Slashdot Mirror
Nokia Lumia 1020 Video and Photo Shoot Preview
MojoKid writes "Nokia, perhaps more-so than any other smartphone manufacturer in the game right now, needed to find a way to make something special. The new Nokia Lumia 1020, though it sports essentially the same internals and display as Nokia's Lumia 920, most definitely is different, and perhaps even an attractive alternative, depending on your specific needs. 41 megapixels of resolution, floating image stabilization and a powerful camera app to back it up, will make the Lumia 1020 pretty 'special' to some people, some of whom might be considering a Windows Phone for the first time as a result. Initial impressions of the device and its camera performance, show Nokia's new flagship device does shoot impressive still images and video, thanks in part to the Lumia 1020's image sensor and stabilization features. Nokia's Pro Cam app is comprised of a slick dial interface that offers virtually all of the controls you'd find in a DSLR camera. From White Balance, to ISO, Focus, Exposure and Flash Control, it's all in there. When you snap a picture, the 1020's camera grabs two versions of the shot; a large full resolution (7700x4300, roughly) shot with a huge 11MB file size is captured and an additional 5MP image is derived from that and stored as well. The results, especially in decent lighting, can be impressive."
The only problem I have with this phone is that it runs Windows Phone OS. The OS actually isn't that bad and the app support is definitely improving, but I just can't stand the home screen. With its pastel colors and overly-animated interface, it looks like they got the inspiration by watching Technicolor cartoons and browsing web pages from 1996. Whenever I see it, I almost expect to see animated GIFS of flames and a dancing Jesus. Other than the home screen, the rest of the OS isn't as bad as I thought it would be.
How much further ahead would Nokia be if the 1020 had been an Android phone?
The context of the article notes controls "like you'd find in any DSLR camera." These controls allow you to actually affect image capture settings. Nokia didn't use that to "trick" people into anything. They just gave users more control over settings. The reality is, the camera and app are the best for any camera phone on the market now, but yet, it's still a built-in smartphone camera, albeit a really good one for what it is.
If they're as good as the Lumia 925 (and I assume they are), they're damned good. Far better than my Galaxy S3. Definitely not DSLR good, but damned good, nonetheless. At a recent concert, I was impressed how well it handled the stage lighting and everything. Many other phones didn't fare nearly as well as mine did. I did end up wishing I'd picked up a 1020 instead, as the performer's face was completely lacking any detail at the distance I was at.
sure? This phone has optical image stabilisation. One of the elements in the lens floats - hence "floating image stabilization"
I also shoot professionally and I do have an earthly idea what the fuck I'm talking about. It'd produce better images with fewer pixels.
Nokia is feeding on naive consumers who believe the myth that more pixels is automatically better. If you look at their marketing information they drive that fact down your throat. Pixel size and distance between pixel sites has much more to do with image quality than the number of pixels.
Solving Unix problems since 1989...
Samsung has been showing serious cameras that have phone functions, standard phones which have been outclassing Nokia in general reviews and real optical zoom cameras with most smartphone features. Nokia traditionally lead in phone cameras and when the original Pureview 808 came out it looked pretty neat.
Now Nokia which has contracts that leave it trapped with windows they are desperate to get some of the 808's shine back. They know that users who already used a Windows phone won't do it again so they have to look for new audiences. Aiming to sucker in camera users who they hope won't check app availability let alone how up to date the apps in the app store are is one of their better chances.
=~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
Because loading a 40MP image can bring computers to their knees. Even at 3 bytes per pixel (which most implementations use 4, iOS does anyway) for image data, you're looking at 120MB of RAM just to uncompress the image.
Why not have the dedicated hardware built in to the camera processor scale it down so the ARM cores don't spend a few minutes trying to do it in software?
Seems to me that choppy response is a standard Android complaint, particularly from those who do not have quad core. Those weren't Apple customers complaining about lag, either, they were older device customers complaining about performance after iOS upgrades. Cores are not the problem there.
Of course, quad core means worse battery life as well, along with slower recharge times that come with the larger batteries.
Funny how people seek out information to confirm their prejudices.
Oh come on, are you trying to sell sh.t for Microsoft? DSLR would have aperture priority mode, shutter priority and full manual mode, not the "ISO, white balance is all there".
Does this Windows phone crap needs to forced on people so badly that paid for "reviews" are not sufficient and now Slashdot is needed for that too?
The problem is they didn't just say "like you'd find in any DSLR camera." the summary said "virtually all of the controls you'd find in a DSLR camera." This is a laughable comment at best. It does not offer fine control over shutter aperture in different priority modes, fully manual control, bracketing, manual AF, viewfinder grid, horizon level, etc that you find standard in nearly all DSLRs on the market and many point and shoots. No I have seen many point and shoots that give more controls than what this offers.
Is it a good step forward? Yes. Is the sentence comparing it's controls to that of an actual camera justified? Hell no.
Actually, it DOES have the following that you note... "shutter aperture, manual AF, bracketing and viewfinder grid"... so what's laughable?
This is just not true at all. In low light conditions shrinking the pixels will produce higher noise results. Additionally this is way too many pixels to have any effect resolution-wise. It's a marketing gimmick, pure and simple. If there was any validity to your argument, then why do real DSLR cameras typically max out around 15-20 megapixels even though their sensors are substantially larger than this one?