Nokia video shows why the 41MP PureView snapper on the Nokia Lumia 1020 is better than a DSLR
"There is an easier way," says the voiceover announcer as we see a stranger, asked by a couple if he would snap a picture for them, reach into his pocket for the Nokia Lumia 1020. The video shows how the Nokia Lumia 1020 allows you to toss all of those accessories and "simply point and click". With OIS, you might not need to rely on a tripod for a stable, jitter free photo or video. And the digital zoom brings you close to the action. "Say goodbye to the DSLR and hello to the Nokia Lumia 1020," says the announcer as the ad ends.
The Nokia Lumia 1020 was originally priced at $299.99 at AT&T when first launched, a price that didn't stick. And while the camera-centric handset was the flagship Windows Phone model for a time, it has since been replaced by the Nokia Lumia 1520 phablet, thanks to the GDR3 update which allows the latter to match the specs on top-shelf Android models.
Still, if your main focus is on photography, you can do a lot worse than the 41MP PureView rear snapper on the Nokia Lumia 1020. And it surely is a lot easier to carry around than a tripod and zoom lens.
source: Nokia via WPCentral
1. hurrycanger (Posts: 428; Member since: 01 Dec 2013)
Since I can't use a DSLR well enough, I agree with Nokia to some degree.
But guess what, it's just because I don't freaking know how to use a DSLR!!! Those cameras are not meant for amateurs.
9. androiphone20 (Posts: 961; Member since: 10 Jul 2013)
I picked up a Sony RX100 M1 and that pocket camera is killer though the M2 has NFC and stuff. It's pricey but it takes amazing shots and it's easy to use
47. sergiobr (Posts: 271; Member since: 25 Feb 2013)
=xfJRH0-NJcQ... Your move Nokia !
67. Jimreardon (Posts: 1; Member since: 25 Jan 2014)
I have many cameras, and phone cameras. None of the phone cameras, even this nokia can not compare with dedicated cameras. My 2 favorite cameras, a Sony A77 DSLR is my favorite. 24.6 megapixels, it blows the doors off everything else I have used. My second favorite, also a Sony DSC-TX100V, which is 16.2 mega pixel. Both of these cameras will shoot a superior picture, to the nokia thanks to larger sensors. The TX100 is a pocket camera that is smaller than a cell phone, and goes with me wherever I go. For serious stuff I use the DSLR, as I have a choice of lenses, and manual settings. No I don't need to carry a tripod either. Both my Sony's can shoot 1080P video, and do it at multiple frame rates, 24P, 30P, 60i or 60P depending on the look I am after. Megapixels mean nothing. It is the quality of the sensor, and the electronics that process the data that makes the difference, and the Nokia fails in this department.
63. sprockkets (Posts: 857; Member since: 16 Jan 2012)
Nokia is full of sh*t. Go ahead and use that phone in the full sun, and try seeing how well you can take pictures with that washed out screen.
All the while, I'm using the view finder and having no issues taking pictures whatsoever. My camera will instantly focus and take photos instantly without fuss.
I don't need a tripod either. OIS isn't something that is exclusive to Nokia phones, with all the real cameras having this feature LONG before they did in the lenses. Nor is it really necessary with the shutter speeds an DSLR can do vs. a tiny 41mp sensor.
Sorry, you are more likely to drop a phone than a phone with a hand grip, unless your 1020 has the same grip as well.
Good phone, bullsht reasons for thinking to have it instead of a real camera.
70. mousesports (Posts: 202; Member since: 28 Feb 2013)
=mMB7Zi8Yz6ITAKE A LOOK !
http://blog.gsmarena.com/nokia-lumia-1020-camera-compared-against-a-canon-60d-dslr-nokia-comes-out-on-top/ TAKE A LOOK !
79. yudi.nemesis (Posts: 1127; Member since: 14 Mar 2013)
81. Ashoaib (Posts: 349; Member since: 15 Nov 2013)
I dont agree, my point n shoot nikkon is way better than any phone camera...
3. Lyngdoh (Posts: 199; Member since: 06 Sep 2012)
I bet Nokia didn't use a 1020 to record that video.
30. akki20892 (Posts: 2302; Member since: 04 Feb 2013)
Every company use professional cameras to shoot their ad not phone.
31. Lyngdoh (Posts: 199; Member since: 06 Sep 2012)
See the irony here. According to Nokia 1020 is better than a DSLR. But they will still use a professional camera to make their ads.
34. Shatter (Posts: 1751; Member since: 29 May 2013)
At best it's little better than the worst DSLRs.
48. raunak (Posts: 480; Member since: 12 Oct 2011)
You don't even realize the compliment you just gave to Nokia.
