Nokia 808 PureView, Lumia 1020 (in black camera grip case), Pixel 4a 5G, iPhone 12 Pro Max
Let's start with some basic specs, to get these out of the way:
| Nokia 808 PureView (2012) | Lumia 1020 (2013) | Google Pixel 5/4a 5G* (2020) | iPhone 12 Pro Max (2020) |
|
Dedicated two-stage shutter button/launch key Single camera: 41 MP, f/2.4, 1/1.2", contrast-AF (8MP PureView output here in 'Creative' preset) Xenon flash |
Dedicated two-stage shutter button/launch key Single camera: 41 MP, f/2.2, 1/1.5", contrast-AF, OIS (5MP PureView output here) Xenon flash plus LED video light |
Two cameras: 12.2 MP, f/1.7, 1/2.55", dual pixel PDAF, OIS 16 MP, f/2.2, 107˚ (ultrawide) dual LED flash |
Three cameras: 12 MP, f/1.6, 1/1.9" (estimated), dual pixel PDAF, sensor-shift OIS 12 MP, f/2.2, 1/3.4", PDAF, OIS, 2.5x telephoto 12 MP, f/2.4, 120˚ (ultrawide), 1/3.6" TOF 3D LiDAR scanner (depth) quad LED flash |
* NB. The Pixel 4a 5G has the identical camera system and chipset to the Pixel 5, so we can think of these as interchangeable.
The PureView oversampling in the 808 and 1020 has been covered many times before. The iPhone 12 Pro Max's ProRAW capture has been covered and tested here. Of note is that (with some anticipation) I shot all test scenes here with the Pixel's own 'RAW" option toggled on, but examining the results showed no multi-frame/HDR inclusion and results were washed out by comparison, so I went with the (also saved) default JPG output below.
The workflow then for the two Nokias is to do the computational photography in the physical domain, in one hit/exposure, while the Pixel and iPhone take a load of frames, perform noise reduction and handle HDR, then spit out an un-sharpened, un-edge-enhanced, and hopefully 'pure' image. (The iPhone wouldn't by default, but it does here because of the shooting mode used.)
Additional notes:
- all shots were handheld and on full auto, except where needed
- the Nokia 808 PureView was set to its built-in 8MP 'Creative' mode, for better matching to modern phone camera output resolutions
Onto the test scenes, then, starting in a thankfully sunny UK (for once!)...
Test 1 - Sunny landscape
A boating hut with a mound of detail and interesting colours, including text. In full sun, so perfect lighting. Here's the overall scene:
And here are 1:1 crops from (in turn) the Nokia 808 PureView, Lumia 1020, Pixel 4a 5G, and iPhone 12 Pro Max (click any phone name to grab its full resolution image for your own analysis):
The Nokia pair are out in front here by a nose - the 808 and the 1020 manage fabulous natural detail (albeit at slightly lower resolution in the latter's case). Meanwhile the iPhone 12 Pro Max adds an artificial air, including a little extra contrast, which helps but can't quite seem 'real'. Meanwhile the Google Pixel image looks superb when viewed as a whole, but you can see in the crop above that there's a 'fuzziness' down at the pixel level which is a little off-putting. Enough to lose it an extra point, anyway.
And yes, I'm being picky. This is the imaging big league!
Scores: Nokia 808: 10 pts; Lumia 1020: 10 pts; Pixel 4a 5G: 8 pts; iPhone 12 Pro Max: 9 pts
Test 2 - Sunny landscape, zoomed
The same scene, but zoomed. The 808 zooms by around 2x by smart-cropping at 8MP here, while the 1020 manages 2.5x using the same system. The Pixel 4a 5G uses digital zoom, in theory combining some of its multiple frames to interpolate detail, though the system never works as well as genuine optical zoom. Meanwhile the iPhone has its 2.5x telephoto, and this is put to good use here.
And here are 1:1 crops from (in turn) the zoomed images from the Nokia 808 PureView, Lumia 1020, Pixel 4a 5G, and iPhone 12 Pro Max (click any phone name to grab its full resolution image for your own analysis):
With the PureView oversampling now out of the equation on the Nokia pair, their images aren't quite so stunning, though still very good and lossless, of course, with the smart-cropping into the big sensor. The Pixel 4a 5G's digital zoom just blurs the fuzziness of the non-zoomed shot and I was disappointed in it here. But the iPhone takes the win here with a superbly exposed telephoto shot using a full sensor and beautifully balanced sensor-shift OIS.
