Facebook Twitter Flickr

Nokia 808 PureView vs Nokia Lumia 1020 vs Sony QX100 – a detailed comparison

I know you like comparisons like this – and I do too, but realizing them is extremely time consuming. This week I was very happy with two things though.

First of all, a bright sunny morning, that gave me the chance to finally do some shooting in the exact same light conditions, with the Nokia 808 PureView, Lumia 1020, Lumia 1520 and Sony QX100.

Second, I was very glad Harsh Verma  - who’se been analyzing some of my shots earlier – was willing to do his analysis of these early morning shots. There has been some intense data exchange between The Netherlands and India, and I’m happy to present the result here.

This is a true collaboration in the sense that all I did was the shooting with the different cameras. These shots are not spectacular in any way, but provides you with a lot of details to compare. You may do so yourself as well, since I put his selection of all the shots used in this comparison (and more) on SkyDrive.

All the text you will read below however – including the conclusion – is written by Harsh Verma.

A detailed comparison of the Nokia 808 PureView, Lumia 1020 and Sony QX100

I am doing detailed comparison of the 808 vs 1020 and of the QX100 vs 1020. The reason for going separately is due to difference in resolutions. Having advantage of RAW of 1020 I can oversample to 20 mp and compare with best possible image quality. For this I use Lightroom 5.2. These are excellent shots because of same light conditions and same shot angle. Further any kind of artificial post-processing will easily be noticed in these natural scenes.

For this:
1) I converted .DNG files of 1020 to respective 38 MP JPG for comparing with 808 Pureview with a very slight change in white balance to match 808’s colour.
2) I converted .DNG files of 1020 to 20 MP JPG for comparing with Sony QX100.
3) Right hand side images and crops are of 808 and QX100 while left one’s are 1020’s.

EXAMPLE A – The Pond

1. Nokia 808 PureView  vs Lumia 1020

Left: 808 Original 38MP (ISO 64, Shutter Speed 1/322 sec)
Right: 1020 Original 38 MP(ISO 100, Shutter Speed 1/1470 sec)

Pond 808 and 1020

Next, I took crops of several points in images. You will find most of the original crops in links below the shots. You will find all crops here.

Pond 808 and 1020 Crops 1 crop 808 vs 1020

Pond 808 and 1020 Crops 2crop 808 vs 1020

Pond 808 and 1020 Crops 2a largecrop 808 vs 1020

Pond 808 and 1020 Crops 3 largecrop 808 vs 1020

Pond 808 and 1020 Crops 5crop 808 vs 1020

On seeing these crop comparisons, the Lumia 1020 takes brighter images. The 808 PureView suffers from .jpg compression and applies some sharpening and NR causing detail losses. Though the levels are very minimal, they are quite visible on comparing crops. In the trees,grass, artifacts are easily visible. 1020 captures better details here.

2. Sony QX100 vs Nokia Lumia 1020

Left: QX100 18 MP Original (ISO 160, Shutter Speed 1/200 sec)
Right: 1020 20 MP Original (ISO 100, Shutter Speed 1/470 sec)

Pond QX 100 and 1020

I chose the same crops, and again you’ll find most of the original crops in links below the shots.

Pond QX 100 and 1020 Crops 1crop QX100 vs 1020

Pond QX 100 and 1020 Crops 2crop QX100 vs 1020

Pond QX 100 and 1020 Crops 3 large

Pond QX 100 and 1020 Crops 4 largecrop Qx100 vs 1020

Pond QX 100 and 1020 Crops 5crop Qx100 vs 1020

I took the same crop points as above 808 vs 1020’s comparison. Look at the grasses and balcony, the bricks. The level of sharpening and post-processing is more applied in sony’s .jpg’s than in the 808, resulting in some artifacts and detail losses. In my opinion, the Nokia Lumia 1020 performs far better with details than Sony QX100.

EXAMPLE B – A Forest

1. Nokia 808 PureView vs Nokia Lumia 1020

Left: 808 Original 38MP (ISO 64, Shutter Speed 1/175 sec)
Left: 1020 Original 38MP (ISO 100, Shutter Speed 1/400 sec)

Forest 808 and 1020


Forest 808 and 1020 Crops 1crop 808 vs 1020

Forest 808 and 1020 Crops 2crop 808 vs 1020

Forest 808 and 1020 Crops 3crop 808 vs 1020

Forest 808 and 1020 Crops 4crop 808 vs 1020

Forest 808 and 1020 Crops 5crop 808 vs 1020

This is an interesting comparison. Here we can see the clear advantage of Raw. Despite capturing at ISO 64, 808 has applied noise reduction causing a somewhat smeary, more saturated water-painting kind effect.

