I think I know that the visitors of the PureViewClub are interested in both high-end innovations as in technological history – am I right?
In this post you’ll find a very rare example of the last, and chances even are you never heard of this very rare collector’s item: the Curta is an analogue pocket calculator (this one is from may 1953, almost 60 years old now), preceding the electronic calculators of the 70′s.
About the Curta
If you want to read all about it, go here - this site offers tons of information about the Curta pocket calculator (more than you can read in one day I’m sure). For here it should suffice to say the Curta was developed by a mathematical genious Curt Herzstark. He started working on this little machine in the thirties of the last century.
Curt Herzstark was the son of a Jewish father and Catholic mother, and after he was imprisoned in Buchenwald the Nazis would allow him to continu his work, so they would have something to present the Führer when the war was over.
No doubt, his invention saved his life (he died in 1988). If this fascinating historical background interests you – there’s much more – I can only advise you to read this Wikipedia article, and of course there is much more information you will find on the internet.
The shots you will see here are from a 1953 Curta that has been in my family for ages. It’s in mint condition and works 100% as far as I can judge – I have no idea how to use it. It’s just a little dusty, as you will see. The serial number will show you exactly when it was produced, and since this one has number 22051, it’s quite easy to find it’s from May 1953.
About these shots
My first comparison of five serious smartphone cameras has become way more popular than I ever expected to. Many blogs have been sharing the results, also because it offered early outside shots of the new Sony Xperia Z. Many people asked me for inside shots, under poorer light conditions than on a bright sunny day.
Well: here they are. The weather here is terrible today – in fact the only smartphone I could take outside would be the Xperia Z since it’s waterproof (and yes, that is an advantage Nokia should offer too!)
I don’t have a studio either. These shots are taken under a bright lamp, and I’m using large pieces of paper as background. Mostly blue, sometimes black. You’ll see that blue will turn into a bit more purple, and under the influence of the lamp the black background may change significantly, too (to a kind of yellow, almost).
You’ll see crops, too. Don’t judge the smartphones too harshly: some crops are a bit disappointing, but I’m not saying it’s the smartphone’s fault. Sessions like these take me almost a full day, I do the best I can, but I’m not perfect either. So I’m just offering this comparison to give you a general impression of what the smartphones are capable of in – in this case – less ideal light conditions.
This time, I didn’t choose to make 640 x 360 crops. The differences are huge because of the difference in the cameras (and many readers on other blogs appeared to think I had “zoomed in” (or even cheated :-). So this time, I chose to “cut” a specific part of the image, so you will have a more “direct” comparison – I’m not saying it’s more fair, but it’s easier I guess.
The Nokia 808 PureView is on 8MP in almost all shots (in some close-ups I had to set it to 5MP). I chose for the 4:3 format so you can be sure that all other smartphone cameras give you the best they have to offer – between 8MP of the Lumia 920 and 13MP of the Sony Xperia Z).
The Nokia devices are set to “close-up” when necessary, I couldn’t change to that setting on both Sony devices, so they’re on “automatic” and will choose “macro” on automatic – and you might not cheer about the quality, but I’ve noticed it’s very easy to get them to focus real close .
To (finally) conclude: no, there is no iPhone 5 in this comparison. I don’t have one, nor do I want one. But if Apple would like me to compare it in a test like this, they now know what to do ;-) And yes, I’m still waiting for the HTC One, too (three :-)
Here’s the video I made of all the full resolution shots you will find on the dedicated PureViewclub Photostream on Flickr as well, including all crops. For this video, don’t forget to choose 1080p (Full HD) if your connection is fast enough. Enjoy!
Loading ...
Are my eyes deceiving me? For I find Nokia 808 not performing up to the expectations. Lumia 920 shots, though look unreal, looks crispier than others. N8 and Xperia Z are impressive too.
Hey Marc, I think it would be great if you could embed some kind of comparison tool like the ones used to show how much presidents age on this site http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/lifestyle/the-age-of-obama/index.html
Wow, love these things (the Curta).
Here a instruction how to use it: http://curta.li/05_anleitungen/19_instructions.html
Three thoughts Marc: One: Gorgeous job you’ve done here! Lots of methodic work! Two: Amazing treasure you got there with your Curta, and in such excellent condition! Three: The “old” 2010 jewel, that great N8 with those magnific optics, is most of the time at the same level (or higher) than some 2013 flagships/high end cameraphones!
