Review: Nokia 808 PureView

Low Light - Output Modes Compared:

The simple fact that the 808 offers user-selectable ISO sensitivity settings up to ISO 1600 makes it considerably more versatile than the average cameraphone when the light gets low. On this page, I want to see not only whether the output is any good, but also, whether the 808's PureView modes offer significantly better image quality than the maximum resolution output. 

For this test I put the 808 on a tripod and shot the same scene at ISO 1600 at all four of its output resolutions. Light was provided by a single low-intensity tungsten bulb, and exposure was 1/25 sec at F2.4. I used a 2 second self-timer to make sure that everything stayed sharp. 

 
 3MP (100% Crop)  5MP (100% Crop)
 8MP (100% Crop)  38MP (100% Crop)
It's hard, looking at 100% crops, to really say which of the 808's three PureView modes gives the best image quality, because of the disparity between the magnification at 100%. Scene detail that is smallest (in the 3MP shot in this case) always looks a little better defined than the same detail, reproduced larger. By 38MP, the disparity in magnification is so great that direct comparison is difficult, although it is obvious that at a pixel level, the 808's output is much grainier, and less sharp than it is in the lower-resolution PureView modes. 

3MP PureView versus 38MP>3MP 

To get a better idea of how these modes compare, I've downsampled the 38MP file to the same dimensions as the 3MP file, using Photoshop's Bicubic Sharper downsampling algorithm. 
3MP (100% Crop) 38MP downsampled to 3MP (100% Crop)
 3MP (100% Crop) 38MP downsampled to 3MP (100% Crop)
You might need to dim the lights in your room to see the difference, but there is a difference. The downsampled 38MP file is sharper than the native 3MP capture, but grittier, and the blue noise at lower right is blotchier, too.
 
Interestingly, in all of the images, noise is noticeably more intense in the right half of the images than it is elsewhere in the scene. This isn't due to the position of the light in our setup - our tungsten lamp was positioned on the left - but probably due to amp glow, maybe caused by heat, originating from a component positioned behind or adjacent to the 808's sensor inside the tightly-packed body of the phone. In our 'real world' shooting at the 808's highest ISO settings, this issue is unnoticeable, although banding can be a problem in very poor light. 

So is the difference between the various output modes big enough  to justify shooting at 3MP when 5, 8 and 38MP are available? On the basis of these tests I'd have to say that in my opinion no, it isn't. The most significant benefit of shooting at 3MP and 5MP has already been highlighted - namely, a greater effective 'zoom' compared to 8MP, which in turn offers greater versatility than full-resolution mode, where you can't 'zoom' at all. The 808's 5MP PureView mode is a good compromise between resolution, filesize and versatility when it comes to framing, which is probably why Nokia made it the default. As I mentioned earlier in this article, I have also noticed that clipped highlights are slightly less of a problem in the 808's PureView modes compared to full resolution, but clipping (to some degree) remains an issue in all modes. 

Studio Comparisons

We wouldn't normally put a cameraphone through our studio comparison test, but given its impressive specifications we wanted to see how well the 808 PureView compares to the many different cameras in our database. We shot our studio scene twice - once at the 808's full resolution of 38MP and again at 8MP, in PureView mode. We chose to showcase 8MP because it is the highest resolution PureView mode, and as such, more comparable when it comes to examining images alongside those from dedicated compact and system cameras. Click the thumbnail below to view the studio comparison (output modes are selected via the 'ISO' dropdown).

Studio Comparison

This is our standard studio scene comparison shot taken from exactly the same tripod position. Lighting: daylight simulation, >98% CRI. Crops are 100%. Ambient temperature was approximately 22°C (~72°F). The 808 PureView was positioned on a tripod, and was set to flurescent WB. Exposure was adjusted using exposure compensation and the built-in ND filter to achieve near-parity of exposure between ISO sensitivity settings.

Click here to see how the 808 PureView performs in our standard studio comparison

Click the thumbnail image above to see how the 808 PureView performs in our studio comparison scene. (opens in new window)
It's hard not to be impressed by the 808's performance here, especially at low ISO sensitivity settings. At its maximum resolution of 38MP the 808 is capable of capturing a ton of detail, and pixel-level image quality is up there with some of the best cameras around. In its 8MP PureView mode pixel-level image quality is extremely high at low ISO settings, and even up at its highest ISOs, the 808 gives a lot of 'proper' cameras a run for their money. 

Comments

Total comments: 353
123
Pierre Daigneault
By Pierre Daigneault (Aug 1, 2012)

Spend a little time with the studio comparison tool.
Looks like the image quality is better than my recently purchased FZ150 which must be considered one of the best superzooms around (especially at higher ISO). Some will say that it should be with a sensor that large, or for that price, and some will list the features that it is lacking. But hey...let's remember that this is a phone!! Also remember that the best camera of all, is the one that you have when you need. I think that this will be a great gadget for many people who don't print larger than 8x10 and enjoy good quality images. For me....I still prefer to use a camera and carry mine at all times....just wish that Panasonic made a slightly larger sensor on the FZ series (I know...size limitations etc....).

1 upvote
Damian D
By Damian D (Aug 1, 2012)

Hi Barney/everyone.

Great to see the 808 PureView receiving your Gold Award – thank you. Our team are both delighted and extremely proud of their collective achievement. :D

Wanted to just take some time out to share some insights/background behind some of the decisions/trade-offs we made given some of the points you noted in the review.

Whilst we wanted to provide a rich set of controls which cover key elements such as focus, exposure, brightness/colour and composition especially for those who take a more involved role in the capture phase, we also wanted to keep as clean and as uncluttered viewfinder as possible. As you might imagine however, it’s very hard to get this balance just right. Personally speaking I find most of not all digital camera viewfinder/info screens are either all or nothing. We continue to seek the best balance in this regard, but equally, recognise we can never get this right for everyone.

6 upvotes
Damian D
By Damian D (Aug 1, 2012)

This principle led us to a number of decisions we felt all things considered where the right ones:

Specifically…

Histogram: We believe not everyone uses it or knows how to use it and even fewer need/use it all the time. Our solution was therefore to provide one click access from the EV adjustment button. You can either just check it or check and adjust, it’s up to you. But then you can easily hide it too. As aid we wanted to retain as much viewfinder real estate as possible.

Slide zoom: We felt the conventional method of 'assisted' zoom is too slow and lacks sufficient control and precision. What I mean by assisted zoom is basically anything other than manual zoom as on most SLR’s. Whilst manual zoom is fast and precise it’s almost impossible to zoom smoothly, important for video of course. The slide zoom capability we're introducing for the first time with the 808 PureView provides a level of precision and speed pinch to zoom and motorised zooms are unable to provide.

