Nokia Lumia 1020 vs.iPhone 5s vs. Samsung Galaxy S4 Zoom: Camera comparison
sed to cringe when I'd see people capturing precious memories with their smartphones. Although most smartphones have megapixel counts similar to what stand-alone cameras offer, they have been inferior in lens quality and manual controls. Images have never been as good until now.Over the past two months, I've shot more than 3,000 test photos in four states using nine camera phones, a point-and-shoot camera and a high-end, single-lens reflex camera (also known as an SLR). None of the smartphone cameras are good enough to replace a $1,000-plus SLR, but I'm surprised how well some of the phones did, particularly in low-light settings that challenge even the best cameras.
The Lumia 1020 squeezes a lot of camera innovations into a small device. It can take photos as large as 38 megapixels, which means you can crop the image to a quarter its size and still have enough detail for large poster-size prints. With smaller files, you're limited to smaller prints when you crop.
The 38 megapixels is about three times the 13 megapixels on Samsung's regular Galaxy S4 and nearly five times the 8 megapixels on the iPhone 5s and
iPhone 5c (
Review). It's also more than what many SLR and point-and-shoot cameras offer. The downside: The Lumia runs Microsoft's Windows system, which has relatively few apps from outside parties.
The Galaxy S4 Zoom works much like other Android phones from Samsung, except that it has a real (optical) zoom lens, offering up to 10 times magnification. Other camera phones have digital zoom features, or magnification using software, but all that does is blow up shots without boosting clarity. With the optical zoom found in the Zoom and stand-alone cameras, you retain the sharpness as you zoom in. The Zoom's 16 megapixels is better than most phones. The downside: It's not available in the U.S. yet.
The iPhone 5s, meanwhile, has a better camera than last year's
iPhone 5. The resolution remains at 8 megapixels, but the camera is able to sense light better because individual pixels are larger and the shutter can open wider. The downside: It's behind in megapixels.
Many of the differences in images are subtle, but every bit helps when making prints or viewing on bigger screens.
Low light shots
The Lumia is the most consistent of the three at getting good night and indoor shots. Friends have marveled at photos I've taken in bars without the flash.
Using a technique called oversampling, the Lumia squeezes 38 megapixels worth of data into a 5-megapixel image, a size more manageable for sharing. What that also does is combine the small amount of light from multiple pixels into one, resulting in better lighting. An image stabilizer compensates for shaky hands.
Apple takes a different approach with the 5s. Instead of adding more megapixels, it makes each pixel larger - 1.5 microns, compared with 1.12 microns on the Lumia. The new phone also has an image stabilizer and a wider shutter than previous models. Its flash produces two bursts of light at once, each slightly different in colour and automatically adjusted to match ambient lighting. It is a technique I have never seen before in a camera - phone or otherwise - and results in better skin tones and more natural colours.
A photo of my Sunnyvale hotel's illuminated sign in the distance came out sharp on the 5s. Many cameras overcompensate for low light by making the few points of light too bright. With some cameras, the "O" in "Sundowner" didn't look like an "O" but a solid dot. The 5s kept the letters clear. The Lumia also did that and went further than the 5s in keeping the darker parts of the hotel building looking good, too.
Distant shots
The Zoom wins hands down on this one.
Nokia talks about "reinventing zoom." Even as the Lumia squeezes all those pixels into a 5-megapixel image, it retains the full version for you to crop and blow up later. One nice touch: Even if you use the camera's digital zoom to focus in on a subject, it still retains the rest of what the camera sees. Other cameras throw out that data. So your 5-megapixel version will focus in on what you want to quickly share, but you can go back to the larger version to discover something you might have missed in the surrounding area.
But digital zoom is digital zoom and won't replace what a real zoom lens can do. Among the three phones, only with the Zoom was I able to make out faces of band members at a recent concert in New York.
Everyday shots
Both the Lumia and the Zoom offer a greater range of manual controls than typical camera phones. A Grip attachment for the Lumia also has a hole for screwing the phone onto a tripod. But if I'm going to take special shots requiring manual controls or a tripod, I'm also likely to have my SLR, which has a powerful lens that can't possibly be squeezed into any smartphone.
