Back to Article

  • crispbp04 - Thursday, July 11, 2013 - link

    Where is the event at? I want to try to get in. Reply
  • Sushisamurai - Thursday, July 11, 2013 - link

    Looking forward to this, was originally ganna get a 808, but not enough app support/hardware handicapped... Now it's this vs iPhone 5S... Derp, hope performance isn't handicapped. Really hoping it'll be water proof for some underwater photos :) Reply
  • Sushisamurai - Thursday, July 11, 2013 - link

    FM transmitter and BT4.0+wireless charging would be nice too... Reply
  • Sushisamurai - Thursday, July 11, 2013 - link

    Not to forget, USB OTG is always a nice feature, something Nokia cut out of their lumia line (one of my most sought out features) Reply
  • powerincarnate - Thursday, July 11, 2013 - link

    Not to forget 2013 tech would have been nice also. Reply
  • Flunk - Sunday, July 14, 2013 - link

    It's not something Nokia cut out specifically, Windows phone doesn't support USB OTG. Reply
  • mmrezaie - Thursday, July 11, 2013 - link

    Ok. Awesome camera. But what about the battery? Reply
  • mmrezaie - Thursday, July 11, 2013 - link

    But I wish I didn't hate WP8! I really need that camera in my nature trips. Reply
  • velanapontinha - Thursday, July 11, 2013 - link

    Buy a small camera, then. Any cheap ass 100$ camera will take better pictures than any phone, 1020 included. Reply
  • bakedpatato - Thursday, July 11, 2013 - link

    Nope, the Pureview 808 performed better than the Galaxy Camera, and the Galaxy Camera is your standard P&S.Of course, this is assuming that the 1020 performs just as well as the 808 ( Reply
  • secretmanofagent - Thursday, July 11, 2013 - link

    You're correct that it would most likely perform better than a $100 camera, but it's silly to think that a Galaxy camera is the standard point and shoot. Reply
  • bakedpatato - Thursday, July 11, 2013 - link

    Er I meant the Galaxy Camera is comparable to a standard mid end P&S in terms of quality.

    DPReview:"In summary, the Galaxy Camera delivers pixel-level image quality that is typical for a low-end to mid-level compact camera."
  • velanapontinha - Friday, July 12, 2013 - link

    (decent optics + crappy sensor) > (crappy optics + excellent sensor).

    Although I have never tried the 1020, that rule has been historically true. That is why any shitty point and shoot always does a much better job at taking pictures than the cream of the smartphones.
  • Alexvrb - Friday, July 12, 2013 - link

    You clearly haven't looked into the 1020 or the 808. :/

    Anandtech has an article on it. You should read it.
  • kmmatney - Sunday, July 14, 2013 - link

    My iPhone 5 generally takes as good (and more often better) pictures then my Wife's Canon Elph The Elph is a few years old now, but still a decent mid-grade PS camera. Besides the optics and sensor, maybe the computer horse power in the device makes a difference as well. Reply
  • eamon - Sunday, July 21, 2013 - link

    That's no my experience at all - optics matter, but are so heavily limited by physics that "quality" is largely determined by zoom/focal range/aperture choices. There are differences, but they're nothing like the differences in sensors - those differ dramatically. Reply
  • makken - Thursday, July 11, 2013 - link

    "11:12AM EDT - Simultaneously saves a 5 MP oversampled image at the same time, using up to 7 pixels from the sensor"

    Interesting. Quality wise, how would this compare to HTC's method of using larger pixels (ie. 'Ultrapixel')
  • secretmanofagent - Thursday, July 11, 2013 - link

    Probably not as well in low-light conditions due to to the amount of light each pixel can absorb, but I would assume slightly better for other conditions (depending on how well the DSP handles information conflicts). Reply
  • skiboysteve - Friday, July 12, 2013 - link

    No. This will be better in all lighting conditions. 7 physical 1.12 micron pixels combined > 1 physical 2 micron pixel. Also it has much better OIS so shutter can be left open longer = more light. Even the 92x phones were competitive to the HTC one in low light and this is much better than that Reply
  • eamon - Sunday, July 21, 2013 - link

    I think you're comparing apples to oranges. Of course a larger area is better, and 7x 1.12 micro is much larger than 1x micron. A more interesting comparison would be to a 3 micron pixel. Reply
  • eamon - Sunday, July 21, 2013 - link

    ("1x micron" should read "1x 2 micron") Reply
  • agent2099 - Thursday, July 11, 2013 - link

    Is the screen 1080p? Reply
  • mmrezaie - Thursday, July 11, 2013 - link

    nope. Just the same crap as before. Reply
  • kyuu - Thursday, July 11, 2013 - link

    I know right. Ever since those 1080p screens came out, 720p just looks so crap on a sub-5" screen now.