5 upvotes
Damian D
By Damian D (Aug 1, 2012)

Often with these methods you end up under/over shooting and/or moving the device during the operation. Furthermore, in the case of motorised controls, you’re often having to wait for the zoom to travel from one point to another. With slide zoom it allows you to frame the shot similarly to cropping in photo editing applications and then when happy with the framing, simply releasing your ginger from the display it either quickly zooms to that setting in the case of stills or in video smoothly and more slowly to the pre-set framing. We use an acceleration/deceleration curve at the start/stop phases of zoom too, impossible with other methods and then aim to handle all those pixels as smoothly as possible. Ideally I would have liked it to be even smoother. Zooming out is more conventional. We did prototype the same method of zooming for zoom out but in trials we found it to be counter intuitive.

5 upvotes
Damian D
By Damian D (Aug 1, 2012)

Again based on trials we found once people had used it for a while it becomes very intuitive fast and easy. As I think you pointed to in your own conclusion. Our own user testing showed that after this period everyone preferred it to conventional zoom methods.

4 upvotes
Damian D
By Damian D (Aug 1, 2012)

ISO setting: we found the optimal number of touch controls along the side of the viewfinder in a screen of this size to be 5. This dictated the size of the touch targets. No doubt people will chime in and comment on this point but this was the recommendation from our usability experts to achieve good usability in the camera. This in turn dictated the area for text, which in some languages the characters used require more space than the often used English versions. However, as with all the icons we prioritised at least indicating that a function was set to a setting different to the default. Increasing the size of the buttons would have impacted more on the viewfinder which we were keen to avoid.

4 upvotes
Damian D
By Damian D (Aug 1, 2012)

Exposure: The 808 PureView uses a system which is more heavily influenced (unless faces are detected) by objects in the centre. Half press of the HW capture button (assuming touch to focus has not been set) locks both focus and exposure which for most situations should provide the desired results. However, this is an area I think with some small amount of innovation can improve the experience for the future.

5 upvotes
Damian D
By Damian D (Aug 1, 2012)

Viewfinder: Given there is no optical viewfinder of course we do prioritise the brightness of the viewfinder in very bright and very dark conditions to increase usability. In bright conditions we increase the brightness of the display accordingly to make it as visible as possible and in very low light conditions we increase the read time (reduce the viewfinder refresh rate) to increase the effective brightness of an otherwise dark scene. Unfortunately this results in a trade-off in such situations in the accuracy of the image as a preview which may explain some of the challenges you experienced with exposure compensation.

Best regards

Damian Dinning - Nokia

4 upvotes
peevee1
By peevee1 (Aug 1, 2012)

Thank you, Damian! When a person from a maker comments on a product review, it is always appreciated and shines a great light on your company. That means you care.

0 upvotes
peevee1
By peevee1 (Aug 1, 2012)

Damian, a couple suggestions if I may.
1) Allow higher ISOs for lower resolutions (maybe just at lower "zooms"). At least 3200 for 8Mpix and 6400 for 3Mpix. If you look at the top ISOs of modern cameras, their manufacturers are going to much stronger compromises in noise, and customers use that highest ISO number as a proxy for low-light abilities. Besides, camera shake at low shatter speeds is much worse detriment to sharpness than some noise reduction, esp. without mechanical IS. And everybody except some review sites will use it handheld.

0 upvotes
peevee1
By peevee1 (Aug 1, 2012)

2) You should draw some better looking buttons with more conventional symbols. Black-and-white with some hastily-invented icon is not good enough for modern customers, it is not 1988.

0 upvotes
peevee1
By peevee1 (Aug 1, 2012)

3) Add 2Mpix mode, with even higher longest zoom (4x or 4.1x?). After all, this is the resolution of Full HD televisions and most monitors out there, and this is how most (99.99..%) pictures are viewed these days. Besides, it would make very sensible 3Mpix setting look not a lowest possible mode, and allow you to go to ISO10000 at 28mm. :) Meaning your customers would be able to take usable travel pictures in dark museums (and other interiors) where flash is prohibited handheld (ISO 3200 at f/2.4 will produce too slow shutter speeds and blurry images now).

0 upvotes
Damian D
By Damian D (Aug 1, 2012)

Hi, thanks for the comments. The 2mp setting was specifically selected for the purpose you outlined but also the current limit of certain social sharing sites. It's available in the 16:9 aspect ratio setting and does in deed provide greater zoom as a result.

I personally worked with the team on the icon design. However the design direction is away from 'chrome' and over fussy detailing as it just distracts from the content in our view. So whilst I can relate to your comment here, this was a deliberate design decision. Your other suggestion is an excellent one. We will consider that for the future - thanks.

2 upvotes
Gadgety
By Gadgety (Aug 1, 2012)

Thank you for your informative replies. Damian. The Pureview is a killer app! I wonder if there is a potential for Nokia to offer a "software upgrade kit" in the (future versions) WP market, or as a download for the Symbian crowd. That way Nokia wouldn't have to get it "right for everyone", but could do what software enables you to do, offer tweaks, and versions for the photographolics and image quality control freaks. I guess you could offer a "photographer's special 808" or similar as well, although software upgrades enabling tailoring would be more interesting.

1 upvote
peevee1
By peevee1 (Aug 1, 2012)

Thanks for the reply, Damien.
I think 2 mpix mode should be available in 4:3 (or whatever the native ratio is) too, along with it's longer zoom/a\higher ISO capability.
Regarding icons, I don't mean they should be fussy, they should be simple, but beautiful, not just simple. You are missing WOW-factor which this product absolutely deserves.
I know personally how painful for a product manager when his lovechild ideas are being criticized. But white icons on black (dark-grey?) rounded squares in the picture just does not cut it. For example, they could look like raised (3D) tabs "protruding" from the bezel ("made" from the same "material" as the physical buttons), with sides "raised" to the height of the bezel and the middle "indented" for the finger. And of course, they should look differently for light and dark scenes, as light "shines on them".

0 upvotes
Damian D
By Damian D (Aug 2, 2012)

There is a 3mp setting in 4:3.

Re icons, in Windows Phone it's even simpler, that a design direction so the focus is on the content rather than the interface.

Comment edited 16 seconds after posting
1 upvote
Karroly
By Karroly (Aug 1, 2012)

Why Dpreview (and/or Nokia) uses "oversampling" when the process of using a lower spacial sampling frequency (from 38MP down to 8/5/3 MP) actually is downsampling ?!
Oversampling is just the opposite : converting a low-resolution picture to a higher resolution one (which does not increase sharpness, of course), as it is the case on digital audio devices when the digital audio signal is oversampled from, let's say 44.1 khz to 192 khz or higher to allow the use of higher-quality digital low-pass filters rather than analog filters.
Did Nokia marketing guys think "downsampling" was to negative ?