Pictures are there for people to choose their preferred device. I’ve done my choice time ago. Unbeaten yet.
Congrats for your job Marc.
So you are familiar with the Curta? You seem to be the first to be suprised about my choice of subject. Thank you for your compliments by the way :-)
No, Marc, unfortunately I’m not familiar with that marvel. Happens that I’ve found news of it -and read about it- surfing the web long ago related with this other marvel: The Antikythera Mechanism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antikythera_mechanism
If you’re not familiar with it, don’t miss this video:
http://www.nature.com/nature/videoarchive/antikythera/ It will change your mind of how “modern” we are. ;)
Some lovely comparisons here Marc.
Close ups and in more challenging light, and an impressive subject. What more can we ask for :)
Firstly noise levels. The 808 shows the least amount of noise thanks to it’s pureview pixel tech. The nokia n8 follows closely behind, with a somewhat pleasing balance of noise reduction while retaining detail in these macro shots. From experience though, for high detailed shots, like landscapes, the n8′s noise reduction is a little too strong and alot of fine detail is lost in lower light, but in this case with macro shot, the noise reduction seems just right for that type of subject. Get a subject that has finer details in low light, and once again the n8 will fail to capture the details. The Xperia S seems to have gone for a little less conservative noise reduction, but still loses alot of detail, and visible chroma noise which is evident by the purple tinting in the image. The Xperia Z does a bit better over the S, and has perceivable more detail and sharpness over the S. Noise reduction seems alot more advanced than the S, but does not come close to the quality we are seeing in the N8, nor the 808. The only gripe I have in this macro shot is the sharpening halos visible on the edge of the subject, and the digital artifacts randomly placed around the image frame. These digital artifacts, are very hard to remove, even with postprocessing methods, removing these, can result in substantial loss in detail. Now the 920, it has done really well in this particular shot. It has pin sharp focus and amazing detail, and thanks to it’s OIS, and f2.0 lens, it is able to keep ISO sensitivity low, hence theoretically should have the best image out of all these images. This is the case against the the Xperia S and Z, but not so much against the n8. The n8 although shooting at high ISO, has a very desirable uniform noise, which in this case looks somewhat like film grain. The low ISO capability of the 920 still has noise creeping into the shot, with digital artifacts partially faded into the background. Noise on the 808, when visible, is very uniform and low, and there is no compromise to detail. Unfortunately in this shot, the depth of field from the larger sensor has made it hard to get the whole subject totally in focus. Since there is no aperture control, being stuck at f2.4 means one has to be clever and use some of that miraculous digital zoom and stand further back in order to get greater depth.
In terms of ultimate detail in this particular subject, the battle is tie between the Xperia Z and 920, the noise reduction and high resolution sensor on the Xperia Z favours this type of subject with lots of contrasty edges, The 920 similarly with it’s amazing optical stabilizer and f2.0 lens enables the sensor perform at a lower ISO sensitivity. I dare say though, in the background the digital noise and artifacts are of concern though in both these phone cameras.
The winner for the most balanced shot will have to go to the Nokia n8, as even though is hint of camera shake, so minimal it can be forgiven, the detail resolved is excellent, and the noise reduction algorithm loves this type of subject so as not make it look too water colored, plus the background noise, although visible, is a very pleasant and resembled that of conventional analogue film.
The loser is the Xperia S, as the noise reduction has blurred out all useful detail, and made it look water colored. Even with this overdone noise reduction, there is still alot of visible noise giving the image a very substandard visual appeal.
Nokia 808, here, is not for the average user and alot more skill has to be used to rein in this very powerful sensor. In the wrong hands, it will give results that will not be appealing. In the creative set, there is alot of features that require a bit of photography knowledge to get around this camera. It is a phone camera designed for those with experience with larger DSLRs, or mirrorless cameras, and the results are indeed quite amazing, even when compared to larger dedicated mirrorless or DSLRs.
Thanks once more Bigs… I was extremely surprised by the N8 results as well. And a bit disappointed by what I managed to do with the Nokia 808 PureView in this case…
I think I have to admit – to be completely honest – I might have forgotten to clean the lens (there’s always something I seem to forget when using 5 different smartphones). Hence the lens flare in some of the shots. I’m not sure about it though.