And even due to JPG compression, artifacts are easily noticed here. Look at leaves’s tip. 1020 has preserved great amount of details with minimal noise. Great recovery of details!

Sony QX100 vs Nokia Lumia 1020

Left: QX100 Original 18MP (ISO 160, Shutter Speed 1/100 sec)
Right: 1020 Original 20MP (ISO 100, Shutter Speed 1/400 sec)

Forest QX100 and 1020


Forest QX100 and 1020 Crops 1crop QX100 vs 1020

Forest QX100 and 1020 Crops 2

Forest QX100 and 1020 Crops 3crop Qx100 vs 1020

Forest QX100 and 1020 Crops 4crop QX100 vs 1020

Forest QX100 and 1020 Crops 5crop QX100 vs 1020

While the Nokia 808 PureView chose to apply noise-reduction causing a somewhat smeary effect, QX100 applied aggressive sharpening, losing the original fine details. It’s quite visible in all crop comparisons above. The Lumia 1020 wins here with zero processing.

Conclusion: in this interesting comparison, the differences between RAW and JPG are easily seen. Most surprising thing was even though Sony’s QX100 has I” largest sensor here, but looses to 808 PureView due to heavy post-processing in daylight scenes.

While having the smallest sensor and pixel size, the Lumia 1020 preserves most details than these due to RAW. Images are pure. The lens takes bright photos. Though it exhibits some noise, but it’s of a very fine type. And when you oversample it to 5MP, it’s almost negligible.

by Harsh Verma, January 2014

Again, I’d like to thank Harsh for his time to work on this detailed comparison. Like I wrote, all the writing and the conclusion is his, I did no more that capture the shots with the different devices.

They were clean and simple as you have seen, most important they were full of details and captured in absolutely the same light conditions, like so  many of you have urged me to do. You will find all original shots used in this comparison – and also the ones taken with the Nokia Lumia 1520 – here on SkyDrive.

I’m not sure myself if I fully agree with Harsh’s conclusion though. I can imagine some people would – for instance – prefer the colors from the 808 PureView, or the sharper definition in the images of Sony’s QX100.


Using Sony’s QX100
I have written about it before in an earlier comparison but I’d like to add a bit more practical information. It’s a very tempting high-end gadget of impressive build and offers some very good image quality, but I must say it’s very unpracticle compared to a smartphone camera.

It only works with iOS and Android, and since I don’t have an iPhone, I connected it to a Samsung Galaxy Note 3 (that does fit actually!). Connecting it works fine via WiFi Direct (after installing the specific software “PlayMemories Mobile” on the phone), but connecting really takes time every time you want to make use of it.

You can get used to clamping the QX100 to your phone as well, but again that takes time and it will hardly be possible to use your phone for other purposes. Holding the combination needs quite a bit of practice as well: of course, the QX100 is very heavy and you’ll need to find your own way how to balance this when making shots.

Taking it off your phone is not uneasy, but you’ll have to take good care not to drop either the lens or your smartphone. And like I wrote before, it’s very strange Sony didn’t add the possibility to shoot Raw with this device, since most likely it will only attract professional photographers who don’t want to carry their complete gear on a day off.

In this comparison, Harsh has shown how important it is to be able to use Raw to get the very best result out of your shots. In all, however tempting it is, it might not be the extra gadget you’re looking for after all.

I think I can say this has been the most time consuming comparison I ever did.  Together we’ve been working for days on this post, and Harsh and I are looking forward towards your reactions and opinions very much.

Please join PureViewClub on TwitterFacebookFlickrGoogle+ and/or Instagram.

banner_camerapro 525 x 105

 Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Reddit Share on LinkedIn

86 Responses

  1. bigs

    now that this thread has died down a bit, I wanted to post this link showing zoom in crops detailing the 1020 DNG converted and 808 JPG.


    It shows how the 1020 DNG may be able to recover more fine details, but the fine details is greatly affected by moire, which can be seen in the hand rails. Also the top of the building on the right hand side of the frame seems to lack a bit of sharpness or focus when compared to the 808.