Comment edited 11 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
peevee1
By peevee1 (Aug 1, 2012)

"Oversampling is just the opposite : converting a low-resolution picture to a higher resolution one"

That would be "upscaling".

0 upvotes
SynchroM
By SynchroM (Aug 2, 2012)

It is oversampling; When producing low-res images, they are sampling at a significantly higher frequency than the output, which is the definition of oversampling. In digital audio it's just the same - oversampling delta-sigma converters typically run at ~2MHz with a 1-bit ADC internally, but output sample rates much lower than that. What you described is upsampling - converting to a higher rate than the original source - which has very few benefits.
I think you're looking at it from the wrong direction: because they are oversampling to start with, they are able to downsample and gain improved anti-aliasing and signal-to-noise when producing lower-resolution images.

0 upvotes
aleksdat
By aleksdat (Aug 1, 2012)

Good start for new tendention, IMHO!

0 upvotes
Valentinian
By Valentinian (Aug 1, 2012)

I don't think it is fair to compare this to a digital camera. This is a device which is really, really portable, and it can easily take very decent pictures.
Your digital camera can be used only when you go out specifically to take pictures; otherwise it can be left home.
It is a good product. It starts a new trend. Others will follow. Now camera makers should stop trying to shrink digital cameras and making them without viewfinder.

2 upvotes
mike77n
By mike77n (Aug 1, 2012)

I wonder what if they have chosen to use reasonable pixel count with the sensor that large and maybe a bit better optics, I guess we would have cheaper device with better picture quality, and then I would have considered buying it despite outdated Symbian OS

1 upvote
macyourday
By macyourday (Oct 11, 2012)

Exactly what I've been wondering. Imagine if they'd used the back lit sensor techno;ogy and large pixels for actual sensitivity,rather than pixel binning. I don't get it. Large numbers of pixels are a pain in almost every respect (except for those that require a substitue what'sit, but there are big cars for them). It must be relatively expensive to make sensors with such numbers. The sensor can't be that tied in with the OS can it? While it might take better shots than other phones, the trade-offs seem too high. Might as well just pocket an S100. Who gives a rodent's about in device processing?
I was quite tempted to try one. Maybe once I get another iPad, I can ditch the iPhone for something like this.Shame about the dissapointing level of improvements on the new iPhone camera though.
My limited photographic skill means I can't get past the snapshot feel of these high DOF devices, so they can't replace DSLR's at least for me.

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
peevee1
By peevee1 (Aug 1, 2012)

"What it can't do, of course, is provide one of the other benefits of zoom in a conventional optical system - background blur. Even on a cheap small-sensor compact, you can achieve a degree of subject and background separation by zooming in, and reducing depth of field. Not so with the 808."

Actually, as you "zoom in" (crop), you essentially increase the size of the every element of the central portion of the picture, including the size of the OOF circles. 3.8x at 3MP is not much, and f/2.4 on 1/1.2" sensor is not much to begin with, but I am sure you can detect the blur if you have some to begin with. Now, the lack of aperture priority (or at least program shift) means it is hard to actually open the aperture in good light...

0 upvotes
CFynn
By CFynn (Aug 1, 2012)

How can you "open the aperture" when it only has one?

Light seems to be controlled by built in ND filters instead of a variable aperture.

0 upvotes
peevee1
By peevee1 (Aug 1, 2012)

CFynn, where did you get this?

0 upvotes
peevee1
By peevee1 (Aug 1, 2012)

Looks like at 8MP there is a room for useful ISO 3200. I guess that means that at 3MP there is a room for ISO 6400.

0 upvotes
RUcrAZ
By RUcrAZ (Aug 1, 2012)

Thanks for this "review." Now, how about a serious technical review?
RUcrAZ

0 upvotes
Jyy
By Jyy (Aug 1, 2012)

I am using this phone about two weeks now and i am very satisfied. No more carrying cameras with bags, all you need is your pocket. And pictures quality is great, vivid colors are fantastic. And good video quality also. So its three devices in one for me. Thanks to Nokia easying my life.

0 upvotes
carino
By carino (Aug 1, 2012)

The IQ is amazing for a smartphone but because of Symbian better wait for the Windows version. Probably the Lumia 808 ?
Or rather I'dd like to see Canon squeeze a phone into the SD4000IS/IXUS1100 lol
Anyway, people will mostly use these pictures to post them on the net so the IQ is more than sufficient.

0 upvotes
peevee1
By peevee1 (Aug 1, 2012)

So far, Windows Mobile 7.5 is pretty far behind Symbian.

1 upvote
Giorgio_K
By Giorgio_K (Aug 1, 2012)

I'm not impressed either ... IQ is comparable to cheap P&S with added communication capabilities. That's it. However good attempt.

1 upvote
Peiasdf
By Peiasdf (Aug 1, 2012)

Sensor fell well behind m4/3 (E-M5) and larger at ISO 400 and up. Please add RX100 to the comparison tool.

3 upvotes
BJN
By BJN (Aug 1, 2012)

"Excellent image quality considering the type of device that it is." And that's the problem with this review. Is this a gold award camera or a gold award camera phone? Looking at the weak color, the fixed 28mm focal length, and the long list of "cons" I think it's clearly the latter. If you're cutting it slack for the type of device it is, then you should also judge how well it works for its other intended functions. This is really a review of a particular camera phone technology. And the tech is clever and potentially interesting - in a decent phone.

0 upvotes
peevee1
By peevee1 (Aug 1, 2012)

Impressive. Too bad Elop killed such a great company.

1 upvote
Saleen1999
By Saleen1999 (Aug 1, 2012)

Sounds interesting but I don't think Sprint here in the US would agree to allow us to use phones that are not available through them or I would have purchased a phone I like on the market and not what they sell.

0 upvotes
TimT999
By TimT999 (Jul 31, 2012)

A fun review but unfortunately a bit breathless and hyped. The ability to use cropping to zoom is useful but the real issue isn't the pixel count, it's the sensor size. And we have yet to see whether the sensor is as good as the reviewer says.

The reviewer seems to want to believe that the Nokia has an IQ that's as good or better than a point and shoot. And on occasion he even suggests the camera is as good as an entry level DSLR.

But if you're going to make big claims, back it up. Show how the IQ stacks up against the G12 or a Rebel in low light -- use the standard DP Review test suite! The reviewer doesn't take that step and his "review" is not up to the usual level of this site as a result.