61. Shatter (Posts: 1751; Member since: 29 May 2013)
Apparently you aren't aware there are some really really bad DLSRs out there that are barley better than point and shoots.
55. papss (Posts: 2903; Member since: 03 Sep 2012)
At worst its far better than ANY phone camera out there.
37. Lyngdoh (Posts: 199; Member since: 06 Sep 2012)
I did read your comment. The difference with other companies is that, unlike Nokia, they wouldn't say that their camera is better than a professional camera but still use a professional camera.
49. raunak (Posts: 480; Member since: 12 Oct 2011)
I think you're mistaking misunderstanding for irony.
The point Nokia is trying to make is that 1020 is better than dslrs for normal, non-professional individuals who just want to shoot great photos without going the extra mile, which they would if they bought dslrs. They didn't say film makers should ditch their dslrs for 1020s. Think about the size of a 1020 and a typical dslr, you'll realize in size to image quality ratio, what Nokia was able to accomplish with 1020/808 is truly amazing.
57. VZWuser76 (Posts: 899; Member since: 04 Mar 2010)
If that's the case, Microsoft is targeting the wrong audience. The casual user doesn't invest in a DSLR, they get a decent to great point & shoot. They should be aiming at the people who are looking at the Nikon Coolpix, the Panasonic Lumix, etc. And if they do target those people, the message is simple, "Why carry two devices when you can carry one?"
So that's why they're targeting the wrong group, because as you said, no professionals are going to trade a DSLR for any camera phone. They show up to shoot an event like a wedding with a smartphone camera and they'll be sent packing.
62. Shatter (Posts: 1751; Member since: 29 May 2013)
Have you ever even used a DLSR? Your an idiot if you can't figure the newer ones out.
65. CanYouSeeTheLight (Posts: 595; Member since: 05 Jul 2012)
Well if size to image quality ratio is what you are looking for an RX100 will be far better with its much better sensor and lenses, not to mention CSCs that can give you DSLR image quality in a smaller package, but oh well, i would never trade a real camera for a phone, even though Nokia's phones have really great cameras. Not to mention the photo capture speed advantage that a DSLR has over the L1020.
74. Lyngdoh (Posts: 199; Member since: 06 Sep 2012)
If you are talking about size then have you ever heard of mirrorless cameras? (Spoiler : They are slim and light)
4. alterecho (Posts: 751; Member since: 23 Feb 2012)
No argument about the camera, but, a DSLR's OS is better than Windows Phone OS.
8. androiphone20 (Posts: 961; Member since: 10 Jul 2013)
crackwise out of ten I'll give this one a 13
11. ScottSchneider (Posts: 230; Member since: 06 Dec 2011)
I would give him a 41(MP) for that... ^_^
33. XperiaFanZone (Posts: 729; Member since: 21 Sep 2012)
Better than the likely malware infested buggy Android OS.
41. sgogeta4 (Posts: 388; Member since: 02 Feb 2011)
Maybe if you stopped looking and dling pr0n on your Android, it wouldn't be malware infested and buggy. Everyone else is using the OS just fine.
42. XperiaFanZone (Posts: 729; Member since: 21 Sep 2012)
I don't watch porn. It's the case for most Androids. Most Windows Phones run fine.
43. zuckerboy (Posts: 641; Member since: 22 Dec 2011)
I have been usin that malware buggy os but its way better than wp sheat admit it you f..
54. tech2 (limited) (Posts: 1140; Member since: 26 Oct 2012)
I did got bored in 15 mins...not lying !
24 colour palettes and 3 tile sizes is not very appealing to most.
56. XperiaFanZone (Posts: 729; Member since: 21 Sep 2012)
That's because you're the only person in the world who only use phones to play with homescreens. And I must say, 15 minutes is quite a long time to enjoy playing with them.
59. rangaha (Posts: 63; Member since: 05 Dec 2013)
face it, windows potato sucks and microsoft has to pay manufacturers to put windows potato on their phones BAAAHAHAHHAHA
60. XperiaFanZone (Posts: 729; Member since: 21 Sep 2012)
I like how you miss the point when you're left with nothing to say.
64. Shatter (Posts: 1751; Member since: 29 May 2013)
I find it hilarious you can download launchers on android that look identical to WP8 but with way more customization.
66. XperiaFanZone (Posts: 729; Member since: 21 Sep 2012)
I don't. It's not something new about Android. But what has that got to do with my comment?
77. rangaha (Posts: 63; Member since: 05 Dec 2013)
I love how you just keep commenting even though you've made no point and you don't have squat to defend your elementary OS, aspie.