  • Alexvrb - Saturday, July 13, 2013 - link

    Totally! They're like, illegible, or somethng. Plus how can I grow my e-peen without a 700 PPI display??

    Also, did you know that the only factor in quality of a display is pixel density? FACT. No other specs matter.
  • CptCheese - Thursday, July 11, 2013 - link

    Ugh, AT&T exclusive? It looks pretty neat, too bad I couldn't get it on T-Mobile. Reply
  • kyuu - Thursday, July 11, 2013 - link

    Buy an unlocked one? Reply
  • garadante - Thursday, July 11, 2013 - link

    Suppose it depends on the phone but I know with the HTC One at least, the unlocked version doesn't support T-Mobiles LTE bands. Assume it's similar across phones, as I think T-Mobile has some odd bands. Reply
  • garadante - Thursday, July 11, 2013 - link

    Aaaaand there goes any desire I had to look into this as an upcoming phone. AT&T? No thanks! I hate these carrier exclusives. If T-Mobile hjad the 64 GB HTC One I'd snag it in a heartbeat. As it is, the 32 GB still seems tempting over all the alternative phones. The camera quality is just unbeatable except by Nokia's Windows phones. Reply
  • pandemonium - Friday, July 12, 2013 - link

    Why so much hate for AT&T? I've been with them for over a decade and they've always been awesome to me; $55/month with unlimited data. The only thing that sucks is going through rural areas that are exclusively Verizon towers and I get no signal (not a tremendously big deal since that happens 1% of my time?).

    I don't understand the cliche'd hate for AT&T...
  • garadante - Friday, July 12, 2013 - link

    $55 for unlimited data? That plan sure isn't offered here. AT&T doesn't offer unlimited data here and their plans are $10-30 more expensive than comparable T-Mobile plans, plus T-Mobile offers unlimited data. I'm guessing you're grandfathered into a plan which is good and great for you, but not for people who aren't. Reply
  • ghost6007 - Friday, July 12, 2013 - link

    It's called being "grandfathered" in. I don't like being tied down into a continual contact and being charged extra "fees" just because ATT feels like it.
    I had them way back when they were CellularOne; after that my company had ATT iCraps for employee phones, bad coverage and even worse customer service.
    Never again.
  • pandemonium - Saturday, July 13, 2013 - link

    Yes, I am grandfathered in, but you're both wrong. And everyone assumes you have to be grandfathered in to get this deal.

    You can go to AT&T as a new customer and get the same thing I have now.
  • BPB - Saturday, July 13, 2013 - link

    The only way I was able to get a good AT&T plan was to go through my company's account, so now I have a business account, and I would prefer one like yours. But I don't think you can do that anymore, and if you could, $55 a month just for the data portion is a lot of money. Reply
  • stirredo - Thursday, July 11, 2013 - link

    So....where is the hands-on and video? Reply
  • kyuu - Thursday, July 11, 2013 - link Reply
  • Sabresiberian - Thursday, July 11, 2013 - link

    Likely be a slightly different version released on other carriers a few months later, as was done with the 920.

    Me, I'm thinking Asus phone. We're talking a year or so from now though, of course. If it even happens.
  • edlee - Thursday, July 11, 2013 - link

    if camera quality really mattered to the people the are better suited for an SLR camera.

    Most people now take pics on their phone they can share on vine/insta/fb.

    And those are all low res platforms, so I dont see any significance in this device.
  • pandemonium - Friday, July 12, 2013 - link

    The significance is several fold:
    - the fact that the quality of those pixels from this smartphone compared to all other smartphones is much higher
    -you'll ALWAYS have your phone on you...
    -less to worry about than carrying around all of your SLR and its gear, or even a P&S

    It's not about being the best camera. It's about being the best camera for a platform which is excelling at convenience and connectivity (the smartphone). Why buy several devices when you can have all of them combined into 1, and still function at a reasonably acceptable level, if not excel?

    Of course, if you're a professional, this is a silly argument. Though, there are plenty of professional photographers out there that will admit that they didn't have their serious gear with them when they had to resort to taking a shot with their smartphone... Right there we have a powerful smartphone camera coming into play, even for a professional.

    Have you looked at the range in photo quality on popular media sharing sites? It's dramatic. I can instantly tell when someone shares a shot from a DSLR and when someone shares a shot from a smartphone. The funny thing is, my N8 'still' produces pictures way above average on Facebook.

    And, no, it's not exclusively about the resolution capturing from this phone.