    Interesting that although the 1020 may have DNG RAW, the issues with lens quality is not amplified somewhat and any imperfections will be revealed. ie there is no where to hide.

    • Punit

      Few days back before black update, it was like 1020 can never be equal or better than 808. But now with raw and these good comparisons, 1020 with dng is best thing ever ! Even all 808 users agree with it. These are results in good light. In low-light, 1020 will totally smash 808..! BSI sensor is awesome.
      Lets wait for such comparisons at iso 100 nd equal shutter speed ( like 2.7 sec) in both

      • bigs

        indeed DNG has made the 1020 a better camera phone, and the 1020′s BSI senor in lowlight will be superior, but then the optic in front collecting data seems to be inconsistent and not of premium manufacture. So no matter how good the image receptor (sensor) and processing (RAW), the initial light captured via the lens will be a bottle neck for the 1020.

  2. Frankie

    can this sony camera addon be used with the Lumia 1020? i mean, can be paired?

    • Marc @PureViewClub

      Not as far as I know. You’ll need the dedicated software, which is only for Android and iOS at the time.

  3. […] See the original post: Nokia 808 PureView vs Nokia Lumia 1020 vs Sony QX100 – a … […]

  4. Quaddy

    Nearest us 808 owners can come to RAW, in terms of negating the compression is to use CameraPro @ 100% jpeg stream compression.

    • mike

      I do have this software too.. I didn’t notice huge differences… Do you think it gets close to raw images during capture? I didn’t make any comparison to test it though… For post-processing in a computer, you can also convert the jpg to dng, to avoid further loss… But in capture you always lose some quality with the jpg.

    • mike

      I made a comparison between camerapro full resolution (100% quality) and in built camera software at normal/superfine quality and you were right. With camerapro I got a 30 mb file, whereas with 808′s software 5 mb file at normal and 10 mb at superfine. The difference is huge!!! Wow! Marc, another task for you or anyone else that has both nokia 808 and lumia 1020! :) A comparison between 808 camerapro raw jpeg and lumia 1020 raw dng, both at full resolution, or/and at 5 mp pureview jpg (to test the quality of the camerapro). I wonder is the lossless jpg quality close to dng?

      • mirco

        I am sorry, but I have to nitpick a little bit. There is no such thing as lossless jpeg. Well, there might be a standard for it but it is basically not in use. For sure, there is no raw jpeg either. RAW means that you get the data straight from the sensor without altering anything, i.e. before Bayer demosaicing. Also, with jpeg you get just 8 Bit colour depth (12 Bit max) while RAW goes up to 16 Bit (hence the advantage when recovering details in the highlights/shadows). So, jpeg is nowhere close to RAW.

        • mike

          Mirco, thanks for your feedback. The 100% jpeg quality is definitely far better than the 808′s or lumia 1020′s jpg, but of course it is not raw. That is why they say it is “raw” jpg quality (they mean like raw, but not exactly raw). I just want to know the quality differences between them. Are they still huge? Or are they close enough to be comparable? As for the colour depth, that would make a difference in post-processing I guess… Thanks again for the information.

  5. Zeeman

    Nokia why dont you add Raw to 808 ? :’-(
    Why i am seeing other mobile phone getting chosen better than 808 ?

    • Lesnar

      I understand the feeling bro :(
      Its Nokia only who backbit-ed the Symbian support. But i am pretty sure its one sided story. In low light shots using tripod with iso 50, with largest sensor in 808, 1020 will be nothing in details. But use tripod else everyone will sing praise of OIS. Since you guys here talking about details, do this true comparison if you can ! @Marcpureviewclub.

      • Marc @PureViewClub

        hi Lesnar, I already did the test you’re asking for, you’ll find the results on SkyDrive:
        The Nokia Lumia 1020 completely blew the 808 PureView out of the water in this extreme dark test, you can see for yourself. I’m sorry.

      • mirco

        And still, the 1020 will have an advantage with its possibility to control exposure time directly and up to 4s (i.e. there is no messing around with the ND filter which gives you no practical benefits in low light).

        With the camera case attached, the 1020 also has a tripod thread which comes in quite handy, doesn’t it?

