Dougbm_2: Impressive. Maybe they should give up on phones and switch to cameras?
How so? They do excel at both areas; Nokia's biggest problem has been their rather dull and stalled brand image for several years now. Not their products that much, of course constant improvement is needed with every factor.
If you compare to Apple's admirable success, it has been build on its impeccable lifestyle brand image and carefully selected target segments for their marketing. Apple's marketing machine is arguably the best in the industry, but I think nothing can last forever, Nokia will catch the ball.
Petrogel: Guys you are really funny . For 600+ euros you can buy a REAL camera, AND NOT THIS TOY CAMERA, i'm not talking about the phone (there is nothing to say) (once you go Symbian you never want to even hear anything about it ) !!!!!
@ PetrogelOnce again you are wrong, in an all inclusive way that is. Why bother to continue? You don't like Nokia, which is fine; you have something to criticize, that's fine too, but get your facts right.
You are right about one thing though i.e. that you seem arrogant. Not because you would be so good at it, more of that you seem to believe that you were. The correct grammar is as Sir_bazz wrote: there's plenty of people. It is a non-standard form when used with apostrophe indicated contraction, an exception or idiom if you will.
The Nokia 808 sensor size is on the same regiment with Nikon 1 CX, not so with Canon G1 X, he clearly had a mix-up there.
The camera functionality is tightly integrated into the RTOS, it is not a completely separate utility with its own CPU and DSP (there is an image pipeline DSP), and therefore you are wrong about the influence of OS.
And finally, isn't it great that you don't have to buy one and that I have already ordered one? We both benefit from the freedom of choice, don't we?
Actually, using a few OS in different products is not unheard-of e.g. Samsung and HTC do that too. There are also technical reasons for doing so, in the case of Nokia 808 one of the reasons is that PureView R&D was started long before Nokia decided to concentrate its efforts towards Microsoft's WP OS. Eventually this technology will find its way to WP powered phones too, but it will take time.
But I already have a real camera and there is REALLY NOTHING WRONG WITH these latest versions of SYMBIAN (not that there relatively would have been with the earlier ones to boot, at least if you are a tech savvy user in the slightest degree.) Even my old aunt doesn’t have a problem with it, she still can read the user’s manual and learn, you see.
600€ is reasonable price for this extraordinary digital convergence device. But thank you for your input and be happy with whatever meets your needs, Nokia 808 PureView does the trick for me.
CameraLabTester: There is just so much limited QUALITY that one can cram into a typical1/2.3" (6.17 x 4.55 mm) SENSOR that camera companies use (Canon, Nikon, Sony, Olympus, Panasonic, Samsung, etc)
The selling points are then waged on features, menus, bells and woots.
For a sensor size of 1/2.3" (6.17 x 4.55 mm), the best balance is just 5 to 7 Mp!
But because camera companies have zombied buyers into thinking more Mps is more good, they don't DARE do a 5 or 7 Mp modern camera.
A 5 Mp or 7 Mp P&S with a 1/2.3" (6.17 x 4.55 mm) sensor can set outstanding standards, but they won't do this... (maybe Leica, because they think OUTSIDE the mirror box...)
Resolution has its place and use, but in my opinion we have had enough resolution with P&S cameras for years now. Most average Joes I know seldom if ever print larger than 10 cm x 13 (15) cm and most pro image labs print those with 300 ppi native resolution; with a Bayer CFA camera one needs only appr. 7 MP to reach perfect colour resolution and 2 MP for normal colour resolution (and full luminance resolution).
It's time to have better DR, colour and lower noise, without more noise reduction processing. Better video, especially in low light conditions, would be nice too.
Image sensor manufacturers are struggling to keep the same basic characteristics on a per unit area basis when increasing the pixel count or density, if you will. This fact is on hand in almost all occasions when a new sensor is marketed to camera manufacturers.
To achieve this with every new generation they have been able to increase the relative size of the photodiode and the pixel aperture area i.e. light gathering efficiency by miniaturizing the circuitry and optimising microlens condensing ability. Also some compromises have been made with the Bayer CFA in order to increase its transmittance which yields lower colour saturation and thus compromises colour purity/noise in final image.
The question has always been that is this development the best compromise and is the somehow chosen base quality level good enough? The basic characteristics have not reached their theoretical limits, should they do so only then increasing resolution wouldn't compromise other image quality metrics.
anthony mazzeri: For all those commenting here about 4K video frame grabs looking like crap, Laforet proves you wrong:
PS: Cheat - the EPIC is actually 5K, but I'll leave the link here anyway.
Lee Jay, from a quick look I think I saw the same noise characteristics, tonality being more pleasing in that example.
There is something principally ugly with the noise characteristics in that picture; chroma noise is in blatant truth quite horrible, not even comparable to a few years old better P&S cameras. However, in its intended use the temporal filtering effect i.e. temporal averaging resulting from fast frame rates is very forgiving in this regard.
Overall tonality is not that great either, whether it is a result of lighting conditions or sensor + processing parameters, I don't know, but good it isn't.
audijam: where is the cigar lighter?
Since there isn't any this would be a great moment for taking first steps towards better quality of life.
Francis Carver: I thought that the Canon G1 X looked rather dorky.... but this latest Oly job is definitely prehistoric. Before the war, anyhow. :-))
Actually, there is nothing fundamentally wrong with organic form language; in fact its influence has been instrumental in developing better ergonomics into products. And when cars are considered, organic forms enable better aerodynamics facilitating both high performance and fuel economy.
But overdoing it and getting carried a way with seemingly endless possibilities of modern production technology is another thing. Doing it with taste has proven to be the ultimate challenge so few industrial designers are capable of coping with. As to my self, I like my gear best in industrial, utilitarianistic and even militaristic embodiments, therefore pure melted soap-bar look rarely succeeds in catching my eye.
BTW, the melted soap-bar look is the most politically correct way of describing it, more vulgar expressions include cows eating flowers on a meadow and… you'll get the idea.
eNo: Oops, no 32-bit support, no XP... I just saved myself some money. I guess it's 3.6 until my PC or I die.
Windows XP / x64 provides the entire necessary infrastructure for program development and its stability, efficiency and reliability are proven phenomenal now that Microsoft has been working on it for a decade or so. It is the de facto fastest Win platform, do the tests with similar HW and pro SW like CAD/CAM/CAE etc. or just compare simple "cold start to open document" times.
The pressure towards change is primarily about forcing sales economics and media industry driven DRM, it has nothing to do with the usability or viability of Win XP. I personally don't like waiting for the computer, so the fastest OS is the way to go. I'm using Linux besides XP in my production environment and the switchover will preferably take that route if possible.