    There are several reasons why 41MP is useful here (as an aside to the larger sensor):
    -digital zoom/review won't be as poor
    -image cropping with pixel binning rewards in a higher quality, lower resolution photo
    -cropping in general isn't rendered unusable

    And no, you don't have to use all of the picture quality reduction filters on Instagram to share a photo on there. I don't know why people think that's necessary. It's retarded.

    You're limiting your comprehension of what a smartphone is capable of doing with saying that the majority of smartphone users only share their photos with low-resolution services. Think a little outside the box here. This is where this phone will be amazing...for those that can and will do that. If more people start taking better photos, the quality of those shared sites will have higher demands place upon them and the standards will increase. You can't increase the boundaries if you think that there are limits to the way things work.

    Push the boundaries and say screw the norm.
  • LarsBars - Thursday, July 11, 2013 - link

    With the price at $300 on contract, I would have expected 64GB of storage, and possibly even SD card support. Also, if AT&T is anything like it was last year, I would almost expect the grip to be thrown in as a pre-order gift. The lack of wireless charging isn't a deal-breaker, but it is puzzling seeing as how the device is probably somewhat weighty already.

    TL:DR version: For the premium price I think this phone is missing some premium features.
  • yas - Thursday, July 11, 2013 - link

    11:17AM EDT - Elop is dishing on the Galaxy S 4, iPhone 5, and showing how good the 1020 freezes motion with xenon flash....

    Why did they not use the HTC One in this comparison.. would it be just like the 1020 or even better than the 1020....... Something to think on.
  • skiboysteve - Friday, July 12, 2013 - link

    Uh no. The comparison was a low light picture of people jumping in the air. Without xenon flash every photo will be crap due to the slow shutter speed. HTC one would have been not as bad as GS 4 or iPhone 5, but its shutter speed would still have been orders of magnitude longer than the 1/25000 you get with xenon flash so it would have been blurrrrfest Reply
  • skiboysteve - Friday, July 12, 2013 - link

    The off contract price for an iPhone 5 32GB is $750. Subsidized on att it's $300.
    the off contract price for a 1020 is $700. Subsidized on att its $300.

    why the bad subsidized price?
  • Kill16by9TN - Friday, July 12, 2013 - link

    "The 1020 uses ball bearings around the housing and magnetically driven motors in its OIS system"

    Amazing, they just discovered that each and every electric motor is based on magnetism! How else would it function? But it's reassuring, that they finally got rid of the smoking internal combustion engine used in the previous models.

    The interesting, yet unanswered question is however, if they use linear/voice coil motors or traditional ones with a rotating gear or spindle drive.
  • eamon - Sunday, July 21, 2013 - link

    Well, there do exist some exotic motors based on piezoelectric materials effect, and at small scales straightforward static charge attraction/repulsion is practical too :-). Reply
  • ghost6007 - Friday, July 12, 2013 - link

    Yeah, AT&T; as much as I want this phone, not happening. Reply
  • scaramoosh - Saturday, July 13, 2013 - link

    Pixel pitch of 1.1, sensor size is way smaller than the 808, looks by around 50% smaller in total surface area than the 808. Looking at the full resolution shots on my PC, they seem really noisy as a result, something that the 808 doesn't have.

    Be interesting to see if they fixed the amp glow issues of the 808 and if OIS makes a big difference at night for ISO, though if the amp glow issues aren't fixed then ISO will be just as useless and the low light performance will suck worse due to the tiny pixel pitch and loss of sensor size.
  • Braumin - Saturday, July 13, 2013 - link

    The 808 was actually FSI, and this sensor is BSI, so they are claiming it has comparable sensitivity even with the smaller sensor size.

    Of course, reviews will let us know if this is the case or not.
  • scaramoosh - Sunday, July 14, 2013 - link

    It isn't the case, they use BSI because lightguide below a pixel pitch of 1.4 is hard or impossible to do. They had to reduce the pixel pitch to keep the MP at 41mp for obvious marketing reasons.

    Basically what it means and from evidence I've seen, the 808 takes better full resolution photos, the 1020 looks really noisy and so will be the case under using ISO or low light in general.

    Where the 1020 pulls it back is in averaging pixels, however there you lose resolution and that's why Nokia are so keen to show 5mp/8mp.

    Tbh I could buy a BSI sensor at 8mp on any of the other phones with a pixel pitch of 1.3 like the iPhone 5. BSI hasn't proved itself to be worthwhile, it's just good to reduce the size. You don't see bigger sensors use it, for a reason it has its own downfalls and it's less reliable and harder to manufacturer.

    The sacrifice made for OIS, I personally don't think OIS in mobiles has proven to be very good either.
  • Stuffchip - Saturday, July 13, 2013 - link

    The phone really looks awesome..but will it be able to grab consumers attention only the time will tell.. Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now