        • bigs

          You do not have to force the ND filter to “On” in low light to get a long exposure with the 808. All you have to do is force a low ISOs setting in low light. The only reason to use ND filter is if the scene being captured is too bright still and a desirable lower shutter speed is required.

          In essence the ND filter is like having a 2 stage aperture control to reduce light getting through the lens to the sensor while maintaining the same depth of field.

          ND filters is a good feature to have to aid creative photography on the fly. Built in ND filters can be found in the Panasonic LX7 for instance.

          • mirco

            I didn’t say that a ND filter was a useless feature. It can be quite handy. However, it is also easy to carry one with you (should be no problem for those kind of 808 useres who claim that they always have a tripod with them ;) )

            • mike

              808 has FSI sensor and smaller aperture than the lumia 1020, so even with a tripod, it struggles in low light (long exposure and highest pureview at 2 MP, won’t do a difference). Low light photography is where 808 loses quality…

            • bigs

              Mike, guess that is why Mirco said 808 users claim to always carry a tripod.

              The larger aperture for the 1020 is inherent when you shrink the sensor, whist keeping the optic the same size.

              We see this method used in the Panasonic LX7 which sports a nice f1.8 at the wide end of the zoom, where as the older LX5 has a slightly larger sensor and hence hence the the aperture is not quite as large.

            • mirco

              You are not quite right about the LX7. It has a f/1.4-f/2.3 (4.7mm – 17.7mm, 1/1.7″ sensor) lens while the LX5 had just f/2.0-f/3.3 (5.1mm – 19.2mm, 1/1.63″ sensor). First of all, let’s state that the sensor didn’t get that much smaller ;) Second, the diaphragm (i.e. the f-stop) of a lens is defined as the ratio of its focal length to its effective aperture diameter. If I am not mistaken, this would mean 3.36mm for the LX7 and 2.55mm for the LX5 respectively (both at 24mm 35mm equivalent focal length). So, it is not just a miniaturization.

              While we are at it, let’s repeat it for the 808/1020: The 1020 has f/2.2 lens with 7.2 mm focal length => 3.27mm effective aperture. For the 808 we find a f/2.4 lens with 8.02mm focal length => 3.34mm. So, here the lens of the 1020 benefited by the smaller focal length (I am not engineering lenses and I cannot even guess the effort needed for minimizing the lens and keeping the effective aperture).

              Anyway, for a given sensitivity and a desired exposure a faster lens would result in a faster shutter speed no matter how large your sensor is. Depth of field is a different question, though.

            • bigs

              of course Mirco there is more to just reducing the sensor to change the fstop but also lens design. Obviously what I was getting at was that the smaller the sensor, the easier it is to design an optic which would result in faster F stop. The lens design for the 1020 will be different from the 808 as it has 6 elements vs 5 in the 808. plus like you said the focal length is slightly wider on th 1020, hence why we see a slightly wider FOV when comparing 808 and 1020.

              That being said based on what we have seen in terms of depth of field, it has been too hard to depict which phone has a more narrow depth of field, since the differences are extremely small.

          • MF

            Given the 1020′s very high max shutter speed, an ND filter would have only one purpose, i.e. take pictures of flow of water. That is a very niche feature.

  6. Swiff

    Kudos guys! I love th color of 1020. I amnt pixel viewer,i do editing with my raw files. 1020 is comparatively higher level than 808 for post-processing. It dont do compression. In real world who sees such pixel-comparison. All you like is a good looking edited photograph with nice composition.
    1020 is for me surely

  7. Dominick

    Strange, for a moment I thought I was looking at the reverse 1020 vs 808. I think Hash might have too. 808 clearly has more detail.

  8. Alfredo

    I download the images nokia lumia 1020 and nokia 808, the compare and I think the nokia 808 still many details as background blue building and the tree and white fence background,marc take a picture with the camera pro nokia 808 :)


  9. Teodor

    I am proud 808 owner. i av to say i will go with 1020 now. Reason is the old,sluggish os in it. And carrying two devices everytime everywhere isnt comfortable. I am sure even marc too. Its ecxiting to carry many phones but everyday in office,street isnt.. I hate web browser be it opera in 808. The only reason for it is its camera.

    1020 has fast os,web browser, apps support and everything one need for fast life. Till now i felt 1020 being inferor but thank to you marc for constant focusing on raw benefits. From this and last comparison i am assure with 1020 now i wont get image quality less than 808 but maybe better only. I guess i ave made a choice now.