I'm glad Nokia chose to push the envelop and when they give the phone a more usable operating system, it will be worth a look. But the most exciting aspect of this story is that it raises the bar for the other smartphone manufacturers.

2 upvotes
resuyaber
By resuyaber (Aug 1, 2012)

"But if you're going to make big claims, back it up. Show how the IQ stacks up against the G12 or a Rebel in low light -- use the standard DP Review test suite!"
Go to that test suite and see yourselve how Nokia blow up G12. And this is best image they can produce . If you want go to different conditions - lowlight - my 50$ 15y old Sony nightshot cam can outperform every DSLR here . That is other issue. Question is which camera have better max quality in light , and 808 beat 99% !

5 upvotes
Michael_13
By Michael_13 (Aug 1, 2012)

What is mssing for you?
Look at the picture comparison tool.

4 upvotes
TimT999
By TimT999 (Aug 1, 2012)

I stand corrected. Generally the DP reviews integrate the picture comparison tool right into the review. Here there was a link that opened a new page and I missed that link.

I would disagree with resuyaber though. I don't think the image quality (as opposed to the # of pixels) was any better than that of the G12 or other comparable point and shoots, and at 1600 ISO the Nokia was clearly worse.

And of course with a real camera you have a lens that can zoom in instead of cropping it's image with a digital zoom. So compare a G12 zoomed in to its 5x max with the Nokia for a true comparison.

As I said, this camera is raising the bar on what a camera phone can do but let's not pretend it's equivalent to a better P&S.

Comment edited 57 seconds after posting
1 upvote
Lupti
By Lupti (Jul 31, 2012)

I´m not impressed at all. This phone needs such a large sensor to produce pictures at the level of an 150 € point and shoot? Give me a break. 38MP looks just soft and without any real detail. And even 8MP is far from impressive. Like said on level of an cheap P&S - and these come nowadays mostly with OIS and zoom. In a similar size. And regarding video, I know cheap pocket camcorders that can do better. No hard feelings, but DPreviews statement about "excellent video quality" is just false. Even their own samples prove it. DPreview is no videocamera site which is ok as they are mainly about photography but then they shouldn´t make such statements.
So then finally a Gold Award for this phone - it is far from deserving this. Especially for this price.

1 upvote
Clint Dunn
By Clint Dunn (Jul 31, 2012)

Dude.....read your second sentence again...
This PHONE produces images as good as a decent P&S. Enough said.

This is a HUGE advancement because it means that many people don't need to bother with a P&S...all they need is their phone. This is a big deal.

Sure, the quality may not be good enough for yours or my P&S needs, but it will be more than good enough for millions of others who buy this Nokia.

9 upvotes
Lupti
By Lupti (Aug 1, 2012)

Clint Dunn, dude, you should also read my sentence again. I wrote about a large sensor...but most cheaper P&S have sensors sized at around 1/2,3". And a lot of them produce better images...the 808-images aren´t really "decent".
Yeah, a lot of people want to take pics with their phone with acceptable quality, but this was also possible before the 808 was launched. The stills and videos from the iPhone 4S look better - and I´m surely not an Apple fan. So I don´t see a reason to rave about the 808.
BTW: The other difference between this and a 150 € P&S are around 500 €...money that can buy one a good smartphone if needed and there will be some money left for a good lunch LOL.

0 upvotes
nawknai
By nawknai (Aug 2, 2012)

Lupti, does the iPhone offer zoom without affecting resolution? Do you know of any phones that can take photos like a cheap P&S, and with the ability to zoom without "digital zoom", which reduces pixel count rather than downsample from a larger image?

I had the iPhone 4S, and I currently have a nice Galaxy phone. The image quality of both are good enough for most people, but the intent of this camera was to offer the ability to zoom without reducing MP.

Also, the larger sensor will mean better a greater ability to produce OOF backgrounds.

0 upvotes
ennemkay
By ennemkay (Aug 3, 2012)

what makes the phone special is its image quality not its sensor size. you should ignore the sensor size, then you'll be able to appreciate this phone for what it is.

1 upvote
AndrewG NY
By AndrewG NY (Jul 31, 2012)

"being one of the most important innovations - arguable the most important - in mobile photography since the smarphone era dawned five or so years ago"

I'll argue that point. This technology has the *potential* of changing the way that camera phones are made but this phone itself will probably not penetrate any market very far. Will other phone makers (or camera makers) emulate this technique? That's questionable. Nor do we know how far Nokia is willing to go with this in future models. In a few years we may look back at this as being important, or in retrospect it may end up being what it is right now -- an interesting curiosity.

0 upvotes
Barney Britton
By Barney Britton (Jul 31, 2012)

It's an important innovation in the sense that it's shifted our expectations of what is possible in a product of this type. Whether it ends up being a commercial success is immaterial.

9 upvotes
AndrewG NY
By AndrewG NY (Aug 1, 2012)

I guess my objection was to the use of the word "important"; we're dealing only with potential (your word: 'expectations') here. This could easily become a dead end.

In a sense though we've already seen renewed interest in the last two years among cameramakers in digital zoom technologies and actually producing useful output from them. A few years ago, 'digital zoom' was almost regarded as a dirty word, but now it seems like these features are here to stay. Nokia's technology is a relatively extreme application of these approaches.

0 upvotes
ennemkay
By ennemkay (Aug 3, 2012)

since he's only limiting the context to mobile phone photography, i think it's still at least reasonable to claim this is the most important development so far. although i would argue the most important development in mobile phone photography has been apps like hipstamatic and instagram, and maybe even the iphone 4s camera, since people actually own it.

0 upvotes
Geir Ove
By Geir Ove (Jul 31, 2012)

Unique Nokia Map features:

Nokia has Nokia Maps (last version 3.09). It lets you download to the Phone Maps from any number of countries and navigate OFFLINE.

The phone will also show ALL your Pictures on the MAP, a very very nice feature if you ask me!

This is NOT found on other phones as far as I can tell: Last time I tried my HTC (with Android) I had to be online all the time: Expenses forbids this, especaially abroad...

2 upvotes
Rage Joe
By Rage Joe (Jul 31, 2012)

Take a look at this it's full resolution. Pretty impressive say I. Such a small lens, and it CAN really resolve that many pixels! http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/reviewsamples/photos/2118322/2012-07-07-0211?inalbum=nokia-808-pureview-review-samples

0 upvotes
Mescalamba
By Mescalamba (Jul 31, 2012)

Its Zeiss, not just "name" on lens, but real Zeiss.