I also noticed the Sony Xperia S is not up to par at all with the N8. But I have to add it’s quite easy to focus a close-up shot with both Xperia’s, though, very much so with the new Xperia Z. If that will get you the best shot is something average smartphone users might not find too important (and you might wonder how many users are interested in making extreme close-ups at all).
In general, in all shots I think it’s quite clear the Nokia 808 and N8 offer outstanding results – whereas the Lumia 920 does a very fine job as well. The Xperia S – despite its 12MP sensor – does not live up to the expectations, and I think the Xperia Z offers a pleasant surprise in this comparison.
do not worry marc, it really just points out the difficulty in close up focus with the 808. With the larger sensor comes narrow depth of field. This means that any slightest movement forward or backward will result in defocusing of the subject. Tripod use for the 808 would have be probably more ideal, but as you know, sometimes, we do not have the luxury of carrying a tripod everywhere we go. in order to capture good shots with the 808, a very steady hand is required in low light, and even more steady hand for low light, and close up shooting.
Agree, Xperia S 12MP images are definitely sub par. They really should have gone for an 8MP similar size sensor, with larger pixels. That horrible noise and lack of any real 12MP detail is unforgivable. The 12mp tech spec for Xperia S I believe was all for marketing, where one gets the ooo and ahh when one tells people you have a 12MP camera inside your mobile phone.
Well, if you do a side-by-side comparison then that will be much appreciated @Marc. This will give viewers like me a more detail comparison. Just like @AAS does all crops side-by-side. Just a suggestion though.
And the pics as always were amazing!
Is it just me, or does the 920 pull off this test in general? I own both 808 and the 920 (on Portico), and my experience is that the 808 shoots the sharpest close ups. These pictures shows the opposite… hmmm…
The 808 sensor is very large, and the “bokeh” effect is pronounced in close up shots. It looks like several crops weren’t at the focal point. This test is actually really good – it shows the 920′s benefits. As a true point and shoot, it is great. The 808 is more like a real camera – you need to provide a little more input. This could be in settings, or just composition (focal point). OIS helps in lower light as well.
The n8 is somewhere in between. I’m still trying to work out the xperias. They are too inconsistent. Sometimes they look good, sometimes aweful. I think their sharpening algorithms aren’t general enough, and sometimes ruin the shot.
Personally, I find 808 macro shots excellent, however I normally set the shot up, tweak the settings and shoot multiple shots with different settings. As a point and shoot, it isn’t very good at macro. This is where the 920 shines. Complete reversal from the last test in good conditions :)
Another thing I love about your comparisons is that they spur me into trying out that type of shot for myself! I only have an 808, so I can’t compare, however I have confirmed a few things. When in macro, only a few mm away (depth) from the focused item is blurry (bokeh). Secondly, try to decrease the shutter time by pushing the ISO or even using the flash – yes flash works well with macro so long as you don’t get reflections.
I noticed that you used zoom in the first 808 photo. Unfortunately this is necessary due to the 808′s focus range, however this impacts the pureview process.
Anyway, I think it confirms what I said before – if you play around with the settings, you can get great results from the 808 in macro, however it isn’t a point and shoot. The 920 seem very capable in this department. Isn’t it great to have choice :)
Thank you for all your comments! Love to see you’re appreciating what I’m trying to do :-)
as I posted in another comment, the 808 sensor is indeed large, it’s benefits is that is can achieve amazing quality in low light, plus achieve amazing resolution and lossless digital zoom in good light.
Unfortunately there are negatives at having a larger sensor. One of which is narrow depth of field. Although loved for portraits and subjects where you want the out of focus areas to nicely blur out, it can be a curse when you want more of a subject in focus. As I said, one has to step back further from the subject in that case and use a bit of digital zoom to get in closer, and then more of the subject will be in focus. Another negative a bit off topic of having a larger sensor, is the size of the optic that has to compliment it, and it can be seem clearly in the 808, by the diameter of the optic and sheer thickness required by the phone to accommodate it.
I still prefer a larger higher quality sensor than a smaller sensor, and with practice the results from the 808 will totally amaze.
Way, great comparison. Good job in making the video too :-)