    • ANDY

      Hello @Teodor. Like you rightly said, I am a proud owner of 808PV too. By 9th of this month it will be one year old. I love my 808 first for its camera then every other things. I must agree with you, browsing on this phone is pure punishment. After using my L920 for 8months now, I am still not too comfortable with the OS because of some restrictions, but then, the 1020 is my next flagship once this Lumia 920 clock one year.
      My 808 will ever remain with me .

    • Dave

      I’ve got the 808 and 1020. And so far in my own shots (and in those above) I’ve yet to find any normal circumstances where the 1020 takes a better shot than the 808.

      It is only under low light when the OIS comes into play that the 1020 comes into its own. Under all other circumstances, the 808 is the better camera.

      Plus minor things like shot to shot time, camera start up, colour balance, colour and image control – all leagues ahead on the 808.

      However I am actually liking the WP interface on everything apart from the camera (they really should port the 808 camera interface – it was perfect).

      • MF

        I disagree, my own experience with the 808/1020 is very much in favour of the 1020. Plus, “low light” refers not only to ultra lowlight situation, the 1020 jumps far ahead in any indoor situation where shutter speed starts to fall.

        The 808 interface has certain nice touches to it, but the 1020 overall is still far better and cleaner. The focus and shutter speed dials alone makes the 1020′s interface far superior. Need I mention Smart Cam and dual capture? Of course there are some things on the 808 but nothing as crucial as focus/shutter dial.

        • bigs

          hmm there are something that come in handy on the 808 like the ability to use the ND filter for closeup macro shots with xenon flash.

          The ability to have 3 custom presets for different scenes and resolutions. Can the 1020 capture 3mp shots? This for me is favorable for product shooting for selling on sites like ebay, etc.

          For video the box zoom sliding method makes for excellent progressive smooth zoom while panning, etc. Can the 1020 manually control the LED illumination while recording?

          Of course most of these features can be easily added with a firmware update, it is just a matter of when.

      • steve

        Hmm interesting Dave is your 1020 running on the black update? I’d like to here more of your thoughts. There are a lot of us long term 808 owners who after the black update are seriously considering the jump to the 1020. My opinion as of now is the 808 is better only if you shoot full resolution shots and edit the photos later
        for color and sharpness. My tests of the 1020 against the 808 have been at local AT&T stores and the resulting 5mp pureview shots are superb, Better then the 808 in color accuracy and sharpness, unless your willing to edit your photos later. I’ve made up my mind to order the 1020 pentaband from canada since it works on t-mobile. Im only waiting now to see what nokia will release at the show since it may change my mind.

  10. Django

    Time to update the poll here with title After raw update,can user upgrade from 808 to 1020?
    1)Yes very much with better editing and detailing, customisable option,low-light capability, option to do photography with shutter speed settings
    2)Equal for me
    3)Doesnt matter, i will close my eyes and always stick to 808


  11. Parker

    Good article. Its interesting as 1020 being a smaller sensor, sexy slim, still matching 808 in image quality and Nokia’s intelligent addition of raw, getting better details.. Nicely shown.
    Also you guys if you can show some low light comparisonss too as i feel my 1020 takes too good low light shots,my N8 feels dwarf in comparison in such scene.

  12. Erwan

    Good article. 1020 is best camera-phhone!

  13. steve

    Good work Mark and Harsh. I have to disagree on the analysis though, The 808 and 1020 are picking up equal detail at the center of the picture on the upper right hand corner the 808 is far better. The limbs in the trees and the balcony rails are clear on the 808 the 1020 blurs them in raw and smears them in jpg. I loaded the Raw file into light room 5 to view this on my 27 inch Mac. I am planning on upgrading my 808 to the 1020 after the show.Thanks again for all your work guys!! Here’s some samples I took using the AT&T stores 1020 there 5mp pureview shots of my son at the store. I don’t think I’ve every seen any camera that can do better. Im very impressed with the 1020′s pureview pictures.http://www.flickr.com/photos/90056083@N07/12240407246/

    • steve

      HI mark, Feel free to delete one of my 2 posts. Sorry I didn’t think the first post sent.

    • Johny Hallyd

      @steve Dude 1020 and all other high end dslrs exhibit corner softness. I like colours of 1020.
      In B look how much more is 1020 natural and higher details than 808. Cant you see that ? I am pleased with raw performances with 1020. In low light it beats it. I am buying it soon.

