A PureView follow up

-





The comparison between the Lumia and a similar spec'd DSLR drew a bit more attention then I would ever expected. It is nice to see so much interest in such a great pock-able camera. While I stand by the original test I thought I might revisit it once more for a moment.



Addendum
 
There is so much more to making great images then cameras, and there is so much more to great cameras then megapixels. It's a fairly established morsel of common photographic knowledge that quality is often preferred to quantity when speaking about the pixel.

 So then why even compare such machines, since they are so wholly different. It's because it's hard not to be curious what 38mp on a phone looks like compared to a SLR with a similarly impressive marketing number.

After shooting with 36mp I've come to learn that pixel perfect sharpness provides more elusive and such a camera is prone to bringing out weaknesses in both lens and photographer patience. In reality most photos end up being shared online at much smaller resolutions. The large number of pixels really make for a better canvas to start, and with that absolute sharpness becomes less critical. 

The previous test illustrates this point, as the apparent softness in some images were lost once we stopped looking at crops*. The advantages of the SLR where still present, but the any softness between the two became negligible. If anything that OIS and small sensor made it easier for the Nokia to achieve it's potential even when looking obscenely close, although with much noise and compression.
  
*crops would represent looking at an image printed somewhere between 48"x32" and 102"x68" (assuming a monitor with 72-150dpi)

Where all this takes me is I wanted to defend the choice of the Nikon 28-105mm lens for the test. It's not the sharpest lens Nikon has offered, but it still should be able to outperform the phone. As there isn't too much worth defending about any comparison between a SLR and a phone due to the inherent absurdness of such an endeavor, the only one needing a new post was the unfair assertion the 28-105mm wasn't up to the task.


Periodical

I apologize for the use of a news paper crop. It was available and easy to show a difference. The Nokia being a little wider provided a slightly smaller view, but otherwise I think the results speak for themselves. The 28-105mm paired with the D800 easily has the ability to preform.
Nikon D800 at 28mm
Nokia Lumia 1020 at 7mm (27mm equivalent)





















CA Coast

But none of the examples where of something as mundane or contrasty as a news paper. So I happened to bring the tripod out with me and tried the same experiment from before with some added stability.


Lumia 1020: 27mm f2.2 1/250 sec ISO 100
Nikon D800: 28mm f6.3 1/80 sec ISO 100

 Web sized examples show similar results as before. The Nikon is clearer with better range in the shadows and highlights, but the Lumia did an excellent job and I'd be more then happy with it. But now we can move in closer at take a view of a couple 100% crops.

When a little effort is put forward and the human factor is minimized, the results are much more dramatic. If it isn't apparent, the SLR with the 28-105mm is on the left, while the Lumia is on the right. It's hard to argue that the 28-105mm isn't able to produce much sharper images when paired with the power of a full framed SLR then the lens mounted on the Lumia.



Conclusion

So what do I want to be taken away from this? I would say blame the photographer, but isn't part of the point ease of results? The 28-105 is plenty sharp enough to produce better results then a camera phone, but with the smaller form factor, OIS, and a small sensor, the Lumia makes it easy to get images that for a camera that fits in a pocket are quite acceptable.

 TL:DR - SLR with 28-105@28 easily superior with a little careful consideration, Nokia Lumia easier to get cameras potential.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Nikon D800e Vs. Nokia Lumia 1020

-
Image
I will be the first to admit that the choice of title is a bit absurd. The D800 sits near the top of DSLRs with astounding dynamic range, interchangeable lens, and a sensor that's nearly 15 times the size of the 1020. So why even consider comparing such different machines? One word: Resolution The Lumia 1020 sports a 41 mega pixel "Pureview" sensor and optical image stabilization (OIS). In 4:3 this gives a working resolution of 38 mpix, and at 16:9 a working resolution of 34 mpix. This puts it 2 mpix on either side of the D800’s very impressive 36 mpix sensor. These two cameras which are worlds apart share nearly identical pixel counts.  While not all megapixels are created equal, we can’t help but wonder in a practical sense, how does a 36mpix image on a phone stack up when compared to the likes of a dedicated SLR of similar resolution? But exactly what would be fair wasn't easy. The Nikon is a very versatile machine producing images no smart phone cou
Read more

Film Photography & being mindful of Scanning

-
Image
(Note: I am giving Medium a try as I find the layouts look nice. It's here ) Film often gets the short sell. Digital came onto the scene and it no longer made sense for the vast majority of photographers and snapshot shooters to keep buying rolls. But often I observe digital shooters taking cheap shots at the medium. They mistake soft scans for a soft medium. And while the nature of film inherently lacks the sterile clarity of digital, much of that softness comes from a different source. Which is why I wanted to attempt a visualization the impact scanning can have. But before that comparison we need to understand that the resolution of a camera or a scanner are not all created equal. The Resolution in MP(megapixels) or dpi(dots per inch) listed on the box often isn’t a literal translation to what is resolved (the fine detail we can see).  Shooting digital it’s very easy to take this distinction for granted but it still applies. Am image from a 24MP camera might onl
Read more

CineStill 800T: General Impressions

-
Image
Generally there isn't too much exciting happening with films. Mostly the less popular ones go away, but the people at CineStill have done something fun. They've taken a few of the newest stocks from Kodak and did a good job repackaging it for normal color chemistry and use. The one that had the most interest to me was the  800Tungsten . It's pretty much the VISION3 500T stock use for cinema (You can see the 5219 markings on the negatives), but it's had the REMJET removed making it safe for C-41 processing. The question I had was what is it like to shoot, and is it worth the extra expense a roll. I had a hard time finding details of the sorts of quirks of this film, so I thought I would share my own experience. ISO 800 or ISO 400 First I would say I am not sure I agree with the speed rating. The very first roll I shot at 800 and felt generally the results were on the underexposed side. It doesn't make or break a shot, but generally shooting at
Read more