01-28-2014 04:24 PM
45 12
tools
  1. maverick786us's Avatar
    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?
    01-22-2014 09:17 AM
  2. naeem151287's Avatar
    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?
    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.
    01-22-2014 09:39 AM
  3. naeem151287's Avatar
    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.
    01-22-2014 09:41 AM
  4. maverick786us's Avatar
    What could be the reason that Nokia downsized the lens when the device is overall big?
    Mark Reed2 likes this.
    01-22-2014 10:18 AM
  5. Mark Reed2's Avatar
    What could be the reason that Nokia downsized the lens when the device is overall big?

    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.
    maverick786us and Dos101 like this.
    01-22-2014 10:56 AM
  6. Dos101's Avatar
    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.
    01-22-2014 10:32 PM
  7. Bahamen's Avatar
    What could be the reason that Nokia downsized the lens when the device is overall big?
    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 by Bahamen; 01-23-2014 at 09:09 AM.
    maverick786us likes this.
    01-23-2014 08:04 AM
  8. husslord's Avatar
    Can an update from nokia help fix low light shots? or is this just how it is?
    01-23-2014 02:37 PM
  9. Dos101's Avatar
    Can an update from nokia help fix low light shots? or is this just how it is?
    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).
    maverick786us and husslord like this.
    01-23-2014 02:41 PM
  10. Shredcow's Avatar
    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
    01-23-2014 07:55 PM
  11. maverick786us's Avatar
    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?
    01-24-2014 12:42 AM
  12. cactuz911's Avatar
    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!
    01-24-2014 01:02 AM
  13. Bahamen's Avatar
    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.
    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.
    Shredcow likes this.
    01-24-2014 06:36 AM
  14. Bahamen's Avatar
    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?
    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.
    maverick786us and Shredcow like this.
    01-24-2014 06:46 AM
  15. Bahamen's Avatar
    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!
    Congrats on your first post. It might be helpful if you post some sample pictures for comparison.
    maverick786us likes this.
    01-24-2014 06:47 AM
  16. Shredcow's Avatar
    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.
    maverick786us likes this.
    01-24-2014 07:18 AM
  17. maverick786us's Avatar
    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?
    01-24-2014 07:36 AM
  18. Bahamen's Avatar
    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.
    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.

    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?
    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.
    01-24-2014 07:54 AM
  19. Mark Reed2's Avatar
    All I know is this....skip to 10mins in, this is one of the many vs videos in low light....sort it Nokia.


    maverick786us likes this.
    01-24-2014 11:28 AM
  20. Nogitsune Micah's Avatar
    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.
    01-24-2014 08:19 PM
  21. BDBDBD's Avatar
    I did numerous shots back to back with the 920 and the 1520. In low light, there is no comparison; the 920 blows away the 1520. The 1520 comes out not only darker but grainier as well. The same goes for low light video.

    Where the 1520 is better is outdoor, bright light photography and also landscape photos. When taking distant city or mountain shots, the 1520 will have better focus details when zoomed in.

    If I knew how to post pics side by side here, you could see the differences yourselves.

    Sent from my RM-820_nam_att_100 using Tapatalk
    maverick786us likes this.
    01-24-2014 08:53 PM
  22. Shredcow's Avatar
    Where your shots taken on auto or manual?
    01-25-2014 03:37 AM
  23. BDBDBD's Avatar
    Tried both auto and manual. With manual settings, you can improve a few things like the brightness of the photo, but you still get graininess in low light not to mention blurriness of anything that moves.

    The worst was on video though as I don't think you can adjust exposure settings.

    I simply think that the 1520's larger sensor cannot overcome the 920's larger aperture setting.

    In fairness though, the 1520 does take better photos in daylight (sharper and more contrast)

    Sent from my RM-820_nam_att_100 using Tapatalk
    01-25-2014 04:56 AM
  24. Bahamen's Avatar
    If I knew how to post pics side by side here, you could see the differences yourselves.
    You could share them on flickr and post the link here?
    Jarip likes this.
    01-25-2014 05:38 AM
  25. BDBDBD's Avatar
    Here are 2 photos of the same spot using the 920 and the 1520. Both shot on Auto mode. The top one is the 920. The graininess of the 1520 can be seen if you enlarge the photos.

    wp_20131227_002-1-.jpg

    wp_20131227_007.jpg
    maverick786us and CrackFachry like this.
    01-25-2014 01:58 PM
45 12

Similar Threads

  1. My Lumia 520 show duplicate songs
    By Jitendra Raghuwanshi in forum Nokia Lumia 520
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 04-28-2014, 12:54 AM
  2. Nillkin case for lumia 1320
    By boyhdx in forum Nokia Lumia 1320
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 03-29-2014, 10:54 PM
  3. sd problem lumia 1520
    By amr osman in forum Nokia Lumia 1520
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 01-23-2014, 07:41 PM
  4. Lumia 520 ATIV S, or HTC 8x?
    By aaronmoe in forum Nokia Lumia 520
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 01-22-2014, 11:58 PM
  5. lumia 720 subpixel problem
    By mariusfilip in forum Nokia Lumia 720
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 01-22-2014, 10:10 AM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD