indestructible.
Mark Reed2
New member
All I know is this....skip to 10mins in, this is one of the many vs videos in low light....sort it Nokia.
Nokia Lumia 1520 vs Sony Xperia Z1 Camera Comparison Using Canon 6D as Reference - YouTube
Nokia Lumia 1520 vs Sony Xperia Z1 Camera Comparison Using Canon 6D as Reference - YouTube
Nogitsune Micah
Banned
Its funny to me that people who had 920 say it is better than the 1520, when I am seeing it as the opposite.
Coming from the 1020, my 1520 has lesser quality but I am coming to accept it. It is not bad and is still easily top 3 best camera for me.
Coming from the 1020, my 1520 has lesser quality but I am coming to accept it. It is not bad and is still easily top 3 best camera for me.
Similar threads
Trending Posts
-
Microsoft Edge's latest update has an AI feature I bet you missed
- Started by Windows Central
- Replies: 0
-
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram