Any fix for poor camera performance?

[Rodrigo Mendes]

Buy a 1020.... Problem solved!

1520 and 930 have better alghoritms, so 1020 isn't better. Only have more detailed pictures, but worst colours (fidelity) and dynamic range. There are a several reviews proving this.

About bad performance at really low light situation, the workaround already be spoken here.

Probably Denim fix it anyway.

 

[anon(5841099)]

For now I'm using DNG pics, so ISO don't make any difference. Just the shutter time. That's the way I get really good pics with my Lumia 930.

ISO still makes a big difference for RAW/DNG images... The main thing about shooting in RAW is that you can control the white balance and exposure afterwards and have more control over processing the image. But a noisy 1600 ISO image doesn't suddenly become noise free because you shoot in RAW.

 

[psiu_glen]

1520 and 930 have better alghoritms, so 1020 isn't better. Only have more detailed pictures, but worst colours (fidelity) and dynamic range. There are a several reviews proving this.

About bad performance at really low light situation, the workaround already be spoken here.

Probably Denim fix it anyway.

There is no workaround for f/2.4 -- compare to the 920/925/928 at f/2.0 -- they mop the floor with the later cameras in low light.

When the lights go down, or action gets fast indoors, I reach for my 928 (bonus xenon flash!) over my 929.

RE the 1020: you can expose your shots properly, correct WB manually or in post, but you can't add double the detail to the 20mp camera shots later. I have the 929...and I'm definitely on a perpetual hunt for the right 1020 at the right price for me.

 

[Rodrigo Mendes]

ISO still makes a big difference for RAW/DNG images... The main thing about shooting in RAW is that you can control the white balance and exposure afterwards and have more control over processing the image. But a noisy 1600 ISO image doesn't suddenly become noise free because you shoot in RAW.

Not a noise free, but the difference is HUUUUUUUUGE. You can make a test. Take a pic with ISO 1600. Look at DNG and JPEG. The difference is really something. Not only noise, but the colours too. And it's not about postprocessing.

There is no workaround for f/2.4 -- compare to the 920/925/928 at f/2.0 -- they mop the floor with the later cameras in low light.

When the lights go down, or action gets fast indoors, I reach for my 928 (bonus xenon flash!) over my 929.

RE the 1020: you can expose your shots properly, correct WB manually or in post, but you can't add double the detail to the 20mp camera shots later. I have the 929...and I'm definitely on a perpetual hunt for the right 1020 at the right price for me.

Sorry, man, I have a Lumia 925 too and 930 is better in low light if you use the SAME SETTINGS. That's the problem with auto mode, Lumia 930 tends to use ISO 1600 or higher in some situations, which is veeery bad. The aperture size on 925 only brings a lot of unnecessary noise.

I can prove if you insist. I can take low light pics now if you want! I have both with me.

And yes, like I say before, Lumia 1020 have more detailed pictures, but I definitely wouldn't change this for better colours and better dynamic range. But it's me. The great thing on Lumia 1020 is the Xenon Flash. It's reaaaaally awesome and make big difference, inded.

Here the 925x930 comparison I made (I made it very quick, sorry for 4:3 x 16:9 and not very accurate angles)

http://1drv.ms/1tHNAIM

A little example:

925 ISO 800 1s

930 ISO 800 1s

So there's no such thing like "925 is better for low lights because the aperture size". The difference is only that 925 have a bad post processing changing black shadows for green shadows. This problem also happens with Lumia 920 or Lumia 1020.

So this is why I think 930/1520 have the best Lumia camera for now.

 

[dnbrealm]

Cant post up links, a user on YouTube has posted the View finder issue many of use are facing:

Search for this on YouTube:

"Nokia Lumia 930 in the dark / low light"

 

[akin_t]

Not a noise free, but the difference is HUUUUUUUUGE. You can make a test. Take a pic with ISO 1600. Look at DNG and JPEG. The difference is really something. Not only noise, but the colours too. And it's not about postprocessing.



Sorry, man, I have a Lumia 925 too and 930 is better in low light if you use the SAME SETTINGS. That's the problem with auto mode, Lumia 930 tends to use ISO 1600 or higher in some situations, which is veeery bad. The aperture size on 925 only brings a lot of unnecessary noise.

I can prove if you insist. I can take low light pics now if you want! I have both with me.

And yes, like I say before, Lumia 1020 have more detailed pictures, but I definitely wouldn't change this for better colours and better dynamic range. But it's me. The great thing on Lumia 1020 is the Xenon Flash. It's reaaaaally awesome and make big difference, inded.