At full size and 100% it looks like point-n-shoot, but.. its 38 mpix. Really good results not just for camera phone, but it beats almost every point-n-shoot aswell.

3 upvotes
duartix
By duartix (Jul 31, 2012)

no alarms and no surprises...
...in this review.

0 upvotes
jjlad
By jjlad (Jul 31, 2012)

so from what I can tell everything is captured at full rez then 'cropped' since the number of pixels is reduced with each larger pixel output size. Am I reading that right?

This kind of reminds me of the digital zoom on my Fuji s100fs but it doesn't 'crop' as such and delivers full rez 11mp images even when digitally zoomed. No doubt these guys will master that soon too.

0 upvotes
peevee1
By peevee1 (Aug 1, 2012)

No. It is only cropped for maximum zoom. Everything in between is oversampled - information from multiple pixels is combined to one (like downsampling from up to 41MPX to 8/5/3).

0 upvotes
nawknai
By nawknai (Aug 2, 2012)

Downsampling is not the same thing as cropping down. ;)

0 upvotes
Ray Pingree
By Ray Pingree (Jul 31, 2012)

Can such a small lens really resolve that many pixels? How about a full res shot of a sharpness test image, like in your lens reviews.

Comment edited 16 seconds after posting
2 upvotes
ennemkay
By ennemkay (Aug 3, 2012)

your eye has a very small lens.

0 upvotes
Rik Savage
By Rik Savage (Jul 31, 2012)

I'm sure Nokia 808 Pureview is a great phone but why 41mp? What program can open a 41mp image? The slightly larger cmos sensor (/1.2) is a great addition but adding more megapixels will not improve the quality of the image, only slow things down.

0 upvotes
Barney Britton
By Barney Britton (Jul 31, 2012)

'why 41MP?' is explained in the review, at various points.

12 upvotes
MonkRX
By MonkRX (Jul 31, 2012)

Bleh. Nokia should have just asked Sony to develop an 8MP BSI sensor of the same size. I bet it would have performed better.

1 upvote
Jack
By Jack (Aug 3, 2012)

or just use the Nikon 1/RX100 sensor.

All this dubious effort to create gold from 1.4 micron pixels certainly earned them headlines and fanfare, burned through their cash, with little else to show. Image quality is barely better than the N8's 1/1.8" 1.75 micron pixels. A one-off show with zero impact on the sorry state of their other cameraphones with or without Zeiss lens: garbage like any other brand's.

0 upvotes
SamTruax
By SamTruax (Jul 31, 2012)

I'm all for technology and I think that this little camera phone is a good achievement but I really can't say I am impressed by the images it produces.
The higher ISO images are not bad...they are terrible.
Low ISO shots are definitely acceptable...especially considering the amount of detail you can get with that many MP but the colors don't look very accurate and WB looks to be an issue in anything but bright sunlight.
I am just amazed that some are comparing detail against something like the D800. We need to get some perspective on exactly what this camera/phone can produce.

1 upvote
skytripper
By skytripper (Jul 31, 2012)

Some people can't tell the difference between the output of a camera phone and a D800. Visual discrimination isn't something one can order from Amazon.

1 upvote
stylinred
By stylinred (Jul 31, 2012)

keep in mind the high iso shot shown was also fully zoomed so it wasn't using any of the "pureview" features

0 upvotes
iae aa eia
By iae aa eia (Jul 31, 2012)

amazing how nokia and zeiss got to this. nokia did a job i never expected them (nokia) to do in the photography area. they (nokia) did not content themselves to compete in the phone market, but in the photo market. i mean, professional photo market.

man, to have a phone being compared to a d800 to give us an idea how good it can perform is... weird?, great!?, absurd?, annoying? right? disorientating?... to which one would they compare if the d800 were not launched then? haaa!

and zeiss, my gosh... german lens engineering at its best. what the heck of a resolutive lens! and give a look at their lens design. i just found this image of it (http://www.allaboutsymbian.com/images/features/808-lenses.jpg).

congrats nokia (and zeiss)! i'm amazed.

Comment edited 4 times, last edit 4 minutes after posting
4 upvotes
AnHund
By AnHund (Jul 31, 2012)

This is no doubt a great camera phone, but it's output is not even remotely close in quality to the output from a D800 or even a J1/V1 or for that matter a Canon s100.

2 upvotes
iae aa eia
By iae aa eia (Aug 1, 2012)

yeah, i agree, but they needed a d800 to tell you that, right?

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
peevee1
By peevee1 (Aug 1, 2012)

Not true, it's 8MP output _at 28mm_ is the same or better as Nikon J1/V1 all the way to ISO 1600, definitely better than any P&S (including Fuji X10 and Canon G12), except Canon G1 X (and maybe Sony RX100, which is not in the comparison widget). Now, zoomed in is the different story.

1 upvote
Richie Beans
By Richie Beans (Aug 1, 2012)

Sick! I wondered how they managed to illuminate that large sensor! Thanks for the link...

0 upvotes
ennemkay
By ennemkay (Aug 3, 2012)

nokia has been in a position for a long time that necessitated a bold and creative move.

0 upvotes
Jack
By Jack (Aug 3, 2012)

When you can't do anything to raise the poor quality of your mainstream phone camera, you divert your resources to a marquee product where direct comparisons do not apply. That's what Nokia is doing here, avoiding the battle, to their peril. I don't expect PureView to do anything for the sorry state of affairs in Lumia or Asha phones.

Once WP8 brings Navteq offline maps to everyone, I expect even more people to see through Nokia's hypocrisy and try other brands.

0 upvotes
Kenneth Margulies
By Kenneth Margulies (Jul 31, 2012)

iPhone 5 comes out later this year. The 8MP camera now is impressive, but I am curious how the updated model will compare to this and other phone/cameras. Decent pictures, amazing apps (iPhone has lots), and ease of use. I doubt basic P&S cameras will last much longer.

0 upvotes
stylinred
By stylinred (Jul 31, 2012)

well the 4s still lacks compared to the nokia n8 cant imagine the 5 being any different considering the thinner form factor and identical camera lens size

4 upvotes
WalterPaisley
By WalterPaisley (Jul 31, 2012)

The problem with a review like this is that it focuses on the camera feature of a phone that is otherwise receiving pretty mediocre reviews. Just read Wired Magazine's article.

Then there's the cost. $650+ unlocked on Amazon.

0 upvotes
Bill Bentley
By Bill Bentley (Jul 31, 2012)

We are in the Canon Rebel (1st Gen) days of camera phone technology. Just gives Moore's Law a little time. It won't be long before the picture taking, data sending and application loading processes are beautifully streamlined into a <$250 device. It's inevitable.