I came to appreciate the iPhone's camera while taking some close-up shots of bees pollinating a bed of flowers. The bees were moving too quickly for most of my cameras, including the SLR, to get decent, focused shots. But the iPhone 5 and later the 5s somehow managed.
The Lumia also wasn't practical for frequent shots. With a lot of megapixels to store, it takes time for the camera to be ready for the next shot. There was also a delay in capturing shots. I tested the various cameras by shooting moving vehicles. With the Lumia, cars meant to be in the center were near the edge or out of the frame by the time the image was actually captured.
As for the Zoom, it's too bulky to carry around. Even with the lens receded, the Zoom is still more than three times thicker than the iPhone at the thickest point, the lens.
The upshot
The iPhone 5s isn't always as good as the Lumia in low-light settings or the Zoom for far-away shots. It also can't match the SLR for special shots that need manual controls.
But it doesn't matter if the iPhone won't always give you the best picture as long as it's the best at giving you good pictures consistently.
Every inspiring comeback begins with someone falling way, way behind. This should provide some comfort for Microsoft (MSFT), which today unveiled the second generation of its Surface tablets at an event in New York. To wow a depressingly apathetic public, the company showed off new machines with a raft of improved specs, more-colorful screens, and faster software. There’s even a kickstand with better “lapability.”
Microsoft released a new Surface Pro, a $900 tablet aimed at professional users, and the more consumer-oriented Surface 2, priced at $450. The original Surface RT, thus far an embarrassing failure with shoppers, will remain available for $350. Microsoft says its new tablets are much faster and can hold a charge for much longer. For the Pro, the company claims a 75 percent improvement in battery life, while the Surface 2’s is touted as 25 percent better.
But Microsoft also appears to be convinced it can accessorize its way to success. The tech giant showed off seven new things you can snap onto the tablets, from a keyboard with its own 30-watt battery inside to … another keyboard that’s 1 millimeter thinner than its predecessor. There’s also a dock intended to turn the Surface Pro into a PC.
And for tablet enthusiasts who want a kickstand, Microsoft hasn’t overlooked you. The Surface has always prided itself on its kickstand, but previous versions put the tablet at the right angle for working at a desk. The new kickstand can also be moved to a second angle so it sits better in your lap.
Microsoft’s Panos Panay, a corporate vice president, was charged with sounding Monday’s rallying cry. He did an admirable job, telling reporters that 95 percent of the laptops they brought to the event were slower than the new Surface Pro, and showing how the tablets allow users to work in Excel and play Halo simultaneously. He even sent an adorable video message to his adorable young daughter.
“It’s better than I expected,” says Crawford Del Prete, IDC’s chief research officer. “I thought it would be the exact same thing. They’ve evolved slightly.”
Slight evolution might not cut it, given the situation Microsoft finds itself in. To review: Microsoft launched its first tablets last fall and went on to sell $853 million worth of them in fiscal 2013—less than the $898 million in additional sales and marketing costs the company reported spending to hawk the Surface and Windows 8. Over the summer, meanwhile, Microsoft cut the price of the RT and took a $900 million writedown on the new products. The Surface 2 will continue to use an operating system that isn’t fully compatible with Microsoft’s phone operating system, making it harder on developers who want to write programs that work on both devices.
Microsoft’s tablet troubles come at a time of opportunity, as the iPad’s grip on the market has loosened somewhat: Apple (AAPL) now sells about one-third of the tablets shipped worldwide, down from about 60 percent over the last year, according to IDC. But people aren’t choosing Surfaces instead, leaving Microsoft outside the ranks of the top five tablet manufacturers.
The company seems to be continuing its current strategy of hammering Apple by pointing out all the hardware features the iPad lacks. In one constantly circulated television ad, an iPad sitting next to a Surface delivers a fraught soliloquy in Siri’s voice as its inferiority is exposed: The iPad has no USB drive, no kickstand, no nifty cover-cum-keyboard, no heavily discounted price. The spot ends with the iPad desperately asking whether people still think it’s pretty.
The answer, of course, is yes. The iPad’s popularity is largely self-fulfilling at the moment, glaring lack of a kickstand notwithstanding. Microsoft’s pitch for its own tablets, meanwhile, come off as the attempt of a hopeless suitor laying out a hyper-rational case for why someone should accompany him on a date instead of the other guy. But when has that kind of courtship ever worked?
