I'm a Pro Photographer. Got the 1020. Wow I'm impressed! A few samples inside. =)

[montsa007]

I only wish I could take photos like these someday :'(

 

[houkoholic]

I'm using my 1020 how *I* want to, and that's all that really matters.

Very well said, if this is how more people think we will get a lot less of those "1020 is so expensive! For that price I can get xxxx Android/iPhone which runs a real OS PLUS a real camera!!!!1111"

Keep up with the photo posting in the future - maybe detail how you get the shots too because I seriously want to learn how to extract more from my upcoming Lumia 1020 as well (and I think many other current and future owners will appreciate too!). I've dipped my toes into more serious photography equipment before but I'm just too lazy to carry yet another device with me because I don't like carrying bags, I think the 1020 will mean enabling me to take great photos while still fitting into my lifestyle and that's the thing I look forward to the most with getting my hands on it.

 

[uopjo6]

Much more credibility to the 1020 when it comes from a photographer like you. Fantastic. Now we need everyone to forward this page to every part of the internet.

 

[Daniel Ratcliffe]

Dude, I totally get you. Just like you, I too enjoy spending my days trawling Sony RX100 fan pages mocking at the photos they snapped with their puny 1" sensors. I've spent more than $10k on expensive, REAL camera gear. Full-frame stuff... and I have to suffer an eye-sore viewing those shared photos coming from a tiny 1" sensor? Bah! I'm surprised anyone would wax poetic about their photos not taken with professional-grade cameras like mine. Like you, I too am an egologist with 20+ years in photography. With my trained egologist eyes, I can see details even from a 0.5MP image to make inferences about its original 5MP/41MP.

Making fun of other people's photos/cameras gives such a tremendous ego-boost and raises my self-esteem like nothing else can. Great way to spend time. I'm so glad to find another fellow trawl like you here. But seriously dude, WPcentral is not the right pond for you to fish in, you should target those M43, mirrorless systems... you know, those cameras that are less worthy than your expensive equipment. We should catch up one day, see you at the RX100 pages?

Oh by the way, I have a new project! You know, those photos at Harlem taken by Bruce Weber and David Bailey using the LumiNa 1020? How dare they share photos from a small camera like the LumiNa 1020. Oh man, can't sleep just thinking about this ultimate ego trip insulting those photography legends! Care to join me?

/s

Alright, who let the dogs out here?

 

[jasonstatham]

those pictures are awesome... I am jealous. I have a lumia 520

 

[uopjo6]

It amazes me how people can convince themselves that images that can be replicated by a $99 point and shoot are somehow stunning and impressive since they are from a Lumina 1020, or iPhone, or high end Android phone. I am sorry but I simply don't see what is impressive about any of the shots. They are garden variety point and shoot images. The colors appear to be just passable, detail looks like that from any other high resolution small sensor, white balance is mediocre, and exposure//light/shadow control is quite unimpressive. I am also surprised that a photographer would wax poetic about this stuff. As most photographers I know will attest, number of pixels is meaningless and is even more the case with tiny digital sensors. It is smoke and mirrors - people will convince themselves of whatever they want to see. BTW, I am an archaeologist who has been doing photography as part of my profession for 20+ years and learned using the original Nikon F.

To each their own but to date I have yet to see any 1020 images that have impressed me as being anything more than shots from an overpriced point and shoot for which people are making a two to three year commitment. Leaving all other issues aside, and whether one person's subjective impression of images are more valid than another's, in the length of time someone might be tied to a contract, digital imaging technology will probably leapfrog at least twice. I simply do not see the fascination and obsession with this (or any other) camera phone.

Uh....i think the point is what kind of photos you can get off a camera phone, sth that is with you 24-7. The mass are not professionals carrying around cameras the size of a watermelon.

 

[stalemate1]

I know I'm not a professional photographer but when get a glimpse of a good photo, I fire away...the thing about a DSLR camera is I cant/don't take it everywhere with me (its not do comfortable to walk around with it so my chance of my good photo is forever lost...I try with my phone but no good, it does not come out as I saw it.

Those photos the op posted look edited, contrast and sharpness boosted....or just one very good camera. Your call.

 

[lsquare]

It amazes me how people can convince themselves that images that can be replicated by a $99 point and shoot are somehow stunning and impressive since they are from a Lumina 1020, or iPhone, or high end Android phone. I am sorry but I simply don't see what is impressive about any of the shots. They are garden variety point and shoot images. The colors appear to be just passable, detail looks like that from any other high resolution small sensor, white balance is mediocre, and exposure//light/shadow control is quite unimpressive. I am also surprised that a photographer would wax poetic about this stuff. As most photographers I know will attest, number of pixels is meaningless and is even more the case with tiny digital sensors. It is smoke and mirrors - people will convince themselves of whatever they want to see. BTW, I am an archaeologist who has been doing photography as part of my profession for 20+ years and learned using the original Nikon F.

To each their own but to date I have yet to see any 1020 images that have impressed me as being anything more than shots from an overpriced point and shoot for which people are making a two to three year commitment. Leaving all other issues aside, and whether one person's subjective impression of images are more valid than another's, in the length of time someone might be tied to a contract, digital imaging technology will probably leapfrog at least twice. I simply do not see the fascination and obsession with this (or any other) camera phone.

As others have said, you're missing the point here. The Lumia 1020 will never beat a dedicated camera. Please do consider the fact that most of the elements in the 1020's lens is made of plastic. Having said that, I do have to agree with you about the white balance of the op's photos. The exposure also seem a bit off for some of the images. These can be fixed though. Nonetheless, I rather have a phone like the 1020 in my pocket than to carry another device with me to snap an image.