0 upvotes
stylinred
By stylinred (Jul 31, 2012)

wired not only gave an illegible review it was filled with incorrect information if you want a review on a phone its best to go to a DPReview equivalent for phones like GSMArena etc

3 upvotes
Richie Beans
By Richie Beans (Aug 1, 2012)

I'd rather have a mediocre phone attached to a killer camera than what I have now... a mediocre phone attached to a junk camera.

0 upvotes
australopithecus
By australopithecus (Jul 31, 2012)

I have a kid with an N8 (he's had it for about a year). Took it to Europe on a skiing holiday and could hardly believe the video footage that this little "phone" produced. I've worked up some shots in PSE and they are excellent.

Once Nokia sort their operating system out (Now that Microsoft is in on the deal) Apple is dead !

3 upvotes
smokeshowing
By smokeshowing (Jul 31, 2012)

"Apple is dead !"

LOL!

3 upvotes
Lupti
By Lupti (Jul 31, 2012)

No hard feelings, but I had the N8 for a test and the video footage is far from "excellent". Rather muffled monaural sound, better disable stabilisation as it adds odd "jumping" to the video and average sharpness. So it seems you never have seen decent video footage froma P&S or cheap video-camera. Both will beat the N8 video performance easily. And so the 808 which also produces video footage that is far from "excellent".

0 upvotes
3DSimmon
By 3DSimmon (Jul 31, 2012)

Lupti, you tested the wrong camera, the N8 has stereo mics, no stabilization, and video quality is excellent

1 upvote
stylinred
By stylinred (Jul 31, 2012)

lupti the n8 has stereo sound and the n8s video only dropped frames during a very very short period where there was a conflicting update a fix was almost immediately released...

but i do agree the n8s video isnt spectacular, its good, but its still are though

0 upvotes
Lupti
By Lupti (Jul 31, 2012)

I highly doubt that the N8 has stereo mics as it isn´t even mentioned on the Nokia site. And stereo or not, the sound isn´t the best. And yes, mine had an option to enable stabilisation for video - which added more shake to the video instead of removing it.
And stills were nothing special. Too much compression. Overall it is a mediocre smartphone.

0 upvotes
jimjim2111
By jimjim2111 (Jul 31, 2012)

Lupti, that's a pretty firm view you have there given you disagree with the 2 million google search results for "nokia n8 stereo mic". Are you sure it was an n8? Maybe an n6?

1 upvote
sir_bazz
By sir_bazz (Jul 31, 2012)

@Lupti

Not sure if you know it or not but jpeg compression is adjustable on the N8. You can even shoot them at 100% if you like but it really slows down the camera hence the reason for 90% being the recommendation.

1 upvote
Peiasdf
By Peiasdf (Jul 31, 2012)

"Not only does it feature the highest-resolution sensor of any mobile phone camera, but at the time of writing, the 808 PureView features the highest-resolution sensor of any current camera outside of highly specialist (and very costly) medium format equipment"

Someone got a 3D or 1Ds X in office. :D

2 upvotes
Damian D
By Damian D (Jul 31, 2012)

Not that it's about the input resolution of the sensor (7728 x 5368 btw) but out of curiosity did you check the specs? :)

1 upvote
Peiasdf
By Peiasdf (Aug 2, 2012)

I am talking about DP having a 40+mp Canon in office. I read the cameraphone review.

0 upvotes
Anonymous Gerbil
By Anonymous Gerbil (Jul 31, 2012)

Any word on lens flare? I have an N8 and my biggest complaint is lens flare, its much worse than a normal compact camera. If the 808 fixes that I can't see anything to complain about.

0 upvotes
Xpress_Shutter
By Xpress_Shutter (Jul 31, 2012)

Flare performance on the 808 is imensely better than on the N8. I don't have a N8 to face against the 808 anymore, but the 808 is indeed much better.

0 upvotes
ptodd
By ptodd (Jul 31, 2012)

No mention of battery life?

1 upvote
sir_bazz
By sir_bazz (Jul 31, 2012)

Battery life is good by smartphone standards.

I get 3-4 days of light use from a single charge.

2 upvotes
martin0reg
By martin0reg (Jul 31, 2012)

The studio test sample shows a green cast at all iso's and at iso 1600 additionally a magenta cast at the right side.
What about this, is it no "con"?? Does anybody see it?

And regarding the "pro": "Excellent video quality (and sound)" - agreed for the quality of image and sound - but I am missing a good video stabilisation while moving (like sony's "active steadyshot")! Also the AF and zooming in video could be smoother.

I am willing to order a pureview (having a 5800 and being happy with symbian + nokia navigation) , but...see above...

Comment edited 12 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
CFynn
By CFynn (Aug 1, 2012)

Green cast? Maybe Nokia are copying Nikon :-)

0 upvotes
RoyGBiv
By RoyGBiv (Jul 31, 2012)

It's nice to see someone developp such a successful proof of concept. And it's nice that DPR is savvy enough about the market evolution to recognize it's importance.

4 upvotes
edu T
By edu T (Jul 31, 2012)

Does anyone know the true dimensions (width x height) of this 1/1.2" sensor?

0 upvotes
Triggerhappy2
By Triggerhappy2 (Jul 31, 2012)

10.67 mm x 8.00 mm according to the "Image sensor format" article on Wikipedia.

1 upvote
falconeyes
By falconeyes (Jul 31, 2012)

Nokia specifies pixel size as 1.4µm. The sensor is 7728 x 5368 pixels which makes it 10.82 x 7.52 mm^2.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
edu T
By edu T (Jul 31, 2012)

Thanks Triggerhappy2 and falconeyes

0 upvotes
pca7070
By pca7070 (Jul 31, 2012)

Amazing amount of detail captured, almost as much as D800!!

1 upvote
Sdaniella
By Sdaniella (Jul 31, 2012)

look at DPR's image comparsons... it exceeds the D800 and D800E on all images for low ISO 100 (which is to be expected as it has more Mp). only Pentax 645D exceeds it at ISO 100. Once it hits ISO 200, it gets noisier immediately even though it still has more details than the cleaner D800/D800E but still not the 645D. Once it hits ISO 400 it goes downhill for noise at 100%, at least under 'normal' light. If there is more light, such as outdoor, it will not fare as bad.

anything with more Mp SHOULD have more details, but not always. especially as one goes into darker scenarios or even into extreme dark scenarios where only hi-ISO helps (not just low ISOs). but in this case, any sensor that has a very high density of Mp per unit area is going to suffer with either too much noise or NR, both of which can obliterate details that would have resolved in better light at the lowest ISO.

given exposure metering is hard to control, it may lack ES-LV (exposure simulation). DPR didn't say.

