1520 vs 920 low light photos-neck to neck fight

[Kissanviikset]

Hello everybody!

I went today compare 1520 and 920 cameras to each other on low light situations. Result are quite surprising. At first i thought that 1520 is superior to 920 but when i compared them side by side on full screen there is almost no difference at all. 1520 photos look bit sharper but 920 photos show more details. 1520 photos nailed white balance right every time and makes it winner on this comparison.

I had 5mpix+ RAW enabled on 1520 so i don't have processed fullres photos to show. I think this comparison proves how good 920 camera actually is, at least on low light situations.

Download photos to your hard drive for easier comparison and use photo viewer to watch them. 920 photo is first and have pro-label after file name. 1520 shots are labelled with Raw. Here's the link https://skydrive.live.com/?cid=a7e6ec70cbc020d7#cid=A7E6EC70CBC020D7&id=A7E6EC70CBC020D7!1635

If you don't watch photos on full screen 1520 photos are clear winner. 1520 looses its edge when viewed on higher resolution due resolution scaling.

I'm doing another comparison on good lighting later on. :smile:

 

[berty6294]

I found the 1520 handles light sources much better, where the 920 will kinda give a star effect, the 1520 does it much less and makes the overall photo look a little better

 

[Mark Reed2]

I think it does well with photos but its the low light in videos where the 1520 sucks, I have started a thread about it
http://forums.windowscentral.com/no...kia-regarding-1520-noise-low-ligh-videos.html