Smaller sensor size than 808 pureview

[vlad0]

Then would you guys rather if Lumia 1020 had lower res camera - e.g. 32MP/28MP instead what it is, due to sensor size reduction??

I am yet to find an explanation to why Nokia couldn't cut that huge sensor into bigger pixels to begin with.. just bypass the zoom thing and cut it into physical ~ 4.0 micron pixels .. a similar set up will have amazing dynamic range and low light performance.

My guess is that it has something to do with the lens.. it might require it to be even bigger, and the hump would be even more pronounce.

I think the softness in the edges could be because of the OIS. Some Lumia 920 and some HTC One also have these problems.

And I would have preferred same pixel count (41 mpx) but in 808 sensor size, it's keeping the pixel size in 1.4 microns, and, why not, includying BSI tech.

If they would've kept the same sensor size.. the hump would be bigger for sure, and that was one of the main things they were trying to avoid.

I doubt its the OIS.. but I really don't know. The Nokia N8 had a similar problem as well.. no OIS there, but mostly I think it was the optics.

 

[JustToClarify]

well if they couldn't come up with something better, I'd rather have standard Toshiba HES9 sensor and optics from 808

Then would you guys rather if Lumia 1020 had lower res camera - e.g. 32MP/28MP instead what it is, due to sensor size reduction??

it wouldn't change anything except you'd have a little less details in full res photo

 

[JustToClarify]

I am yet to find an explanation to why Nokia couldn't cut that huge sensor into bigger pixels to begin with.. just bypass the zoom thing and cut it into physical ~ 4.0 micron pixels .. a similar set up will have amazing dynamic range and low light performance.

Well pixel binning gives bigger pixels no? What bothers me is that with 808 it's noticeable that PV modes give a bit better night pictures than full res while with 1020 we have the situation where difference is negligible?! It's like they don't use pixel binning at all, just resize the picture using some algorithm.

If they would've kept the same sensor size.. the hump would be bigger for sure, and that was one of the main things they were trying to avoid.

how much bigger? It's not that their is a big difference between sensors. 2-3 mm of difference in hump wouldn't be that noticeable, especially because 1020 is wider and longer than 808...

 

[vlad0]

Well pixel binning gives bigger pixels no? What bothers me is that with 808 it's noticeable that PV modes give a bit better night pictures than full res while with 1020 we have the situation where difference is negligible?! It's like they don't use pixel binning at all, just resize the picture using some algorithm. ...

It does, but the 808 clearly suffers from weak DR and it often clips the highlights.. with physically bigger pixels that wouldn't be the case. Otherwise, yes.. oversampling works well and its very flexible, I think its perfect for a mobile phone.

how much bigger? It's not that their is a big difference between sensors. 2-3 mm of difference in hump wouldn't be that noticeable, especially because 1020 is wider and longer than 808...

Ya.. I don't know.. considering that the xenon flash is a newer generation with a much smaller capacitor and bulb, and they got rid of the loud speaker.. the difference wouldn't be that much I guess.

Do we have a picture of the 808 and the 1020 sensor next to each other ?