All I'm talking about here is how natural everything is, I can compare it to the 1020 or any other phone and its pictures are still so much better. They're not over sharpened, saturated, don't do that weird making everything yellow like the 1020 does. The processing is spot on, I bought a Sony RX100m3 awhile back and it took worse pictures, all because their processing sucked.
I just cannot believe how ahead of the game Nokia was with it, shame Microsoft fooked everything up as they always do.
I've just looked at the photos of the 808 vs. the recent crop of good cameraphones such as the Microsoft Lumia 950. I agree that there is just something special about the image quality of the 808 that sets it apart from the rest of the pack. The most important quality of the 808 that plays a vital role, in my opinion, is the LACK OF PROCESSING that gives a NATURAL LOOK to the photos, although other aspects such as Pureview 8MP zoom, Xenon flash and 41MP etc. are still desirable and useful features.
If you look at the sample photos of the 950 shown here in other threads by forum members, no doubt the images are excellent. Good clarity and great saturated colors. But if you look closely and scrutinize in detail, you would notice the images are over-sharpened. They look overly sharp. Sharpness is a good thing, but if the processing goes beyond then the image would lose the natural look. Compare the photos in the thread "950XL... My 1st Bird Pic". In the peacock image, look at the details, the head of the peacock and the feathers. The colors and sharpness are a bit higher from neutral on the scale. Don't get me wrong, the image looks great, but a slight bump in the sharpness and colors gives the image an over-processed look(the 950XL). Once you switch to the image of the close-up shot of the bird taken by the 808, you would notice how natural the image appears on the screen. The colors are just nice, the sharpness is still there but not overdone. NATURAL is the keyword.
Sometimes, I wished Nokia would still have brand new 808 in stores, selling at a huge discounted price say $100. I wouldn't mind getting another one, purely just for photography as it is smaller than most compact cameras, and the image quality is also better than these compacts. Currently my 808 had been passed down to my mum who was using the Nokia N8 before this.
It is surprising that the Sony RX100Mk3 took worse photos than the Nokia 808 though. I thought it's the other way round. Anyway, I believe for the differential in price between the two devices, the 808 is the winner for value. Too bad it has been discontinued. Although it isn't appealing or useful as a smartphone by today's standards, if used solely as compact camera, it actually gives much better results than the cheap compacts with smaller sensors.