Here the 925x930 comparison I made (I made it very quick, sorry for 4:3 x 16:9 and not very accurate angles)

http://1drv.ms/1tHNAIM

A little example:

925 ISO 800 1s
http://abload.de/img/wp_20141009_21_54_46_1zjm9.jpg

930 ISO 800 1s
http://abload.de/img/wp_20141009_21_53_58_imkup.jpg

So there's no such thing like "925 is better for low lights because the aperture size". The difference is only that 925 have a bad post processing changing black shadows for green shadows. This problem also happens with Lumia 920 or Lumia 1020.

So this is why I think 930/1520 have the best Lumia camera for now.

Lol, how can you have the same settings if the 930 is limited to f/2.4? That's as wide as the aperture will open. It's impossible to have the same settings.

 

[anon(5841099)]

Not a noise free, but the difference is HUUUUUUUUGE. You can make a test. Take a pic with ISO 1600. Look at DNG and JPEG. The difference is really something. Not only noise, but the colours too. And it's not about postprocessing.

It is all about post processing. Here's your test:


full-jpg


full-raw

Yes, the second one is the RAW/DNG file. Loaded into PhotoShop, no post processing applied, no noise reduction (turned down the default Camera Raw settings to 0). The DNG is even worse because of all the color noise.

Here are 100% crops:


crop-jpg


crop-raw

The reason the DNG is so different is because it has no post processing done. The JPG has been processed by Nokia Camera with lots of noise reduction, nearly +3EV exposure correction and some highlight and shadow processing. After applying the same kind of corrections to the DNG in Photoshop you will end up with nearly identical images. Neither of them much better than the other regarding noise.

The only reason you might be seeing less noise in the DNG file is because either the JPG has been processed in a way that makes the noise more visible or you loaded the DNG into Photoshop/Lightroom with the default noise reduction settings. Or a combination of both. If I process the DNG sample above with a slight change in white balance, some noise reduction and no exposure correction, it gives me a much better quality image than the JPG. And that why shooting in DNG is all about post processing.

 

[arnark]

I'm quite happy with my 930 camera . Iso-100 ,shutter 4s no edit or filtered .

 

[Rodrigo Mendes]

It is all about post processing. Here's your test:

[url]https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5599/15514825846_ba131d7780_c.jpg[/url]
full-jpg

[url]https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5599/15539362472_e152ce3e5f_c.jpg[/url]
full-raw

Yes, the second one is the RAW/DNG file. Loaded into PhotoShop, no post processing applied, no noise reduction (turned down the default Camera Raw settings to 0). The DNG is even worse because of all the color noise.

Here are 100% crops:

[url]https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5609/15351898779_22bff97bac_o.jpg[/url]
crop-jpg

[url]https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3946/15514827116_db9fbce024_o.jpg[/url]
crop-raw

The reason the DNG is so different is because it has no post processing done. The JPG has been processed by Nokia Camera with lots of noise reduction, nearly +3EV exposure correction and some highlight and shadow processing. After applying the same kind of corrections to the DNG in Photoshop you will end up with nearly identical images. Neither of them much better than the other regarding noise.

The only reason you might be seeing less noise in the DNG file is because either the JPG has been processed in a way that makes the noise more visible or you loaded the DNG into Photoshop/Lightroom with the default noise reduction settings. Or a combination of both. If I process the DNG sample above with a slight change in white balance, some noise reduction and no exposure correction, it gives me a much better quality image than the JPG. And that why shooting in DNG is all about post processing.

I know how DNG works and JPEG as well.

It's a shame I don't have this particular picture in JPEG anymore. If you understand about Lumia photography, you will know that JPEG picture was reaaaaaaally bad because ISO 1600 just ruin everything.

But, how you can see below, the DNG is absolutely gorgeous even on ISO 1600. I just use the noise reduction, but if you ask, I can upload the original too. It's really a shame that I don't have the JPEG anymore.

JPEG is just the bad think you can take on Lumia device. Not only about post processing.

 

[Rodrigo Mendes]

Lol, how can you have the same settings if the 930 is limited to f/2.4? That's as wide as the aperture will open. It's impossible to have the same settings.

You understand NOTHING about photography. Bye!

 

[MrWhiteman]

Check my my youtube videos
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCAbwc6rqHJD5DYJBR2_kWNg/videos

 

[Rodrigo Mendes]

Check my my youtube videos
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCAbwc6rqHJD5DYJBR2_kWNg/videos

Whats the problem? That's the software trying to fix the absolutely inacceptable low light conditions.