      • bigs

        high end DSLRs may exhibit corner softness, but at least you have options to upgrade or exchange the lens. Also most DSLR lens have an aperture control, which not only can be used for depth of field control, but also to increase the overall sharpness over the frame.

        The only reason this corner softness issue comes up, is because the 808 has less corner softness than the 1020. ie does not matter if a DSLR has corner softness, as the phones being compared is not a DSLR.

  14. Marc @PureViewClub

    To all people reacting so far below: thank you for your positive feedback! It’s really appreciated and inspiring to go on with comparisons like these.

    Marc @PureViewClub

  15. steve

    Good work Mark and Harsh. I have to disagree with the analysis the 808 is picking up more detail.In the pond picture the upper right corner the 808 clearly shows rails on the balcony the 1020 smears all together. This is the case through out the whole picture. I am however very impressed with the 5mp pureview images off of the 1020 I think it dose far better then the 808′s hardware pureview. With the black update the 1020 pureview images are stunning I recently took some pictures of my son with the demo model at a local at&t store I was very Impressed.http://www.flickr.com/photos/90056083@N07/12240407246/ I’ll be upgrading to the 1020 club soon.

    • Chris

      Good e.g of portrait like this. Show some day-to day life’s close-up portrait analysis like this.

  16. Chani

    Super collaboration and a very interesting read, thanks guys!

  17. Span

    Good work harsh
    Yo I see 1020 better than 808 here in grass and forest exampls

  18. Bran

    Brilliant work !
    In love with 1020. 808 also good, both appear same in example A. But difference in example B is easy to see. I see 1020 with more details and natural.
    I dont link that heavy lens on phone is very good option. Dont it cause any scratch on phone where it is fixed ? Also on 6 inch phablets where capturing photos in crowdy areas is a survival kinda fight preventing from drop, adding even more weight like this, is practically useful ?

    Keep showing like more. What about some close-up flowers or low-light ?
    Waiting.! :)

  19. frank

    Nokia 1020 FTW! Greaat work.

    Comparison with that costly lens dont make any sense.. Instead of utilising time in attachng nd detachng heavy lens,u can take more shots with phones.
    Dont include this lens in next comparison. Please include as suggestion to see some close-up shots,portaits by xenon flash
    in a dark. room and some extreme low light comparison.Which captures better details.
    Iam impressed by your ways so excited to see. your comparisons in these scenes:-D

    • Marc @PureViewClub

      Well Frank, you can say “don’t include this lens in next comparison”, but others specifically asked for it. So there you go. I’m not sure how long I can test the QX100 though.

      I have done some extreme lowlight comparison earlier and the Lumia 1020 clearly won that one (compared with the Nokia 808 PureView and Lumia 1520). You will find that on SkyDrive as well (https://skydrive.live.com/?mkt=nl-NL#cid=CD90AED977FDCE43&id=CD90AED977FDCE43%21150)

      I’ve been doing several close-ups already, but it’s always more or less easy to do and nice to compare.

      Portraits (with or without flash) are more difficult since I don’t know of any models willing to pose. Hope to find some of them at the MWC maybe (always lots of “booth girls” used to pose there).

      So I promiss I’ll see what I can do. But like I wrote: doing comparisons like these is extremely time consuming so I’m very happy with people to help me out there, like Harsh was willing to this time.

      • Chris

        Really !? 1020 completely wiped 808 in this extreme low light!
        I always feel 1020 have powerfull hardware. Under-exposed shots covered, this daylight shot covered. What else can be,hmmm xenon flash, macro shots and I want you to do some more low light shots, some more pitch dark using some stands. Marc you can do some flash tests of close-up objects in pitch dark at home. Please do some very low light e.g. at iso 100, iso 200, iso 400, iso 800, iso 1600, iso 3200(1020), iso 4000(1020). I like the way he presents. I would like from him to do multi-combo comparisons e.g comparing 808′s each iso value limit with 1020 starting from base iso 100 and going upto 4000.

        Lets do some more rigrous and good comparisons like these and see who is the new pureview champion.!