 

[Bahamen]

Alright, who let the dogs out here?

"Who, who, who, who, who!"

 

[eroselim]

The photos are addicting. It's plain AWESOMAZING! Thanks for sharing those.

 

[Hs1993]

But that Profile Pic FaceSwap though!!

 

[George Jenkinson]

It amazes me how people can convince themselves that images that can be replicated by a $99 point and shoot are somehow stunning and impressive since they are from a Lumina 1020, or iPhone, or high end Android phone. I am sorry but I simply don't see what is impressive about any of the shots. They are garden variety point and shoot images. The colors appear to be just passable, detail looks like that from any other high resolution small sensor, white balance is mediocre, and exposure//light/shadow control is quite unimpressive. I am also surprised that a photographer would wax poetic about this stuff. As most photographers I know will attest, number of pixels is meaningless and is even more the case with tiny digital sensors. It is smoke and mirrors - people will convince themselves of whatever they want to see. BTW, I am an archaeologist who has been doing photography as part of my profession for 20+ years and learned using the original Nikon F.

To each their own but to date I have yet to see any 1020 images that have impressed me as being anything more than shots from an overpriced point and shoot for which people are making a two to three year commitment. Leaving all other issues aside, and whether one person's subjective impression of images are more valid than another's, in the length of time someone might be tied to a contract, digital imaging technology will probably leapfrog at least twice. I simply do not see the fascination and obsession with this (or any other) camera phone.

I understand what you mean and as an amateur, rather than professional, photographer who can now only call himself an enthusiast, I appreciate what you say. However, if I may, I would make two comments:

The real difference will only be seen when the photos are printed. Until then, everyone who views them does so through a monitor which in most cases is probably like mine - rather basic and not calibrated for colour. Most of all though, the pixels on my screen are large and hide details. It is possible (although not stated) that the OP as a professional may have a better screen in which case, many of the points he raises would be clearer to see.

The other point is that while many phones take pictures, few are billed as camera phones. I've had a good spread of phones and cameras and can attest that ?99 point and shoot won't capture the same information and certainly won't have the software baked in to process the image, as more expensive cameras. You do get what you pay for. I have a Canon A series point and shoot camera and I have no control over the focusing, shutter speed, depth of field or even ISO; but I can change the scene mode and flash. The Lumia has all of these included as standard.

Until there is a printed comparison, it isn't possible to state categorically that a $99 camera is better/worse than a Lumia 1020. In the current situation though, I am inclined to agree with the OP. The photos are good and if they were taken with the higher resolution I am sure would show up a still greater difference.

 

[Nick_1020]

There's always one isn't there?!

Bloody archaeologists. Indiana Jones tried his best to sex up the profession and look what has happened.

George Lucas has a lot to answer for indeed.

 

[JustlMe]

I really need to start taking more better pics, I'm starring at your pics more than my own shots form my L1020 xD!

 

[antiochian2010]

It amazes me how people can convince themselves that images that can be replicated by a $99 point and shoot are somehow stunning and impressive since they are from a Lumina 1020, or iPhone, or high end Android phone..etc..etc..etc..etc..etc....

Well, I'm by no means a pro photographer, I post with a lousy avatar and yesterday someone justifiably accused me of having the mentality of a 12 year old.

In this case, I can just say that I love the photos posted here and I like what the 1020 is doing for me.

Between your thorough and well thought out review here versus another long review of the 1020 by someone from National Geographic that shoots with nothing but the best available DSLR cameras, I think I have to accept his authority over yours, mine or even most of the members on this site.

If Nat Geo likes the Lumia 1020, can't be all bad..

 

[taymur]

maaaaan, i would pay for such pictures, oh weight, you already sell your pictures

 

[Bahamen]

It amazes me how people can convince themselves that images that can be replicated by a $99 point and shoot

Actually, I was wondering where can we find a $99 point & shoot camera with similar specs as the 1020 (i.e. sensor size 1/1.5", f/2.2). The Canon S110 costs $300-400, and has a slightly smaller image sensor 1/1.7". A Pana LF1 costs about the same as well.

Finally... a P&S camera for $129: Nikon Coolpix L10... Darn, only a 1/2.5" sensor... way smaller than the 1020's sensor (close enough to Xperia Z1 though).

Are we talking about a used P&S camera for $99, or a missing digit somewhere, or is he just ignorant about the 1020?

 

[luv2skipow]

Are you in Calgary? If so how did you get the phone. ..
Even if in Alberta for that matter.

 

[Smyrna5]

As much as I distrust cNet after their recent hatchet job on the 1020, here is a pretty good list of what you can get in the $100-$150 range in a point and shoot camera. I know the original webpage title says $400-$500, but I moved the maximum slider down to $105. cNet still showed some upwards of $150, but what ya gonna do?

$60 - $150 Digital Cameras - CNET Reviews

I have fun playing with the little slider up to about $500 to see what kind of camera I could get for the difference between my 521 and the 1020, although as I've said most wont fit in my pocket and I don't want to carry two devices everywhere.

 

[tgr42]

Between your thorough and well thought out review here versus another long review of the 1020 by someone from National Geographic that shoots with nothing but the best available DSLR cameras, I think I have to accept his authority over yours, mine or even most of the members on this site.

If Nat Geo likes the Lumia 1020, can't be all bad..

...except the National Geographic thing was blatant paid publicity for Nokia. That doesn't mean it's entirely worthless, but there's a huge difference between being paid to promote a product vs. giving an unsolicited opinion. We have no way of knowing the true off-the-record feelings of that National Geographic photographer - maybe he really does like the 1020, or maybe he threw it off a cliff when the shoot was over.