Comment edited 8 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
Sdaniella
By Sdaniella (Jul 31, 2012)

e.g.
there's cross-hatching on the globe in the Indian Ocean (around Seychelles Isles)... that is captured and only exceeded by the Pentax 645D, but not by either D800/D800E at ISO 100 (even ISO 200, although noisier)

at ISO 400... the D800/D800E may be 'clean'... but it also completely loses the detail that was in ISO 100.

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting
1 upvote
FTW
By FTW (Jul 31, 2012)

all is about pixel density. If you compare the size of the chip to the one of the D800, you can say that it is some 6 times smaller. So, a full frame had to have some 280 megapixels to equal this density. You had to make real big glass, take it far away from the sensor to equal this light concentration. That is the advantage of small sensors and high concentration lenses. It is easy to concentrate light on a small spot, and thus make high pix density on that spot, try yourself with a magnifying glass in the sun. But, if you have to cover a large surface it gets tricky. A FF will always fight with lens quality it needs for a good shot. On the other side, high pix density is a clue in low light and only usable at low ISO. So, is FF just a myth. A D800 performs a tiny bitty better as a NEX-7 with apsc format. No expert will ever see a difference in picture quality between the both, but on the bill you pay for a D800 and correct glass, you see it. Note that the NEX needs good glass too.

0 upvotes
falconeyes
By falconeyes (Jul 31, 2012)

For anybody wanting to compare to D800/E, I can only recommend a click to

http://falklumo.blogspot.de/2012/07/the-icamera-nokia-808-pureview-part-ii.html

And please, don't use DP Review for resolution comparisons. They don't control variables well enough and to compare resolution isn't their goal. Same goes for Imaging Resource btw.

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
Gadgety
By Gadgety (Aug 1, 2012)

@falconeyes Thanks for that link!

0 upvotes
Geir Ove
By Geir Ove (Jul 31, 2012)

I do not understand this "over-focus" on what OS any device is running: If the device (PC. phone, whatever) does its job and runs the apps you need, who cares?

I am a programmer and develop farily advanced systems: The OS is NOT important, but the applications I can run on it is: They make up the system!

A tip on the 808 Blown Highlights: Manually turn on the ND filter in bright sunlight! It should turn om Automatically in Auto mode, but for 3-8 MPix res it does not seem to do this from tests I did yesterday. However, it does seem to work in full res 38 MPix mode. I will do more tests to try to verify this.

1 upvote
Brad Morris
By Brad Morris (Jul 31, 2012)

Problem is that there are only limited apps available to run on Symbian OS. Given that Symbian is dead now, Developers will not be investing in any new app development for symbian either so the OS is important

1 upvote
Geir Ove
By Geir Ove (Jul 31, 2012)

Hello,
As I said, if you can find the apps you need, there is no problem.

Even if Nokia stops development of Symbian, your phone will still work...

I have old PC's with the "dead" Win 3.1 & XP: Theys still work and are in use!

And, in 3 years time, you will, like 80% of the users, buy a new phone again....

So, what's the problem?

Seems like once one person screems "Wolf" everybody chimes in without thinking too much what they are screaming about?

6 upvotes
vetsmelter
By vetsmelter (Jul 31, 2012)

Just curious Brad, which are the programs are you missing that still need to be added?

Luckily there are already programs such as Shutter Pro, Camera Lover Pack and Camera Pro 808 that may continue to enhance the photography part of the Pureview 808.

3 upvotes
seilerbird666
By seilerbird666 (Jul 31, 2012)

>The OS is NOT important,

Wrong! The OS is not important to YOU. To many other people the OS is very important. For example, I would never buy any product using Apples OS.

1 upvote
LensBeginner
By LensBeginner (Jul 31, 2012)

We are talking about a smartphone.

I don't want to have to bring another device just to read some excel file, take notes, have some dictionaries, play music and everything a smartphone should be able to do.

OS is paramount, hardware is paramount, phone functions are paramount (it's a smart*phone*, after all), camera comes maybe fourth.
If I have to bring with me two devices, they would be a smartphone and a camera, not two smartphones.

Comment edited 14 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
stylinred
By stylinred (Jul 31, 2012)

@Lensbringer you realize Symbian Belle has a fully functioning Microsoft Office Suite right? (free)
a butt load of dictionaries free... 808 etc plays music better than other phones due to its Dolby feature and its immensely loud loudspeaker

etc etc etc

Comment edited 33 seconds after posting
3 upvotes
Geir Ove
By Geir Ove (Jul 31, 2012)

@ LensBeginner

Word, Excel at al is all available for Symbian 3, but it is not an Android phone;
I have had an HT Android Phone: It did not make me any happier than the Nokia (with Symbian).

There are more programs available for Symbian than I can fit on the phone's memory...

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting
3 upvotes
Geir Ove
By Geir Ove (Jul 31, 2012)

@ seilerbird666

"The OS is not important to YOU"

No, it is not, and it is NOT important to > 80% of the users, because they don't have a clue about using the OS functions, just the APPS!

2 upvotes
Camediadude
By Camediadude (Jul 31, 2012)

PLEASE tell me that this will not be the new review layout! The "traditional" one you just used for the D3200 is ideal, do please keep it! Thank you...

1 upvote
stylinred
By stylinred (Jul 31, 2012)

would have liked a little more in-depth review and a mention of influencing the shutter speed up to 2.7seconds but this was nice I've noticed the highlight clipping in my use with the 808 but I had assumed it was my amateur hands/skills and not the camera

so then more bracketed images it is

1 upvote
white tea
By white tea (Jul 31, 2012)

I still would like to see compact camera with fast (1.4-2.3) short zoom lens built around this sensor. I also believe, that bigger body and (stronger) processor dedicated only for pictures would solve problems with "huge processing bandwidth required to quickly capture then blend multiple 41MP exposures to create an HDR image" and impact of high temperature on image quality (amp glow mentioned in the review).

0 upvotes
bajanshutterbug
By bajanshutterbug (Jul 31, 2012)

If I get the message, this is a very good "always-with-me" CAMERA, which holy smokin' pancakes- also has a phone included. Hmmm….now if it was also waterproof and heat proof, we could flip those pancakes...

2 upvotes
GirinoFumetto
By GirinoFumetto (Jul 31, 2012)

I'd like better to phone with my DSLR.

0 upvotes
Gadgety
By Gadgety (Jul 31, 2012)

Thank you for this review. I've been waiting for dpreview to make a proper test, and it's been well worth the wait. Pureview is so impressive I know it is highly likely to make me choose a WindowsPhone provided they can make it perform as well on that platform, and not limit the sensor to 20mp as has been suggested elsewhere.

