Stevan G

Joined on Sep 7, 2012

Comments

Total: 23, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »
In reply to:

3DSimmon: I'd like to see what the upcoming raw support will do for the 1020's images. Maybe that will give 1020 the upper hand.

pretty much nothing, RAW can't fix bad optics

Link | Posted on Oct 28, 2013 at 10:43 UTC
In reply to:

ManuelVilardeMacedo: They both lack sharpness. I'm sorry for the people who think they'll make great shots with these expensive gadgets, but both of them are short on image quality. Yes, the 808 is better - at least if you can take your mind off the considerable levels of chromatic aberration -, but what's the point? For the price you'll be better off with an enthusiast compact camera like the Sony RX100.

I've heard those RX100 have bad reception quality.

Link | Posted on Oct 28, 2013 at 10:06 UTC
In reply to:

keeponkeepingon: While I like the 808 camera everything else about it is horrible.

Just doing a basic task can take me 5 times longer than on my iphone.

For example: Take a picture, resize it for email, enter contacts/enter a subject text then send.

OMG it is so slow on the 808. You can't specifiy a size in the email program so you have to enter the editor, resize, then save as a seperate file which takes 4evah. Then you go to send it but they give you 3 choices and the screen is so bad (or my fingers so big) 1/5th of the time it goes to SMS messaging, exit that, try again get into email, now your subject is like a 10 didget number, so you try to select and delete that, but the selection is wonky you finally give up and back space 10 or 20 times to delete the filename based nonsense subject enterr you contacts/text and "finally" hit send.

Sigh. End result is I rarely actually send pictures from the phone, which is sort of the whole point of having a camera in the dang phone.....

well as you can see there is a workaround ;)

Link | Posted on Oct 28, 2013 at 10:06 UTC

if you get a bit closer to the edge 808 is better in low light than 1020 in daytime conditions...

Link | Posted on Oct 26, 2013 at 23:27 UTC as 27th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

blue hour: I'd rather use messenger pigeons instead
than to buy a phone with a non-removable battery.

yupp there are, but their back is more prone to falling off when hitting ground

Link | Posted on Sep 1, 2013 at 18:09 UTC
In reply to:

Charlie Jin: 41M pixel makes my photos unusable. I never needed over 8M for my phone camera.

the point of 41MP on mobile phone is (mainly) in oversampling, which is sadly not present in this device...

Link | Posted on Sep 1, 2013 at 18:08 UTC
In reply to:

Lars Rehm: Guys, the 808 has a nice camera for a phone but as a phone it is obsolete. You can carry it as a camera but then you still need a to carry another phone which kind of defeats the whole point of a camera phone. The 1020 offers both, a very good camera and a modern phone operating system. If it was running Android I'd already have put my order in but even with Windows I am seriously contemplating a purchase...

He could mail Nokia marketing department as well and get the same response...I still rather believe my own eyes than elop, sorry.

Link | Posted on Sep 1, 2013 at 08:44 UTC
In reply to:

Lars Rehm: Guys, the 808 has a nice camera for a phone but as a phone it is obsolete. You can carry it as a camera but then you still need a to carry another phone which kind of defeats the whole point of a camera phone. The 1020 offers both, a very good camera and a modern phone operating system. If it was running Android I'd already have put my order in but even with Windows I am seriously contemplating a purchase...

"you might actually be impressed at how much Pureview they actually retained while squeezing it into a pocketable device?"

808 is more pocketable(less volume) and there is more chance you will find short pocket where you couldn't fit 920 than thin pocket where you couldn't fit 808, it's just marketing that deludes people.

also 1020 doesn't retain anything from PV technology, it doesn't have dedicated imaging processor, it doesnt have any oversampling goodies at all, just a simple resize procedure

Link | Posted on Aug 31, 2013 at 20:31 UTC
On article Quick Review: Apple iPhone 5 (217 comments in total)
In reply to:

vlad0: I made a quick test in low light against the 808.. no contest:

https://skydrive.live.com/redir?resid=424646B5863880EB!2389

and here a video compareing the two internet browsers:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8kR7CSAIHtw

overall, if you like photography, and you want a smartphone.. 808 is the way to go.

it will not be the same, not even close...except in very rare situations when you picture static objects at night.

808 has 2.5 times bigger sensor than poor lumia, nough said.

Link | Posted on Oct 5, 2012 at 11:12 UTC
On article Quick Review: Apple iPhone 5 (217 comments in total)
In reply to:

Petrogel: what about comparison iphone vs Nokia 808 pureview, human vanity versus nominal big pixel count ?

808 vs N8 vs IP5

http://t.co/D9auRIAd

N8 still dominates "reinvented" IP5 camera, nough said

Link | Posted on Oct 5, 2012 at 11:07 UTC
On article Nikon Coolpix S800c Android camera first look (103 comments in total)
In reply to:

zodiacfml: Ironic, this has a better OS but mediocre camera against the Nokia Pureview.

blah, 808 has twice bigger sensor..and its a phone

Link | Posted on Oct 4, 2012 at 15:26 UTC
On article Quick Review: Apple iPhone 5 Camera (115 comments in total)
In reply to:

Peter62: German STIFTUNG WARENTEST (leading independent product test organisation) rated the iPhone 5's _video_ capabilities clearly ABOVE the Nokia 808.

link us we are curious to see that :)

Link | Posted on Oct 2, 2012 at 19:41 UTC
Total: 23, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »