Published by Steve Litchfield at 21:48 UTC, December 29th 2012

In our previous head to head shootout between the Nokia Lumia 920 and the Symbian-powered Nokia 808 PureView, concentrating perhaps more on static, lower light situations, the newer 920 just failed to pip the larger-sensored 808 to the crown. Since then, there has been some justified criticism of the 920's image processing for bright daylight scenes - now fixed for many people across the globe with the PR1.1 update (firmware starting 1232.5951...), which dials back the noise reduction and also fixes some messaging and Wi-fi issues. With the camera fix in place though, I headed out on a winter's day and put Nokia's latest Lumia 920 fix to the ultimate test...

Although not every test shot in our previous tests had been afflicted with the image processing problem (it very much depended on subject), the PR1.1 software does seem to have eliminated it and all the shots in this, second, test are free from such suspicions, which is a mighty relief to both Nokia and users across the world. Well, most of the world anyway, since UK users are all, I suspect, affected to some degree by the EE-exclusivity arrangements - maybe EE have to approve the changes? Still, I flashed on one of the many 'Euro' versions of the PR1.1 software in the interests of expediency, for the sake of this feature. And no, it's not trivial to do, so please don't ask me to explain or recommend the technique...(!)

The challenge then, with the image processing hiccup out of the way, is renewed - can the Lumia 920 get close to its 'PureView' predecessor, the mighty Nokia 808? The obvious answer is 'no', because the 920 lacks the lossless PureView zoom, and it lacks the Xenon flash, so in those senses it's as hampered as the mass of Android and iOS devices that also compete. Yet the Optical Image Stabilisation does help a lot in terms of keeping the images as good as they can be, with no extra errors creeping in from inadvertent movement by the user.

I took eight test shots, in widely varying conditions, and present an overview snap (in this case from the Nokia 808) for each, along with central crops and analysis. In the 808's case, it was set at 8 megapixels (in Creative mode), to (approximately) match the 920's native resolution.

Test 1: Bright sunlight

The image processing deficiencies in the original PR1.0 firmware for the Lumia 920 were most evident in bright conditions, where subjects weren't as crisp as they should have been. To that end, here's the first of several sunlight test shots (nothing like having multiple data points!). Here's the 808's effort (and here's the full 920 JPG):





Cropping in to some central detail, we can see differences in the same scene as captured on the 808 (top) and 920/PR1.1 (bottom):





This is perhaps the worst of the 920's attempted photos in this test - detail from the Lumia 920 is indeed free of the excessive noise reduction and 'soft' feel from the PR1.0 firmware, but the end result, although sharp to the naked eye when the scene is viewed as a whole, is over-coloured, over-sharpened and, yes, a bit noisy.

In the Lumia 920 camera's defense, it's up against the best camera phone of all time and pitting its 1/3" 8MP sensor pixels against the wonders of a 38MP image intelligently oversampled down to 8MP. The effectiveness of PureView 'phase 1' can be seen very clearly in the difference between the two image crops above. Results from the likes of the iPhone 4S/5 and Samsung Galaxy S III would be similar to the 920's under these conditions.

Test 2: Bright sunlight (take two)

Let's try another bright sunlight data point. And no, I don't have a fascination for brick buildings/houses - but the abundance of detail and texture does make image comparison much easier! Here's the overall (again suburban) scene:

Cropping in to some central detail, we can see differences in the same scene as captured on the 808 (top) and 920/PR1.1 (bottom):





Again, there are issues, with a slight yellow tint applied to the house brickwork and with everything slightly too sharpened - see the detail on the tree twigs and branches, for example. In contrast, the 'pure' pixels on the Nokia 808 image make everything, from tree to brickwork, look completely natural and far more pleasing.

Test 3: Bright sunlight (take three)

One final sunlight test, this time of a chimney, lit up strongly by the sun, here's the 808's effort (and here's the full 920 JPG):

Cropping in to some central detail, we can see differences in the same scene as captured on the 808 (top) and 920/PR1.1 (bottom):





Although clear enough, I'd argue that the Lumia 920's image is again over-sharpened. Manufacturers love to over-sharpen, as it makes images look clearer on the phone's screen - never mind looking at the photos later on, back on the desktop or in the future. Along similar lines, the 920's colours are over-vivid, though it's good to see slightly more detail in the shade in this crop.

Test 4: Overcast, gloomy

Of course, the sun isn't always out (in fact, in the UK, rarely, it seems!) and the Lumia 920's camera should start to come into its own more as the light levels go down. So I come to a couple of more gloomily lit test shots. Here's the 808's effort (and here's the full 920 JPG):

Cropping in to some central detail, we can see differences in the same scene as captured on the 808 (top) and 920/PR1.1 (bottom):





Again the 808's handling of the scene is noticeably better - look at the discrete lights in the Christmas sign, or the cleanliness of the wood and the background to the sign. Lumia 920 fans would rightly point out at this stage that my handling of the 808 is unusually expert, in that casual users might not be holding the phone so steadily while taking the shot, whereas the 920's OIS means that the image will be crisp even if taken in amateurish fashion. Which is fair enough, but the 920's photo is still, arguably, quite a long way behind the 808's.

Test 5: Gloomy (take two)

Let's try another shot in these wintry, gloomy conditions, here's the 808's effort (and here's the full 920 JPG):

Cropping in to some central detail, we can see differences in the same scene as captured on the 808 (top) and 920/PR1.1 (bottom):





There's not a world of difference here between the two shots - the 808's image is slightly cleaner and, well, 'purer'. As the light levels drop, the two device's cameras (for static shots) do get slightly closer.

Test 6: Indoors, natural light plus festive fairy lights(!)

Continuing this progression from bright to low light, we have here a Christmas tree shot from about a metre away. Flash was turned off, so just a test of light gathering power. Here's the 808's effort (and here's the full 920 JPG):

Cropping in to some central detail, we can see differences in the same scene as captured on the 808 (top) and 920/PR1.1 (bottom):





This is the Nokia Lumia 920's comfort zone and it shows. Glorious colours, crisp detail, wonderful exposure. It's true that by fiddling around in 'Creative' mode on the Nokia 808 I could probably achieve the same result, but a purely 'automatic' comparison shows the 920 to give dramatically better results.

Test 7: Night time, very dark

Taking things all the way, here's a night time scene with almost no natural light whatsoever (this is the 808's version):

Cropping in to some central detail, we can see differences in the same scene as captured on the 808 (top) and 920/PR1.1 (bottom):

Now this crop comparison is fascinating. The actual colours of the three cars above are white, cream and silver. The Nokia 808 absolutely nails it for colour and a feel for how dark it really was. Yet the 920's version shows so much, with detail that you'd need night vision goggles to see, normally. It's arguable, of course, that this representation is too artificial - certainly the yellow cast on two of the cars is a little off-putting.

Test 8: Evening, artificial light, flash allowed

This being the holiday season, there will be plenty of need for shots of people indoors, as here (this is the 808's version):

Cropping in to some central detail, we can see differences in the same scene as captured on the 808 (top) and 920/PR1.1 (bottom):

Regular readers of my Xenon rants won't be surprised to see, even though I was snapped while talking (and thus moving slightly), that the detail and clarity in the 808's image is far superior. The 920's image isn't as crisp and is oddly over-exposed.

_______

Eight test shots then, with the 920's new PR1.1 firmware. Six of the tests were won by the Nokia 808, arguably, with one to the 920 and one debatable draw. But again I should emphasise a few things:

the 808 does very well in my hands - give it to an average person and they'd struggle with keeping it still, especially if using the shutter button. In contrast, the OIS in the 920 should give better results for these less experienced users.

that the Lumia 920, even with the image processing issue fixed in this software, can't match the Nokia 808 most of the time, isn't that damning. It's like coming second to Usain Bolt in a sprint, even though you broke your own national record.

add in the zoom and Xenon flash possibilities and the 808's crown is assured for the moment - perhaps even forever, since I'm not sure anyone will make such a monster phone camera again. Yet it's easy to argue that there's far more future proofing built into Windows Phone 8 and its ecosystem - for anyone for whom taking good photos is only a 'very nice to have' and not 'absolutely essential', and for whom the Xenon flash isn't seen as a necessity, the Lumia 920 may indeed be the better smartphone choice.

Comments welcome as usual. Me? I'm getting rather used to having both the 808 and the 920 with me at all times. Sitting on the fence?Abso-flippin' lutely!

PS. Please don't fill the thread with moans about the lack of availability of PR1.1 for the 920 for your particular country - it's coming, honest.