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
BrunoH
By BrunoH (Jul 31, 2012)

Where have they suggested a 20mp limit? I read a lot about WP but you are the first one I se telling about this limit.

0 upvotes
Sasparilla
By Sasparilla (Jul 31, 2012)

I'd seen a reduced size sensor discussed for the WP follow on phones since the launch of the 808 as well. Basically the implication being that the 808 Symbian has very low cost components (single core processor, 512MB RAM, 640 screen etc.) outside of the very expensive camera system - and going to a Windows 8 phone will require much more expensive components (dual core processor, serious graphics processor, 1GB memory etc.) outside of the camera system and unless Nokia wants to be selling an insanely expensive phone they'll have to scale back the camera system (Nokia execs have made points to say PureView technology means oversampling and not the 41MP sensor for future phones).

We'll have to wait and see but I would be very surprised if the Windows version has this monster sensor in it because of costs, it should still be very nice of course.

1 upvote
Gadgety
By Gadgety (Aug 1, 2012)

@BrunoH. I wish I had time to find the reference, but I read so much about Pureview on WP I don't know where I read it.

0 upvotes
MirosIav
By MirosIav (Jul 31, 2012)

Congrats on finally reviewing a mobile phone camera. Now that they are taking place of P&S cameras, dpreview should test the ones with good photo capabilities.

3 upvotes
Jens_G
By Jens_G (Jul 31, 2012)

If this phone ran WP7 I would've been all over it...

1 upvote
peevee1
By peevee1 (Aug 1, 2012)

It would be much worse device to begin with.

1 upvote
Debankur Mukherjee
By Debankur Mukherjee (Jul 31, 2012)

Its sad to see a great company like Nokia making such innovative products but adopting out of date OS and Windows........
Think of this device running on Android.....

3 upvotes
Tadeusz60
By Tadeusz60 (Jul 31, 2012)

Technically Android is step back, like VHS to Betamax video recorder formats. Android needs more memory and processor power, needs more developer efforts, is less environment friendly, but addicted simple people prefers it, i.e. people prefers giving more money to billionaires losing their time on tapping and seeing Android phone ;) On other site, Windows Phone is still young but from very beginning optimized just for spending less time on effective usage. ;)

3 upvotes
Solar Eagle
By Solar Eagle (Jul 31, 2012)

Android is the buggiest piece of junk I've ever seen. I've owned two, but never again. If fact I'd resort to Apple before I'd go Android again, and I am not a fan of Apple.

6 upvotes
Blaufeld
By Blaufeld (Jul 31, 2012)

It's very clear you have never had a Samsung Galaxy S 2 (yes, i said 2 on purpose, even that has features the rest of the mobile phone world can only dream).
BTW: the addicted simpletons buy an iPhone...

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
2 upvotes
fairlight64
By fairlight64 (Jul 31, 2012)

I have the new iPad and a phone with Android 4.0. Android keeps getting better, iOS is standing still and is simply antiqued junk in comparison!

0 upvotes
CFynn
By CFynn (Aug 1, 2012)

IMO it is too bad the next version of this won't have the OS of the N9.

1 upvote
BrunoH
By BrunoH (Jul 31, 2012)

Great review. I will definitely be getting a new Windows Phone 8 with Nokia Pureview built in as soon as it ships. Nokia will reveal their Autumn line up September 5th. cant wait...

One comment though. You wrote:

"In use, the 808 PureView behaves much like a conventional cameraphone, purely because of its form factor. If you're used to a phone like Apple's iPhone 4S, or any recent high-end Android offering, you won't have any difficulty adjusting to the 808.

A dedicated focus/shutter button on the left side of the phone acts as a shortcut to activate the camera app even when the phone is sleeping. A 'hard' press is required to open the app and wake the phone - a quick or light press will be ignored, preventing accidental operation of the camera."

I understand that a lot of you have not ever seen a Windows Phone, as a dedicated photo button like the one described above is mandatory on that platform. You should really take a hard long look at the upcoming Windows Phone 8 devices.

3 upvotes
tompabes2
By tompabes2 (Jul 31, 2012)

I'm afraid you'll be a bit disappointed: as far as we know now, there will no Windows 8 equivalent of the 808. Nokia will use the PureView brand, but the WP8 PureView phones will be conventional cameraphones with conventional sensors and optics, so they will take pictures just like the other phones. Maybe they'll use good quality hardware (like in the N8), but with normal cameraphone sensors and LED flash, so nothing that could be compared with the 808. This is what has been rumored until now, but I guess we'll have to wait to see what they'll actually do. Anyway, it's a good move: they are spreading the PureView brand and building a good reputation, so when WP8 PureView phones will be out, the mass market will think that their quality is the same as the 808, and 99% of camerapohe users can't tell the difference.

0 upvotes
Gadgety
By Gadgety (Jul 31, 2012)

Although I hope there'll be a WP 8 Pureview in the lineup, I've seen elsewhere 2013 is more likely. I've also seen references to a max 20mp in WP. Furthermore, Nokia in all its statements refer to bringing "Pureview technology" to WP, which could mean that it's not THE Pureview as applied here, but rather aspects of it such as teh oversampling, some zoom, but less etc etc.

0 upvotes
BrunoH
By BrunoH (Jul 31, 2012)

@ Gadgety

Since the SDK for Windows Phone 8 leaked a week ago a lot of information has been revealed. But nowhere have I seen a 20mp limit. Can you give a reference to that info?

I don't care if the Lumia Pureview phone is not the exact 808 model. All I care is that it gives me the best picture quality possible. Lets se what Nokia have to show by September 5th...

0 upvotes
sir_bazz
By sir_bazz (Jul 31, 2012)

@BrunoH

It's to do with the SoC. Nokia have already stated that their first WP8 phones will run dual core processors. The GPU on theses SoC's has a limit of what sensor size it can address and dual cores SoC's are limited to 20mp sensors.

The new quad core SoC's overcome this limitation but none are certified for use by Microsoft as yet.

0 upvotes
Franka T.L.
By Franka T.L. (Jul 31, 2012)

Symbian made this phone pretty much outcasted. Not to mention MS's announcement of ' Current Window Phone won't do Win Phone 8 Metro " .. go figure - Don't think it worth the price its asking for anyway. There are better phone out there, and if I need a photographic platform there is better camera out there too. The one thing though, this technological progress shown, what would it be like to be implemented in otherwise other sensor in Cameras or Phones.

0 upvotes
Total comments: 353
123