Scores: Nokia 808: 9 pts; Lumia 1020: 9 pts; Pixel 4a 5G: 7 pts; iPhone 12 Pro Max: 10 pts
Test 3 - HDR test
A good example of a test scene, shooting into the sun and pushing HDR and dynamic range capabilities to the max. Here are the (scaled here for the web) shots from (in turn) the Nokia 808 PureView, Lumia 1020, Pixel 4a 5G, and iPhone 12 Pro Max (click any phone name to grab its full resolution image for your own analysis):
Baking HDR capabilities into phone imaging started around 2011 with the iPhone 4s, but the Nokia 808 and 1020 had been in development before that and their high resolution sensors and low speed processors were defiantly 'single shot', with the result that the 808 struggles here - the image is blown out and colours are muted. As you'd expect. The 1020 does slightly better in terms of dynamic range, with a newer sensor and more 'saturated' image processing, but large parts of the sky are still blown out and there's little detail in the shadows.
The modern iPhone 12 Pro Max does a lot better, with complete detail in the sky, but its colours don't quite leap off the page in the same was the Pixel's - Google's HDR+ algorithms are, as usual, quite astonishing in terms of bringing out detail in all parts of the image and handling extremes of light by virture of capturing frames at multiple exposure levels. At web resolution here, at least, in a HDR test, it's the clear winner.
Scores: Nokia 808: 5 pts; Lumia 1020: 7 pts; Pixel 4a 5G: 10 pts; iPhone 12 Pro Max: 9 pts
Test 4 - Interior detail
An atmospheric (and generally magnificent) church interior, with an astonishing amount of test detail and colour, but in muted light, so the phone camera sensors have to start working hard to capture detail and colour. Here's the overall scene:
And here are 1:1 crops from (in turn) the Nokia 808 PureView, Lumia 1020, Pixel 4a 5G, and iPhone 12 Pro Max (click any phone name to grab its full resolution image for your own analysis):
Although light is still reasonable, the lack of OIS on the old Nokia 808 PureView is just starting to take effect here and its 1/30s handheld image is a little duller and not as precise, at the pixel level, as the outstanding Lumia 1020. For a 2013 phone camera its results still hold up well, losing out only in resolution to the iPhone 12 Pro Max, which wins this particular test by virtue of being almost as 'pure' as the 1020 but at over twice the resolution.
Meanwhile, the Pixel 4a 5G's cheap optics again show the phone up when you look at images at the pixel level - maybe the 2020 Google Pixels just aren't destined to fare well in pixel-peeping comparisons? Which is a shame as previous generations fared a lot better and I have to assume that it's the cheaper optics/lens stack that are to blame.
Scores: Nokia 808: 7 pts; Lumia 1020: 9 pts; Pixel 4a 5G: 8 pts; iPhone 12 Pro Max: 10 pts
Test 5 - Interior detail, zoomed
The same interior scene, but this time zoomed. The two Nokias manage this 'losslessly', but also lose their PureView oversampling in the process, increasing digital noise. Here are 1:1 crops from the zoomed images from (in turn) the Nokia 808 PureView, Lumia 1020, Pixel 4a 5G, and iPhone 12 Pro Max (click any phone name to grab its full resolution image for your own analysis):
Despite the loss of oversampling, due to the zoom needed, the fairly ancient Nokia 808 and 1020 do remarkably well here, staying natural and usable - with just increased noise to worry about. The iPhone 12 Pro Max wins out here with sheer detail and resolution, but the big loser here is the Google Pixel again. I don't think it's the algorithms, since these worked well in previous generations, I think it's the optics not being good enough and the processing is just struggling to cope with the imprecision.
Scores: Nokia 808: 7 pts; Lumia 1020: 9 pts; Pixel 4a 5G: 7 pts; iPhone 12 Pro Max: 9 pts
Test 6 - Interior medium distance
A typical subject distance and modest and varied lighting, with sun streaming in from a window - plenty of detail, including in shadow, to pick up. Here's the overall scene:
And here are central 1:1 crops from (in turn) the Nokia 808 PureView, Lumia 1020, Pixel 4a 5G, and iPhone 12 Pro Max (click any phone name to grab its full resolution image for your own analysis):
There's a pattern emerging here - natural detail from the Nokia 808, if slightly 'raw', though with poor dynamic range. Purer and slightly more processed detail from the Lumia 1020, with better dynamic range but at low resolution (5MP), excellent dynamic range from the Pixel but with compromises at the pixel level to compensate for cheap optics, and then good resolution, dynamic range, and pure detail from the iPhone, at least in its 'ProRAW' capture mode, permanently 'on' here.