        • Marc @PureViewClub

          Yes, well, all very tempting, but I have a family, a (more than) full-time job (and a life) too – I’ll see what I can do though :-)

        • bigs

          remember Chris that ISO is different fro both the 808, and 1020. It seems that the 1020 does exaggerate it’s high ISO capability. Ie ISO 1600 in extreme cases is ISO 400 on the 808 taking into account shutter speed, aperture in a similar low light scene.

          Even so though the 1020 does extremely well past ISO 1600 for a smartphone and I do believe the equivalent ISO 6400 does perform better than the 808′s ISO 1600 both in JPG and RAW.

      • bigs

        In stead of including the QX100, I think another good competitor would be the LG G2. I have seen some remarkable high ISO shots from this device and it looks like it’s non oversampling sensor is one of the better sensors with excellent JPG processing.

  20. Nikhil Joshi

    I prefer 808 over 1020 as I have done intense testing and 1020 cannot match up in minute details 808 produces. Even I live the way 808 shoots videos, wish it had that stabilization ..

    Raw is nice option but really u need to do loads of extra work to get details out of them which is a pain

    • King

      have u ever used raw ? The extra work to do is done by laptop’processor to convert into jpg,hardly 10 secs. I recently saw some overexposure advntge with raw in this website.
      I like the way of comparison u guys do. Impressive. Do more lyk this. Eagly waiting. My ranking
      Sorry I dont cnsider qx100 in league.An unsuccesfull product,will go to archive soon. :p

      • bigs

        The question then begs, why were the trees so yellow in the 1020 shot, if there is a choice for white balance correction, it should be used to reduce this yellow

    • Harsh

      Hello Nikhil! Thanks. Yes you say correctly, if you compare the default phone processed JPG’s, 808 produce better details due to very less compression.
      But with raw its different, you will get extra detail in highlights and shadows and vast processing options.

  21. Mike

    Great work once again guys!! Thank you both Marc and Harsh for the wonderful photos and the detailed comparison. I would totally agree that the raw format preserves more details than high quality jpg and lumia 1020′s photos are much better in quality. Both Nokia devices are superior to Sony, despite the fact that the last has a bigger sensor. Nokia 808 Pureview loses some details due to its common (at least to me, as I own one) “unfocused effect”, that blurs a bit the details. The lumia 1020 isn’t oversharpened like the sony device, so it has a nice balance. But Microsoft should fix the colours and the exposure of lumia 1020, because it is usually unrealistic. The 808 is much better, much closer to reality and maybe the lumia 1520 comes second. So, despite the raw support of lumia 1020, I still prefer my 808 in photography. Microsoft should do something with lumia 1020 algorithms or make an even much better camera smartphone in the future (a true successor of the 808 Pureview).

  22. Adam

    Brilliant and authentic comparison Marc ! 1020 is shining. 808 is amazing too. Certainly i too dont want to carry extra bulky QX100, attaching and detaching too a phone each time. Its better to carry a digicam.
    But then i guess 1020 may be better than that too ! Show some comparison like this too. :)
    Thanks for this Marc.
    My rankings

  23. Freakshow

    No doubt, 1020 did the best here! Great job Nokia!

  24. varanasi

    I just wanna point out i am no 808 user and i will probably buy the 1020 it has a future i think.

    even if nokia doesnt fix the imbalances it has (wich seem to be a few from what i have seen in examples) i hope software devlopers and pureview entusiast will.

    The hardware is there and has all the potential in the world right now.
    it would be a shame to settle for 75 % when you can go beyond that.

  25. varanasi

    Hmm i like the 808 pictures more it seems more balanced , the 1020 details are there but colours in example A is to warm and yellowish tone.

    have you done the lumia black update?

    Example B strange enough the 1020 is the colder one and the 808 pictures are warmer but not yellowish.

    I prefer once again the 808 though even if not as fine details when cropped, and the warmer tone is nice somtimes when it doesnt go yellow.

    Maybe the sun was shining on the trees when shoot with the 808 and blocked by clouds when shooted with the 1020?

    The QX100 is pretty good in colours and ok sharpness in all the examples but the field of view is not so good its to cropped and feels closed in a box like, wich makes it a no go for me.

    • Harsh

      Hello. Thank you.

      The lighting conditions are same. The crops taken from RAW of 1020 are uncooked,pure capture.You can make dressings,add flavours aromas any way you want, keeping the original taste.
      While JPG is cooked. If by mistake you added much salt, you cant recover back completely. :)

      With the above RAW link provided, you can easily adjust the tones and colours as per your liking.