72. tech2 (limited) (Posts: 1140; Member since: 26 Oct 2012)
lol.....why not, blame it on the consumer, eh ?!
Anyways, I wouldn't call 'customisation' as 'playing with home-screens'. I like to have a wallpaper I prefer, I like the ability to delete my gmail messages, return call, toggle brightness, etc. right from my notification toggle without opening the app.
I like to have my Amex banking app, Flipboard and Google maps (Nokia/Bing maps is still awful in 3rd world countries). In short, I don't want to accept what my phone cannot do but I want my $700 phone to do what I tell'em.
73. XperiaFanZone (Posts: 729; Member since: 21 Sep 2012)
Yes that is what you want it's your preference: Android. And some prefer Windows Phone.
75. Berzerk000 (Posts: 3521; Member since: 26 Jun 2011)
5. cj100570 (Posts: 198; Member since: 12 May 2009)
I felt bad for the old Nokia, pre Microsoft purchase, because they had great hardware but they were saddled with a crappy OS. Now, I don't give a (s)ugar (h)oney (i)ced (t)ea about them at all. Great hardware alone won't make your devices lust-worthy/desirable.
14. Finalflash (Posts: 912; Member since: 23 Jul 2013)
It's like when a parasite infects something you love and takes over it....killing it slowly....then devouring it from the inside.
6. androiphone20 (Posts: 961; Member since: 10 Jul 2013)
Maybe that's all there is on the 1020, I mean you can actually see pixels on the screen like in the calender app which, since the last time I checked, is not present on lower end offerings on say Android. As if that wasn't enough, the camera doesn't have burst mode, there's a bit of delay on the time between shots, no built-in hdr processing and sometimes the color accuracy is a hit or miss.
71. Napalm_3nema (Posts: 571; Member since: 14 Jun 2013)
The camera is good in the right situations, but in others, the G2 and 5S crush it (Low light is one). The worst part of my 1020 was how slow the camera was. It doesn't matter how good a camera is if you constantly miss pictures because the thing operates like it needs a hand crank.
10. Droid_X_Doug (Posts: 5159; Member since: 22 Dec 2010)
Or, for those not on AT&T, maybe the L929. I can't get past the shot-to-shot delay with shooting high res pics on the L1020. The L1520 cuts the delay to a manageable time, so maybe the L929 improves even more?
12. __0__ (Posts: 176; Member since: 07 Jan 2014)
Nah , where I live in phones are usually bought unlocked
17. kaikuheadhunterz (Posts: 465; Member since: 18 Jul 2013)
Me too. I can live with the Lumia 1020, but the Lumia 1520 has more value for money
15. adecvat (Posts: 71; Member since: 15 Nov 2013)
8 seconds to get the first photo.
"Better than a DSLR"
18. kaikuheadhunterz (Posts: 465; Member since: 18 Jul 2013)
Then set the camera to capture only one 5mp picture. That should make it faster
36. apple4never (Posts: 678; Member since: 08 May 2013)
change the iso and take it off any auto modes it may have
52. Droid_X_Doug (Posts: 5159; Member since: 22 Dec 2010)
But then the DSLR wins. For that matter, many non-DSLR cameras win. Most of the DSLR and high-end digital cameras today will have sub-1 second shot-to-shot performance. Burst mode can go as high as 6 or 8 shots/second. And, and, and.
Ad was an exercise in marketing spin.
58. VZWuser76 (Posts: 899; Member since: 04 Mar 2010)
Then you're putting the quality of the pictures within reach of or on par with other smart phones. The combination of shutter speed, sensor quality, resolution, etc are the reason that even point & shoot cameras are still around. Only when all smart phones can match those features will p&s cameras be obsolete. Even then, they have a long way to go to best a DSLR. Right now the advantages they have is convenience and portability.
68. Droid_X_Doug (Posts: 5159; Member since: 22 Dec 2010)
But to get the convenience factor (auto mode), you have to take only 5 Mp pics if you don't want to wait 8 seconds between shots. That doesn't sound like much in the way of convenience.
69. VZWuser76 (Posts: 899; Member since: 04 Mar 2010)
And that's my point, you either have a slow camera that takes great pictures, or a fast camera that takes decent pictures. A DSLR takes extraordinary pictures extremely fast. The convenience factor had nothing to do with performance, but pocket ability and the fact that everyone carries a phone, smart or feature.
I'm also not trying to knock the 1020, it takes excellent photos, but not as good and not as fast as a DSLR.
16. x7black7x (Posts: 117; Member since: 19 Feb 2012)
well these types of ads are better than those...
apple vs samsung (fighting ads)