This set of crops just confirms it again. In this case, I find the Pixel's 'emboldened' rendition of the calligraphy to be somewhat ugly.
Scores: Nokia 808: 8 pts; Lumia 1020: 9 pts; Pixel 4a 5G: 8 pts; iPhone 12 Pro Max: 10 pts
Test 7 - Macro time
Right up close to a spring flower. Close enough that the Nokia 808 and 1020 needed a touch of PureView zoom and a little more physical distance in order to get the shot!
Here are the (scaled here for the web) shots from (in turn) the Nokia 808 PureView, Lumia 1020, Pixel 4a 5G, and iPhone 12 Pro Max (click any phone name to grab its full resolution image for your own analysis):
Looking back here at the framing, it's clear that I used the 808 and 1020's zoom a little too freely, but the end results are spectacular, so no complaints. The Pixel and iPhone did equally well and I could have zoomed in a little in software to match, if needed. So I'm not declaring a winner here, such shots are eminently trivial for all modern camera phones. The Pixel shot is perhaps a little 'contrasty', but full marks around, on balance.
Scores: Nokia 808: 10 pts; Lumia 1020: 10 pts; Pixel 4a 5G: 10 pts; iPhone 12 Pro Max: 10 pts
Test 8 - Low light zoom
In a gloomy part of the church (darker to the eyes than the scene view here makes out!), some wooden detail that was very high up, so zoom had to be used. Here's the overall unzoomed scene:
And here are 1:1 crops from the zoomed photos from (in turn) the Nokia 808 PureView, Lumia 1020, Pixel 4a 5G, and iPhone 12 Pro Max (click any phone name to grab its full resolution image for your own analysis):
The 2012 previously-mighty Nokia 808 is struggling here. With no OIS, the 1/8s exposure handheld shows evidence of hand shake, despite my best efforts. Plus there's loads of digital noise since there's no oversampling when zoomed, for obvious reasons. Ditto noise-wise for the Lumia 1020, though its newer sensor helped a bit, plus the ball-bearing OIS worked its usual low light magic. The Pixel then adds (to OIS) plenty of multi-frame capture and combination for better exposure and contrast, though here its use of lossy digital zoom means that it doesn't pull far ahead. So it's down to the iPhone 12 Pro Max to provide astonishing detail under such lighting conditions and distance. Remember, this is genuine pixel-level detail under extreme 'real world snap' conditions.
Scores: Nokia 808: 4 pts; Lumia 1020: 6 pts; Pixel 4a 5G: 7 pts; iPhone 12 Pro Max: 9 pts
Test 9 - Night church
Low light torture starts for real here, with a nice shot of a floodlit church. Here's the overall scene:
And here are central 1:1 crops from (in turn) the Nokia 808 PureView, Lumia 1020, Pixel 4a 5G, and iPhone 12 Pro Max (click any phone name to grab its full resolution image for your own analysis):
The Nokia 808 again is crying out for a tripod, but it's not going to get one - you just can't shoot in low light handheld with something from that generation. The 2013 Lumia 1020 does better - a lot better, with a flawless photo even by 2021 standards! In fact, I'm giving it the win here, since I think its low light detail is more realistic. The iPhone does very well but there's a slight air of artificiality, while the Pixel nails that characteristic fuzziness at the pixel level but otherwise nails exposure.
Scores: Nokia 808: 5 pts; Lumia 1020: 10 pts; Pixel 4a 5G: 8 pts; iPhone 12 Pro Max: 9 pts
Test 10 - Low light white
One of the hardest things to snap in very low light is something that's white - how best to balance exposure and colour? Here are the (scaled here for the web) shots from (in turn) the Nokia 808 PureView, Lumia 1020, Pixel 4a 5G, and iPhone 12 Pro Max (click any phone name to grab its full resolution image for your own analysis):
There's an interesting philosophical point here in that the Nokia 808's 1/8s exposure (as slow as it goes handheld under 'auto' control) is actually perfect in terms of matching what my eyes saw, so it's hard to mark it down for not going further. The Lumia 1020's OIS lets it push the exposure up to 1/4s and, with PureView oversampling still, manages a really well balanced shot - dark, but still light enough to see all the car. Maybe its white isn't quite white, but hey...