    • mirco

      You have to realize that the pictures of the 1020 which are shown here are developed from its RAW files. That means that the white balance (hence, the apperance of colours) depend on the software and the settings used for conversion only. The rants about yellowish tints or too warm colours don’t apply here ;)

      • Yein

        Looks like some people will neva stop accepting. Show some dim-light,sunset kinda 5-6pm around shots where iso value bumps and cameraphones starts applying noise reduction. Show them these comparisons
        Anyway good work. Please keep showing more such detailed analyses. Bookmarking this site nd visit more if you do stuff like this.

      • varanasi

        Ah ok i see i am new to this stuff so didnt know that sorry guys.

        thats great *news* for me O_o haha !

        i am mostly gonna shoot videos with the phone though.

        i wonder if the colours sharpness exposure etc have been more fined tuned in video mode after lumia black update.

        would be cool to see some new video samples about that.

        and nice website and forum guys!

  26. Ron

    Hi Harsh, excellent work.
    When I see a the size of the QX100 I realize how amazing device is the 1020.

    I also think Noise reduction in the 808 is too high(Strange that 808 users do not complain about it but they love to complain about 1020 image Processing ;), It’s great to objects such as sky and water, but for other objects, a lot of details are lost.

    • Harsh

      Hi Ron! Thank you :)

    • johnny1

      Hi Ron, 808 users don’t complain about the noise reduction because they have the ability to modify settings like saturation, sharpness, etc… they are not forced to live with the settings provided on AUTO like what is represented in these comparisons.

      Just bump the 808′s saturation up +1 and the sharpness up +2 and you have the best of 808+1020 combined :)

      • MF

        There is no setting in the 808 to adjust the level of noise reduction applied, so if it is considered too strong in this case, there is no way for you to adjust or compensate for it. Whereas with RAW you have the ultimate flexibility to do whatever you want with your image.

        • Yein

          Looks like some people will neva stop accepting. Show some dim-light,sunset kinda 5-6pm around shots where iso value bumps and cameraphones starts applying noise reduction. Show them these comparisons
          Anyway good work. Please keep showing more such detailed analyses. Bookmarking this site nd visit more if you do stuff like this.

      • Ron

        johnny1, saturation and sharpness are not related to noise reduction, you can not reduce it. You apply sharpness after the noise reduction already happened.
        With the 1020 you get pure data image(DNG), no sharpening and no noise reduction + extra information that not available in the 808 JPG or any other phone.

    • bigs

      hmm, I do not think the 808′s noise reduction in these shots are excessively high considering they were taking outdoor and at low ISOs. If what you are referring to is grain, the 1020 does have more grain and hence less noise reduction.

      The 1020 default JPGs at high ISO already exhibits less noise reduction than the 808, and this is when I think the 1020 advantage will be most noticeable. Now with RAW support high ISO noise reduction can be manually applied to taste.

      • MF

        Just take a look at the blue skies, the 1020 is much cleaner there.

        • bigs

          I just looked at the pond shot comparing both the 1020 and 808 full resolution JPG outputs, and the sky on the 1020 shows a little more artifacts than the 808.

          Also it does seem that the 808 is resolving more detail in the tree branches and the brickwork. Am I looking at the wrong images?

          • Harsh

            Hi Bigs. The jpeg link provided above is phone-processed output. The comparisons are converted from .DNG output.

            About brick details here is a doc file containing uncompressed crops. Kindly increase the page zoom max 500% to compare details. Please share what you see from it.


            • bigs

              k will do, so the skydrive link is the article is not the correct ones

            • bigs

              that comparison is much closer with the 1020 revealing more foliage detail but as for the bricks and the branches, they are pretty close. Obviously you like a warmer tone and hence why the bricks are more yellow in the 1020 shot

          • Harsh

            The doc containing 1020 brick crops are from .DNG.
            No it isnt that i always like warmer tone. In below crop against QX100 i slightly changed to cold tone.

            Thats great flexibility with wb in RAW. :)

    • bigs

      The QX100 is much larger than the 1020 camera component as it has an optical zoom, plus the sensor size is 1″ vs the 1020 which is 1/1.5″

  27. Amar

    Now that type ofcomparison I want to see,all acrosss the internet, I founded only this website doing this accurate comparison. Gr8 workk