The Pixel and the iPhone have modern 'night modes', fully automatic, in that it shows in the UI that you should wait for a few seconds while the phone takes a number of (over a dozen?) photos and then combines them, aligning details and reducing digital noise, to excellent effect. The results 'turn night into day' - so completely unrealistic but also impressive in a tech-cool way. I'll give the Pixel the nod here for absolutely nailing the white, though even the 808's shot is good in terms of accuracy to the scene, I contend, so I'm not marking it down too much!
Scores: Nokia 808: 7 pts; Lumia 1020: 8 pts; Pixel 4a 5G: 10 pts; iPhone 12 Pro Max: 9 pts
Test 11 - Portrait time
No one wanted to pose for me, so... I used a statue, shot at a couple of metres, though I allowed myself to move back and forwards to frame the vertical shot on the phone screens. Weeping angels, Dr Who etc. Just don't blink!
Here are the (scaled here for the web) shots from (in turn) the Nokia 808 PureView, Lumia 1020, Pixel 4a 5G, and iPhone 12 Pro Max (click any phone name to grab its full resolution image for your own analysis):
Another win for the Pixel - you'll have noticed that in any of the tests where I've looked the overall shot, the Pixel has done very well - just don't pixel-peep, etc. Here its portrait snap of the angel is superb in terms of separation from the background, with the iPhone a tad further back. Meanwhile the Nokia 808's shot is fine as a photo but there's very little optical DoF (Depth of Field) effect. The Lumia 1020... makes a bit of a mess of this snap, exposing for the background I suspect - if I'd spotted this at snap time then tapping on the statue in the viewfinder would have improved things.
Scores: Nokia 808: 7 pts; Lumia 1020: 6 pts; Pixel 4a 5G: 10 pts; iPhone 12 Pro Max: 9 pts
Verdict
Phew. 11 tests used (I have more, but they don't add anything to the conclusions above), and if we add up the scores we get:
1. Apple iPhone 12 Pro Max (2020) (in ProRAW mode): 103 pts (/110)
2= Google Pixel 4a/5G (2020) (or Pixel 5): 93 pts
Lumia 1020 (2013): 93 pts
4. Nokia 808 PureView (2012): 79 pts
Which feels about right, having made myself blind poring over all these shots! One obvious question is what would have happened if I'd shot on the iPhone 12 Pro Max in default/normob mode and used the edge-enhanced JPGs? I suspect it would have been down with the Pixel/1020 pack. Which is evidently good enough for day to day social snapping, but I think I've shown here that when you want a phone-shot photo that's as good as possible then ProRAW mode is pretty exceptional on this top-end iPhone. Again, I wanted to make the point that this 'isn't your mother's RAW', as the saying goes. This requires zero work (unless you want to) and you can crop, tweak or share immediately and keep all the quality. In short, I'm a big fan.
That the almost-eight-year-old Lumia 1020 manages to keep up with the 2020 Pixels is testament to how good the 1020 is/was. True, the OS it ran is now utterly obselete (WP 8.1 doesn't even have a working Store anymore), and true, photo capture is frustratingly slow if you're in a hurry (three seconds per shot!), but I still love the imaging capabilities of my 'yellow monster'.
In contrast, that the 2020 Pixels aren't beating an eight year old phone is somewhat damning. Especially when the previous, 2019 Pixels did much better! Google dropped its prices and spec levels across the board in 2020 and one of the compromises was cheaper and less effective camera hardware. Proving that algorithms can still produce great social snaps but that closer inspection shows that something's less than optimal at the pixel level.
Leaving the Nokia 808 somewhat languishing in fourth place, almost entirely down to its lack of OIS. Maybe allowing the 808 a pocket tripod and allowing some manual settings would be an interesting future comparison, to help it with low light shots? We'll see...
It's not just myself that rates the iPhone 12 Pro range so highly, by the way. Its imaging hardware, twinned with the ProRAW system, has fans across the tech blogosphere. If you don't absolutely need 10x zoom then from an imaging point of view the current iPhone flagship rules the roost right now, and by quite a margin.